[mxplxxx (OP)]

My take on the universe is that it is an evolving entity, constantly getting better until it "runs out of puff" (entropy-wise)

Do you mean " constantly getting better" or do you mean " it "runs out of puff" (entropy-wise)"?
You can't have both.

It basically eventually  "dies", but in the process accumulates a lifetime of experience which is available for the next revolution (aka Matrix:)). We seem to be at a nadir of entropy currently where things are very stable (comparatively) and plenty of energy is available for evolution.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

" The double slit experiment likely accesses vast amounts of statistical information that is stored and maintained by something that approximates a computer. " Maybe?

I see the universe as a hierarchical state machine (HSM) which is easily programmed on a computer. It is one of my specialties. In a HSM all possible states are present but they can be "condensed" via abstraction.  In this scheme of things, you and I are abstractions except (possibly) for our consciousness. A superposition of states may not be as taxing to the universe as you would imagine. Plus the collapse of the wave function is easily achieved. 

[Bored chemist]

It basically eventually  "dies", but in the process accumulates a lifetime of experience which is available for the next revolution (aka Matrix:)).

"The Matrix" isn't real.
Entropy will be at a maximum at the "death" of the universe. It will be totally disorganised and will carry zero information.


Stop posting + go + learn.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Entropy will be at a maximum at the "death" of the universe. It will be totally disorganised and will carry zero information.

Depends on which of a multitude of Universe end scenarios has occurred. From http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150602-how-will-the-universe-end:

"Inflation has an intriguing consequence for the ultimate fate of the universe. The theory dictates that the universe we inhabit is just one small part of a multiverse, with an eternally inflating background continually spawning "pocket universes" like our own.
"If that's the case, even if we're convinced that an individual pocket universe will ultimately die through refrigeration, the multiverse as a whole will go on living forever, with new life being created in each pocket universe as it's created," says Guth. "In this picture, the multiverse as a whole is genuinely eternal, at least eternal into the future, even as individual pocket universes live and die.""

Also, Hawking has postulated that Black Holes are portals to other universes

It is possible information about the current universe could be stored in one of these universes and used when recreating the current universe.

[Bored chemist]

even if we're convinced that an individual pocket universe will ultimately die through refrigeration

So, we die from entropy and all the information in this universe is lost.
We can not (by definition) know what happens in other universes.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It is clear quantum physics is in a mess. A large number of competing theories exist and some parts of quantum physics approach mysticism. Very little consensus exists. See https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkkAzGDByUeBl8VPLqTemQdutRVAcQ

Large A proposed solution to the double slit experiment using Feynman Path Integral formalism makes much more sense than a probability wave. https://phys.org/news/2014-10-superposition-revisited-resolution-double-slit-paradox.html.

Also the Superposition of States (sos) theory is just a steal from finite state machine (fsm) software systems fsm handles multiple concurrent states no worries, and a single event (aka an observation) can reduce the concurrent states to a single state. No need for a collapse of a wave function.This event would typically be a user click and in between click the software can evolve to its hearts content. It is all in the programming and the universe would have no trouble at all doing it.  Heaven knows why sos seems to have arisen from the double slit experiment.

[opportunity]

I think it would be a handy exercise to list all the great discoveries independent of stellar phenomena, and those discoveries lab-born entirely relevant to stellar phenomena, and thirdly theories of stellar phenomena we cannot yet prove in the lab.

[Bored chemist]

I think it would be a handy exercise to list all the great discoveries independent of stellar phenomena, and those discoveries lab-born entirely relevant to stellar phenomena, and thirdly theories of stellar phenomena we cannot yet prove in the lab.

Feel free.
You can list the members of the 1966 world cup squad too if you like.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

I think it would be a handy exercise to list all the great discoveries independent of stellar phenomena, and those discoveries lab-born entirely relevant to stellar phenomena, and thirdly theories of stellar phenomena we cannot yet prove in the lab

Interesting. My Hierarchical Abstractions Framework software contains objects (particles) and Systems. At the center of each system is an object I call a Star. Actually, it is the "star of the show" but would be a real star/sun in a solar system. The universe, it would seem, contains a hierarchy of systems consisting of a central object  and peripheral sub-systems. All systems from the lowest particle to the universe itself are types of this basic system. The center of a central object is very likely the consciousness of the system and is often a black hole.

[Bored chemist]

The center of a central object is very likely the consciousness of the system

In what way?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The center of a central object is very likely the consciousness of the system

In what way?

The center of a system is where the top-level state of a system resides. It is where imperative events from the system's parent are processed, where imperative events are sent to the system's siblings and children,  and where change of state events that are received from the system's siblings and children are processed. Just like your own consciousness (where parent equates to your higher self). A black hole is a likely candidate for consciousness because it can survive death and is outside of time (both guesses).

