Planck semantics

From: John Mikes <>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 09:37:12 -0500

> George Levy wrote (Re: Leibnitz semantics): - SNIP, - Russell answered:
> 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.
> Cheers
Thank you, Russell, for your wise comment. Indeed, IMO Planck's 'units' are
a quantized semantics of a philosophical identification about our physical
Our present observation does not go further than the (now unobservable)
Planck measures. So the Planck unit is - yes - trivially "1" (for us), but I
cannot take it for granted in a wider view with a possible further
"structural" resolution of it.

On your second par: we are still hooked into our anthropocentric system of
quantities. We may think so slowly, because our mass (inertia, whatever) is
so "big". Relative to what? the universe thinks (changes) much slower.

John Mikes
Received on Sat Mar 31 2001 - 06:42:12 PST

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