Wilson, Edwin O.

E.O. (Edward Osborne) Wilson
Harvard University

Book: Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge  
YouTube (there are hundreds)

First email: Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:14 AM

My dear Prof. Dr. E.O. Wilson:

In December 2011 a group of high school people went inside the tetrahedron, dividing by 2, and found the half-sized tetras in the four corners and an octahedron in the middle.  We went inside that octahedron, dividing by 2, found the half-sized octas in each of the six corners and eight tetras in each face, all sharing a common center point. We kept going within all 19 objects.  Within just a few steps we found our nematode friends. In another few steps the prochlorococc greeted us, “Set em up baby…”

In just 45 steps within we were zipping by the fermions and protons and just kept going!  In the next 67 steps, you wouldn’t believe what we saw! We were at the door of a singularity that Max Planck gave us and all those secret codes, but it took 100 years and Frank Wilczek to begin to interpret them (2001, Physics Today, Scaling Mt. Planck I-III).

Just over 112 notations.  What was that?

It didn’t take too long before we got the bright idea, “Let’s multiply by 2.” What an epiphany! In less than 90 steps we were out to the Age of the Universe and the Observable Universe. Looking at ourselves, we were lost within all this new information, so we decided to turn to the experts. Huh? We found Kees Boeke’s base-10 work from 1957 but he only had 40 quick jumps (Cosmic View) and missed so much of life!  We found Stephen Hawking but he was in tight with big bang theory. Where are our experts?

What? Huh?  Our knowledge of the universe is so incomplete, our sense of the universal is so limited, our understanding of the constants is so elementary, we are flying blind.

The Encyclopedia of Life truly needs a wonderfully integrative, expansive container so it doesn’t get walled in!  Of course, its website opens it to our world.  Let’s open it to the universe.  Yes, a wall-less container where ideas and creativity can explode old boundary conditions and creatively new parameter sets emerge.

Now we are amateurs, but we really feel that biology and the search for life must begin with that initial creation, the first moment, when there was a profound integration, and come through it all right to the 200th notation to our present day.  Let’s encapsulate the universe so we can truly address the “… transcendent qualities in the human consciousness, and sense of human need” (from your Ted Talk).

Are we crazy?  Of course, we are, but hopefully delightfully so! Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce Camber

PS.  I grew up not far from the Peabody and all the glass flowers. My father was an HVAC machinist for the Mark I while my mother had been a nanny for Shady Hill characters.

In 2002, Wilczek reflects, “It therefore comes to seem that Planck’s magic mountain, born in fantasy and numerology, may well correspond to physical reality.” (PDF)

“Can’t you see, we are in a dialogue with the universe?” asks Charles Jencks.

Can you discern at least one unique formula within the 201+ notations? There are many to develop.

The challenge:  Come up with a formula based on the array of numbers within  the Big Board – little universe Project.  But, please be aware that all of the charts are now being fine tuned based on our recent work to develop a very large horizontal board with all five Planck base units in the progression from Planck Time to the Age of the Universe in just over 200 notations.

The horizontal board was initiated on April 10 and posted for insiders on April 25th. Those of you among my LinkedIn family are considered “insiders” (and you are most welcomed to join us).

We have been developing what we are increasingly thinking could become an alternative to the Big Bang theory. That’s a ridiculous statement to make, but now with well-over four years of looking at these numbers, it seems that our little model could have a place in the universe of academia. It may go through several versions, even transformations, but that struggle will be well worth the time and effort. There is real information within this “little” nascent model.

My special challenge to graduate students and post-docs. Take the five basic Planck units at one of the notations between 1 and 201 — and work out new formulas integrating any and all formulas used within the big bang theory. There is a place for every formula within at least one notation along this scale of the universe.

If nothing else, this project should get us thinking about number theory, the finite-infinite relation, the discrete-and-finite nature of space and time,  and the correspondence between the five Planck base units, space-time-mass-energy-temperature.

The very first  formula that I developed on May 1.  It is simple and it will be further developed. The next formula that we receive that is mathematically coherent will be given the designation: Formula #2.  Each subsequent formula will be numbered accordingly.  Each will become that student-or-professor’s formula and we will track the continued development and implications of each formula well-beyond this early-stage development and hopefully well-into an academic-development phase of The Big Board-little universe Project.

Thank you.   – Bruce 

PS.  Send your formula to me at camber (at)

Related articles:


Perhaps the early beginnings of a more-simple, more-integrative model of our Universe

MIT11979The roots of this project go back to 1979 in the main entrance of MIT, Lobby 7, where the works of 77 key, living scholars were placed within either the small-scale, human-scale, or large-scale universe. At that time quarks and strings were the smallest things considered.

  • Could it be that our small scale was not small enough?
  • Are the Planck base units the right place to begin an analysis of the universe?

