Do complex life-forms in this universe automatically develop a pair of eyes?

Looking at the forms that life has developed on this planet, it seems as if there is something involved that is not based on coincidence, but on unavoidable logic. For example: A pair of organs for visual perception.

All vertebrates, fish, mammals,birds, reptiles, amphibians, are using this tool (with few exceptions of later atrophy), as well as most of the more complex invertebrates. And they all are using a pair of such organs. It doesn't matter if you look in the face of a bird, a lizard, a snail or an ant, you will always see this pair of visual organs.

on a planet that was not earthlike and yet capable of sustaining life, I cannot even begin to guess what their systems of vision would be like.

What if, however, it was found that the basic tendencies for evolutionary development were similar to those governing (say) crystal formation, albeit at a higher level of complexity. It would follow that if you were to discover another carbon-based life-form (and the possibility of there being silicon-based life-forms is science fiction at this point) on another planet, it might bear surprising similarities to those here, as well as differences.

And if this were so, would it indicate the existence of 'laws of biological form' analogous to the laws of chemistry, but again at a higher level?

The problem of creating a complex eye by the process of evolution is in my opinion the "irreducible complexity of the eye"

Well, obviously in this hypothetical it would indicate just that, almost by definition. After all, what are laws except mathematical generalizations that represent certain "tendencies", like the tendency of objects to fall with an acceleration of 9.32 m/s^2?

And it's not an intrinsically silly idea either. Developmental biologists of the late 19th/early 20th century spent a lot of time seeking the "laws of form" for organisms. One of the greatest exponents of this view is D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson, and his On Growth and Form is the Bible of this movement in developmental biology, and still much respected by certain biologists (myself included). Much of their work has been superseded by evolutionary developmental biology, which is the more fruitful research program, and yet there is a core there of basic reality that we should not throw out: namely, that there are physical constraints that shape the final organism, like the ability of proteins to diffuse across a gradient and so on.

Nevertheless, in the real world, I don't think it would turn out that these physical constraints would be sufficient to produce alien beings that look at all like Earth creatures.

It's difficult to quantify the term "complexity" with any rigor when applied to biological organisms, which is one of the things that makes speaking to intelligent design creationists so annoying. Nevertheless, it is true that binocular vision is common in the animal world, and that confers several advantages. A creature is not totally blinded if one of its eyes is damaged, obviously, and it provides a greater field of vision than a single eye. Less obviously, but no less importantly, it can also give "binocular summation", which enhances one's ability to detect faint objects in the distance, and it provides stereopsis by parallax, so that the brain can better calculate depth from the slightly different images reaching each individual retina.

Other organisms do have single eyes, however, like the copepods. Others have what is technically more than one eye, like the compound eyes of the arthropods. A fly may look like it has two eyes, but in fact it has hundreds, each ommatidium functioning as a single eye which conveys either a single pixellated image or multiple images.

Interestingly, though most vertebrates have two eyes, the first chordates were blind, so vision was lost in the line leading to vertebrates and then subsequently regained. Thus, while vertebrate camera-type eyes and invertebrate camera-type eyes (such as those of the octopus) were evolved convergently, they all use the same basic signalling pattern in development (the "hox genes").

So I wouldn't say that it's necessarily "logic" that causes animals to develop two eyes, but merely that there are a limited number of potential solutions to the problem of vision, some of which are constrained by physics and others by evolutionary history, and yet there's a very strong adaptive reason for solving that problem.

On another planet, if it were earthlike, then it may well be that other creatures would develop two eyes like our own, since the physics would be the same and the advantage to being able to resolve faint objects or see with better depth perception would be the same. Nevertheless, if there's one thing I know from studying organisms is that they are always capable of surprising one, so on a planet that was not earthlike and yet capable of sustaining life, I cannot even begin to guess what their systems of vision would be like.