Yes, I understand that. But I believe it's important, on this topic, to be very precise in our choice of words.
- Living things move. They move with purpose, in a definite direction, for a particular reason. In this context, "forward" is defined by intention.
- Time and change proceed 'forward', which, in this context, means that they have only one 'direction': the processes are irreversible and without intelligent purpose. In this context, 'direction' is used metaphorically, because there is neither motion nor volition involved.
It is the the metaphorical reference to "movement" and "direction" that give rise to misinterpretation. If we begin with non-literal terms [each of which carries an unstated load of assumption and association], and then allow even a little bit of leeway for subjective interpretation [more assumptions], we very quickly go off the rails into fantasy or superstition or poetry. All those things are nice, but incompatible with science.
I keep thinking that information theory is the key to unlocking these questions.
I don't know anything about information theory. I do think, though, that any scientific question must be couched in precise, unambiguous and accurate terms before they can be answered appropriately.
In any case simple autamata always produce increasingly complex patterns.
Do they?! I had no idea. Examples would be appreciated.
Similarly life not in an environment that rewards evolution is not evolving.
Well, sure. Fitness doesn't just mean having more offspring than a competitor: it means having more offspring survive and succeed. This fitness is like that of a shoe: both are fine workmanship, but only one is the right shape for my foot: it's being better suited to the particular environment.
Where we have observed evolution it typically increases complexity but not always.
As Forest_Dump pointed out a while back, only in a small percentage of cases. Increased complexity is not typical: it's an unusual response to extreme stress. The majority of species subjected to extreme stress die out; only a few have the potential extra level of complexity [in some particular organ, appendage or metabolic adaptation] which allows them to surmount the difficulty.
The ideal circumstance of long survival is stability: a balance of capabilities and environmental conditions.
Does that mean that a shark is less evolved than a human?
Not at all! All species alive at the same time are evolved to the exact same degree. The only way one can compare milestones of evolution is in the time-line.
It depends on what you mean by evolved.
In science, the word must have a single, objective definition, like
Evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics.
Otherwise, we don't know what we're talking about.