In March 2012 I initiated an article for Wikipedia about our work within a local high school. A few months earlier we had started to explore a very simple model where the small scale started with the Planck units, used base-2 exponential notation, and went up to the fermion. It then continued on to the Observable Universe for a total of just over 201 notations. Actually published in Wikipedia early in April, that article was deleted on May 2, 2012. In the course of online discussions with an MIT mathematics professor, a major Wikipedia editor, he said it was “original research.” There was no history within scholarship where the universe was defined by 201+ base-2 exponential notations which used the Planck base units and the simplest Platonic geometries to define an infrastructure for the entire universe.

So, what is wrong with that starting point for a model of the universe?

You are here reading this posting for a purpose. I hope it is to think about its veracity and cogency, or to give it a critical review, or to share it with someone else. A simple “Thumbs Up” to encourage us to go forward would be helpful. An insightful comment would be highly appreciated. Sharing this posting with another is encouraged. Becoming associated with this research effort would be most uplifting. You are always invited and most welcomed.

It was with that 1979 project at MIT that I began to see the universe in terms of the small scale, human scale, and large scale (ontology, epistemology, and cosmology). With the Big Board-little universe project that early work has been re-birthed. On December 20, 2012, in response to an email, Frank Wilczek, MIT physics professor and Nobel laureate, said, “I should emphasize that the Planck length is not a substance or law, just a rough concept. So, for example, twice or half the Planck length would be just as good as the Planck length itself, as a concept — it’s basically a matter of convention which you use.”

Yet, within those charts that slowly emerged from our work, there are many, many numbers that should be analyzed and discussed. That has sparked these three conclusions:

1.  We will always need your critical review of the our posts. Take, for example, On Constructing the Universe from Scratch. That post resulted in an extended LinkedIn commentary ( in part based on series of comments at the end of the original article. Comments are helpful!

2.  At the end of the year, 2015, I  attempted to define our first principles and basic assumptions for this project, Top Ten Reasons to give up those little worldviews for a much bigger and more inclusive UniverseView. That posting is now being revisited to begin to tighten it up:  Again,  comments are needed.  Assumptions and first principles are keys to sharing our understanding of the nature of reality.

3.  Your critical review of any posting in the Index is encouraged. Or, you could help with the current work focused on the best guesses of scholars regarding the expansion of the universe within the first seconds, years, millennium, and then million-year cycles.  Please pass along any helpful references you have (such as Wikipedia’s Chronology of the universe and Timeline of the formation of the Universe). Of course, if there is any parity with the notations within the 201+ doublings, a much deeper analysis will commence!

Again, you are always invited and most welcomed to help. Thank you.


BruceCamber130Hi, my name is Bruce Camber and I would like to take you on a quick tour of our entire universe.

You will see everything, everywhere, throughout all time, in just 202 steps, notations, layers or domains. It is all so very simple, we’ve asked, “How could something this simple be ignored for so long?”

We thought there must be something wrong with our simple logic. Just by dividing an object in half, over and over and over again, we found the smallest possible unit of measurement of a length (the Planck Length) in just over 112 steps.

We multiplied this object by 2. Just 90 times and we were out to the largest measurement of a length (the Observable Universe). That’s a total of just over 202 steps from the smallest to the largest possible measurements in the universe.

We started this exploration back in December 2011.  When we couldn’t find it on the web, I began sending out emails to my smartest friends, “What’s wrong with this picture?”

We quickly learned of Kees Boeke’s 1957 work in a Dutch high school where they toured the Universe in just 40 quick jumps.  They had no geometry. They didn’t use those smallest and largest measurements as their container and they were multiplying by 10, just adding  zeroes.

We started with a geometry. We were multiplying and dividing by 2. Now that’s how cells divide. Our process is more natural, more lifelike, and most importantly, we get to see a much more granular universe.

Plus, those largest and smallest measurements are some of the most important numbers in science today.  They are called the Planck Base Units; they were formulated between  1899 and 1905 by Max Planck, a Nobel laureate in 1918, one of Einstein’s mentors, and the father of quantum theory.

Today, we have two primary charts.  This original from 2011 is based on the Planck Length.  It has been updated many times. And, now there is a comparative chart using all five  Planck Base Units.

Our project is to collect all our thoughts and writings from the past four years, consolidate and refine them for prime time for all the university scholars to come in to either take it apart or to attempt to incorporate it into the fabric of academic research today.

At the very least, the great physicist, Freeman Dyson, agreed with me that it would make an excellent STEM tool for our high school students to learn Science- Technology-Engineering-Mathematics.

If it challenges the Big Bang theory, so be it.  Let’s be intellectually honest and explore the most simple logic and most simple model of our universe. Called, The Big Board-little universe Project, we welcome you to join us.

Back to top