The Mind, the Self, the Brain and Human Mystery

Left Yellow Arrow
Right Yellow Arrow



Just How Conscious Are We?

by Bruce E. Camber
Related: WorldThe ThreeHistoryExpansionFirst InstantConsciousnessMindPerfections


Within all our mappings of the brain, we still do not know where the mind is located. And, within all our mappings of the universe, we are still quite confused about where we are, why we are, who we are, and the meaning-purpose-and-value of life.

Perhaps we’ve been top down too long. Perhaps it is worth our time to try once again to start at “the most simple” and work up. In 1952 John A. Wheeler proposed the geon and quantum foam. Dozens of radical proposals followed. Scholars began to address a wide range of fundamental mysteries and now, many speculate on the nature of a more fundamental particle.*

What could possibly be the most basic thing? Of the many guesses throughout our history, most look a bit like Lemaître’s primeval atom of 1927. Might we assume a primordial sphere is the most basic thing, perhaps more like Plato’s Form, defining space and time? What more can we know about it? In 1899 Max Planck defined basic numbers, today called the Planck base units; these could define a sphere. Might it be considered a Plancksphere? If we apply base-2 notation (or doublings) to those units, in just 202 notations, literally everything, everywhere, for all time is encapsulated. It is a working outline of the universe that begins with the first instant and comes right up to this very day and current time.

The first 64 notations are a most-detailed map of heretofore unimagined places. And, rather surprisingly, within this map, it appears there could be a place along that continuum for the human mind and for all other minds (systems theory). Yet, these multiples of the Planck units of time and length are so infinitesimal; they cannot be measured. That which cannot be measured we call hypostatic. It must be approached through mathematics and logic alone.

Being entirely speculative, here Systems, as in systems theory, begins between Notation-50 to Notation-60 (out of the 201 symmetric notations). There is, however, an inherent challenge with this assumption. Historically human beings simply do not emerge until our asymmetric Notation-202.

Large-scale structure formations, all the stars and the galaxies, do not begin until Notation-191. We take as a given that the thin disk of our galaxy emerges within Notation 200. The earliest forms of life on Earth start within Notation 201 and begin their most earnest development only in Notation-202. Yet, both Planck and Wheeler would spread the mind over all 202 notations.

Notwithstanding, there is something about spacetime that makes all of it current within a given moment. How is it that the mind, if emergent within an earlier range like Notations 50-to-60, is current in our brain within Notation-202? That is our question. The answer to it will inform how the brain-mind connection works.


In December 2011 our first base-2 chart of the universe with 202 notations was introduced.
In May 2013 a more simple chart emerged; the first 67 notations just might define part of the continuum within which the Mind evolved.

Two of the greats of physics, Max Planck and John Wheeler,1 had advocated for all 202 notations! Planck said, “This mind is the matrix of all matter,” while Wheeler said, “…all things physical are information-theoretic in origin” and “…this is a participatory universe.”

Our mathematical model, by definition, not only contained everything, everywhere for all time, it uniquely identified and labeled every thought-word-and-deed with the numbers from those Planck base units. First, the continuum connects everything to everything. And, space-and-time labels everything, from the very first instant to this moment. Here is a radically relational model where everything is related to everything, everywhere, for all time. There are no barriers. And, here the work of systems theory helps to open up its dynamics.


How is it that the Mind is fundamentally a domain of all the notations, yet it may have unique structures within a range of the early notation such as 50-to-60, yet only manifest within Notation-202? Yes, according to Planck and Wheeler, the Mind is the core of all 202 notations.

Obviously our concepts of space and time are incomplete. In article after article we explore how Isaac Newton’s insight about absolute space and time is an overreach. Could our simple model of the universe comprised of 202 base-2 notations reopen the historic issues involved with brain-mind or mind-body problem? Might we gain new insights if were to study the issues in light of each of the 202 notations?

