How did the universe start? When we agree, we’ll all really get to work.

Right Yellow Arrow
Left Yellow Arrow

Pages: Blackhole | C.|.Empower | Hope.| Mistakes.|. PI (π) |.Redefine |.Singularity | Sphere.TOE.|.Up

Re-envision yourself,
this world and our universe

by Bruce E. Camber (a working first draft)

Scholars like James Peebles, Princeton, Nobel 2019 in cosmology, have been telling us that we have no good theory of such a thing as the beginning of our universe. The very first instant and the infinitesimal moments thereafter are the mystery. Scholars do not know the parameters or dynamics of the first moments. So, how can we have a rigorous science if we don’t know how it all actually began and if we have not defined those boundary conditions? Of course, we have the current time, but without the beginning, we could well be missing parameters that change everything. In our base-2 model that starts with either the Planck or Stoney base units, we discover a well-defined finite-infinite relation, the derivative nature of space-time and matter-energy, and the three basic facets of pi — continuity, symmetry and harmony — that bridge the finite and infinite. If our scholars are not sure and not clear about the first instance of the universe, we all are bound to make erroneous conclusions and mistakes.

Introduction: Another Paradigm Shift
In 1993 and 1994 as a world-wide-web was getting plugged together, early adopters knew this was a paradigm shift. One could quickly imagine a group meeting, one person in each time zone all around planet earth. Whose time is it? Whose space is it? For the very first time, we actually knew that space-time was disintermediated and relations were primarily real. It was a paradigm shift — we were having a common experience of the relative nature of space-and-time.

Now, about 30 years later, we are preparing for another major shift. We are now starting to pull the entire universe into our daily thinking. As this paradigm begins to shift, everything we think and do will be in context with the universe and, for many, that will be the 202 base-2 notations that encapsulate everything, everywhere for all time.

Four Key Steps. Please note: Just below each number within the brackets, [1],[2],[3] and [4], opens a section within the homepage, begin-here. The sentence that follows each bracket opens a section within another related homepage, checklist. Then, there are four actual footnotes that drop further down this page to reflections regarding that key point. Initially it could be a bit confusing. Four homepages are all closely linked together. Also, there are many links to other pages to stimulate more analysis.

[1] There is a necessary and dynamic finite-infinite relation. Just look at pi. The oldest, most-used equation in the world, defines spheres and circles yet both are not entirely finite. Three dynamic facets of pi are infinite. Within every sphere and circle — continuity-symmetry-harmony — are the face of the finite-infinite; it is a quantitative-qualitative boundary and both sides of the finite-infinite divide are expressions of those qualities.

If true, this is fundamental paradigm shift and it’s a start of well-defined finite-infinite relation.1

[2] An infinitesimal sphere is assumed to be the first manifestation of space-time. Max Planck and George Stoney each defined such a scale based on dimensionless constants. Planck in 1899 and Stoney in 1874, their calculations beg the question, “What does the very first thing look like?” and naturally it seems that the best possible answer is an infinitesimal sphere.

If true, this is a paradigm shift –it’s an infinitesimal sphere based on dimensionless constants.2

[3] One infinitesimal sphere per unit of Planck Length and Planck Time. The universe starts; spheres emerge and begin to stack. Cubic-close packing of equal spheres provides a mechanism for generating the Platonic solids, Riemannian geometries, Langlands programs, strings, SUSY, and quantum fluctuations. Those three initial facets of the sphere are reflected in both the finite and the infinite; that is continuity-symmetry-harmony, whereby continuity creates order, symmetry creates relations, and harmony creates dynamics. It only seems logical that there be one infinitesimal sphere per unit of Planck Time and Planck Length. Planck time would render 539 tredecillion spheres per second and Stoney Time 4605 tredecillion spheres per second.

If true, this is a fundamental paradigm shift, our universe starts and expands rapidly.3

[4] Apply base-2 to that expansion. We emerge with 202 notations that encapsulate the universe from that moment, the beginning of time, to this point in time, the Now. We have a start, we have growth, and we have this current time.

If true, this project should be considered the fulfillment of John Wheeler’s dream when he said, “Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that when we grasp it — in a decade, a century, or a millennium — we will all say to each other, how could it have been otherwise?

So, let us make a checklist. What conditions does this base-2 model satisfy and what conditions does it have to meet? Answers were given in a claims page, then a postulations page. That is now re-presented as a checklist ( The work of many stimulate it particularly Robert Langlands, James Peebles, Xijia Wang, Ed Witten, Edward Zalta. Yet, most of the people with whom we have communicated over the years have influenced its direction.


