TO: Prof. Dr. Sophie C. Gibb, Chair, Department of Philosophy
Durham University, Durham, UK
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your many articles in Aristotlean Society and PhilPapers, but especially your book: The Routledge Handbook of Emergence (Routledge, 2019), plus your CV, Google Scholar, Homepage, Durham Emergence, and your Wikipedia summary.
Pages within this website: https://81018.com/particles/#References (See also Emails), https://81018.com/believed/, https://81018.com/2018/09/22/gibb/ (this page)
Fourth email: Thursday, 11 September 2025
Dear Prof. Dr. Sophie Gibb:
Has it been over three years since my last note?
Well, this morning I was viewing the log files for our site and yesterday there was somebody who paid a visit to our page about your work. It happens with some regularity but this time I reviewed that page — https://81018.com/2018/09/22/gibb/ — first by checking for broken links. Then I scribed this note.
I hope you are well and doing fine.
Are you familiar with the PASCOS conferences? IPPP was the host this year and I attended. It was my first time to attend an academic conference in 45 years. And, it was my first time in Durham. I met some fabulous people, wonderful scholars from around the world. They seem as confused as the rest of the world about first principles. Let me ask you as one of the world’s leading philosophers, “Which is more fundamental: the four primary irrational numbers, the Planck base units, continuity-symmetry-harmony and the nature of the infinite, and the very first second of the universe, OR general relativity, gravity, and quantum indeterminacy?” It is the question I address in a short form: https://81018.com/original8/ and in a long form: https://81018.com/originals/ ) And, I guess it is just a simple extension beyond that 2020 FQxI essay submission — https://81018.com/3U/
Is there anything you would like changed (updated), deleted or added to our page about your work? Thank you.
Warmly,
Bruce
Third email: Wednesday, Jan 12, 2022 @ 3:53 PM
RE: Indeterminacy, quantum fluctuations and geometry
Dear Prof. Dr. Sophie Gibb:
I thought you might enjoy knowing that I tried to find a good reference within The Routledge Handbook of Emergence, but it wasn’t there! I don’t think there are other people who believe indeterminacy and quantum fluctuations have anything to do with actual geometries, a most basic gap that was misunderstood by Aristotle. And, it was promulgated unchallenged for 1800 years and even today, the implications go unanalyzed!
Yes, I guess that I am “still crazy after all these years …” Surely, I am entirely idiosyncratic hoping it’s not some form of late-life idiocy!
BTW, I have spent a little time with your IPPP group there in Durham. Nice people. Here’s my report about their work: https://81018.com/smallest-largest/
Be well. These days, it is increasingly difficult!
Most sincerely,
Bruce
PS. A page on this website about you and your work is here: https://81018.com/2018/09/22/gibb/ -BEC
Second email: Sat, Jan 26, 2019
Dear Prof. Dr. Sophie Gibb:
In light of your work on emergence (i.e. The Routledge Handbook of Emergence), I believe our home page may be relevant: http://81018.com/boundary/
Our primary assumptions are as follows:
1. The Planck base units of length, time, mass and charge describe a real reality.
2. The conceptual door to this infinitesimal universe is where all four Planck base units concresce (grow together, yet individuate) to create a stream of infinitesimal spheres. Though physical, length-time are well below thresholds of measurement, the progression of mass-charge units can be studied. These four units are, in some manner of speaking, the Janus-face of each other and of light.
3. Conceptually, sphere stacking becomes cubic-closest packing; tetrahedrons and octahedrons emerge. Doublings begin. Our universe emerges. Their numbers eventually begin to define things within our current scientific realities. This is a natural inflation. And, it’s not dark.
Might you advise us? Of course, we are wrong in light of big bang cosmology, yet why not give this simple little model a chance? Where is our “tripping point”? Is it #1?
Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
First email: Fri, Sep 21, 2018
Dear Prof. Dr. Sophie Gibb:
Our work began in December 2011 within our high school geometry classes in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. That story is here: https://81018.com/home Asking questions about Zeno’s paradox, we were chasing embedded geometries, smaller and smaller units, until at the Planck scale: https://81018.com/tot and https://81018.com/number/#Kepler
The students and I were fascinated by this exploration of the universe’s relative measurements at different scales. Those first discussions turned into an ongoing odyssey to explore the Planck unit-number relationships. This scaling unwittingly recalls the 1957 base-10 work of Kees Boeke (that was later popularized within a well-known book by Phyllis & Philip Morrison, Powers of Ten: About the Relative Size of Things in the Universe), but with a vital difference. We used the Planck base units to do a systematic doubling. It creates a truly fascinating scale that starts at the first moment of time and it goes to our current time.
With the typical enthusiasm of youth, we asked, “Isn’t this the most highly-integrated, mathematical, continuity equation for all time?”
We have been looking and looking for a means to justify or explain this doubling activity. We asked, “Could it possibly be related to the doubling phenomenon that occurs in a discrete dynamical system: period-doubling bifurcation?” Does it have anything to do with the doublings with sphere stacking and ccp, fcp and hcp (emergence)?
It seems to us that this doubling occurs as measurement moves from scale to scale in the universe, but we do not find that observation mentioned anywhere in the literature for cubic close packing (ccp), bifurcation, chaos theory, fractals, cosmology, or physics.
If it coheres, could it indicate that the universe itself is a continuous dynamical system?
That intriguing possibility suggested by this rather all-encompassing multiscale chart has been endlessly challenging for us. …that the entire universe could be encapsulated within the scaling bandwidth of 202 doublings! Who would have ever thought?
The Planck units were the ruler. The doublings are the measurements that resulted. One of our goals was to see if we could verify the age and size of the observable universe by a systematic exploration of these doublings. Another goal was simply to try to envision the universe.
Over the years, our exploratory work has burgeoned into this website: http://81018.com
Might you advise us? Where have we gone askew? If our logic hasn’t gone askew, are we on to something? If we are, we will need some serious coaching and would hope that you might be able to help us. Isn’t this direction of thought worthy to have more hands and minds focusing on it?
Thank you.
Most sincerely,
Bruce
###