One of my early heroes was John Eccles. His work on synaptic functions (1963 Nobel Prize) was special; it opened up interstitial spaces. I’ve had three of his books, Understanding the Brain (McGraw-Hill, 1973), The Self and Its Brain (with Karl Popper, Springer, 1977) and The Human Mystery (Springer, 1979), on my book shelves since about 1979, yet never did Sir John answer the outstanding questions about the brain-mind connection. Nobody did.

Oxford’s Roger Penrose is another scholars’ scholar who engaged space-time and the mind-brain. Three of his books, The Emperor’s New Mind (Oxford, 1989), Shadows of the Mind (Oxford, 1994), and Cycles of Time (Knopf, 2010), are opened on my right. Two problems complicate the Penrose legacy. First, even though he pressed well beyond it, Penrose never really gave up on the infinitely-hot start of the universe. Also, though he acknowledges Max Planck and his numbers, at no time did the Planck base units become a starting point for the universe. Had he explored that kind of “what if” question, I think he would have begun to explore spheres, sphere stacking, and cubic-close packing. Scholars have been dancing around such concepts for years. Once reviewed, base-2 notation becomes the most simple means of expansion, and finally, we begin to realize that other models are possible and need to be explored.

Brain-mind discussions easily date back to Plato and just a bit more recently to leading scholars such as Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Putnam, and Dennett.2 Most of these scholars did not have the advantage of knowing Planck’s base units. None had seen the universe encapsulated within 202 base-2 notations from the smallest to the largest. None had envisioned the structure of the first unit of time and how it would progress through to the current time, including this very second and instant.

III. Unimagined Structures

The Planck base units have not been fully respected. Of course, when engaging something new, our personal histories most often get in our way. Those scholars who have attempted to engage these units are preconditioned to think about particle structure and the infinitely hot. Thinking from scratch, the old tabula rasa, is difficult.

I think the qualities of pi, circles, and spheres give the three a special status among all things fundamental. The prior homepage focuses on it. To facilitate new explorations, let us assume the general structure of the 202 base-2 notations is correct, and the particular structure of the first instant, the primordial sphere, is also correct. Of course, both may be in some ways partially correct, yet we need to build this case, so we assume the place of both as a given in order to explore possible structures that connect the smallest to the largest.

The early days. Our first encounter with the Planck base units was in December 2011 within a high school geometry class in New Orleans. We were working on embedded geometries, particularly by going inside the tetrahedron and octahedron by dividing the edges of both by two and connecting those new vertices. When we discovered a dynamic image that helped us visualize how this tetrahedral-octahedral complex evolves out of spheres, it was an awakening. Infinitesimal numbers became meaningful. There was linkage to the universal sphere. Here was a gateway to infinity. The continuity-symmetry-harmony of pi and the sphere became the continuity-symmetry-harmony of infinity and the finite. Here was something more fundamental than space and time.

The Interstitial. Dimensionless constants exist, but nobody is quite sure where. Their qualities put them outside the finite and there is a sense that they are too particular to be infinite. So, imagine if you will, that there is a domain for transformation. It is definitely not finite and it is too specific to be infinite. In mathematics it is referred to as matrix transformations. Frank Wilczek and some filmmakers liked that concept, but the filmmakers soiled its metaphors and analogies, so now Wilczek prefers grid. I like all the words, including aether, ether and æther, interstitial, and nexus of transformation. There are many more. And, any and all of them that we find will be added within the References & Resources here.

Here is a domain of structureless structure. Here are (1) over 350 dimensionless constants, (2) the essence of light (continuity-symmetry-harmony), and (3) the essence of numbers and geometries. Here, on one side is the infinite and on the other side is the finite and in between is “the very different.” It is a kind of perfection. It is the opposite of miasma; it is the sweet, the enlivened, the creative, the veritable life-force of the particular.

