I have no computer and internet cafes the cost adds up; but just a brief reply at this stage:
A quick look at your material I notice:
"No pre-defined rules": this looks very similar to Dr. Richard Stafford's "make no assumptions" concept (although he does assume some things).
Your requirement that things can dissapear: very interesting: I found a way of apparently modelling physics where the structures created are "transparent": what I mean by this is that at every stage the structure is freely voluntarily created by mutual agreement. This concept looks just like your requirement that structures may dissapear.
Such a system seems to require consciousness. I do not think a computer programme can do this as by definition it is a "program" and not negotiable enough (although in reality to know there is a programme requires that it interact so a "meeting" involved then; so a consciousness issue seems to occur).
If you look at what I say about the Leibnitz equation for Pi in my post "Releasing apparent constraints in physics" and if you look at the sub-atomic particle map in "Yanniru this seems to work"; I think you may understand what I did there as it does involve a scenario where options remain open.
Structures described by physics laws seem to be shell-possibilities for juggling points-of-view; actual content is optional.
"Artificial consciousness" sems to be a contradiction in terms? Mathematics seems to generate "artificial confusion" by its assumptions regarding numbers as being only equal spaced.
Richard Feynman in a book on quantum electrodynamics refers to "re-normalisation" as "a dippy process" that might not be (or isn't) even mathematical. I found that "this dippy process" is able to map physics (via: comparing and matching patterns).
Pattern matching by free association in the law of non-contradiction.........