An Integrated View of the Universe

Center for Perfection StudiesThe Big BoardLittle Universe Project • USA • November 2017
Homepages: Just Prior|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|Original

Screenshot 2017-11-01 18.09.22

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

– Charles Jencks,  Landscape Architect, author, The Garden of Cosmic Speculation, Frances Lincoln Publishers, 2003

A strange dialogue it is!  Jencks has been struggling with that dialogue throughout his life. For him, it is very real. Yet one should ask, “How do we dialogue with something we don’t know?” Most of us never think about the universe. Of course, the pictures from NASA and the Hubble telescope pull us beyond our local space. But for most of us,  we rarely have an image of the universe pressing on our mind.  It is just too big.

So we ask, “Who is in this dialogue?”

by Bruce Camber, November 2017

Because you are here, you probably know of our work to encapsulate the universe within 202 base-2 notations. Assuming Planck Time is the first moment of time, we doubled those numbers that are the Planck scale, particularly the values for time, length, charge and mass, over and over and over again, 202 times. Doubling or multiplying by two just 202 times creates a chart, an actual outline-matrix grid-and-model of the universe.  Yet, it is a rather peculiar chart. All of human history is within that 202nd notation. Depending on how you aggregate time, the entire history of our solar system, and the history of our Milky Way begin at the 197th notation. If you have never seen this chart, you may want to review its 202 notations: It scrolls horizontally!

So, this model of the universe has everything to do with the earliest history of our universe where our studies within cosmology and astrophysics happen to be weakest.  It should be a match made in heaven, but just that word, heaven, grates on so many people these days.

It’s a shame. They all need to loosen up a little, especially Max Tegmark of MIT.  He so appropriately goes by the moniker, Mad Max, the 1979 dystopian character of B-fiction, pulp-movie fame. Anything to do with infinity, our Mad Max professor of physics wants out.

“Cool those jets, Max!” Just on the other side of the first moment in time, I project that you will find the infinite.  Instead of throwing it out, let us get into a dialogue. Let us redefine it in a way the scholarly-and-scientific communities, even among the atheists, humanists and materialists, cannot object too loudly. WITHIN THE INFINITE is the finite.

We all believe in pi and Euler’s number. Incommensurables, transcendentals and irrational numbers are delightful.

Special numbers that seemingly going on forever with no repetitions describe something that is not finite. If it is not finite, perhaps the category, infinite, could be a useful tool to describe the origins of those numbers.

Key Questions: So, what can we reasonably say about the infinite? What does it have to do with the universe defined by the 202 notations? Is this chart of 202 notations a  comprehensive definition of everything finite? Is everything-everywhere-for-all-time derivative of the infinite?  If so, what can we say about the bridge between the finite and infinite? What do both share?

Here is our best guess:

When we have a better definition of the infinite, the dialogue about the universe may earnestly begin. Without it, we do not know where we came from, where we are going, and the meaning and value of life.  Our words become like spaghetti washed in olive oil and  boiling in water.

Singularities and singularity theory

“…most often just a buzzword.”  The concept of a singularity within science, particularly within computing and within the standard models, is based on a limited view of the place of math`ematics in defining (1) the infinitesimal (Notations 1-to-65) and (2) space-and-time and the unique definitions of light within each of the 202 notations.

The non-singularity of technological singularity. The mathematics involved is substantial and complex and involves many time sequences. All the numbers, ratios, and equations that define what people call a technological singularity are constantly jostling for position. Each seems to try to stand out in that crowd, “Look at what I can do. Don’t you know that it’s all about me.”  Unless our algorithms and associated mathematics are within the largest possible context, our interpretations of the data are limited. It is no wonder our world is a mess. If our words have less and less meaning, it becomes increasingly difficult to understand anything.

Who prioritizes the information that we do have?  It seems like there is a natural accretion, a public consensus building within the most influential population groups. Unless our value systems are within the largest possible context, our interpretations of the data are necessarily biased. The so-called “technological singularity” is profoundly dependent the initial singularity that gives rise to all the standard models.

This “Initial Singularity” Is a Meeting Place of Converging Formulae.

Keys to this Quiet Expansion: More than the big bang theory‘s four forces of nature — gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force — within this Planck scale we assume these four are encapsulated within all four Planck base units and the constants that define them, and some manifestation of this unification is carried throughout all 202 notations. And, as we have noted, the Planck base units are defined by length, time, mass,  and charge; and, these are further defined by the speed of light(or special relativity), the gravitational constant (or general relativity), the reduced Planck constant (or ħ or quantum mechanics), the Coulomb constant (or εor electric charge or electromagnetism), and the Boltzmann constant (or kB or of temperature).

As we attempt to go deeper into this analysis, we will be studying the mathematics of ratios and that virtually unexplored reality defined by the first 64 doublings. In light of these doublings, we will attempt to understand this domain more deeply by examining:

  1. The logic of exponential notation as given within the Chessboard and Wheat story.
  2. The statement, “If the chart is right, we live within an exponential universe.”
  3. The concepts of non-locality and entanglement.
  4. The progressive building of a mathematical logic that is incrementalism from Notation 2 to Notation 64.  See
  5. The foundations for homogeneity and isotropy within this grid.
  6. And, then being wildly speculative, we’ll begin looking for consciousness and sleep, ethics and values, and qualities related to the perceptions through out senses. It may be true that all subjects that have never been on the grid may have a place  somewhere along this part of the grid of our universe.

Yet, let us all be thinking about this unexplored domain.