But from most simple observations in nature, there's no direct causal link between the two, . Intuitively, we "know" everything originated from a "Big Bang", but we don't have proof how or if complexity arose over time, or was it always intrinsinct to cosmos, and wether the question itself have any measurable implications..
So graphs and computational feedback remain interesting and time-consuming avenues for research, but it's a big leap from superficial studies of outputs ("how") and finding a graph-formula that would explain all possible universes ie. from a "Big Bang" point ("why").
A solid unchanging theory would need to address enough "why"'s in order to be properly backed up by predictions explaining the observable physical universe, to be relevant. If the theory can include new hypothesis and rules at any time, it's not a theory, but a container for information and rulesets (ie. a Turing-complete system).
Of course, you can "curve fit" anything inside a graph. They're great at it for simulations and games, and are already used everywhere you do computationally interesting complex stuff. There's just no indication or proof that the physical world matches any model created by humans living within the universe. Maybe someone humble will stumble unto some simple explanation, but so far, the deeper we go, it seems even experts get lost in the tough complexities and unintuitive laws we assume govern microcosmos and energy.
It seems to boil down to difference between theory and practice. Pure mathematics and observations are theory, while how to simulate and mimic, is more engineering and providing interesting outputs. If we combine the two, we can build universes.. (ok, off the pipe for now :)