Brent> all physical measurements will be rational numbers

Well, it is quite a statement ;o) so you may write down an exact
Planck constant (h), please illustrate that...
If you experience difficulty to do that for ( h ) please try write
down an exact gravitational constant ( G )...

Ref: Planck constant:  h = 4.135 667 33(10) × 10−15 eV s
(10) The two digits between the parentheses denote the standard
uncertainty in the last two digits of the value.

SB> there is no way to write down an exact arbitrary irrational number
Brent> There is no problem writing down irrational numbers:
Brent> sqrt(2), pi,... See nothing to it.  ;-)

You miss the key word "arbitrary", it is simple to show that the
number of irrational numbers which can be expressed/encoded with ZERO
entropy equals to number of rational numbers (sqrt(2) is one of such


On Jul 23, 4:30 pm, Brent Meeker <> wrote:
> wrote:
> > SBJ: Information entropy of physical fundamental constants
> > The fundamental constant can be measured increasingly accurate, it
> > does not seem (for me) that the  repetitive pattern of rational
> > numbers after some number of digits may take place;
> Physical measurements are always relative, i.e. one quantify is measured in
> units of another quantity.  It is generally thought that there is a smallest
> possible unit, the Planck scale, so all physical measurements will be rational
> numbers (integers in Planck units).
> >if it is the case
> > then there is not enough "room" in the universe / multiverse to
> > accommodate such information as exact representation of fundamental
> > constant - just in principle, there is no way to have it exact as
> > there is no way to write down an exact arbitrary irrational number and
> > it is not a technical limitation it is a fundamental limitation unless
> > it may be represented as a rational number ;o).
> There is no problem writing down irrational numbers: sqrt(2), pi,... See 
> nothing
> to it.  ;-)
> Of course from an information standpoint you want to know their bits.  But it
> also easy to write down a quite short program that will compute whatever bit 
> you
> want to know for those irrational numbers.  But you are right that for almost
> all real numbers is impossible to give them a finite representation.  But why
> believe in those numbers anyway, they are convenient fictions.
> >Information Entropy
> > can be measured as an average number of bits per symbol/digit encoded
> > by rank-0 context model + entropy encoder (let say arithmetic
> > encoder). Therefore, there are two distinct possibilities: entropy
> > equals zero or Log2(10) (for decimal representation) or simply: ZERO
> > or NON-ZERO. I have my ideas how NON-ZERO case may workout but I'm
> > interested to listen others opinions.
> Most cosmogonies assume the (microscopic) entropy of the universe is zero.  It
> started at the Planck scale, where there is room for at most one bit and since
> QM insists on unitary evolution the entropy cannot change (as measured at the
> Planck scale).  The increase in entropy we see is due to our coarse graining, 
> or
> as Bruno would say, "above our substitution level".  It is impossible to 
> however
> to use the negative information to get back to local zero because the 
> expansion
> of the universe has carried the correlations beyond the relativistic horizon.
> At least that's the common theory.
> Brent
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to