Quantum FUD is a DoS attack because of the well known asymmetry between making claims and refuting them.
If that’s true Jimmy, the we need to be the ones making the claims.
Bitcoin is empirical proof of quantized time. Each block is a discrete, irreversible unit of causal change. If that is true, then any formalism that relies on continuous time or treats time as infinitely divisible without a physical boundary is incomplete at best, and mis-specified at the level of temporal logic. That includes the foundations underlying both quantum theory and centralized quantum computation.
We must shift the burden away from Bitcoin to the physicists.
These are the questions we need to be asking physicists:
- On what empirical basis do you maintain continuous time when Bitcoin demonstrably produces discrete, irreversible units of time in public?
- Can your formalism describe a single quantized unit of time as a physical process, or only statistical behavior aggregated across many such events?
- If Bitcoin is an externally auditable system producing non-contradictory state through energy expenditure, what experiment or system falsifies it?
- Why is a system that openly performs measurement as a thermological, irreversible event not being incorporated into your understanding of measurement itself?
- If your model cannot account for Bitcoin’s behavior, why should Bitcoin be changed to fit the model instead of the model being revised to account for Bitcoin?
If their framework holds, it should be able to answer these. If it can’t, then the burden is on them to falsify Bitcoin, not the other way around.
We must unite behind Bitcoin and its proof.
Bitcoin is empirical proof of quantized time. Each block is a discrete, irreversible unit of causal change. If that is true, then any formalism that relies on continuous time or treats time as infinitely divisible without a physical boundary is incomplete at best, and mis-specified at the level of temporal logic. That includes the foundations underlying both quantum theory and centralized quantum computation.
We must shift the burden away from Bitcoin to the physicists.
These are the questions we need to be asking physicists:
- On what empirical basis do you maintain continuous time when Bitcoin demonstrably produces discrete, irreversible units of time in public?
- Can your formalism describe a single quantized unit of time as a physical process, or only statistical behavior aggregated across many such events?
- If Bitcoin is an externally auditable system producing non-contradictory state through energy expenditure, what experiment or system falsifies it?
- Why is a system that openly performs measurement as a thermological, irreversible event not being incorporated into your understanding of measurement itself?
- If your model cannot account for Bitcoin’s behavior, why should Bitcoin be changed to fit the model instead of the model being revised to account for Bitcoin?
If their framework holds, it should be able to answer these. If it can’t, then the burden is on them to falsify Bitcoin, not the other way around.
We must unite behind Bitcoin and its proof.
21❤️2🧡1
