Some of the more far-reaching implications of the Big Board-little universe model

Introduction.  The Big Board-little universe Project uses base-2 exponential notation from the singularity of the Planck base units going out to this present time, Right Now, to encapsulate everything, everywhere, throughout all time1. Though seemingly a bit of  an overstatement, the simple mathematics and logic appear to corroborate such a conclusion. The implications of this fledgling model seem rather far-reaching so five are presented for the discerning analysis and critical review of scholars and thinkers.

Some of the more far-reaching implications of the Big Board-little universe model:

  •  This model begs the question about the finite-infinite relation.  If space and time are derivative, finite, quantized and discrete, then what is infinite? Our working answer is continuity which creates order, symmetries which create relations, and harmonies (multiple symmetries working together) which create dynamics. These are the inherent qualities that define the infinite for science.2
  • There appears to be an ethical bias to the universe. Continuity-order, symmetry-relations, and harmony-dynamics also begin to define a valuation system whereby every notation at every moment has a perceived and dynamic value.3
  • Each notation defines an element of the current universe. Even though time is derivative, it still defines a duration within a single notation. Even though space is derivative, it still defines a length within which particular things have their beingness. In this model each notation has its own particular beingness. The entire universe actively appears to share this length (space) – time infrastructure within the small-scale universe.
  • The structure for homogeneity and isomorphism is defined within the small scale. It is also the bridge between the finite and infinite so renormalization works in quantum electrodynamics and universality works throughout physics on every scale.4
  • This model appears to trifurcate nature. These three seemingly natural domains of this model of the universe appear to be episodic:
    (1) The small scale from notation 1-to-67 could generally be described as ontology and each notation just might manifest again within the human scale and then again within the large scale.
    (2) Perhaps the human scale from notations 67 to 134 could be understood as the domain for epistemology. In some manner of speaking all 67 manifest in the notation for the current time.
    (3) The large scale from notation 134 to 201 is currently considered the domain for cosmology. It begins when the duration (or speed) is less than one second (see notations 142 to 143). Within notation 200 (possibly 201) is the current time.  Its duration is approximately 10.8 billion years.  The duration at notation 134 is within a thousandth of a second.

    Of course, each duration for each notation gets increasingly short as we approach the Planck Time. The duration at notation 67 is 10-to-the-negative-23 seconds (10-23).  Notation 67 is approximately the Planck Length multiple where fermions and protons appear.  There will be many adjustments of these numbers as others help to fine-tune the model.5

All people and things appear to be trifurcated.

One might hypothesize or hypostatize that from the small-scale universe we get our being. Systems are imputed between the 50th and 60th notation; and within systems, the human mind has also been imputed have notations within which to be.

From the human-scale we get our knowing.  Carl Jung called these archetypes.  A special vocabulary will emerge for this part of our self-definition.

Within the Now, this moment, today, there is an integration as a thing, an entity.  All human history, all civilization is within the 200th notation.  Just as an aside, if time travel were to become possible, it will be as an observer. Interactions would also require trifurcating, i.e. simultaneously entering the space and duration of the being and knowing of any given moment in time.

For more, consider these pages:

  1. The Big Board-little universe Project
  2. Top Ten Reasons Top Ten Reasons to give up those little worldviews for a much bigger and more inclusive UniverseView. These are the inherent qualities that define the infinite for science.
  3. Every moment has a perceived and dynamic value.
  4. An analysis of numbers
  5. A Simple View Of The Universe
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.  In him was life; and the life was the light of men.  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”  John 1:1-5
These words took on new meaning back within the first week of May 2016  — it is a very simple fact that every notation for the entire universe, everything, everywhere, throughout all time, is embedded within light.

The explanation is rather straightforward and, although there may be a few new concepts here, it is actually all very simple.

