[evan_au]

A photon only exists in the system that it was emitted (created) in. A solar system photon cannot be found in a galaxy system for example.

About 7 hours after a photon is emitted from the surface of the Sun, it has passed the farthest point on Pluto's orbit, and is well out of the Solar System.

About a year after a photon is emitted from the surface of the Sun, it has passed the Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud, and is in interstellar space. It is effectively part of the galaxy, and no longer part of the Sun.

About 100,000 years after a photon is emitted from the surface of the Sun, it has passed the outer edges of the Galaxy, and is in intergalactic space.

So I think you need to expand your hierarchy to include the fact that the Sun is part of the Milky Way galaxy, which is in turn part of the Universe.

This favors the natural selection of things that work simply because they tend to use the least energy.

"Natural selection" seems to imply living things.
But living things use far more energy than random collections of the same atoms.

A computer is basically combinations of 0/1 digits. These combinations can be used to simulate a universe

Unfortunately, the real universe has more states than just 0/1. Real particles are often in states that are best described with complex numbers, which can represent states between 0 & 1.

It is possible to simulate groups of particles with these entangled states, but it takes a powerful computer. A Google researcher described how, as they increased the number of entangled states, they moved from simulating their system on a laptop computer, to a desktop computer, to a server, and a warehouse of servers. This was over a period of months.

It is argued that a system with more than 50 entangled states cannot be simulated on any conceivable binary computer, even if it was as large as the universe.

So I think that to simulate the universe, you will need a quantum computer.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Real particles are often in states that are best described with complex numbers, which can represent states between 0 & 1.

Complex numbers can be represented in a binary number system; see https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/complex-binary-number-system/4635020. As far as I am aware, a binary number system can represent all the states in the universe. This, as I have previously mentioned, points strongly to the existence of a particle that has only two states (preon theory states this; see the Rishon Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishon_model).

[mxplxxx (OP)]

So I think you need to expand your hierarchy to include the fact that the Sun is part of the Milky Way galaxy, which is in turn part of the Universe.

This is new theories:). What I am postulating is that photons behave much like events in a software program. They travel up and down or sideways across an abstraction hierarchy. Those travelling up the hierarchy inform upper level systems of a change of state of a child object. Those travelling down the hierarchy request child systems to take some action (very much like a neural network). A system that processes a photon does so by taking some action based on the photon's state or by forwarding the photon to another system. This is how a photon can travel 30 billion light years across the universe without interacting with another particle (an extremely likely event IMHO especially as the photon will likely be zigzagging all over the place due to quantum probability) and being destroyed in the process. In fact it is likely destroyed at some stage but its clone carries on travelling in the same direction with the same wavelength.

The systems I am postulating also have boundaries that a photon cannot traverse without being cloned. Evidence for these boundaries can be found here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=edge+of+solar+system&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBAU826AU826&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=zjzI-rUCpCkW7M%253A%252Cy4wpYUqBmNQxuM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSbnNOkJkK9rdQuXHp0FWQuvvBAaQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiT8IyKup_jAhWTjeYKHVR8DQ0Q9QEwAHoECAIQAw#imgrc=zjzI-rUCpCkW7M:

[mxplxxx (OP)]

So I think that to simulate the universe, you will need a quantum computer.

Pity noone can explain the workings of a quantum computer to me. Definitely a furphy candidate:).

[mxplxxx (OP)]

"Natural selection" seems to imply living things.

I see all things, not just living things as being candidates for natural selection. I would think a lot of the universe exists because it is better suited to its purpose than past systems that were less well suited.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

It is argued that a system with more than 50 entangled states cannot be simulated on any conceivable binary computer, even if it was as large as the universe.

Which is why maths is probably not a great way to describe entanglement. A computer system should be able to handle entanglement via generalizations and abstractions and a finite state machine.  See the Dynamic model of the Object Modeling Technique (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-modeling_technique). This technique shows how state explosions can be managed (it requires a huge amount of expertise unfortunately - such is the price of hard-to-find knowledge)

[mxplxxx (OP)]

That's not "given"

How do you know?

[Bored chemist]

That's not "given"

How do you know?

You have things the wrong way round.
You should justify strange assertions like "Given that the universe is an an abstraction hierarchy,"

A solar system photon cannot be found in a galaxy system for example. 