[Bored chemist]

But that's clearly nonsense.
The only "system" that we are absolutely sure is conscious - in the strongest sense- is a human being.
And in humans, the site of consciousness is the head- which isn't at the centre.

Anyway, it's got nothing to do with the topic.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The only "system" that we are absolutely sure is conscious - in the strongest sense- is a human being.
And in humans, the site of consciousness is the head- which isn't at the center.

A human being is many systems. Respiratory system, vestibular system etc. etc.. No-one knows for sure what consciousness is let alone where it is located. Irrespective, I am talking about every system in the universe having awareness. We will likely have a consciousness system and in the center of this system will be a consciousness object and in the center of this object will be the current state of our consciousness. Definitely off-topic and I will continue with this in a future post.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

From https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9yoxfw/what_does_it_mean_that_a_photon_has_an/:

"Sorry I don’t really understand EM waves at all and I’m probably dumb for trying to understand with a cursory knowledge of physics.

Don't worry, the EM field is extremely hard to visualise and it's very common to get confused when thinking about it. I think one of the main problems is that people imagine something like this https://i.imgur.com/7VKeLE9.pngwhen they think of an EM wave (or just one of E or M in this case). In fact, you should be thinking of something like this https://i.imgur.com/EJ7IjEi.png, where the brightness of the orange represents the field strength. Note that the wave never leaves the axis -- this thing is not oscillating in some position dimension like a water wave.

The confusion generally arises because the electric and magnetic fields are vector fields, which means that in addition to the strength (shown in the second image) they also have a direction at each point. This usually leads to a picture like the first one, but that picture is just wrong. The direction doesn't mean the wave actually traces out a wave in space, it's just an abstract property of the field. In general, I wouldn't bother trying to visualise this bit; just remember that it is what leads to the polarisation. For all intents and purposes, the electric and magnetic parts of an EM wave fully overlap: they both trace out the same straight line in space."


Finally, after a very long search, something that makes an EM wave just about understandable.

[Bored chemist]

No-one knows for sure what consciousness is let alone where it is located.

grown ups know where it is located because we know that banging your head causes a loss of consciousness, but banging your foot doesn't.

If you don't realise that you have pretty much ruled yourself out of any sensible discussion.

I am talking about every system in the universe having awareness

Three is no evidence that such awareness exists- it's just stuff you have made up.

We will likely have a consciousness system and in the center of this system will be a consciousness object and in the center of this object will be the current state of our consciousness.

There is no reason to suppose that's "likely" and the very limited evidence we have (people's heads are not in their centre) suggests you are wrong.

Just because you believe something, doesn't make it "likely"

Finally, after a very long search, something that makes an EM wave just about understandable.

It may be understandable but, since it doesn't explain polarisation, it doesn't represent reality; it's wrong.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

According to this very reliable source https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-equation-E-hf-mean-that-visible-light-is-a-particle-and-a-wave-at-the-same-time,

"By accepting that photons, electrons and other tiny things are simply different - neither wave nor particle, you avoid all the mystical nonsense of how does the photon know when to act as a particle and when to ac as a wave. It also avoids the double slit nonsense about how does the photon know if you are looking to see which slit it went through. "

[Bored chemist]

According to this very reliable source https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-equation-E-hf-mean-that-visible-light-is-a-particle-and-a-wave-at-the-same-time,

"By accepting that photons, electrons and other tiny things are simply different - neither wave nor particle, you avoid all the mystical nonsense of how does the photon know when to act as a particle and when to ac as a wave. It also avoids the double slit nonsense about how does the photon know if you are looking to see which slit it went through. "

Yes, that's right, photons are not classical particles or waves. They are some odd quantum entity
And their behaviour can be calculated from the wavefunction that represents them.

It seems a pity it took you so long to realise this.

Now, if you can just ditch  "all the mystical nonsense of" centres of consciousness, you can move on.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It seems a pity it took you so long to realise this.

It took me so long to realise this mainly because much of the physics community seems to be rooted in obsolete theories. Plus explanations of physics to lay-people are few and far between and those that do exist tend to be very poor quality. I am still having only the occasional eureka moment and as a result I have QED by Richard Feynman on order.

[Bored chemist]

much of the physics community seems to be rooted in obsolete theories.

Like what?
The post you cited is pretty much the standard view of duality.
That's a great book but... published in 1985, so it's full of "obsolete theories".

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Like what?

Wave/particle duality of a photon. Probability wave and dual slit experiment. Electromagnetic Wave as the wave function of the photon.As mentioned in reference. Whatever, physics really need a body that lists along with their current status the theories of physics.
QED book was published in 2014.

QED
The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Princeton Science Library)
By Richard P. Feynman, Anthony Zee (Introduction by)
Rating
 13,932 Ratings by Goodreads
Already own it? Write a review
Format
Paperback, 192 pages
Published
United States, 1 October 2014