Re: Leibniz Semantics

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:25:54 +1000 (EST)

George Levy wrote:
> Let's just make sure we agree upon our objectives. Did we agree then that, the
> proof we are striving for is the derivation of Planck's constant for purely
> philosophical arguments? Or is it the full Schroedinger equation in all its
> details? I still maintain that whoever derives the actual digits of that
> constant (in MKS units for example) will *at least* deserve a Nobel or
> better.. *At present,* it seems so impossible to me, that, I believe the
> prize should be given by a prestidigitation organization. :-). It will
> certainly be instructive to go through that process.
> George

In what way is the digits of Planck's constant an objective? The
numerical value of Planck's constant is determined by the system of
measurements you choose. If you use Planck units (Planck length, planck
time, Planck mass), Planck's constant is trivially 1.

Of more interest is to ask why the human body is an astronomical
number of Planck units high, and why our body mass is so high, and why we
think so slowly. After all, the units of metre, kilogramme and second
are chosen to be within an order of magnitude or two of our own
physiological measurements.

Of course I can give numerous speculations as to why this might be,
but I won't for the moment.


Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Room 2075, Red Centre
Received on Wed Mar 28 2001 - 16:52:38 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST