I'm not the only one to have pointed out that your work seems to be built on a number of assumptions that profoundly fly in the face of what seems to be the case, and how things seem to actually work....
What am I assuming? I’m simply observing Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the proof, the experiment and measurement run every 10 minutes.
Its outputs are non-contradictory and truthful by logical construction and rule.
You are claiming that a theory or model is more predictive than a system that literally produces time and truth. Those models cannot account for this process, they can only arise symbolically inside of such a process (reality).
If you understand don’t understand the problem of symbolic completeness, you’ll always be searching for a theory rather than an instantiated process where object, and proof merge as a temporal substrate.
I don’t think you are holding enough space for the fact that bitcoin is empirical truth, do you really think there is a second best truth or a second best explanation to the process?
Just observe Bitcoin longer…don’t trust me.
Its outputs are non-contradictory and truthful by logical construction and rule.
You are claiming that a theory or model is more predictive than a system that literally produces time and truth. Those models cannot account for this process, they can only arise symbolically inside of such a process (reality).
If you understand don’t understand the problem of symbolic completeness, you’ll always be searching for a theory rather than an instantiated process where object, and proof merge as a temporal substrate.
I don’t think you are holding enough space for the fact that bitcoin is empirical truth, do you really think there is a second best truth or a second best explanation to the process?
Just observe Bitcoin longer…don’t trust me.