Spheres become all shapes, sizes, and sorts. There is a lot of work to do to build up to the atomic scale and atomic-packing factors (APF) deep within Notation-67 to Notation-80. There is a lot of significant work to do to get to Notation-50 at 6.0701777×10-29 seconds, the beginning of a postulated notational range for The Mind. Notation-25 at 1.8090539×10-36 seconds is the earliest measurement for Hawking and those who want the universe to start infinitely hot. In our model an abundance of structures already manifests. Our 2016 chart only gives us an outline, yet I predict that string theory and Langlands programs will be keys to fill in the blanks.

Hardly a slow, thoughtful-and-prodigious start, as earlier noted, the universe begins with one plancksphere which becomes 539 tredecillion spheres per second.3 Stacking is immediate and penultimate. By Notations 6-7 and the 16 and then 32 spheres, cubic-close packing of equal spheres begins its processes. The dynamnic internality of the Fourier transform has begun. Notation-12 builds out immediately. The base-2 count is 1024; that concurrent base-8 expansion of 8,589,934,592 (8.589 billion) is being studied. Simple math tells us that the possibilities for complexity are already quite compelling.

Notation-25. By that 25th notation where most of the scholars and experts are talking about a singularity, the base-2 expansion has 8,388,608 units of something, perhaps spheres, maybe vertices; there may be even more possibilities. Yet, confirming the idea of other possibilities is the dimensional analysis, base-8 calculation of 4.722366×1021 units. Surely every possible mathematical combination can be tested. Then, all the internal dynamics of the primordial sphere open even more dynamical relations for connections.

And, that’s just the concrescence of possibilities within the first twenty-five notations!

Inside the Dynamics of Dynamics.4 Speaking only for myself, long-long ago, I was told, “If you open up a man’s head, balls fall out. All kinds of empty balls. Basketballs. Soccer balls. Tennis balls… and, yes, even that odd-shaped football.” It’s the power of suggestion all over again. Until recently, when I thought about a sphere, it was empty. Going forward, I’ll have no less than these six images (below) in mind. I’ll also see an entire universe, wall-to-wall, top-to-bottom, filled with the most infinitesimal spheres that are defined by the Planck base units filling everything, everywhere for all time. Of course, going inside these spheres, there can be no singularity. Here is a place defined by dimensionless constants that we can understand (and the billions I do not).

Sphere to tetrahedron-octahedron couplet
Sphere Stacking-Packing
File:Circle cos sin.gif
Lagrangian point

Attempting to be outrageously speculative, I project that these five Fourier-related procedures (above) may be a complete description of the first moments of gravity and electromagnetism. Two sets are all in the same family and it seems that A-and-B and C-and-D are Janus sisters.

The most radical image is Fourier-E which brings the Lagrange point of celestial mechanics down into the Planck scale. It is such a different idea; of course, we’ll be studying it further. We will consult with scholars to begin to determine which dynamics pulls in for gravity and which extends out for electromagnetism. Couple that image with the work introduced within Quanta Magazine (October 2020) where Emily Wolchover authored an article about the continued work of Chris Quigg (emeritus Fermilab) with Quanta’s very special enlivening of an earlier image that he postulated for particle physics.

It is the first image that I’ve seen within particle physics that has some metaphorical semblance to the dynamics within celestial mechanics.

You may have heard it said, “As above, so below.” A better expression in light of this work may be, “As within, so throughout.” One might readily conclude, “This universe is profoundly entangled!”


Time and again within these pages, the role of string theory and the Langlands programs has been touted. Here there is plenty of space and time to bring them into this picture.

Most speculative: Uniqueness and Prime Numbers.5 Among our most puzzling numbers are the prime numbers. From 1-to-202 there are 45 primes: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 197, and 199. In this model where numbers and geometries are among the fundamentals, every combination of the two will need to be analyzed closely. Every function of a number has a role in this base-2 model. The hypothesis is that each prime opens up uniqueness — new dimensionless constants, new equations, and the possibility for new initial relations.

In that same spirit, might every “prime base extension” open yet other unique paths? A few of these primes bases may be worth exploring further. The limitation may be 13 given 13 times 13 is 169 and 17 times 17 is 289 . And though 14 times 14 is 196, wouldn’t it somehow been included within a base-2 or base-7 extension? Obviously we have many more questions than answers at this time.

