Why did Langan want to make a Wheeler-style reality theory?

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

What is so good about Wheeler's initial assumptions? They seem to make
sense, but why? Why Langan chose them? Could they be refined? For
example, could "Law Without Law" be redefined as the formalization of
Occam's razor, presented in this article: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/13/6/1076/
Because if "Law Without Law" meant an attempt to minimize the
Kolmogorov complexity of the Theory of Everything, I would find it to
make more sense.

(IMO that article is not a solution to the problem of induction)

[Jesse Franckowiak]

According to Chris Langan, Wheeler possessed a stunning degree of insight into deep reality. 

Essentially, "law without law" reflects the notion that Laplacian determinism is insufficient to account for cosmogony; in other words reality had to have sprung into existence without any pre-existing information laws, or plans in place. It had to come from "nothingness" (Unbound Telesis in CTMU terms)

Another key insight Wheeler reached, "no question, no answer" reflects the idea that reality is not merely reducible to information or structure, but that the time-component of reality (generalized cognition or the formative grammar of SCSPL) plays the role of information configuration and processing. In other words infocognition becomes the fabric of reality, as all "answers" can only be situated in terms of an underlying syntax, or question. 

In the context of the CTMU, occam's razor and allied principles merely become tautologies; in principle the CTMU realizes a refined vision of Wheeler based on a closed logical description of reality in which all of Wheeler's insights find a home.