I don't really understand what this guy says. I do recognize the shape of the idea that he's expressing. Its currently being popularized by what's his name...wolfram "A New Kind of Science".
But this also looks like he's confused metaphor for causation. Rather like how in the enlightenment the clock was used as a metaphor--and always inappropriately
But I have no in depth understanding of the science the writer is talking about. Only surfaces.
One thing I don't understand about this hypothesis is why it proves that the universe IS a computer. If you prove that computation is a better model for physical phenomena, how have you proven that the model is reality itself? A equation can predict where a ball will land, based on the speed and direction of its flight, but the ball itself isn't an equation. Some day, I'll take a look at Kurzweil's book The Age of Intelligent Machines, which covers this topic, and see what I think.
http://alevin.com/weblog/archives/000784.html