Speculative Nodes: Every type of current, active network within our computing and communications networks has a direct analogical start within the infinitesimal. All need to be analyzed in light of our first 67 notations. We naturally hypothesize that there are multiple paths throughout the universe that make communications throughout all the nodes or notations such that certain types of information are transferred and communicated virtually instantaneously.


The shift away from absolute space and time will not be easy or intuitive. We’ve been Sir Isaac Newton’s children for much too long. Yet, shift we must. Typically the more simple solution is preferred by nature (and by our students). This model, however non-intuitive and complex it may seem, is simple, embarrassingly simple. Yet, it is still a very new conceptual frame of reference. There are many major parts of this puzzle that are missing. What happens as new spheres “push” older spheres forward? From just the numbers using the Planck base units, we can see that packing densities are in the range of Neutron stars within the earliest notations. That continuum, however, begins to approach our current density measurements within the first light year (Notation-169). So, what might be happening within Notation-170 as it starts? The first sphere of Notation-170, it is now building on all spheres. Because that first notation is so dynamic, there is a sense that it is perpetually starting (vis-a-vis Neil Turok), and there are dynamics that need closer examination. It’s building on all that went before — it doesn’t start over — and it would appear that the first sphere is the first within every notation and pushing out the expansion at this moment.

Everything, everywhere, for all time is connected.6 Nothing is exempt and deep within it all are infinitesimal spheres. We know information is communicated at the speed of light and there are only 202 notations, each like the nodes of a quantum computer where the connections from Notation-1 to Notation-202 would appear instantaneous. Within Notation-202, there are three-to-four billion years to this very moment since the coming of age of Notation-201. Thus, there are many possibilities for connections-and-switches to come within the day-hour-second-instance of any current moment. Yet, in the final analysis, I believe we will discover it would still appear to be virtually instantaneous.

Just how conscious are we? To be a bit diplomatic, the answer today it seems might be “…not as conscious as we could be.” Intelligence and consciousness may well go hand-and-glove; and to the degree we are actively integrating notations within our perceptions and analysis of any given moment, may well contribute to one’s grasp of the ubiquitous nature of the networking and intimacy of our real realities.

Is sleep the antithesis of consciousness?7 Within an earlier analysis, there were limited speculations that sleep was required to recompile our unique data sets within the total systems of the universe. Our capacity for storing and processing data is limited to, and commensurate with, our wakefulness. Sleep regenerates our capacities to absorb a new arrow of time. That’s the general direction to begin to grasp the essence of sleep and our deep requirements for continuity, symmetry and harmony.

Quite obviously, we need to continue to explore it and sleep on it. More is coming.

Sexuality.8 A key driver of our beingness is our sexuality, yet not much has been said about it within this site. That fact has to change. The power of two is conceptually fundamental within this model. Base-2 and doublings drive this website. In our life — all our experiences — two often become three and the transition from one to two to three is a dynamic that must be studied much more pointedly and in the near future.

Here we are, now nine years thinking about these things and it is obvious, there is so much more work to be done. Our cultures are in a frenzy, profoundly confused, and no grounding within continuity, symmetry and harmony. That all needs to be deeply examined and this footnote will remain open for years to come.

Concluding thoughts this January 2021:
There is no question about it; this is a very unusual theory. Nevertheless, since we backed into making our first chart, a simple continuum from the smallest thing to the largest, it has increasingly fascinated us. None of our scholarly friends has discounted it. Perhaps some one of them will. It could happen. Notwithstanding, we are increasingly confident that it is not a waste of their time to explore it more pointedly. At the very least, we can learn more about logic and systems, space and time, and possibly a finite-infinite relation.

We need help and it is my hope that our best scholars can help us. Thank you.BEC

Please note: I welcome your direct input. Thanks. -Bruce

Footnotes and Endnotes

Introduction. Less than 100,000 people in this world have visited this website. This section is supposed to be for those who are feeling a bit lost. unfortunately, these footnote and not simple and fully explanatory. more work will be done. Our concepts and language need more clarification. the hope is that our first-time visitors will feel comfortable here.

