>>13768806>this in no way answers ops questionMhm, well I'd say it does. OP takes for granted that that his picture encapsulate "infinite complexity", but once you start taking apart the terms used in formulating the question, it falls apart.
It's like asking "how do flea fly without wings" and the answer is, they don't actually fly.
The mere fact that you can generate data from small data shouldn't need too much information. If my algorithm is "take the inverse 69 and print its digits, but whenever you get an even number take the previous uneven number instead", so
1/69 =
0.0144927536231884057971014492753623188405797101449275362318840579
turning to
0.0111997533331111157971111199753333111115797111119975333311111579
Then we get something seems to have some sort of regularity, which is apriori hard to understand, but behind it is some almost trivial rule generating it. There's not too much magic in this "infinite complexity"
