You are clearly confusing "random" with "unpredictable". That is a distinction with a strict difference, and your conclusions fail because you conflate the two.
Codes don't assemble themselves, but are intelligently specified.
Back to Information Theory 101 for you, Betty Boop. A "code" is a context. Ignoring that "intelligently specified" has no strict definition here, everything has a code because the very act of observation (in its most abstract sense) creates a context. To put it another way, it is not possible for there to not be a code. Your argument is trivially reduced to tautology because you do not understand even the rudimentary mathematics.
I well understand this, tortoise. But to me it is a trivial observation that misses the point I'm trying to raise, yet oddly one that, if anything, underscores what I have alluded to as "the observer problem."
Surely you do not mean that it is the observer who constitutes objective reality by means of his observation. What is constituted is his subjective relationship to that reality. And yes, I recognize that observations will be analyzed according to the "code" that the observer has internalized through his own observation and experience. But so far, we are still speaking of the observer, and not that which is observed -- which other observers may interpret differently, according to their own subjective codes.
But it seems clear to me the universe has not been constructed according to such observational processes, for the stupid simple reason that human observers did not emerge until quite late in the evolutionary process. Therefore the origin and evolution of the universe must be independent of human beings.
Your argument reminds me of the Marquis Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827), who was known in his own time as the Isaac Newton of France:
"A brilliant mathematician and wily politician, Laplace was an almost perfect embodiment of the arrogance of the ‘Age of Enlightenment.’To which in all likelihood, Laplace would reply: “Hmph. I know what you’re driving at, sire, but I have no need of this … ‘God’ hypothesis.” [all quotes excerpted from Ottaviani and Purvis, Suspended in Language, 2005.]“[For Laplace said:] ‘Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective positions of the beings which compose it, if moreover this intelligence were vast enough to submit these data to analysis … to it nothing would be uncertain, and the future as the past would be present to its eyes.’
“This mechanistic view was a dream of many, starting with the ancients who talked about the ‘music of the spheres’ as they envisioned the universe as a series of interlocking crystalline spheres spinning inside each other.
“[But it might be objected:] ‘This “intelligence” of yours, would it be the author of the universe, who I note you left out of your book Méchanique Céleste....’
Two points here: NO observer from within four-dimensional spacetime exists who has comprehensive knowledge of this kind -- not even a Laplace. And yet there it is -- the universe, all the same. It was here before we humans got here, and will likely survive when/if we are here no more.
Second, the person who makes such a statement has effectively promoted himself to the status of a god, or even of God Himself.
Capice, mi amice?
Thank you for writing, tortoise.