At each step get rid of everything that is not required — “making life” and “being simple” are the same

What happens dynamically in a living process is that the wholeness is being constantly differentiated, step by step, by the insertion of new centers into the system of existing centers.
However, there is a further, and powerful effect of the basic rule of the fundamental process. The basic rule says that, at each step, what happens next must be that thing which does the most to preserve and intensify the existing wholeness. It is a wholeness-enhancing process which never introduces extraneous structure, but always keeps as close to the previously existing wholeness as it can.
When the process is working properly, the new local symmetry which is created will always be the simplest possible. It is the simplest elaboration of the existing system that can occur and yet be consistent with the patterns of differentiation present in the wholeness.
The chain of symmetries that is generated, each one the simplest possible at the moment it was created, generates that unusual mixture of complexity and simplicity which is familiar in the works of nature.

It is helpful to dwell on this pattern of symmetries explicitly, since its character tells us a great deal about the nature of a successful unfolding process. It also works as a kind of diagnostic tool, telling us whether a particular process is honest and free, or whether it is distorted and contrived. This is extremely important since the naturalness and simplicity of the finished product (and its spiritual purity) will depend, in the end, on this graceful quality.
It is a mark of living process that it does lead to this result. If there is any deviation from the pure system of symmetries, we may use it as a signal that something image-ridden, hostile, or impure has entered the unfolding process. So we may use the emergence of simplicity as a test to be sure that any given process is working well.

What I want to emphasize is that unbalanced, awkward systems of symmetries which depart from the natural are created by deviations of process. They are not only unhealthy in some way, but their ego-deviation is visible in a surfeit of symmetry or in loss of symmetry.
On the other hand, when a process is pure, and exactly right — and it may be made from any combination of the processes I have described in the last twelve chapters — then we do, gradually, get from the process itself, just the right distribution of symmetries: pure simplicity. This means that as we make something we must continuously purify it, get rid of all the structure which is not absolutely necessary.

The idea of differentiation is strongly interwoven with the existence of symmetries. Within a structure subject to no influences creating differentiations, everything would be symmetrical. Thus, there would be a single homogenous undifferentiated continuum in which no point is distinguished.
Structure arises from distinctions. As soon as distinctions arise in the structure, they give rise to other distinctions. As a result, asymmetries arise.
The system of asymmetries which occurs in space is, effectively, the history of the differentiations which have been called forth. A structure which has life is one in which there were only those differentiations that were called for, and no others. This is a perfectly simple system.

This is profound. Can I find a simple software system that can be built up from nothing to a substantial complexity which exhibits pure and simple structure like described here?

The conception is deeper than it seems. For if we consider the world as a homogenous space in which all distinctions come about for reasons, then the system of differentiations and the system of living centers are one and the same system.

To get life we have to make things simple. In fact, trying to be simple in the complex organic sense I have described is the main thing needed to get living structure. We may even say that living structure is simplicity. But what we mean here by simplicity is subtle, far from the naive, contemporary idea of what is simple.

The [simplicity and inner calm] transformation keeps everything straight, simple, and direct. It is the practical equivalent of Occam’s razor — the medieval philosophical principle which requires that we use only the simplest theory which is required, nothing more elaborate.

If we want to, we can understand every step of the 10,000 steps, as a step adding structure — of adding a center. The center that is added will most often be a local symmetry, since there is rarely any reason to add something which is not a local symmetry. But the local symmetry that is placed, usually creates an asymmetry, too, at a larger level.
Thus, the unfolding process will always create a huge system of local symmetries, syncopated, irregular and asymmetrical in the large, with a hierarchy of axes and main points and minor points.

If the balance of symmetries and asymmetries is off, this is the surest and fastest intuitive way of telling that something is wrong — either with the wholeness, or with the process that produced it.
The symmetries and asymmetries, and the balance between the two, are therefore invaluable as diagnostic tools to help us see if we are getting to the right stuff whole we are making something. They are especially invaluable because we can tell so very fast, intuitively, if they are just right or not. It is therefore one of the fastest ways we have of telling if things are going right in an unfolding building, and of correcting our work as we go along.

Does that mean this view of simplicity — the balance between symmetries and asymmetries — is what we judge when we judge something for its life? Or is there a difference?

All the talk about symmetries and simplicity is way too hidden in this late chapter of the second book. For software people, this needs to be introduced much earlier, potentially even before harmony of the field of centers and certainly before the mirror of the self test.

#book/The Nature of Order/2 The process of creating life/17 Simplicity#