Footnotes & Endnotes

Overview. This page, plus three others, define our concepts: (1) A general overview and homepage: (2) Checklist page of new concepts (which is built on the “Presuppositions” page but was re-organized as a checklist), and (3) the STEM page which recounts how it all began. Perhaps soon, another series of articles will reduce our checklist to axioms, lemmas, theorems, and proofs on the order of the work by Xijia Wang as noted within the Resources.

[1] Well-defined finite-infinite relation. Infinity has been controversial because it is often equated with God and religion. Our goal here is to equate it with the mathematical and axiomatic, that which is not finite so we start with the ubiquitous sphere. It seems to work and work well. We have within this website begun to redefine infinity with terms that are well-known to the sciences, mathematics, and even the arts. This is the beginning. We’ve been walking around the edges of it since about 2016. It will be a major focus going forward.

[2] Infinitesimal sphere based on dimensionless constants. Taking for granted the most common object in our life, from our childhood, throughout all our years, the sphere, a ball and a circle, is a mistake. Within the simple sphere there is so much more information to learn. In 2001 on a visit to Princeton with mathematician, John Conway, he asked me why I was so hung up on the tetrahedron and octahedron. My response was, “…because I am still learning so many new things about each.” We have so much more to learn about the sphere.

[3] Our universe starts and expands rapidly. “Who would have ever thought?” Such a simple calculation based on a simple logical concept, one most-infinitesimal sphere results from the most-infinitesimal units of time and length. It looks like a very different cosmological constant and there is obviously so much more to explore here.

[4] Apply base-2 to that expansion. The most simple exponential expansion is base-2. It is the most natural and it has many examples in life and in mathematics. If there is a possibility that the universe is foundationally base-2 exponentiation, it is time to argue the case around the world among our finest minds and if it is true, it is time to awake from our dogmatic slumber. There is so much more to be discovered!

Right Yellow Arrow


References & Resources

Bajcsy, Ruena, Director, Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society, UC-Berkeley. The analogies with computing are abundant. The closer we get to emulating human functions, the closer we get to our three functions of the qualitative and the infinite — continuity-symmetry-harmony.

• Bell, E. T., Finite or Infinite?, Philosophy of Science, The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1934, pp. 30-49 (20 pages)

• Farrer, Austin Marsden, Finite And Infinite: A Philosophical Essay, Dacre Press Westminster, 1943

• Hunter, John H., An Introduction to Real Analysis, Sets and Functions, Chapter 1 (PDF), Department of Mathematics, University of California-Davis, 2014, Retrieved March 26 2022

• O’Sullivan, Simon, “A Diagram of the Finite-Infinite Relation: Towards a Bergsonian Production of Subjectivity.” (PDF), Bergson and the Art of Immanence: Painting, Photography, Film, Performance, edited by John Mullarkey and Charlotte de Mille, Edinburgh University Press, 2013, pp. 165–186,

Wang, Xijia, Cosmic Continuum Theory: A New Idea on Hilbert’s Sixth Problem, Journal of Modern Physics, Vol.9 No.6, 2018, DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2018.96074



• Audrey Azoulay, UNESCO, Monday, March 28, 2022, Friday, Feb 25, 2022

• Werner Hoyer, President, European Investment Bank, Mar 16, 2022, 4:32 PM and several of his colleagues at other similar banks.

• Ulrike Tillmann, Director, Isaac Newton Institute, Cambridge University, April 12, 2022, 4:32 PM and several of his colleagues at other similar banks.

• Ed Witten, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 9:30 AM



7:09 PM · Mar 19, 2022 @sarasidnerCNN We’ve got to get rid of our little worldviews and adopt a highly-integrated view of the universe that’s encapsulated by 202 base-2 notations from Planck Time (the first moment) to today. A very simple start: Let’s go!

3:59 PM · Mar 20, 2022 @matthieu_ricard Graduate from worldviews to a highly integrated, mathematical view of the universe. Much more than numbers ( base-2 notation from the first moment of time to today, the now, in just 202 doublings) opens the universe up and makes it our neighborhood. is just a start.

5:52 PM · Mar 28, 2022 @AA_Sushentsov I think you understand that our worldviews generate behavior and all worldviews are too small. An integrated view of the universe tells us so much: is just a start where continuity-symmetry-harmony define a very different baseline. Sushentov website


Participate: We welcome you.


Key dates for this document, ultimatum