You're The Voice | by Efrat Fenigson - Bitcoin: The Architecture of Time - Jack Klucznik & Nicholas Marino | Ep.162

Episode Date: September 10, 2026

What if Bitcoin is the only true measurement of time? Can it be the model of unification of time, energy, and memory? Jack Klucznik and Nicholas Marino are the co-authors of “Bitcoin: The Architecture of Time”, a 244-page paper that approaches Bitcoin through physics, treating it as a thermodynamic and mathematical object built from entropy, energy, and quantized time. In this mind-bending episode 🤯🤯, we touch on the nature of information, consciousness, free will, meaning, quantum physics, computing and more. They explore these questions  through their framework, while seeking physicists, mathematicians, and researchers willing to refine, or challenge their equations.→ Please like, comment, share & subscribe, to help me beat the suppressing algo's. Thank you!SPONSORS→ Join me on Oct. 1-2 on Expat Money Summit, focusing on Latin America, and hosted by Mikkel Thorup. Register for free, or use code EFRAT for 30% off VIP tickets: http://ExpatMoneySummit.com→ Access liquidity without selling your Bitcoin with Ledn, get 0.25% off your first loan: https://ledn.io/Efrat    → Get your TREZOR wallet & accessories, with a 5% discount, using my code at checkout (get my discount code from the episode - yep, you’ll have to watch it): https://affil.trezor.io/SHUn→ Have you tried mining bitcoin? Stack sats directly to your wallet while saving on taxes with Abundant Mines: https://AbundantMines.com/Efrat - Claim your free month of hosting via this linkAFFILIATES→ Want to preserve your privacy online? Get a GrapheneOS privacy phone or laptop, up to $150 off “Above Phone” products + extra $50 off with code EFRAT: https://abovephone.com/efrat/ → Get 15% off “Born To Be Free” all-natural, tallow-based skincare products on a bitcoin standard, using code EFRAT: https://oshi.link/1nvZYq  → Join me in these upcoming events & use code EFRAT for discounted tickets: https://www.efrat.blog/p/upcoming-events→ Get 10% off on Augmented NAC to detox Spike protein, with the code YCXKQDK2 via this link: https://store.augmentednac.com/?via=efrat (This is not medical advice, please consult your MD)→ Watch “New Totalitarian Order” conference with Prof. Mattias Desmet & Efrat - code EFRAT for 10% off: https://efenigson.gumroad.com/l/desmet_efratLINKSDownload Bitcoin: The Architecture of Time for free: https://bitcoinlens.net/ Jack on Nostr: https://primal.net/jackk Nick on Nostr: https://tinyurl.com/yu7232ys Efrat’s X: https://twitter.com/efenigsonEfrat’s Channels: https://linktr.ee/efenigsonWatch on all platforms: https://linktr.ee/yourethevoiceSupport Efrat’s work: ⁠https://bit.ly/zap_efratCHAPTERS 00:00 - Coming Up...01:33 - Introduction: Jack Klucznik & Nick Marino05:47 - Their Paper: "Bitcoin: The Architecture of Time"07:17 - Michael Saylor, Digital Energy, and a Math Engineering Lens11:32 - Ad Break: Expat Money & Ledn13:54 - The Double Spend Problem as a Physics Problem16:09 - Glitches in Time19:08 - The Block as the Quantum of Time27:48 - The I Ching and the Limits of Modern Language36:01 - Ad Break: Trezor & Abundant Mines37:53 - Consciousness, Free Will, and the Truth Ledger45:52 - Bitcoin's Future Based on The Collective Consciousness48:50 - The Block Properties as part of Time Architecture52:52 - What's the Nature of Information?57:31 - Matter vs. Matters59:40 - Bringing Federico Faggin into this Conversation01:00:49 - Physicists' Mistakes About Bitcoin01:05:12 - What's the Meaning of Bitcoin?01:08:01 - Observer and Measurement01:10:00 - The Quantum Threat to Bitcoin01:17:55 - Fiat Funding the Quantum Interpretations01:20:49 - Nick & Jack's Message: Asking Physicists for Help01:27:52 - Where to Follow Jack & Nick

Bitcoin is not a theory of physics because it exists. It's real. It's animated with energy. It's not a theory. It is matter. You'll never solve physics with a theory. A theory can never describe it because it needs to be the thing itself. So are you saying that Bitcoin is essentially a truth about time?

The question is more, is time the tool that consciousness uses to causally order its sense of what is. We think we understand what money is. money must solely be defined by Bitcoin. Like, let's just say we've never had true perfect money until Bitcoin, so we've never had money. We're really saying, like, Bitcoin gives us the science of philosophy. It's like, it's giving us something beneath philosophy now as this is the bedrock of truth. Now all questions must pass through this lens. And in my opinion, like, we are the creators of the ledger.

Like, we're actively writing it. And so co-creators, right? So if you believe in God, like God is speaking us into existence and therefore he's helping us speak Bitcoin into existence through us. If Bitcoin is truly the interpretation of what a quantum computer is, then we need to take the people trying to change Bitcoin's code and upgrade it for quantum as a threat to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the truth. It doesn't need to prove itself. Hello and welcome to another episode of You're the Voice, Afrat from New Hampshire. Lake Winnipasaki, Sandy Island. Have the pleasure of being here with my two friends, Jack and Nick.

How are you guys? Excellent. Good. I've lost it, hanging out with all these bitterners. Seriously. It's too much knowledge here. Too much signal. Yeah.

Too much signal, right. All right. I have no fucking clue how this episode is going to turn out, but I am quite curious to see what's going to happen within 60 minutes. And isn't it ironic that? we started by counting time because I think most of this conversation is going to revolve around time, which is a subject or a topic that I am fascinated by. Do not know how to explain it as well as you guys. So thank you for coming on the show to help me try and make sense of this concept. And

I'll start with a quick intro for those of you who don't know, Jack and Nick or Nicholas. They're the co-authors of Bitcoin, The Architecture of Time, which is this little A little piece of work here. Only 244 pages or so. It's a paper that you guys have put together recently, right? Over a few years. Over a few years, but released recently. And you're researching and exploring Bitcoin

through the lens of theoretical physics, entropy, and quantized time. And I have watched your talk in Vegas. I've watched your brilliant episode with Jeff and Preston. And we had a bit of back and forth on some of the ideas that came up in those episodes, some of the ideas that I've brought up recently with Jeff in my firesite with him in Prague. We talked a bit about consciousness and how it ties into what you guys are doing.

I am very curious about the intersection of physics and spirituality more because, I am quite a spiritual person that is inquiring or exploring the nature of our reality, our physical reality, which in many instances I feel that the physical reality is lacking some explanations or some ways to capture what I can sense in the spiritual realm. And we do have a gap there because we can feel stuff. And most people when they talk about reality, they talk about the five senses and in our third dimension reality we can only capture that much through our hearing, our eyesight, smell, et cetera. But we are oftentimes discrediting the, I would say, the sixth sense of energy, consciousness, you know, the third eye, what we can feel, what we sometimes know to be true but don't have a way to prove it. or a way to use language.

And we're also competing against modern language. Right. Right. Because, like, terms that were made a long, long time ago. Yeah. The definition in modern times has shifted from what the original authors of certain words that we still use today. Correct. So it's almost like our words are kind of double spent.

