Attitudes, beliefs, and conceptual frameworks

Left Yellow Arrow
Right Yellow Arrow

Who will lead us? Who can break the impasse?

by Bruce Camber, Initiated on July 27, 2018 @ 1:01 PM

Solipsism is in the heart of anyone who creates chaos.

Only a radical shift could possibly change those attitudes, beliefs, and conceptual frameworks that give rise to it as well as all the growing tensions within our little world.

How do we find meaning, purpose and direction? The old questions are often asked, “Where did I come from, where am I going, and what is the meaning and value of life?” Unfortunately, the  answers can not be readily found within the “big bang” theory.2 And, as that study has emerged with its unusual logic and within that unusual space, there is very little room for discussions or explorations. Yes, the basic issues within cosmology, going all the way back to Alan Guth’s inflationary theory3 (MIT) need to be reconsidered. There are problems, very serious problems that can not be ignored.

As stated within so many pages within this site, especially the last homepage, the world needs a more integrative way to think. Big bang thinking is making a mess of things, so we propose a natural inflation.4

Take the Planck base units. Max Planck defined the basic four starting in 1899 using dimensionless constants.5 In 2001, Frank Wilczek (MIT)6 ignited interest in these numbers with a series of articles, Scaling Mt. Planck in Physics Today.

There is a simple mechanism for doubling that is built into the very fabric of the universe. Though an emerging study, it is a key to understanding.7 If Planck Length and Planck Time are doubled, and doubled again and again, within 202 doublings, you have a scale of the universe that begins with the first moment in time and proceeds to the current age and size of the universe. That progression creates a rather large, horizontally-scrolled chart.8

That chart is too simple for our academics, scholars, and scientists. They seem to enjoy their special status given to them for their deep understanding of the complexities within their subject. But, perhaps they have not gone quite deep enough. The first 64 notations (or doublings) are below the thresholds of our measuring capabilities (re: ) and these realities have never been taken into consideration by the scholarly community.

It is obvious to most that we need a new way to understand ourselves and our universe; however, the conclusions implied in this nascent model are not easily grasped. Though simple, each seems quite counter-intuitive:

Perhaps the universe is exponential.9  If it is not linear, but more like Euler than Euclid, that’s a revolution.

• Perhaps space and time are derivative and the old father of our commonsense worldviews, Isaac Newton, was wrong.10 And, rather surprisingly, the simple formula by Max Planck for time has within it a confirmation that this model is on the right track. At the first second of the universe between notations 143 and 144, the size of the universe is consistent with the laboratory-defined speed of light. Even more surprising, this formula appears to apply to every doubling, notations 1-to-202. It challenges our concepts of space, time and light. See line 10 within the horizontal chart.

• Perhaps the universe is finite and we have only scratched the surface (and, at that, very incompletely) to understand the finite-infinite connection.11 Perhaps continuity and symmetry are a more informed way of talking about infinity.

•  Perhaps the most immediate impact will be on the way we understand the two Standard Models, first with each other within a grid of the entire universe, and then with all our algorithms that we use to run things (even those that seem extralogical and inaccessible).12

Thank you.  -BEC      

Endnotes, Footnotes, References & Resources:

* These eight are truly a rare breed of scholar-celebrity-and-critical thinker; each is making a substantial difference in our world. Here, images-names are linked to emails to themFrom left to right:

  • Frank Wilczek, an MIT scholar, is a Nobel laureate from 2004 and has a massive and devoted following throughout the world for his straight talk about physics, beauty, symmetry, harmony and simplicity.
  • Neil Turok is the director of the one of world’s leading research centers, Perimeter Institute, in Waterloo, Ontario. He came from Cambridge University  where he co-authored many articles with Stephen Hawking. Courageously, he broke with Hawking and declared to the world, “The Big Bang theory is wrong.”
  • Katherine Freese is one of the leading thinkers in the world regarding dark matter, one of the greatest mysteries in our universe. She is also a leading thinker regarding natural inflation. Because we want to extend natural inflation from the first moment of space-time to the current size and age of the universe, her work is very important to us.
  • Katy Perry came to our attention because she had more followers on Twitter than anybody else in the world.  How? Why? Who is she? We discovered a person with deep compassion and gentle insights.  What a spokesperson she could be!
  • Carlo Rovelli has gone where others fear to tread. He has a huge following around the world for his books that explain difficult concepts in physics with fluency and ease. His work, in an area called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG),  has everybody asking, “Is this the real beginning of a Theory of Everything (TOE)?”
  • Natalie Wolchover has a global following for every article she writes for Quanta Magazine.  She consistently takes us all to the leading-bleeding edge of scholarship with a depth of understanding that creates a fluency of conceptual development.   
  • Kanye West is not afraid of concepts or  conflict. With Katy Perry, no framework for thinking could ask for better spokespeople!
  • Drew Gilpin Faust was the president of Harvard University when she received an email introduction about this project. Followed by many people around the world as a foremost historian and for her leadership of Harvard, her insights into this model or framework for the universe would be highly regarded because this model necessarily reinterprets the very nature of history — here it is totally dynamic and a key to our unfolding.

Footnotes & References:

[1]  Narcissism, solipsism When Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton became the primary candidates for the highest office in the USA, I was puzzled and asked, “Why? How?” As a result, several pages eventually followed. Personally, I have total disdain for what politics and the assumptions of power do to trick our minds.

