For example, the movement of things exists, but Newton's understanding of this existence is different from Einstein's understanding of the same existence (or the movement of more things).
By the way, you claim that the movement of things exists, but that is simply something you saw from your perspective without confirming the reality of that. Buddha would beg to differ given that according to him in scriptures, things were never born and don't decay etc.
If we assume that anything was actually born, then I say that it operates by the law of cause and effect, and the theory of repetition. These two laws create all phenomena and all other laws aiui. they're very simple.
And there is a difference between complexity of structures, and a given persons difficulty in understanding it. I do get the impression that you know this, but my point is that even what we call complex could be of the same difficulty to comprehend for someone who can see the universe whole. "for a real master of philosophy there is no difference in the difficulty of questions."
if you still believe that I'm missing your point please tell me again, so we can confirm.