**Nick Bostrom**, Professor, University of Oxford,

Director, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford, England

ArXiv

CV

Homepage

Twitter

Wikipedia

YouTube (TED)

Within this Website:

A Different Framework To Define the Universe

Communications in January 2020

Correspondence from this project to Nick Bostrom:

First email, 1 June 2015

Second email, 22 July 2016

Third email, 1 November 2017

Fourth email, 22 August 2018

Most recent email: 20 January 2020

Reference: https://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/infinite.pdf

Subject: Realizing *INFINIITE ETHICS* originated back almost 20 years ago…

Dear Prof. Dr. Nick Bostrom,

I have your paper *“Infinite Ethics*” open on my desktop

and with it, I struggle with the questions, “What is infinite?

What is infinitesimal? What is finite? Is there a transformation point?”

These are probably the wrong questions to break through my own*infinitarian paralysis*… because as a result of our work

in a high school geometry class, I have concluded that the universe

is finite. Oops. So, I would especially enjoy being able to read your

most recent reflections about infinity qua infinity. Has your perspective

changed at all? Is it the same today?

A little backdrop on my work is here: https://81018.com/stem/

In our earliest work with the Planck numbers, we thought,

“Now this is a hearty STEM tool.” We shared it with our

colleagues around town, but most of them thought it was

introduced too many new concepts that were beyond

their students comprehension. I assured them that it was beyond my comprehension as well!

Would you counsel with us?

What are we doing wrong?

Thanks.

Warmly,

Bruce

Fourth email: 22 August 2018

RE: Logic, mathematics, and physics

Dear Prof. Dr. Nick Bostrom:

Your work is important and we are making reference to it from a page within our website: https://81018.com/2018/08/22/bostrom/ There we will begin to examine your work more closely. Plus, we keep a record of our correspondence to you to keep our enthusiasm in check!

We began our trek in December 2011. At that time, we were totally unsure of ourselves. Today, we are still unsure, but willing to ask the best thinkers in our world, “What is wrong with this simple logic and mathematics?” We began by asking that question and got several reasonable assurances that we were okay with our simple multiplication and division.

Once we mapped all our numbers on a horizontally-scrolled chart so the logic of the flow could be more readily studied, the implications were bewildering. That’s when we began turning to people like you.

I hope you have a chance to take a look at that chart and to comment. Also, regarding anything on this page, we are willing to update or delete anything that you request. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

http://81018.com

Third email: 1 November 17, 2017 (slight updates)

References: https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk

Dear Prof. Dr. Nick Bostrom:

As I have noted in earlier emails, by using simple math (base-2 exponentiation) we can encapsulate the universe (starting at the Planck scale) within 202 notations or doublings. It is a bit more granular (3.333 times) than Kees Boeke’s 1957 work with base-10. This very different model of the universe redefines space-and-time, light, and the finite-infinite. And, it certainly puts Virtual Reality (VR) in a different light.

Are we living in an exponential universe? About a third of those notations (1-67) are defined by particular lengths, times, charges, and mass, that can only be known through their numbers. The CERN-scale begins around the 67th notation, so there are no less than 64 new doublings to explore mathematically and logically. It’s the old Chessboard-and-Rice story all over again. So, of course, Pythagoras was very close to the truth.

Somewhere within that exquisitely small grid notation 1-64, should be human consciousness, a place where machines with quantum gates have no passwords. Our measured time functions can’t even get below notation 84 as of today! The first second is between 143 and 144. The first 500 million years for large-scale developments isn’t until 197.

Don’t you think this little model is closer to realism and a naturalism than Newton, Hawking, or the others….

I thought you would enjoy this quick introduction. Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

*****************

Bruce Camber

http://81018.com

PS. In 2002, Wilczek reflects, “It therefore comes to seem that Planck’s magic mountain, born in fantasy and numerology, may well correspond to physical reality.” (PDF) I think Charles Jencks is in tune with this spirit when he asks, “Can’t you see, we are in a dialogue with the universe?” -BEC

Second email: 22 July 2016 (very slight updates)

Dear Prof. Dr. Nick Bostrom:

There’s so much silliness in the air; perhaps it can all be traced back to the nihilism of the big bang. It is a theory that should be under fire. Their first four epochs, less than a fraction-of-a-fraction of a second, are just a series of guesses.

By using simple math (base-2) we can encapsulate the universe (a bit more granular than Kees Boeke’s base-10). It opens a study to a very different model of the universe, and space and time. It actually puts Virtual Reality in a different light. It may actually become part of a real transcendent quality within the human consciousness and within our sense of human need.

Thanks.

Most sincerely,

Bruce

*****************

Bruce Camber

https://81018/chart/

PS. In 2002, Wilczek reflects, “It therefore comes to seem that Planck’s magic mountain, born in fantasy and numerology, may well correspond to physical reality.” (Page 136, *Fantastic Realities*, 2006)

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

First email: 1 June 2015 (slight updates)

Dear Prof. Dr. Nick Bostrom:

In December 2011 our high school geometry class chased the embedded geometries of the tetrahedron and octahedron back to the Planck Length. Later we added Planck Time. Starting within the tetrahedron, we divided each edge in half, connected the new vertices, found four half-sized tetrahedrons in each corner and an octahedron in the middle. Inside the octahedron there are six half-size octahedrons in each corner and eight tetrahedrons, one in each face. We thought it was an infinite regression until we learned about Max Planck’s 1899 work.

We then multiplied by 2; and, within a total of 201+ notations (doublings, groups, sets, layers), we were out around the Observable Universe (and the the Age of the Universe respectively).

We learned that we were using base-2 exponential notation. We also learned about the 1957 base-10 work of Kees Boeke.

This logical, simple, highly-integrated view of our container universe has opened many discussions about the model *per se* and its place in Science-Technology-Engineering-Mathemattics research. There is also a lot of speculation about the place for numbers, sequences, order, and continuity. It has also opened discussions about symmetries and the very nature of a relation. In this model, space and time take a back seat, a derivative sense.

Also, this model has an openness within the first 65 or so notations up to the fermions and elementary particles. Here perhaps the infamous ether (aka vinculum, plenum, continuum, matrix, or grid) could be instantiated along with the Mind, the Eidos, and the Ousia.

Nonsense? I don’t think so. Everything starts simply and the the Planck Length could well be the next big thing.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce Camber

2012: https://81018.com/2014/12/01/door/

2014: https://81018.com/order/

2015: http://smallbusinessschool.org/page1881.html

2016: https://81018.com/bec/

PS. The model seems to impinge on the natural evolution of the Turing machine.