[2] The big bang theory has always had its critics. Yet, as more and more people were able to hang a bulb on the big bang tree, those critics were rather stridently put down and drummed out of academic conferences throughout the ’90s and into the new century and millennium. It is only since Stephen Hawking died on March 14, 2018 that a more-reasoned review of the theory has begun to emerge. Just think about the role of humanity within the big bang model. Think about the conceptual problems with infinitely hot, infinitely dense, and infinitely small. A much easier logic to follow is the natural inflation within a doubling mechanism and that the process goes from initially infinitesimally dense (mass), infinitesimally small (length), infinitesimally charged, and infinitesimally short (equaling fast).

[3]  Alan Guth ( and Natalie Wolchover ( are the opening focus of this page. Guth holds the Victor Weisskopf chair at MIT. Weisskopf ( was an open and gracious man and made time to go over things just one more time.

[4] I think this page tells a compelling story that seems entirely plausible.  Because those first 64 doublings have not been considered by the scholarly community, it is truly a paradigm shift that embraces all but the first three epochs of the seventeen defined by the big bang theory and the Standard Model of Cosmology. Those first three epochs define the start and the nature of the start; it is where the big bang and inflationary theories get tied in knots. was first published here in July 2018, however, it is based on a more extensive analysis ( that began back in April 2017. Then followed the development of an infrastructure to do a notation-by-notation analysis ( For further study:

[5]  In 2012 the work of John Baez and Frank Wilczek first came to my attention; both made a study of dimensionless constants as a way to understand the two Standard Models, one for particle physics and the other for cosmology.  There have been others who have looked at these special ratios to create a Theory of Everything.  To try to place all their work within an historical context, in 2015 I made my own little study of numbers and ratios (  Current study includes the work of John D. Barrow ( regarding George Johnstone Stoney’s influence on Max Planck.

[6] The work of Frank Wilczek has been profound. Although he has never said, “Stop the nonsense!” or anything close to that, it seems that this alternative viewpoint is just too radical for those who have been lifted up as the pinnacle of insight (Nobel laureates).

[7]  Cellular doublings have been discussed since the early 1800s. In 1879 Walter Flemming (Prague / Kiel) properly described the process of mitosis, the behavior of chromosomes during animal cell division.  In the 1980s Mandelbrot (Harvard/IBM) introduced another kind of doubling, fractals. And, in mathematics, the subject of period-doubling bifurcation has been introduced.  Our hypothesis is that most every form of doubling begins within the first 64 notations. There are twelve key ideas, all seemingly original constructs, to support such an emergence.

[8]  Our charts slowly evolved (, however the horizontally-scrolled chart started in April 2016 has proven to be the most useful. Even for the very first discussion about this scale on December 19, 2011, a very colorful chart ( was printed up for that classroom experience.

[9] To date, there has been very little ideation around the concept that the universe is actually exponential and best approximated with base-2 or doublings.  Although linearity and Euclid have been with us seemingly forever and both have been the bedrock of our intellectual being, perhaps Euler’s identity is closer to deep truth.  To continue to follow-up, work within this site will focus on beginnings of spin networks within the finite-infinite transformation and the first notations.

[10] The first formula of this website was an early vindication that we were, in some manner of speaking, on the right path. That page was was designated, Formula #1.

[11]  The finite-infinite debate has been most discussed among those who are religious and those who are against all religions. This alternative model of the universe makes that debate seem old and tired. It answers the challenges of folks like Tegmark, Turok, and Arkani-Hamed. It changes the paradigm so infinity truly becomes part of the scientific debate, not just a mathematical problem that needs to be normalized.

[12]   Within a July 2018 meeting of the Defense Innovation Board in Silicon Valley, the discussion turned to algorithms, artificial intelligence, and  quantum science and computing.  It all seems strained and disconnected, yet right at the core of a war of wits with China, Russia, and Iran. This model goes beyond integrating the sciences and our silos of information, it also opens the way to understand value and valuation.

Key Evocative Questions:

Back in my very early days at Synectics Education Systems (1971-    ), in the days of metaphors and analogies, one of the most important activities was trying to engage key evocative questions. Here are a few of those questions explored within this site:

  1. Is our intellectual depth being conscribed by our two Standard Models?
  2. Shall we revisit our structure for scientific revolutions?
  3. Can these concepts be tested using rather simple formulas?
  4. Does measurement qua measurement actually begin with pure math and logic?
  5. Is “infinitely-hot, infinitely-dense, infinitely-small” the wrong place to start?
  6. What is the deep nature of growth?
  7. Are our imaginations working overtime?
  8. What is an inertial frame of reference in light of 202 notations?
  9. Are some concepts first principles”?
  10. Can Turok, Arkani-Hamed and Tegmark open up new conceptual frames of reference?
  11. What is pi that we are mindful of it?
  12. Ask the penultimate questions:  What is finite? What is infinite?
  13. Are we asking enough “what if” questions?
  14. Who is on our team? To whom do we turn?
  15. What has been the driving vision?
  16. What is the fabric of the universe?
  17. Are there rules for our roads?  What are they?
  18. Is the universe exponential? Is Euler’s identity spot on?
  19. Is this model built on something even faster than exascale computing?
  20. Does the universe go on forever or just as far as the current expansion?
  21. Is there a better way to keep track of all these writings?
  22. Who among us is really and truly in a dialogue with the universe?
  23. Why?  Then as a child, ask the question again, Why? And again, ask, “Why?”
  24. Have there been summaries of these ideas? What have we missed?
  25. Are the 202 doublings still a virtually unexplored area for research?
  26. The arrogance of language: How do we know what we know and don’t know?
  27. What are the most important qualities of infinity?
  28. Does the original homepage (January 2012) anticipate the future?