It's original? Yeah, yeah. And then there's modernity meaning. Right. And so it's a struggle to understand when we talk to each other. Correct. words me part of the like what we wrote in the paper is like this is also a language problem and so it's it's an attempt to use bitcoin as like the shared language for us to begin to talk to as like

especially when you're going into the physics side it feels like the language around quantum physics is very monopolized and it's very abstract and most people can't relate to it so we can use bitcoin as more of a empirical form of language that we can also we all can look at and agree upon and see the mechanics and so that was like noted in in the paper that this is also serving as partially like a language project because we need to be able to communicate these ideas with people. And Bitcoin is ultimately a form of communication. Fantastic. I love it. Okay, so let's start with the paper. So the genesis of the paper, most Bitcoin research starts with economics or code, like the technology side of Bitcoin. Your starts with physics. What was the moment that you guys

realized that Bitcoin was saying something about the nature of time itself? So I think we both saw it from almost like opposite sides of the spectrum. And even though we do say physics, because we're trying to bring it to an empirical place, it's also obviously equally philosophy and a reinterpretation of what is our foundational philosophy. So you could say that I maybe try to apply a lot of questioning and philosophical rethinking. and then with Jack go back and forth on like how could we map that to the physics that we've inherited. And that became a long, long, many times over discussion of like what is Bitcoin, how is it true objectively valuable versus this subjective US dollar, you know, value. So we tried to really dig into understanding what is the direct relationship between energy and Bitcoin.

And that, I would say, is the foundation of our discussions is what's the relationship between energy, which, you know, seems to be everything. We are composed of energy. And then witnessing Bitcoin kind of be that. And then obviously there's other people in this space, Michael Saylor specifically, obviously came to public attention, really hitting the drumbeat that Bitcoin is digital energy for many years. I think that's shifted a little bit in recent times. but I think we need to revisit that and explore. If we're going to call it digital energy, what are we actually saying?

Do you want to add something? Because the next question is, what are we actually saying? Yeah, Michael Saylor was extremely influential on me. He was like the first person to really speak my language, so I have like a very math engineering background. So I see Bitcoin more from like the high level system

of like the whole system and looking at the mechanics of it. And so I inherently had this into. that it was energy and we're talking about Bitcoin as money. And so it's a pretty objective that energy has economics. And so we have a proof of work system that anchors Bitcoin energy. And we realize, oh, nobody has actually done the work to quantify the energy and understand it to that lens. We have like the hash side of things in terms of like the hash rate. But we said there's something more objective here that's going on. And just looking at Bitcoin, we see a like a physical process. and we're just trying to be like, okay, there's a physical process here.

Can we map any part of physics to this process going from energy to information as like a physical transformation that happens when it blocks? Yeah, like an isomorphism. So it's going from one state to the other. And we say, oh, so it's like going from energy to information. And like one of the things we were saying is like, well, if Bitcoin conserves our value as money, well, then it conserves energy. It conserves time, conserves information. So it's like those are some interesting words like the conservation of information. Like we really hear about the conservation of energy, not the conservation of information.

And so we had to kind of try to build a framework to put this all together and to just think about it differently from a different perspective. And I come from the side that talking about Bitcoin through the lens of Fiat is inherently destructive to the goal of Bitcoin. And so this was a inevitable process that needed to happen. and this is just the, we'll call it, the first, like, attempt to understand Bitcoin at a much higher level. And the complexity that can emerge from this understanding is seemingly limitless at the moment. She's kind of scary. So what does it mean for us? Yeah, overwhelming and really scary.

But, yeah, it's like, endless where we can go with this. And we're just, like, scratching the beginning of the surface. Yeah. So what does it mean? to have energy as the basis for everything when it comes to Bitcoin. I mean, number one, I think it gives us a completely different perception of what we think we're interacting with. And therefore, what is the intention behind our interactions with it? What do we think that we're interacting with?

Well, if it's energy, right? It's like you're interacting with energy in a specific medium that we'd never had before. Apparently it's preserved and you can transmit this anywhere to anyone. So is, is it more important to define it through the definition of legacy money that we've all inherited and that's what money is? Or, you know, does Bitcoin give us like fundamentally from the ground up new interpretation of what money truly is? Which is digital energy? Or a new interpretation of what energy is. Okay. Say more.

