An Integrated View of the Universe

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.

Garden of Cosmic Speculation