That is at odds with the usual definition of the word "in".
Because the solar system is inside a galaxy, anything in the solar system is in a galaxy.

The universe has evolved (or is designed) to be as energy-efficient as possible in its evolution.

That's not a helpful use of the word "evolved"
Also the definition of "efficiency" doesn't apply to the universe.

[Bored chemist]

I would think a lot of the universe exists because it is better suited to its purpose than past systems that were less well suited.

Who made the choice about what is "better"?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

You should justify strange assertions like "Given that the universe is an an abstraction hierarchy,"

Have been doing so for quite a while. Have you not been paying attention?. You, on the other hand, do not back up your statement "that's not a given". Please do so.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Because the solar system is inside a galaxy, anything in the solar system is in a galaxy.

Better said as "a solar system photon cannot be found outside the solar system".

[mxplxxx (OP)]

That's not a helpful use of the word "evolved"
Also the definition of "efficiency" doesn't apply to the universe.

IYHO. Maybe you would like to expound?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

I would think a lot of the universe exists because it is better suited to its purpose than past systems that were less well suited.

Who made the choice about what is "better"?

Who?? Natural selection did!

[Bored chemist]

I would think a lot of the universe exists because it is better suited to its purpose than past systems that were less well suited.

Who made the choice about what is "better"?

Who?? Natural selection did!

That's just silly.
How did natural selection do away with the universe where things were different?

[Bored chemist]

That's not a helpful use of the word "evolved"
Also the definition of "efficiency" doesn't apply to the universe.

IYHO. Maybe you would like to expound?

For evolution to happen the "failed" versions of the thing have to die out and fail to produce progeny.
That just doesn't happen with the universe.

As has been pointed out

"Natural selection" seems to imply living things.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

How did natural selection do away with the universe where things were different?

As natural selection always does. Better solutions replace ones that don't work as well.

Very simply, at some stage in the past, a molecule became capable of reproducing itself. It did so successfully until, by accident, one of its progeny became capable of doing so better, whereupon the progeny molecule started to out-reproduce its parents. A few billions years and billions of accidents later, here are we.

The universe seems to have evolved (or been designed) so that these "accidents" are part of its capabilities (very likely via quantum probability).

[Bored chemist]

Better solutions replace ones that don't work as well.

But the universe is still here.
It wasn't replaced.

Very simply, at some stage in the past, a molecule became capable of reproducing itself. It did so successfully until, by accident, one of its progeny became capable of doing so better, whereupon the progeny molecule started to out-reproduce its parents. A few billions years and billions of accidents later, here are we.

Yes, we all know about that but, as you say, it depends on having progeny.

The universe doesn't have children.
It does not reproduce.
There was one universe in the beginning and there will be one universe in the end.

So the criteria for evolution can not possibly be met by the Universe.

[jeffreyH]

@mxplxxx You can't stand to be proved wrong, can you? If you wish to boost your own ego there are better places to post, I'm sure.

To argue support for more and more outlandish ideas to justify your views won't give you the adoration that you appear to crave.

You could, if you tried hard enough, swallow your misplaced pride and become a positive presence. Take the risk. It is worth it.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

You can't stand to be proved wrong, can you? If you wish to boost your own ego there are better places to post, I'm sure.

Can anybody stand to be proved wrong? I post here because, thankfully, your colleagues allow me to. It is fun and I think what I have to say is entertaining at the least, and possibly useful at best. I think it is good for physics to entertain different ideas, outlandish as they may seem. Dare I say that  Einstein's ideas were/are outlandish?.

ps I would think boosting ones ego is a good thing if it is done to a well-functioning ego (mine is:)).

[mxplxxx (OP)]

The universe doesn't have children.

You know this because?

A computer program contains classes from which are derived objects. Multiple objects are derived from single classes. It seems to me that the same thing applies in physics. For example, all photons are the same except for their current states. Where is the photon class in physics? We don't know but very possibly it is part of a sub-structure in the universe. Plato proposed such a sub-structure I think in his theory of forms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms). Or maybe classes exist as dark matter?

Who is to say that there is not a Universe class? I think it is more likely than not, in which case it could be subject to natural selection along with all other cosmological classes.