# Re: What is comparable and incomparable between casually disconnected universes?

```> On 14 Jan 2019, at 21:23, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/14/2019 4:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 13 Jan 2019, at 21:33, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
>>> <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/13/2019 6:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> On 11 Jan 2019, at 20:51, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
>>>>> <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/11/2019 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>> I suspect Planck constant to be not computable, because if we extract QM
>>>>>> from arithmetic, the Planck constant might very well related to the
>>>>>> mechanist substitution level.
>>>>> Planck's constant is not dimensionless. So its value is 1...in proper
>>>>> units.
>>>> Could you give those proper units? I expect one to be possibly
>>>> non-computable, but I would be very glad to hear that this is not the case.
>>> Are you pulling my leg, Bruno?  h=1 action  c=1 speed  G=1 gravitate
>> I have a problem with this. One physicist during a course needed to set 2*PI
>> = 1, too.
>>
>> So my question would be, can you give me what is a meter, and a second, in
>> that units.
>
> meter = 6.188e34 [hbar*G/c^3]^0.5
>
> second = 1.855e43 [hbar*G/c^5]^0.5
>
>
>> Or, can you give me a formula giving sense to how we could measure h or
>> h-bar? E = hf, can we compute experimentally h by using this?
>
> You can't measure h or c in SI units; they are defined constants:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_SI_base_units
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_SI_base_units>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Particle_accelerator
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Particle_accelerator>
>
> <okmffghjalimploh.png>
>>
>> I am not good with unit. That does not exist in mathematics, of course. And
>> I am just trying to see what it could mean for h to be non computable, in
>> case that would mean something. Is c computable? (I use the idea that a real
>> number is computable if we can generate all its decimal, whenever units is
>> chosen.
>
> It's not a matter of units.  Units are arbitrary.  The question is what are
> the dimensions...and that is theory dependent.  In Newtonian physics, length
> and duration, were dimensionally different.  In relativity they have the same
> dimensionality; so it makes sense to rotate spacetime by a Lorentz
> transformation.  So to answer a question like, "Is h computable" you have to
> have a theory of physics that relates the value of h to other things...in
> your theory, to things consciously observable.```
```
Thank you Brent. Normally, there should be a relation between the uncertainty
relation, notably time/emergy (DE.Dt >= h-bar/2) and the substitution level
(which determines the first person indeterminacy domain in arithmetic). But
there is a lot of work to do before we get to something like this, if only
become the dimensions are “theory-dependent”, but the theory is what we have to
derive first, and the dimension after.

Bruno

>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout