A proton is composed of two up quarks and one down quark. The quarks carry "color" charges, and therefore these quarks obey the strong force through the exchange of gluons. To "follow the law of physics" and to "exist", a proton must "compute" (I have no idea what to call it - it is probably nothing like what we think of computation today) every 10^(-24) seconds their interaction with the strong force field. We know the equations and have done experiments to verify it to incredible precision. When we model these forces and interactions in a computer, see my first post in this thread...
well no, I haven't used the ignore feature yet, but congrats you may be the first. My tolerance is that high, I don't need ignore, but dude you are worst internet troll I have ever seen.
yes, to use the word compute may be a stretch. Are you aware that quantum computation is something being actively pursued? As a former scientist I can tell you this much, we are a very young species and science is even younger. We have progressed far faster than evolution has in 'design'. Evolution needs millions of years, our timescales are in decades. Everything that does indeed have parallels in nature has been done better by man when we choose to do so, it just takes time. Computers are only about 50 years old, you act as if they will never get better and they pale in comparison to a proton. Far too premature a judgement.
We are pathetically bad in many instances. Let's take one of the most imaginably simple machines in nature, a leaf. With all of our knowledge of quantum mechanics, optics, nuclear physics, wafer design, etc, the leaf is one thousand times more efficient than a solar panel at converting solar energy into something we can use. Of course, gaping this won't be too hard. But guess how we are getting better at solar panel design? By studying the leaf with ever more powerful electron microscopes. Mimic nature as much as possible. But the case that started this thread? Pfffft. The universe itself is able to distinquish times of 10^(-43) second, or the Plank time. That number is so absurd, I will give the human race a trillion years to come within a resolution of 1 septillion of that number. Well, unless we figure out how to make quantum computers, von-Neumann machines are on a fast path to hitting the limits of photolithography to make transistors smaller and smaller. The current answer is to scale computers horizontally by adding cores. Not all problems are amenable to multi-cores. A proton has three "cores" as far as we can tell, the two up quarks and one down quark. And, where is the software running a proton in the strong nuclear force? We call them the "Laws of Physics", but who wrote it?
I'd suggest that is where you are making a severe mistake on which you seem to be grounding most or all of your propositions or conclusions. Why assume the Plank time is being distinguished by the universe ? All you seem to be doing is imposing an anthropic viewpoint onto the universe without making any allowance or acknowledgement in doing so. Before the interaction between molecules was understood , what you expressed is similar to saying water is able to distinguish oil to repel it. " Surely you are only assuming the universe is able to distinguish because how it works is not so completely understood as are water and oil. Absurd numbers? Absurd to the universe, or to someone surprised in contemplation of them?
We believe that the four forces of the universe were indistinguishable from each other at a certain energy and were one "superforce". Since energy and time are inversely related, we are able to induce at what energy, and therefore at what time, where this unification and perfect symmetry would occur. This is called the Planck time, where gravity is thought to unite with electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. As the universe continues to cool, the other forces "condensate" as well. The universe goes into a phase transition, just like water goes from steam, to liquid, to ice as temperatures change. We are able to measure all of of this, except for gravity for which we do not have a quantum theory for, to ten decimal places of accuracy. We are not completely sure what happens at these energies (or equivalently distances, or equivalently time), and it is believed that spacetime "foams." That is why we need a quantum theory of gravity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time An unimaginable small instant after the Planck time, gravity decouples from the "superforce".
You have a description of Planck time. So again , can you please explain why you consider the tiniest number is an absurd one in your view? Also why do you think the universe is able to distinguish Planck time, rather than it being another natural component of the universe , no more distinguished by it than any other quantum event? Is Planck time really so absurd? Is not thinking the universe is able to distinguish tiny fractions of time simply anthropomorphizing the descriptions and explanations of it? There is nothing to support information that the universe is distinguishing those instants of calculable shortest time. Why would they be absurd anyway to a disinterested universe? My suggestion is , from what I understand you are saying , because these things like Planck time are so amazing, by extension, other things get added on, merely by the incredulity of such fantastic events, which are not established as being part of their nature, and do not therefore belong as any part of that knowledge. They get added and expanded to such an extent that one is supposed somehow to allow those extremes to become part of the understanding and even more strangely, every bit as relevant. So much so that such truly absurd ideas about supernatural creators are oddly considered sometimes along with the science .