There are three charts, all based on multiplication by 2, that will help to explain. This first chart (opens in new tab or window), first printed up in December 2011, begins at the Planck Length (the smallest possible length) and goes out to an approximation  of the size of the universe which is called, the Observable Universe. The February 2015 chart begins at the Planck Time and it uses 13.8 billion years as the Age of the Universe, the endpoint of this simple mathematical progression.  Within this chart all five of the Planck base units are tracked to their current expressions.  Again,  there are just over 201 base-2 exponential notations from that first moment of creation to this day. These two charts are vertically-scrolled.

The third chart, developed in April 2016, is  horizontally-scrolled.  It is a very different experience to follow the progressions of the top rows where the Planck Time and Planck Length scale up to the current time (Age of the Universe) and to the Observable Universe. Here is the key:

At any notation along the scale, one can take the number from Planck Length scale and divide it by the corresponding number from the Planck Time scale and result will approximate the speed of light.

Every notation reflects the speed of light.  Yes, let there be light. In every notation let the light shine. And, may it shine in all the dark places on this earth and beyond. -Amen

Are the first 67 notations key missing links?

Could an integrated Universe View1 open new approaches to old academic questions? Because it redefines our understanding of space and time, it seems to open that possibility.

Sir Isaac Newton’s space and time became an absolute frame of reference2 and the basis of commonsense logic for well over 300 years. But, what if space and time are derivative, discrete and quantized? What if both have a specific beginning, the Planck Base Units, and today’s current time-length-mass-charge-temperature of the universe, or the Now, are always the endpoints? What if every notation is a highly-integrated part of the whole?

There are just over 200 base-2 exponential notations from the Planck Base Units to this moment, your “today.”  That range is best defined as the Age of the Universe.

Within our Universe View, also known as Universe Table and Big Board-little universe, the first 67 doublings cannot be measured at the singularity of the Planck base units. Planck time cannot even be measured at the 67th doubling. Though driven by a simple logic, simple mathematics, and very simple geometries, those first 67 doublings per se are not part of our observed universe and are currently not part of academic analyses.3

Given this situation, we advocate that the nature of space and time be reopened for scrutiny in light of these first 67 steps. Could these steps be the missing links that open real pathways to new insights into historic, impossibly-difficult and persistent, unanswered, academic questions that exist across all the disciplines? To open such a discussion, brief summaries and a few links will be provided within some of those large categories of human endeavor.  Eventually in-depth articles for each will be written and linked from here:

The longstanding goal of this article is to open the discussion to explore how these statements could be true and in what ways they are not true.

We invite you to join us to determine if and how these 67 notations just might be the infrastructure within which age-old questions can be addressed in new ways.


Endnotes, Footnotes, and References:
1. We have begun building a bridge to the 68th notation, the place where things begin to be measured in space and time. We will be using all the current research at research labs such as CERN, and speculative work such as the Langlands programs and amplituhedrons. Pi, all the dimensionless constants, the physical constants, pure geometries, and numbers and ratios will all be used in new ways.

This article is our appeal for help.

2. Sir Isaac Newton’s space and time became an absolute frame of reference

3. Within those first 67 notations are a different set of building blocks for the universe. If we bring to bear all of the geometries (projective, analytic, combinatorial..), including the simplest geometries (cellular automaton and the platonic solids), a little bifurcation theory and the 80-known binary operations, perhaps we can begin to intuit how forms become structure, then substance, then qualities, relations and systems, increasingly-and-exquisitely complex with literally trillions-upon-trillions of possible combinations and expressions, right on up to the fermions, bosons, skyrmions and all combinations of elementary particles that make up the Standard Model (SM) and the SMPP for Standard Model for Particle Physics.

Much more to come: Entropic forces and causal determinacy

Part II: The Finite and the Infinite

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.

1.  Introduction

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.

So what?

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?


Center for Perfection StudiesThe Big Board–Little Universe Project 

What is finite? And, what is truly infinite?

