Arrogance holds us back. A lack of openness to new ideas impedes progress. It is OK to be very confident of one’s positions without being arrogant or condescending.
Our culture needs heroes. As a result, we so elevate our leading scholars, I am sure it is difficult for them to keep a level head. Since 2012, only one scholar in our many years of working on the Big Board – little universe project had the confidence to tell us that our concepts were idiosyncratic. Yet, he was also arrogant enough to not want to be tainted by us. He did not want to engage any further and did not want to be quoted.
There is a tradition of arrogance among our scholars. Just think about how difficult it is to accept the fact that Aristotle was wrong and that scholars didn’t question that error for about 1800+ years or 90+ generations (averaging 20 years per generation) is a fact needing more study than what Lagarias and Zong have done.
Introducing a new concept is not easy. Most of the scholars to whom we have written have spent precious little time engaging the first 67 notations of the 202 notations defined by applying base-2 to the Planck scale and going to the approximate age and size of the universe.
We know how idiosyncratic this model is. Yet, too, this simple mathematical model just might be on the right path. It just may be cracking open the right door. If our most cherished scientific theories need to be re-written, let us get working and re-write them.
Intellectual integrity must move forward. If Newton’s definitions of absolute space-and-time need to be re-written, so be it. Let’s re-write them. The Big Board-little universe project is raising real questions about these 202 notations, about space/time and about the finite-infinite relation. Leibniz just may have given us a starting point back over 300 years ago.