Talk about a straw man argument! He builds up an entire argument, then shoots it down, and manages to generate pages of text, all based on a flawed premise. I don't agree that you can ignore the size of the working set when defining complexity.

Quite frankly it's idiotic to do so. If you allow that, then why not just create every single possible permutation of every single possible thing? (Not randomly, start at 1 and start counting.)

The complexity of that is 1 bit.

So, basically everything, no matter what, has a complexity of 1 bit.

What a pointless way of defining complexity. (Pointless for talking about the universe anyway, maybe it's useful in more specific math.)