“Finite or Infinite? Is That The Question?”    (link goes to Part II)

Some of our high school students think our scientific community makes the study of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) all too difficult to understand and overly complex by defying a certain commonsense logic. (Reference #1)

We have been studying simple math and simple geometries from the smallest possible measurement of a length to the largest (Reference #2). It appeared to some of the students, based on this work, that the universe is obviously finite. They have been told that intellectually and historically, it is an open question. For them, “Make a choice and see where it takes you.”

The students with strong faith statements said, “Only God is Infinite. All things within space and time are finite.” (Reference #3) When asked about all the universals-and-constants and space-and-time, the concurrence is that these are the access paths, interconnections and transformations between the Finite and the Infinite.

For the best of these students, asking the question, “What is the Infinite?” is like asking the question, “Who is God?” And, they have answers.

Of course, as a result of a little coaching, they say, “First, God is Perfect.” When asked, “What is perfection?” they echo their coach: “Perfection is order-continuity, relations-symmetry and dynamics-harmony, all rolled into one.” (Reference #4) That amounts to an understanding of the Infinite without importing all the related history and revelation from the various faith statements within our very short history throughout our little world. The Finite is another story. We turn to many people from Euclid to Einstein for inspiration to provide the academic and religious communities with our simple observations and assumptions.

Hardly postulates and axioms, our statements are a praxis in-search-of theoria:

If these statements are taken as a given, then what kind of universe and what kind of science do we have? Should we re-examine the use of infinity throughout the ages going back to the ancient Greeks? Should we reconsider the theory of indivisibles? And, perhaps we should even reconsider the very nature of the Big Bang and its theory.

Of course, that is our agenda (Reference #8),   our current focus for the immediate future.


1. One of two key general overview and working article,  Order in the Universe

2. One of the earliest reflections on all our efforts and work: Is it true that everything starts most simply?

3. Initially written in November 2012, just what is the nature of belief?

4. In light of those constants, universals and the finite-infinite relation, the nature of perfection seems to follow:

5. Examining basic structure in basic ways: Simple View of the Universe

6. Our first look at the progression of doublings.  This listing was written to accompany an article for Wikipedia: Written in March 2012 to support an article for Wikipedia

7. There are somewhere over 201 base-2 exponential notations (doublings, domains, layers or steps) within the Known Universe.

8. Another analysis of key points: There are 15 in this article.

Even between atheists and believers

Perhaps all it comes down to is an answer to the question, “Whose metaphor is more meaningful?” You will not find many atheists who deny science. They do not deny the constants and universals that are always in the back of the science textbooks.

There are three constants within the sciences that remain clear, in spite of quantum mechanics. The first is that there is order and continuity in the world. It is the basis of knowing. In every discipline there are multiple parameter sets where this is true. Beginning in mathematics, a rather pure form of thought, abstraction and representation, we then move into physics. It has multiple parameter sets as well. There is one for Newtonian mechanics, another for General Relativity and Special Relativity and yet another for quantum mechanics. Then chemistry and biology have their own parameter sets. All these parameters simply establish the boundary conditions of what is being measured within them.

Each has a formalized language. And, each has a metaphorical language that pushes into the edges of the unknown.

The sciences all embrace varying definitions of relations yet all of these definitions are understood by a symmetry function.

Specialized disciplines with each of the sciences hypothesize about the nature of the unknown, just beyond their limits of knowledge, and all these hypotheses are a study of the deepest dynamics of their discipline. The experience of insight, the “ah-ha” of the creative surge, is experienced as a concrescence of symmetries or harmony.

The atheists mostly object to the use of specialized language. They understand rules, mores, and societal law and order even though many are nihilistic, others narcissistic, and many both.

Yet, change will come. Some of these folks will begin to realize that time is not a fundamental frame of reference and that there are qualities of life that permeate everything in every way, and that these qualities empower order, relations, and dynamics, and that these three scientific functions with the faces of continuity, symmetry and harmony just might also be understood with very personal language. When and if they do, they are on their way to create a personal bridge to religion and some of the brave among them just may cross it.