There is “The Observable Universe” (and everything within it) and then there is Beyond All Space and Time (link goes to Part I: First Principles) Author: Bruce Camber.
After three years of reflection on our Universe View, I wrote up yet another summary listing of some of the steps we had taken since December 19, 2011. On that December day, as those five classes were happening, it seemed like we had gone through a door that had not been opened. I wondered, “Why can’t we find any discussions about this simple structure of our universe?” Beyond a simple ordering system based on the nested geometries of octahedrons and tetrahedrons, it seemed like it could have other useful applications. Nevertheless, my precautionary instincts kicked in. We would go slowly. Our work would be incrementalism at best. Plus, it has been difficult to get solid feedback. In these days there seems to be a bit of fear of being wrong.
We asked, “How can it be wrong especially if it’s based on such simple logic, simple math, and simple geometries?” Of course, our model became a teaching tool. It involved science, technology, engineering and mathematics, four of the cornerstones of invention and innovation. We imagined that the worst thing that could happen is being faulted for being overly simplistic.
The stakes are obviously very high. Our world is coming apart at its seams simply because there is no compelling integrative system of understanding of the sciences, the world’s theologies, and the diversities within the human family and her cultures.
Yet, we all share great commonalities that start from conception and birth.
What happens to us?
As a very little baby, each of us quickly learns there is a “You” and a “Me.” There is an object out there and there is a subject in here. The emphasis is usually all about the “Me” so much so it has become a common expression in the culture, “It’s all about me.” Narcissism is all about Me. Barack Obama is all about Me. Vladimir Putin is all about Me. Throughout history leaders are often clearly narcissistic and it is usually quite obvious these models ultimately do not work very well.
2. History Lessons: The Subject-Object problem is as old as history.
Which is more fundamental, the Subject or the Object? The question has been debated in some form for millennium. It is only in this century and in this time that we can finally break through this historic problem. We have to. It seems that human survival is dependent on it.
From 1973 through 1980 I worked with a professor who uniquely focused on the Subject-Object problem. His focus was on the hyphen between the Subject-and-Object. He would say things like, “The relation is the primary real and space and time are derivative.”
But again, how so? So what?
If we add the words, “The relation is the primary real between the Finite and the Infinite and space and time are derivative,” we begin getting closer to being able to explore the question, “How does all that work?”
First, we could observe that our relatively new Universe View with its 205+ notations, now called our Universe Table, has taken all of space and time and put the two into a finite container. It necessarily brings the Infinite into the equation yet also appears to puts the Infinite out of reach. That could be controversial, however, it is not out of reach.
3. Constants, Universals, and Reality
The universals and constants seem to provide a bridge between the two. The universals and constants seem to exist independent of all space and any time yet also seem to be necessarily dependent on all space and all time.
Also, along our path we discerned that the 205+ exponential notations imposed a simple ordering scheme. The notations impose a certain continuity within the universe. The simple geometries within this scale impose an inherent structure that has both symmetries and asymmetries. As the two create relations, the ;door opens to an actual time or applied time (historic time) and there are dynamics that have a certain harmony and an abundance of dynamics that are clearly dissonant.
Using just this schema alone, we then discerned that these categories imposed an inherent value chain within the very being of science, theology, business and culture. If order / continuity, relations / symmetry and dynamics / harmony were taken as our first-phase definition of Infinity, it seemed as though we were able to duck under the most specialized language of science – theology – business – culture yet use language that is applicable to all four.
We believe that these three groups are the most simple perfections of form / function.
So what do we do with it?
4. Perhaps the beginning of a breakthrough: Could all of life be a ratio?
In December 2013 I sent a note out to an online group called the Polyhedrons. Mostly mathematicians, and most geometers within that group, they are quite sophisticated and often I barely understand what they are discussing. Yet, I wanted some feedback on our little project and now we had a student who had entered his work on the Universe Table into the National Science Fair.
Of the few responses, one came from Steve Waterman, a geometer-mathematician who in the 1990s defined an entirely new class of Polyhedron. Yet, within his voluminous website, he especially wanted us to focus on his work with the constants. One of the leading global arbiters of scientific constants is the US National Institute for Science & Technology (NIST). In March 2014, after a few lengthy conversations about how NIST defined these constants (over 300) and how the same constants could be generated through ratios of any number of combinations of constants, I finally began to grasp the extraordinary thing that Steve Waterman has done.
His work is so profound it took awhile to sink into my thick skulls. I had to have some confirmation that I wasn’t racing ahead to erroneous conclusions. I contacted a Brown University professor of mathematics, a former NIST scientist, and the author of several basic books about the foundations of mathematics. He brushed it aside, ” There are always people who wish to sum up or create the world using a few principles. But it turns out that the world is more complicated. At least that’s my opinion”
Of course, he is right. And de facto, we fall into the group that he has criticized. Yet, with our simple starting points, we have discovered an exceeding complex universe within relatively simple domains.
There is something more going on here.
If we add the three ratios together, 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 we get 1. If we calculate the ratio and add them together we get .999999+. Something is lost. In a dynamic tension, we get wholeness. When we look at the parts as an object, .33333+ we lose something and the result is slightly off.
NIST lists 335 constants ; all have been defined as a ratio in much the same way Planck calculated his constants. Reducing them to a number, an actual size that corresponds with the NIST measurements, gives us a few clues as to how things are ordered, key components of the relations, and a door to explore the functionalities in the transformations from one notation to the next.
There is a lot of work to do here and as of this writing, all 300+ NIST constants are now in the pipeline for scrutiny and analysis.
What do you think?