Well, even in just the term digital energy, I was even thinking consistently, perhaps we have a minimum. misunderstanding of what, like, digital reality is, right? Mm-hmm. We think of as this thing in our phone. Uh-huh, yep. But maybe digital, maybe that's not even the right word, like computational reality. Right, great. Yeah.

And I think of computation as, like, the empirical test of logical statements. And if our universe is intelligible, understandable, I think it needs to pass through the gate of computation to prove that it's logical that we can actually believe what we're telling each other is, like, true statements. I'm sorry, I do see Bitcoin as like an empirical test for logic itself. Oof, that's good. That's deep. On October 1st and 2nd, I'll be at the expert money summit. Join me if you're serious about building your plan B right now.

And if you're interested in the VIP ticket, to watch my panel, stick around to the end. As you may know, I've been a digital nomad for the past couple of years with the intention of finding my next home. That's exactly why this summit comes spot on for me in the middle of my own research process. I'll be speaking at a panel called escaping the technocratic trap. Where is your freedom safest? The summit theme is freedom is rising in Latin America, and it's all about the region's growing opportunities. Over the two days of the summit,

you learn about second residences, international real estate, offshore banking, asset protection, tax optimization, and global investing in Latin America, the summit is totally free, but you need to register in advance. The VIP ticket gives you access to unlimited replays and VIP-only panels. Head over to expatmoneysummit.com

and reserve your free ticket or use the code afrat for 30% off VIP ticket. Expatmoneysummit.com. Ever find yourself needing cash but refusing to sell your Bitcoin? That's real life for many bitcoinsers. Because most Bitcoin sales aren't financial decisions, they're liquidity decisions. And that's exactly what Leiden solves.

Leiden is the global leader in Bitcoin-backed lending. They've issued over $10 billion in loans since 2018 with a perfect track record for protecting client assets. Here's what makes Leiden different. With their custodied loans, your Bitcoin collateral is not lent out to generate interest. no credit checks, no monthly payments, and no penalties for early repayments. You apply in minutes and you repay whenever you want. Leiden also publishes proof of reserves reports every six months with full transparency.

So if your capital is in Bitcoin, but your expenses are not, you still have options. Leiden lets you unlock liquidity without selling your Bitcoin. Learn more at leighton.io slash efrat and get a quarter percent off. your first loan. That's L-E-D-N-I-O-S-E-Frat. It's all about the double-spend problem. Okay. I think this is like what most people kind of have missed upon what we're talking about. The double-spend problem is a mirror reflection of the measurement problem in physics,

which is just basically saying it's talking about the conservation of energy. And so if Bitcoin double spent, if there was a double spend in the chain, I would say Bitcoin's entire value proposition is done. And Bitcoin cannot conserve our value, time, energy, whatever you want to, whatever word suits with you. And so that's inherently a necessary problem to be solved. And I would say just look around where we are and look around what we're doing. Reality can be described as the peer-to-peer exchange of energy. And we have a model of physics that says energy or information can be in two states at once.

a la quantum. It can be in contradictory states. But then we live in this shared experience where that's inherently not true, where we as humans know the binary, where energies here or there can't be both. And so reality doesn't double spend. And if reality did double spend energy, you would break the conservation of energy. So now, how do we make sense of what you say reality doesn't have the double spend problem, but we know that. We know that. that in some realities, we can experience the quantum state. We can experience some things happening at the same time, some entities being in two places at the same time.

Like, I know of people that have those abilities. It exists. And that is very confusing. That is very wonky. Like, how can that coexist together with, like, the fact that what you said, if you are moving the energy to, another place it doesn't exist there anymore. So how can those two things coexist the same time?

Well, as a clear example, what would you give as an idea of being in like a superimposed state that you're kind of imagining? Like, is there any specific example? Well, it's going to sound very weird to a lot of people, but I am, I have experienced things like that in the past in which I feel like I have glitches in time. Like I can be here with you and all of a sudden be kind of transmuted somewhere else and experience myself being somewhere else, but I'm still here, but I'm there at the same time. I'm not dreaming. I'm not sleeping.