*A Few Key References Only Appearing Within the Preface:
* Preons: 1974 Abdus Salam and Jogesh Pati. On the edge of the explosion of possibilities, a Grand Unified Theory took guts to propose. Yet, particles and waves have consistently failed to get us over that last hurdle.
* Unsolved problems in physics and astrophysics. The editors of Wikipedia include academic scholars who know well the limitations of their knowledge. Several of these people within the physics and astrophysics communities keep working lists of unsolved and unresolved problems. Each is well-worth our time to reflect on our own limits of knowledge within general physics/quantum physics, cosmology and general relativity, quantum gravity, high-energy physics/particle physics, astronomy and astrophysics, nuclear physics, atomic, molecular and optical physics, fluid dynamics, condensed matter physics, and plasma physics.
* Postulations about new particles. It all hit the wall in 2018 at CERN with the diphoton results. Infinite divisibility has a limit. Any and all postulated particles based on a hunch, something observed yet untethered function, will have a new life if-and-when this model gains credibility.
* Plato’s Forms. The Wikipedia review of the issues with Plato’s forms is quite helpful.

Systems Theory: A formal study within philosophy, one might arguably say that the discipline got its start with Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1934 with his introduction of a mathematical model for an organism’s growth over time. A consistent conclusion of systems theory is that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” At no time has systems theory acknowledged the first 64 notations of the 202 that encapsulate everything, everywhere, for all time. When systems theory begins to adopt the first 64 notations of the 202 base-2 model of the universe from Planck Time to this current instant, as a fundamental operational part of our reality, the discipline will begin to understand how it appears that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Also, until systems theory full engages the dimensionless constants and a transformation nexus from the finite to the infinite, it will be incomplete. And, until the infinite is understood to be the deepest nature of the sphere and the value of pi defining (1) continuities-creating-order, (2) symmetries-creating-relations, and (3) harmonies creating dynamics, it will also be incomplete.

Systems theory and the work to define a relational database. The two have much in common including discrete mathematics, bit-string physics, pregeometries, a spectrum for the fine structure constant, database normalization, and object-relational portfolio management. Among others at this time, David McGoveran and H. Pierre Noyes had been pushing the soul of this work.

[1] Scholars: Although these links stay within this website, I think it is especially important that we engage Max Planck and John Wheeler. Their concept of The Mind was far-reaching in their time. Neither knew about the 202 notations from the Planck base units to the current time. I think it is interesting to know that Planck’s matrix was conceptually adopted by Frank Wilczek who ultimately liberated Planck’s numbers from a Dirac-like numerology. However, Planck’s matrix became Wilczek’s grid primarily because the movie, The Matrix, soiled the concept. Wheeler, with his it from bits, had a more natural foundation for his information-theoretic theory, yet he still didn’t break free of Newton’s absolutes and the infinitely-hot start.

[2] Our best thinkers about the Brain-Mind: The scholars whose work we studied in school and graduate school included Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and Hegel. I had the privilege to get to know Hilary Putnam as a friend and to know of Daniel Dennett and his work as a leading-scholars’ scholar (he had little patience for the rest of us).

[3] 539 tredecillion spheres per second. Planck Time is the shortest duration possible. If one plancksphere is generated every plancksecond, we have a rate of expansion. The other Planck units define the textures. I can only guess that when Planck invited Einstein to visit, he was hoping they could talk about these incredulous numbers. Of course, Einstein had his own agenda. And you can see in the pictures of them together, Max Planck appears to defer to others. His numbers were virtually ignored throughout his lifetime. So, let us accommodate Max. To begin, Planck Time is uncomfortably short for most of us. That it would render 539,1247 tredecillion spheres per second stretches credulity but perhaps less than the kind of inflation suggested by Alan Guth and the infinitely-hot beginning.

