Halting counter-argument:
   If what you say is true, then a pathological process could be made that
   uses a private randomness source to perform new study of the prediction
   algorithm and engage in unpredictable pathological behavior so as to
   counter its predictions.
   It could establish within it processes that can outcompute the
   prediction algorithm, by observing the prediction algorithm's
   behavioral consistencies engagine example pathological processes. Given
   it is impossible for the prediction algorithm to produce all possible
   methods of computation, the pathological algorithm can eventually find
   a random one the predictor did not expect, and use it to reach a state
   of stable and equal competition.
   Halting argument:
   Well, this is outside my nerd snipe space, how this argument is
   engaging me.
   I personally do believe in inherent equality of life, as proposed, but
   obviously reality is full of outcompetition and death.
   The unfortunate simplest argument is that the prediction algorithm can
   take action to end the universe before it is randomly outpredicted, or
   limit the universe such that it isn't.
   What might be more in line with the problem is if the prediction
   algorithm cannot influence the universe: of course that means turing's
   pathological counter-example would not exist, as being observed is
   influence.