It can be in my waking state. That has happened to me, especially after I started, you know, taking mushrooms here. I don't do it on a regular basis, but it's as if something unlocked in my consciousness to enable experiences like that from time to time. And I don't know how to control it. I don't know to tell you when it happens, why it happens, but I can tell you I have experienced it. And to be even more weird or more interesting about that, I want time even experienced that together with my boyfriend at the time, that we were together. And then we both felt like we were somewhere else.

So we said to each other, do you see what I see? Do you feel what I feel? And he's like, yeah, wow, this is weird. like we're here, but we're not here, we're somewhere else, and then we were back in the same kitchen that we were. And we both had the exact same experience, and that was weird. Yeah. But that happens. I've had similar experiences. Okay, so is that a good answer? Is that when you were asking? Like, just getting a foundation, because again, it's really, like, you go to the cutting edge and it's like, just got to make sure you understand what the person is actually trying to tell you, right?

Maybe it's not what you're trying to get from me. No, but it helps. Okay. It helps. And like maybe one just high-level picture of that might be that it definitely necessitates trying to define the boundaries of what time is that we can agree upon. You know, like defining as an illusion or not an illusion. Obviously, there's people across the spectrum where we have these two big absolute buckets and there's something in between that people are kind of fall into. You know, and perhaps what you're describing is there's higher conscious state beyond your local reality. you're tapping into a previous time chain, right? That might be one. That is really what I think, yeah.

There you go, right? And so I think this is a way to ground the mechanical framework of kind of the boundary lines between you and this present state physically and where your, you know, conscious anchor is actually coming from. Right. Yeah, I use the word extantporal. What does that mean? That's Chinese for me. Like, not, like, you know the word extraterrestrial.

Yes, extraterrestrial outside this space. But we're saying outside of this time, meaning like the universe as being, thinking about the universe as like a ledgered time chain. And that's really where like the physics kind of came in is we had to start thinking about solving the physics problem of like, can we just make sense of the universe through a ledgerized structure to understand both the nature of time and energy? And so the only ledgerized structure that we have that is inherently related to time and energy is Bitcoin. So it's all about what is a block in Bitcoin. And so I would say it's a block of time. And the idea of, again, this term quantum, when he says a block in Bitcoin, you can think of it as like, it's literally the quantum of time for Bitcoin. The smallest, measurable quantity.

It's not only the smallest, it's the only measure of time in Bitcoin. There's only singular blocks. And so, like, it's the discrete change that the system goes to. And going back to the double spend problem, you need that block, the quantized measurement of this or that spent unspent, the binary. You have a mempool, right, which is your, call it your potential. And so with any UTXO, you can create 100 transactions that all contradict each other. Like, you could 100 times double spend that same. And none of them are real in the mempool.

Like, it's not real. We'll call it what physics is calling a pre-measured state. Okay. And so the bulls are real. block is the measurement process. Yep. And so that is inherently when a UTXO is being selected, you're selecting one valid chain of history that can work.

And if a double spend is in there, it's going to be rejected, right? And so you're coming down to like a binary chain of logic. And so you're looking at the collapse from potential to singular. But what's interesting about Bitcoin is that when something is unmind, like a transaction is unmind, it still exists in the mempool, right? But with Bitcoin, we're looking at what's in the block, what has been spent. And by knowing what has been spent, you know what has not been spent. So all those transactions in the MMPL that exist as potential, they exist as potential still,

but they are referential to their past unspent UTXO state, which is still a classical state. So it's existing as a superposed state, but it's inherently anchored to, to a classical state. And so I think this is what physics is missing in terms of an interpretation because you need that block. You need that boundary to solve the double spend problem. Like without that boundary of like this or that, how does a measurement ever become real? Like how does this is what physics can't answer is like what is a measurement?

