How does the universe creates reason, morality?

Interesting story.

More than  one camp will weigh in on this. The first obvious one comes to mind is determinism and freewill on a quantum level as has been addressed by John Conway in a series of lectures on the subject.

The question would be is how much this theory relies on determinism or freewill.

Axioms[edit]

The proof of the theorem relies on three axioms, which Conway and Kochen call "fin", "spin", and "twin". The spin and twin axioms can be verified experimentally.

1. Fin: There      is a maximum speed for propagation of information (not necessarily the speed of light). This assumption rests upon causality.
2. Spin: The      squared spin component      of certain elementary particles of spin one, taken in three orthogonal      directions, will be a permutation of (1,1,0).
3. Twin: It      is possible to "entangle" two elementary particles, and separate      them by a significant distance, so that they have the same squared spin      results if measured in parallel directions. This is a consequence of (but      more limited than) quantum entanglement.

In their later paper, "The Strong Free Will Theorem", Conway and Kochen weaken the Fin axiom (thereby strengthening the theorem) to a new axiom called Min, which asserts only that two experimenters separated in a space-like way can make choices of measurements independently of each other. In particular, they are not asserting that all information must travel finitely fast; only the particular information about choices of measurements.

The theorem[edit]

The theorem states that, given the axioms, if the two experimenters in question are free to make choices about what measurements to take, then the results of the measurements cannot be determined by anything previous to the experiments. Since the theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe's past in an ad hoc way. The argument proceeds from the Kochen-Specker theorem, which shows that the result of any individual measurement of spin was not fixed independently of the choice of measurements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

Another argument would involve “cause and effect” and what part of the theory can stand the theory of reductionism since quantum physics at this point in time recognizes the fundamental structure as the base of this pyramid of thought for the subject theory here.

See “Reductionism” @Wiki for additional thoughts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

In an additional note, this years startup of the LHC to explore symmetry breaking can shed much light on the original theory.  In reference to:"He points out that scientists are increasingly beginning to discuss how the basic structure of the universe seems to favor the creation of complexity. The large scale history of the universe strongly suggests a trend of increasing complexity: disordered energy states produce atoms and molecules, which combine to form suns and associated planets, on which life evolves. Life then seems to exhibit its own pattern of increasing complexity, with simple organisms getting more complex over evolutionary time until they eventually develop rationality and complex culture."

If the universe is working so hard to produce complexity, then why do the numbers of dimbulbs and simpletons seem to be increasing so rapidly?

Indeed interesting stuff.  In regard to free will and determinism, physicists studying quantum mechanics have found that in all cases yet thought of, at the quantum level, if we humans can think of it, then it will be observed and quantum mechanics can mathematically predict and describe it.  So, is it that our minds construct or cause phenomena at the quantum level, or is our mind capable of only imagining that which is capable on the quantum level? 

==============

Maybe its because it makes our lives more complex?

well some guy certainly hit the nail on the head years ago. "I think therefore I am" conscience creation at its best. You have introduced an interesting subject.

Abstract Many see modern science as having serious defects, intellectual, social, moral. Few see this as having anything to do with the philosophy of science. I argue that many diverse ills of modern science are a consequence of the fact that the scientific community has long accepted, and sought to implement, a bad philosophy of science, which I call standard empiricism. This holds that the basic intellectual aim is truth, the basic method being impartial assessment of claims to knowledge with respect to evidence. Standard empiricism is, however, untenable. Furthermore, the attempt to put it into scientific practice has many damaging consequences for science. The scientific community urgently needs to bring about a revolution in both the conception of science, and science itself. It needs to be acknowledged that the actual aims of science make metaphysical, value and political assumptions and are, as a result, deeply problematic. Science needs to try to improve its aims and methods as it proceeds. Standard empiricism needs to be rejected, and the more rigorous philosophy of science of aim-oriented empiricism needs to be adopted and explicitly implemented in scientific practice instead. The outcome would be the emergence of a new kind of science, of greater value in both intellectual and humanitarian terms. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1103/1103.1974.pdf 15 pages but worth the read.

Apparently a lot of folks take Maxwell serious as I have found his theory all over the internet in much the same language at reputable institutions.

what I did have a hard time finding was someone claiming that empirical data about the universe at present allowed that out there somewhere was a unified theory of everything proving that the universe was physically comprehensible.

wul here it is:

The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From?
by Victor J. Stenger
English | November 2006 | ISBN-10: 1591024242 | 340 pages | PDF | 14.9 Mb
In a series of remarkable developments in the 20th century and continuing into the 21st, elementary particle physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists have removed much of the mystery that surrounds our understanding of the physical universe.
We now have mathematical models that are consistent with all observational data, including measurements of incredible precision, and we have a good understanding of why those models take the form they do. Although current theories will probably be superseded by better, more detailed theories as science continues to advance, the great success of contemporary models makes it likely that scientists are on the right track. In short, the cosmos is undoubtedly comprehensible. For those fascinated by how physics explains the universe and affects philosophy, Stengers in-depth presentation, complete with an appendix of mathematical formulas, makes accessible to lay readers findings normally available only to professional scientists.