Balliol College, Oxford University
There are primarily two pages where the work of Richard Dawkins is explored:
Most recent email: 2 February 2018
Note: Robyn Blumner is CEO of the Dawkins Foundation.
Dear Robyn and Richard:
In the process of helping a nephew (2011, math/geometry teacher), we began chasing embedded geometries (tetrahedron and octahedron cluster) by dividing the edges by 2 and connecting those new vertices. In 45 steps we were down into the CERN-scale. In another 67 steps within, we were down into the Planck scale.
We learned a little about base-2 exponentiation. Then starting with our little cluster, we multiplied by 2 and in about 90 steps (total of 202 notations), we were out to the age and size of the universe.
We thought it was a neat, home-grown, STEM tool until we began thinking about those first 64 notations in light of the rather remarkable Wheat & Chessboard story! In reviewing the emerging literature of the infinitesimally small, everything from strings, pions, and quarks, to topos theory, Langlands conjectures, and so on, it seemed that this rather extraordinary place for “mathematical purity” (that’s my euphemistic expression) was not being respected for its potential diversity and complexity.
Slowly, we expanded our simple Planck Length chart to include time,
then mass, charge and temperature. There was a natural inflation.
The logic seemed to flow. And, rather unusual conclusions seemed
to be looking for recognition:
1. We live in an exponential universe. Euler’s equation rules.
2. Space and time are derivative, finite and quantized.
3. In an overly-generalized sort of way, the infinite seemed
to be defined by continuity (order), symmetries (relations)
and harmony (dynamics).
Obviously, we have created a rather Alt-Universe. Where are we going wrong or have we gone so wrong in so many ways we are not even wrong?!?