So in order for a UTXO to perceive reality, it would need to experience the creation of a new block, and therefore wouldn't be able to measure the blocks, as the changing from one block to the next wo...
Yes. If a UTXO could “perceive,” its cognition would arise from the moment of state change itself. Its experience would not occur between blocks; it would be generated by the transition from one committed state to the next. The process of experience would be written into the blocks of time, not stretched across the gaps.
From within such a system, the change would not feel discrete. It would feel continuous, because each moment of awareness would be constituted by the latest state. There would be no access to the interval, only to succession. The flow would be experiential, even though the underlying process is quantized.
That is the mapping we are making.
We observe Bitcoin externally: a system advancing through discrete commitments embedded in a broader physical environment. Then we reflect that structure inward, onto our own experience of time and the universe, to understand why a fundamentally discrete process could be lived as continuity.
Physics already acknowledges a boundary where the meaning of time breaks down, a smallest unit beyond which time ceases to function as a description. All measurable frequency is built from that unit. Yet our perception stitches succession into flow, and we mistake that experience for the structure itself.
Bitcoin gives us the mirror. It shows a discrete causal process from the outside, while we remain outside the system experiencing duration. That contrast helps clarify how cognition, whether hypothetical in a UTXO or real in us, would arise from transitions, not intervals.
The continuity we feel is not the architecture of time. It is the mind’s rendering of successive state changes into experience.
From within such a system, the change would not feel discrete. It would feel continuous, because each moment of awareness would be constituted by the latest state. There would be no access to the interval, only to succession. The flow would be experiential, even though the underlying process is quantized.
That is the mapping we are making.
We observe Bitcoin externally: a system advancing through discrete commitments embedded in a broader physical environment. Then we reflect that structure inward, onto our own experience of time and the universe, to understand why a fundamentally discrete process could be lived as continuity.
Physics already acknowledges a boundary where the meaning of time breaks down, a smallest unit beyond which time ceases to function as a description. All measurable frequency is built from that unit. Yet our perception stitches succession into flow, and we mistake that experience for the structure itself.
Bitcoin gives us the mirror. It shows a discrete causal process from the outside, while we remain outside the system experiencing duration. That contrast helps clarify how cognition, whether hypothetical in a UTXO or real in us, would arise from transitions, not intervals.
The continuity we feel is not the architecture of time. It is the mind’s rendering of successive state changes into experience.
1