Those 539.1247 tredecillion spheres just might be a very good approximation for the current expansion. It would account for dark energy and dark matter, and it would free us from the constraints of a model that lacks integrity — i.e. the continuity, symmetry, and harmony of pi (and light).

[4] The Dynamics of Dynamics. This block of five dynamic images will now start appearing somewhere in most of the future articles unless some good scholar explains why these can not be applied to the Planck scale. The journalism and the people of Quanta Magazine, particularly Emily Wolchover, are among the best within our time. They surely stirred the pot with Chris Quigg (emeritus Fermilab).

As Within, So Throughout is our challenge to see how celestial dynamics are a manifestation of infinitesimal-spherical dynamics and why-when-and-how scale invariance works.

[5] Prime Numbers: There is a clue within our current, dominate use of prime numbers for encryption. Identities are unique beyond the DNA-level and even the atomic level. Identity goes deep inside the informational level between Notation-1 and Notation-64 (perhaps particles and their sub-particles manifest after, i.e. Notation-65 to Notation-75). Every notation adds more unique identity to everything-everywhere-throughout-all-time. It appears that every prime provides a branch for additional uniqueness whereby a new dimensional constant has its first expression. It also seems that these primes– 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61 — provide new branches that gives rise to programming, networks, information processing, and database structure. Turing, Von Neumann,Wolfram and so many others have roles.

[6] The concept, “Everything, everywhere, for all time.” It is used often within these pages. The logic must be reviewed. If Planck Time is the shortest possible interval and Planck Length the shortest possible distance, doesn’t that make the two the very first unit of space-time? If so, what does it look like? If pi is the most-ubiquitous, most-simple dimensionless constant, doesn’t the circle-sphere follow? If the circle-sphere follows, and the first one is manifest at the Planck base units at a rate of one plancksphere per plancksecond, doesn’t it follow that 539 tredecillion spheres per second are generated, all with unique identities that are constantly expanding with data? Doesn’t that look a bit like the Akasha in various historic traditions?

If we can answer in the positive, we have a new theoretical model of the universe.

In 1994 while thinking about the role of creativity, valuation, product development, marketing and sales, this model was inadvertently being developed whereby the transition from notation to notation were the nodes within computer and communications networks. As within, so throughout.

[7] A difficult discussion, let me put something down here just to get it going. The ever-present question, “What is sleep” It is part of the question of the directionality of time. There is the uniqueness of the constant labeling and relabeling of everything-everywhere-for-all-time, yet that is part of the dynamics. It is never a fixed point. The only thing that feels fixed is our own identity. Yet, that identity is…

[8] Sexuality Why is a male a male and a female a female? Is it just DNA? What are the building blocks? Do we choose our physical sexuality? Is it within the earliest notations like 40-50, just before consciousness and systems? Is by luck alone? How is it related to consciousness? … to death? …to a lifetime?

There is so much more to discern. There are so many open issues… This universe has a palette of possibilities far greater than the panoply of colors, sounds, smells, tastes, textures, and attitudes that we currently identify.


References & Resources

Every paragraph and every sentence could have a reference. Yet, the references here are reminders to return to the work of these scholars and to think more deeply about their constructs of reality. EACH HAVE BEEN PART OF THE AUTHOR’S PAGES IN CONSTRUCTING THIS ARTICLE.

Conformal Treatment of Infinity, Penrose, in Relativity Groups and Topology: the 1963 Les Houches Lectures, and The conformal approach to asymptotic analysis, Jean-Philippe Nicolas, 2015

Symmetry, Transactions, and the Mechanism of Wave Function Collapse, John Gleason Cramer and Carver Andress Mead, August 2020

Robert Edward Williams: The geometrical foundation of natural structure: a source book of design, Dover, 1979 The Integration of Universal ConstantsEudaemon Press · 2009

Victor J. Stenger, The Comprehensible Cosmos, Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From? Prometheus, 2006

