Iβm not shifting the discussion to physics arbitrarily, Iβm pointing out that Bitcoin gives us an empirical instantiation of quantized time, something physics has never been able to produce.
Objectively, Bitcoin constructs its own timebase through a thermodynamic process of energy and entropy, and that timebase is discrete, quantized, and irreducible. That means we finally have a working model of temporal evolution where state updates occur only in discrete, energy-backed steps. No one has ever built a physical system that exposes time so transparently.
Because of GΓΆdelian limitations, continuous time can never be falsified from within a universe composed of Planck-scale intervals. Any measurement of time must itself use time, so continuity remains an unfalsifiable assumption. Bitcoin stands apart because it creates its own time rather than measuring a substrate it is embedded in.
This matters because once you observe quantized time in practice, a time-first ontology becomes explicit: physics, space, and all dynamical formalisms emerge after discrete temporal structure is defined. If that architecture is closer to reality than the inherited continuous-time assumption, then much of the current formalism especially in quantum mechanics and computation is describing a mathematical idealization, not physical truth.
Iβm not denying the hashing discussion. Iβm simply pointing out that Bitcoin is the first system in human history where time is not assumed, but it is constructed from thermodynamics. If that observation is taken seriously, it has deep consequences for how we model the universe and the validity of said threat.
Thread
Login to reply
Replies (3)
as a physics enjoyer this gobeldygook is just embarrassing. you can't just borrow these terms and build your own deepak chopra-grade physical theory. let's see some actual equations.
Does your empirical instantiation of time buy me a pizza at all. πππ
i'm just trying to be nice here. some things actually boil down to economics and human needs (hash functions are produced by devices that have to be demanded for this use). some things boil down to the algorithm or state machine or distributed system. everything does fundamentally start with two ingredients: energy and materials, and below that level, you start to have matters relating to known and as yet unknown ways to reduce either energy or material costs, and thus lower (and by Jevon's paradox, increase demand).
i would love to hear what you write after you read Human Action. the quantum state and time questions are interesting when you are examining the fundamentals of how to produce things, but understanding the why, the human motivation, is far more generally applicable and interesting for solving problems.
i get it, that the quantum fud is extremely specious. but that isn't solving any problems, and solving problems is the whole purpose of asking the question in the first place.
in my opinion, it is more likely someone will break a pubkey with a supercomputer than a quantum computer.
you are letting the fudsters get under your skin