Where was it stated that there was an externally imposed rule set? It was stated that there was a rule set. It was stated that we did not know what that rule set is. It was explained that the functionality as a cellular automaton was the driving force of Consciousness Space. It was stated that the existence of this cellular automaton like nature and the rule set was inherent to Consciousness Space. I do not remember anywhere writing that the rule set was externally imposed. It was stated that anything outside of CS was unknown and unavailable to us. It was stated that this was not necessary to the model. Conscious intent guiding action was not available until quite some time down the developmental road.
The Void as the origin of everything has been the vision of mystics and metaphysicians for all of recorded time. This theoretical model does not require anything outside of the Void and that it be quickened into action for a totally unknown internal reason. Nothing actually says that there has to be any elapsed 'time' between these two states. Common perception of timelessness and existence for a long time does not make it so. Nothing says that this is not just all a development within a 'soap bubble' that will burst at any time, ending much as it began.
You are the one who is insisting that there must be a cause external to the reality described. The model as stated does not require it. If you insist upon requiring a cause for everything as some kind of agent or deity, then you are stuck with the recursive problem of what then was the Cause of the cause? Who were the parents of that deity, unless you accept some kind of cosmic parthenogenesis. If everything must have a cause in your thinking, then every such cause must absolutely have a cause in an iterative application of your insisted upon requirement ad infinitum. What you end up with is the equivalent of the stamping and screaming three year old demanding "but why can't I have a balloon Daddy?" to Daddy's statement "because I said so".
From WikiPedia, a reminder of the failure to get anywhere with such a demand:
The 17th century writer Jonathan Swift mocked the idea of self-similarity in natural philosophy with the following lines in his poem 'On Poetry: A Rhapsody':
"So nat'ralists observe, a flea
Hath smaller fleas that on him prey,
And these have smaller fleas that bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum."
The Victorian era mathematician Augustus De Morgan expanded on this with a similar verse
"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."