BrainMind: Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Oxford

Marilyn Ferguson – Wikipedia

Theory of multiple intelligences Howard Gardner, William Damon

Matrix-transformations ( )

Brian Josephson, Life, Extended Mind, and Fundamental Physics

Annual Report 2019 | The Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings


Dark Energy-Dark Matter – Wolchover 2017

The Hidden Meaning of Planck’s Constant, Robert L. Oldershaw, Universal Journal of Physics and Application 1(2): 88-92, 2013

Multimessenger constraints on the neutron-star equation of state and the Hubble constant , Tim Dietrich, Michael W. Coughlin, Peter T. H. Pang, Mattia Bulla, Jack Heinzel, Lina Issa, Ingo Tews and Sarah Antier, 18 December 2020, Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.abb4317


Emails (3 of many)

Most emails go to scholars who really know something about the issues involved here. Their problems are like our problem; they, too, get set in their ways. They have their own belief systems and they are naturally sticking to them. Nobody wittingly will be absurd to themselves. So as politely as possible, these emails invite their help to look at our data and their data in new ways.

Josh Sokol, Tuesday, January 13, 2021: Josh just won a fellow to explore the dark skies. I start a tweet to him that said, “Perhaps visits to Pitcairn and Tristan da Cunha are in order! Congratulations!” I’m searching your work in Quanta Magazine: In January 2017 I made a reference to you and I am trying to discern why: I’ll get back to you!”

Lee Smolin, Thursday, December 30, 2020 @ 7:15 PM: Questions about the very nature of time

Anton Zeilinger, Saturday, January 2, 2021 @ Ostensibly my questions are, “Is the first moment of space-time defined by the Planck base units?” If so, would an infinitesimal sphere be the first manifestation given pi’s abundance within the dimensionless constants? And, if so, would the rate of expansion be defined by Planck Time (which would render about 539 tredecillion spheres per second)?


Tweets (3 of many)

Links to tweets that might challenge people to engage an integrated view of the universe and not just the world that is in front of them…

11:25 AM · January 13, 2021 @skdh (SabineHossenfelder): You are brilliant, a lightbulb for the sun. Our favorites, Kepler and Wilczek, play their violins as we contemplate pi over an Italian dinner. Yes, that simple pi with its deep continuity, those ubiquitous symmetries, and never-ending harmonies, and ask, “Is that all there is…” My editorial note: Sabine’s book, Lost in Math, is indeed, quite brilliant, but all our complexity within mathematics and physics leads back to pi and the sphere. Add the Planck base units, and apply a bit of base-2 exponentiation, and you have yourself a most-simple beginning of a model of the universe.

10:43 AM · Dec 16, 2020 @AriSchulman Ari – Our little worldviews get in the way of an integrated view of the entire universe – everything, everywhere, for all time in just 202 base-2 notations from the Planck units to today. A start: Chart: So what would you do with it?

11:21 AM · Dec 16, 2020 @R_Allbritton@YousefAlOtaiba1 and @IsraelinUSA Excellent. Notwithstanding, our little worldviews hold us back and the radical rifts between right-and-left grow. To begin to heal, help us transition to an integrated view of the universe. A start, Base-2 from the Planck scale to today in just 202 steps! Robert Allbritton is the Chairman/founder of Politico.



Afterthoughts. Now a full nine years of thinking about our little model that begins with numbers calculated in and around 1899, I am still rather earnestly pleading with our foremost, leading living scholars, “What are we doing wrong?” Only a few acknowledge the question; and like the first scholar to respond in 2012, one word answers are of very little help. We know how entirely idiosyncratic this model is, but is it idiotic? If so, why? We will continue our search for answers — a reason to believe or not to believe — just as long as we can. -BEC


Key Dates for conscious

  • This document was started on December 14, 2020.
  • First posted for collaborations: December 15, 2020.
  • The URL for this document is
  • The Prior Homepage:
  • First Tagline: The Mind, the Self, the Brain and the Human Mystery
  • The last update of this page was on March 23, 2023.

Update and include before completed: