Your mempool is like gauge freedom, it is informationally consistent with all nodes connected to you, but no other node can resolve it. That uncertainty about the state of the next block is like quantum mechanics superposition, and when the next block is found it is like a wavefunction collapse, although this term is not very appropriate in a local framework.
Observers separated by a horizon (a black hole or a cosmological one) are like nodes in a partitioned network. High-latency connections are analogous to observers separated by large distances: it simply takes longer for information to propagate between them.
In my theory, observers are analogous to Bitcoin nodes. Each has finite information about itself (its own copy of the blockchain) and partial information about other observers (nodes itβs connected to). There is no global state. It makes no sense to ask a node for the current state of the entire network, only for its own state. This is the essence of finite and locally consistent information, the central idea of the paper. Two nodes arenβt required to have the same information, but to the extent that they do, they must agree on it.
Emergent space corresponds to the topology of the Bitcoin network; time emerges statistically, like block height. The internal degrees of freedom that give rise to the three fundamental forces of the Standard Model are analogous to the UTXO set. A longer blockchain corresponds to higher resolution, akin to accessing higher energy regimes in physics.
Just as total Bitcoin issuance converges to 21 million, the entropy of the internal sector converges to a specific value at the unification point of the three forces near the Planck scale.
Good news: my theory shows that Shor's algorithm assumption of global phase coherence and perfect resolution of periodicity (required for the quantum Fourier transform step) is unrealistic, not due to technology limitations but as a fundamental principle of physics. Nobody is breaking our keys.