Where did these plenipotential "evolutionary algorithms" of which you speak come from, spunketts?
If the universe is ultimately one "whole" — as conceptually I believe it is — then its ultimate "rule" will likely be found to be very simple indeed. What still needs to be accounted for, however, is the means by which such simplicity yields the complexity we see all around us in Nature.
The people who develop "evolutionary algortihms" are probably painfully aware of this problem.... .
Why don't you try framing that question with respect to the video I linked and which you watched?
I don't see any wall. I also see no real distinction between what's given as levels 1 & 2. All bonding phenominon is contained within the laws of physics, so there should be no distinction between levels 1 & 2. That includes chemical bonding in the temp ranges of conventional life forms.
Level 3 says, "It should be obvious that such phenominon(life) can not be explained on the basis of the information available at levels 1 & 2..." I don't see that at all. All the physical laws that account for matter, it's bonding and other energy exchanges are sufficient to know and understand the assemblies and configurations that are identified as life.
"Where did these plenipotential "evolutionary algorithms" of which you speak come from, spunketts?"
The algorithms are models of the physical systems based on the physics that provide for the biological possibilities and the particulars of the physical environment those biological organisms exist in. The reality itself that appears that's described by the model arises out of the physics.
"What still needs to be accounted for, however, is the means by which such simplicity yields the complexity we see all around us in Nature. The people who develop "evolutionary algortihms" are probably painfully aware of this problem..."
The means would be the physics. Identifying any particulars, such as the most probable step(s) is simply a matter of discovery.