Careful not to fall prey to the Sorites Paradox - where exactly is the line between insufficient and sufficient evidence to form a hypothesis?
Sufficient evidence to promote and think more about a hypothesis (we weren't talking about "forming" before) is when the expected value of so promoting and thinking is positive. So for example, I wouldn't spend much philosophical speculation on the idea that the universe is actually running on a really big computer with the operating system Windows XP. It's possible, it has lots of nice properties, but it's simply not worth the energy of even writing a blog post about.
But yeah, sure, if by "like the game of life" you meant "any system that's local and discrete in space and time," then that's an nigh-infinitely bigger chunk of hypothesis-space, and I won't knock it.
http://blog.regehr.org/archives/546
John Regehr, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Utah, writes about two algorithmic optimizations for Conway's Game of Life, and speculates on the implications for self-aware entities in simulations.
Those who have read Greg Egan's Permutation City will find the concept of Hashlife familiar.