**Jeremy Nicholas Butterfield**

Affiliate of Centre for Quantum Information and Foundations (DAMTP)

University of Cambridge, Trinity College

Cambridge, England

**ArXiv**: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.01505 On Dualities and Equivalences

• https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4745 On Time in Quantum Physics

• https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4354

• Reduction, Emergence and Renormalization

• https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4348 Our Mathematical Universe? **Homepage**(s): Natural Environment Research Council, PhilPeople, ResearchGate.**Publications****Talks** at University of Cambridge **YouTube**: What Exists? (2017), Observations (2017), Contextuality (2017)**Wikipedia** (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Butterfield)

Within this website:

This page:https://81018.com/2019/02/17/butterfield/

FQXi member: https://81018.com/fqxi/#Butterfield

Almost there: https://81018.com/almost/#Butterfield

Most recent email: Monday, December 13, 2021, 10:38 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. Jeremy Nicholas (Nick) Butterfield:

On my bookshelves and sometimes on my desk since 1973, I have had Herbert Butterfield’s *The Origins of Modern Science*. It’s been in and out of dozens upon dozens of boxes for the many, many moves. He has become like kinfolk. Then I began to wonder, “Is he Nick’s actual kinfolk?” …uncle, grandfather, father? I wonder, is he?

I continue working that base-2 model from the Planck units. My latest iteration is here: https://81018.com/almost If you might comment, I would be eternally grateful. Thank you.

Most sincerely,

Second email: Wed, Jul 31, 2019, 10:18 AM

Primary reference: http://www.qi.damtp.cam.ac.uk/node/1

Dear Prof. Dr. Jeremy Nicholas Butterfield:

Such scholarship. Thank you for all your very substantial work.

As for me, I am barely swimming and often drowning in information overload.

In 2011, with about 90 high school geometry students, we engaged

the Planck scale primarily by unwittingly mapping the universe,

simulating base-2 (versus Boeke’s base-10) by going inside

the tetrahedron by dividing its edges by 2, connecting those new

vertices until in 45 steps we were at about the measurements of

lengths within particle physics. In another 67 steps we were looking

up at Planck’s scale, a wall if you will. Then we multiplied by 2 until

we were out to the approximate age of the universe. We had a total

of just 202.34 notations. References: https://81018.com/home and

https://81018.com/2012/06/14/kolecki/

Not being the brightest lightbulbs to illuminate the spheres, in 2014,

we finally added Planck Time and in 2016 added the other two base units:

Reference: https://81018.com/chart/

Before I make more of a fool of myself than I already have,

would you take a look at this page — https://81018.com/transformation/ –

which is slated to become the homepage tomorrow.

Might you give me quick advice? Too idiosyncratic for words?

Just silliness? I thank you.

Most sincerely,

-Bruce

First email: Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 9:30 AM

Primary reference: http://www.qi.damtp.cam.ac.uk/node/19

Dear Prof. Dr. Jeremy Butterfield,

My Google Scholar alerts for new citations about George Ellis includes

two references (ArXiv and the PhilSci PDF) to your review of Sabine

Hossenfelder’s *Lost in Math*.

There are in fact a lot of bad ideas. There is a dearth of simple ideas

that postulate very simple foundations. In 2011 a geometry class in

New Orleans (USA) we went inside the tetrahedron and the octahedrons

within it by dividing the edges by two and connecting those new vertices.

A simple Zeno-like exercise, we also were learning a little about base-2

and then the Planck base units of time, length, mass and charge. It was

surprising to go just 45 steps to the particle physics domain and 67 more steps

into Planck’s scale. When we multiplied by 2, we were out to the size and

age of the universe in just another 90 steps. 202 to encapsulate the universe.

But, so what? Is it just a bunch of numbers? We looked around for a bit and

discovered only Kees Boeke’s base-10. At least some other high school

people had ventured out of the textbook!

The first 64-to-67 notations puzzled us. Well before any possibility of any

measurement by instrumentation, it caused us to look more closely at what

it was defining. The first second comes out between notation 143 and 144.

The first year at notation 169. The large scale universe comes out between

195 and 197. This chart was based on doublings, started at the Planck base

units, and seems to demand that every type of doubling be investigated. We

have gladly learned about bifurcation theory, cubic-close packing, and more.

We always seem to find our way back to DAMTP. But, you are at the most

beautiful, legendary, Trinity College! It seems we’ve got to wrestle with Newton

and Hawking much more than we had ever anticipated. Oh, that question about

renormalization and infinity is ever so present!

What do you make of our simple approach? …simpletons?

We really would appreciate some hard-hitting logic to smack us back into

reality!

Can I politely yell out, “Help! We’re drowning in details!” Thanks.

Warmly,.

-Bruce

_____