It is sadly amusing that when faced with hard arguments that you retreat into nonsense. If you had an argument, you could deftly slay my arguments with rigorous abandon. Oddly, that is not what has actually happened. Huh.
It seems to me the retreat has been in the other direction, namely in refusing to prove how/whether the measure of predictive error complexity applies to organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws; how this esoteric math, into which you yourself retreat, demolishes the reasonable inference that where there are intelligble phenomena, intelligence may be involved in its construction and maintenance. Is that clear enough, or is that "nonsense," too?