The Fundamental Problem With Living In Our Universe!

After years and years of contemplation, investigation and pondering i can finally reveal to all what the fundamental and underlying problem is with the Universe we all have to share.

Even better yet i can simplify it for all of you into a simple little phrase:


You can’t (completely) fill a square hole with a round peg!

square peg

Some of you might have heard of, or know something that sounds very similar to, if not identical to, this but that version represents the fundamental problem with the Universe that i just found – most of us are looking at it the ‘wrong’ way!

Fill, not fit, is the correct way. And i’ll tell you exactly why.

round hole

To describe the entire Universe completely – at least in terms of it’s physical dimensions and places available to put every thing in it in you need 3 dimensional cubes. Every possible place in 3D space can be completely and totally fitted into teeny, tiny 3D cubes – if you have enough of them! and lets assume we have an infinite number of them to play with (“there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio…”) All of space, cut up into right angled cubes with absolutely nothing else left over, or missed out.

The problem with that is: Nature does not ‘do’ cubes – it deals in spheres. Atoms, electron clouds, cells, planets, stars, globular clusters, galactic clusters – nary a right angle, let alone a cube in sight! Nature deals in roundness while space is cubic, flat sided. pointy even.

Nature is clever though – it can make things tiny enough and can connect so many things so cleverly enough as to give us, from our human perspective, the impression that cubes do actually exist as solids (salt crystals, cardboard boxes, Rubik’s Cubes, Buildings), but in reality they don’t – they are simply rounded approximations of cubes (made from spheres) – they leave bits out. These bits might just be important if we are trying to understand a thing fully and not just approximately.

square space

You get the idea more simply if you try to completely cover a blank page with round spots, where one spot cannot overlap another spot on the page. Depending upon the size of the spot you make you can only ever cover a certain percentage of the page if you stick to the restriction i mentioned – no overlap between spots. if you make your spots small enough (say atom sized) you can appear to cover every single point on the page because you have covered every atom on the page, but in between each atom there will be a large area of space that you have not covered.

Those of you who passed high school maths could probably work out at this tiny level exactly how much of the area of the page is uncovered by the atom sized spots. For those who didn’t it is 1 – Pi/4, or approximately 0.2146 for every unit area or roughly 21% of the page is not covered (fully described by) the dots on the page – even at the atomic level of measurement! If you have a square page and draw a single circular dot such that it is entirely contained in the square and has the same maximum dimension as the square you leave out 21% of the square uncovered. 21% remains the case for whatever size of dot you use.

circle square.

Translate that into our 3 dimensions of everyday life and the formula is a little trickier (1 – (4/3 x Pi/8) but the answer becomes surprisingly, larger: 0.476 or 47.6% of the cube is not able to be ‘covered’ or contained by the round sphere! The sphere is only 52.4% of the total volume.

Let that fact sink in for a while – because it is important and helps to explain a heck of a lot with what is wrong whenever we try to understand a thing in our Universe.

The totality of the Universe is basically cube shaped and we normally only look or see in spheres (or parts thereof) and so we ignore almost half of what is potentially available to us. Of what there actually might be! And when i say we look in spheres, that would be an ideal case because we mostly look from the centre of our sphere in one direction at a time allowing us to see at most half of what is there around us which means we normally only can see about 26% of what is actually around us at one time. We’d need to make a conscious effort and actually be aware that there is just as much either side of, up, below and behind us and consider all that as well and even then we are only considering around 52% of what ‘is’ within the cube of space we are focussing our awareness within.


A round (spherical) peg cannot completely fill a square (cubic) hole!


Nature, and therefore all life, is based upon spheres, while the (cubic) space it lives in contains more than Nature can complete.


That’s the Fundamental Problem. We inevitably miss something – and that something can later turn out to be quite vitally important! 😦


Footnote: I am aware that this is a largely simplified example based upon a single ‘scale’: that is, considering only one sized scale at a time of both the space and the sphere, like a circle of diameter length 1 and a square of side length 1. It also mostly considers the arrangement of circles/spheres in simple right-angled configurations of 2/3D spaces whereas we can chose other more fully covering orientations. Experience shows us that we are not always bound to such a one-to-one consideration or fixed orientation. In the case of the square page and the round spot for example if we used both the spot of size 1 and four smaller spots we could fill much more of the square and if we keep reducing the spot size we would eventually not be able to detect any ‘missing’ (blank) space – we would appear to be able to ‘cover’ all of the square page. Except, while it might look to us that is the case, there is still a portion that we just can’t cover no matter how small we go and how many different sized round spots we use.

We always have to settle for seeing/understanding less than what actually is possible and we generally do so in a fashion that leaves quite a lot that would be available to us if we put the effort in to still be considered, even if we don’t see it that way or as being worth while.





  1. Well observed Novus! 🙂

    While that could be true in the humanly observable Universe, if you take it down to the very smallest levels possible and only consider that there things exist in one of two possibilities, the cube or the sphere, both of which are spatially ‘fixed’ the problem remains.
    Also if you have modified the shape of the sphere to fit the cube exactly you have effectively destroyed the binary nature of all nature and replaced the sphere with another cube so now you only have one ‘choice’ the cube, with which to fill the Universe, which i should think is fairly obviously not the real case. We have a minimum of two uniquely different, but with a common reality, ways at looking at anything in the Universe at a fundamental level. (Represented in my post as a cube of side length one and a sphere of diameter one for any given region of 3D space.)

    Thank you for your consideration and input! 🙂



I welcome comments - share the love!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s