On following the work of James Owen Weatherall…

James Owen Weatherall, Professor of Logic and Philosophy of Science
University of California, Irvine. Also: New Directions in Philosophy of Cosmology

ArXiv (40): Mathematical Responses to the Hole Argument: Then and Now (Oct. 2021), Equivalence and Duality (Nov. 2020)
Books: The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread, Yale, 2019
______ Void: The Strange Physics of Nothing, Yale, 2016
Homepage(s):  Academia, CV PDF, Google Scholar, Publications, Twitter
Videos: YouTube: The Misinformation Age. On PBS-TV

References within this website: (1) Footnotes, Pi (π) Shapes Our Universe, (2) Nick Huggett’s work,
(3) Footnotes, “The Universe As Extended Planck Base Units”, (4) Reference, “What is space? What is time?” and (5) Scholars and Leaders

Third email: Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 9:45 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. James Weatherall:

What would be the first particle?  https://81018.com/particle/
Does pi inform the finite-infinite bridge? https://81018.com/almost/#CSH

I thought you’d find these two pages of some interest. I would be overjoyed if you could point out our failure of logic. Thank you.

Most sincerely,


PS. Our reference page to you and your work: https://81018.com/2019/12/28/weatherall/

Second email: Monday, 1 November 2021 @ 1 PM

Dear Prof. Dr. James Weatherall,

In 2011 in a high school geometry class we went deep within the tetrahedron by dividing its edges by two, connecting those new vertices, creating smaller and smaller parts. Ostensibly we were doing a three-dimensional Zeno walk down into a tetrahedral-octahedral honeycomb. We kept to the most simple path to keep us on track, but there were many other paths we could have followed. It was hard to believe there were so many possibilities. We went right down into the Planck scale in 112 steps. We could actually see the tetrahedrons and octahedrons being generated from sphere stacking. We even went into the fabric of the Planck scale to observe the never-ending, never-repeating numbers of pi. That was set within continuity-symmetry-harmony, three qualitative experiences of pi.

Trying hard to make sense of it all, although generally not the way causal sets are visualized, we began to see the Hasse diagrams in terms of dynamics infinitesimal spheres (a little more textured than the 1927 Lemaître or Democritus primordial atom). The spheres were a result of those never-ending dimensionless constants of pi within a qualitative state defined by pi’s continuity-symmetry-harmony whereby cubic-close packing of equal spheres was, indeed, the beginning of all the geometries within and near the Planck scale.

That was quite a walk. You should know that long, long ago I did guided imagery for Synectics Education Systems [1] in Cambridge, Massachusetts and it became one of many teaching tools that I use.

What do you think? Thanks.



PS. It is easy to get confused with so many brilliant people working on this problem, so we have our own pages of references for each scholar and a copy of our notes in order to try to be polite. Here is our link to our page about your work. We know how entirely idiosyncratic our point of view is. Notwithstanding, the academy has been stifled so long on these issues, perhaps idiosyncratic is what is warranted! -BEC

First email: Saturday, 28 December 2019 @ 8:46 AM

Dear Prof. Dr. James Weatherall,

Sometimes misinformation is perspectival, an adoption of a point of view that can not be validated yet feels right and comfortable.

Although Newton was familiar with Leibniz’ relational point of view, he promulgated absolute space and time. It worked for him and it has become so ingrained within our cultures throughout our tiny world, it’s “our commonsense” point of view. That doesn’t make it real information; it could well be misinformation, and now, possibly disinformation.

Your colleagues, Turok Arkani-Hamed, and Tegmark are rather radical about it!

You’ve become an expert in logic: Is it possible that Max Planck’s 1899 definitions of a primordial or fundamental length and time determined by light introduces a higher logic?  If the results of his simple equations are validated scientifically (experimentally), does that warrant a little extra attention to answer questions like, “What does it mean?”

Congratulations on all that you are doing!  Just sensational!
Thank you.


Embedded links:
Newton-Leibniz: https://81018.com/bridge/
Tegmark: https://81018.com/redefinition/

Max Planck: https://81018.com/theory/


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.