# Alvin Plantinga

Articles

Books: The Nature of Necessity, Where the Conflict Really Lies and many more

CV

Gifford Lectures

Homepage Emertius

Notre Dame -Templeton Award Emertius

Wikipedia

Videos – YouTube: Arguments about God? Divine Action

**References to Alvin Plantinga within this website:**

https://81018.com/templeton/

https://81018.com/just-a-second/#Email

Second email: Friday, Aug 21, 2020, 10:34 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. Alvin Plantinga:

I thought you might enjoy seeing what has happened over six years… Then again, you may not remember (or have even seen) my note below (Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 6:37 PM ).M

Well, I may well be going in circles, but just perhaps it is a spiral…

As a result of that earlier note, I am beginning to develop an “Alvin Plantinga page.” I have been thinking about Sir John Templeton and his legacy. To date, these pages have been posted:

https://81018.com/2014/01/06/plantinga/

https://81018.com/templeton/

https://81018.com/just-a-second/#Email focusing on your quote: “If knowledge of infinity is not possible then beliefs in God would be unreasonable (an update of an email to Plantinga).”

I’ll be working on both pages in light of that 2011 chart we developed within a high school geometry class. It has morphed to this horizontally-scrolled chart: https://81018.com/chart/ Your comments and questions, of course, would be most welcomed. Warmly, Bruce PS. The current top level post (homepage) is the most recent reflection on these matters. Currently, this page is the top post: https://81018.com/open-envelope/ Thanks. -BEC

First email: Monday, January 6, 2014, 6:37 PM

My dear Prof. Dr. Alvin Plantinga:

I certainly appreciate all your efforts over the years. Given your early work with the ontological argument, and the nature of the mind, you might appreciate this rather unorthodox approach to the classical questions between science and religion. You might find them of interest:

1.** The universe is mathematically very small**. Using base-2 exponential notation from the Planck Length to the Observable Universe, there are just 202.34 (NASA, Kolecki) to 205.11 (Paris, Luminet) notations, steps or doublings. This work (the mathematics) actually began in a high school geometry class when we started with a tetrahedron and divided the edges by 2 finding the octahedron and four tetrahedrons in each corner. Then dividing the octahedron we found the eight tetrahedrons in each face and the six octahedrons in each corner. We kept going within until we found the Planck Length. It was easy to decide to multiply by 2 out to the Observable Universe. Then it was easy to standardize the measurements by just multiplying the Planck Length (and each result) by 2.

2. **The small scale universe is an amazingly complex place.** Assuming the Planck Length is a singularity of one vertex, we also noted the expansion of vertices. By the 60th notation, of course, there are over a quintillion vertices and at 61st notation well over 3 quintillion vertices. Yet, it must start most simply and here the principles of computational equivalence has a great possible impact. AN Whithead’s point-free geometries could also have applicability.

3. **This little universe is readily tiled by the simplest structures**. The universe can be simply and readily tiled with the four hexagonal plates within the octahedron and by the tetrahedral-octahedral-tetrahedral chains.

4.** Yet, the universe is delightfully imperfect**. In 1959, Frank/Kaspers discerned the 7.38 degree gap with a simple construction of five tetrahedrons looking a lot like the Chrysler logo. The icosahedron with 20 tetrahedrons is squishy. We call it quantum geometry in our high school. It is the opening to randomness. Theologically it is the beginning of free will.

5. **The Planck Length as the next big thing**. The behavior may not be so complicated on the surface, but far more complicated just below it. Computers generate rules and this might be what nature is using.

I could go on, but let’s see if these statements are at all helpful. Our work is just two years old yet relies on several assumptions that have been rattling around for 40 years. I’ll insert from references below.

Warmly,

Bruce Camber

**First principles**: http://bigboardlittleuniverse.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/first-principles/ which went back to 1972: https://81018.com/foundation/

One of our student’s science fair project:

http://walktheplanck.wordpress.com/2013/12/03/p1/