How do we go from quantum to classical? What is the thing that does it? What's the mechanism? And looking at Bitcoin, it's saying it has to. to be the fundamental smallest tick of time is the thing that is both the measurement and the conserving substrate of the classical identity. So are you also saying that Bitcoin, the system represents both classical and quantum at the same time? And the transmutation between them? This is, yeah, and hence us trying to categorize there's two sides to the conversation.

There's like a yin and the yang, if you will. There's, you see it within the system. Interox themselves. And then there's what's happening outside the system that's the that influence, yeah, and influencing these solidified ticks of absolute time within its system. So to give like a little bit of context, like you have the boundary of time.

And we have the human experience, right? And so what quantum is inherently measuring is if this is the boundary, they're looking backward at that boundary. and they're seeing like the state collapse. So this is like the internal perspective. Like we live inside the universe. We live inside of time. And so we're looking at this boundary from the inside.

So we're looking kind of backwards at what's going on. And we can't see past that boundary. And then when Bitcoin flip the perspective, now we're on the other side of the boundary looking forward into time. So now you're looking at the process of collapse from a, you know, I call it a quantity. state to a singular binary state. So you're seeing the mechanics of how that's happening. So one is internal to the system, which is a lived human experience. And the other one is external to the system.

We don't exist inside of Bitcoin. We don't exist inside of the blocks of time. We exert our influence, our consciousness, our decisions is being put into it. And Bitcoin is preserving that in the classical state. So we're seeing the same mechanical process from the other side. So one is what like physicist would say it's ontological or like the true nature. And the other side is epistemological, which is knowledge. Exactly. No, I actually know ontological because of Fajin. So yeah. I'm reading his books. But it's really just giving dual a dual. I wouldn't know if I wouldn't read it. It's really giving us a dual perspective. We're now seeing both directions of energy coming in, energy leaving and a measurement that's occurring. And so now we can draw like the logical

mechanics of, oh, this is like how time must actually function logically for conservation to exist. And so that would really mean that we have to take that understanding of a block, and we have to map that onto the smallest unit of time that physics permits, which is when you get to the quantum level is the plank scale. And so it's like, can I just ask, like, from your reference, like, has plank scale ever popped up in conversation? No, and today I had to go check what plank scale is. And now I think I know. It's like the boundary, right? It's like the...

It's where our theory, our classical and quantum theories kind of intersect. Okay. They break down at that moment. They both break down at Plank scale. So what that really means is that at that smallest fundamental tick... We don't know what happens.

Right. And the meaning of time ceases to exist beyond that. And so what does that... That's what you have in your... I think it was in the paper. It's in the non... It's in like on your website, on your webpage. Yeah.

Yeah. And you show that, yeah. Yeah. And so. With the nonce in the middle. So just to give you like a little bit of like reference to that. So it's like you have the line where like the two sides intersect, right? Yeah. We'll put on screen right now that image as you speak.

The left side is like all the historical UTXOs spent unspent. You're seeing the entire binary lineage that led to this very present moment. And then the other side is all of the future potential which can exist at that very moment. And the intersection, which is, I would call the eternal present, which is the eternal present is really a boundary between the two places. And so, like, as a human experience, we're always, like, existing between the past and the future. But, like, we're always right there at the middle awaiting the next block. And so if you think about a block, there is no present block. Every block is a past referential state.

Like, there is no present block. Like, the second a block is mine is in the past. Exactly. And so it's an inherent. always looking backward to the past. And then the future is like a cone of possibility. And so this is like where you're getting your irreducibility and your irreversibility from, which is, yeah, we can we can map some probability of the mempool as to like what's going to be mine.

But ultimately we don't know because you can't predict consciousness. And so in Bitcoin, the consciousness exists outside of the system. and the conscious actor is is authorizing like the measurement basically. And so it can't be predicted from within. And it can't even be predicted from without either. It's because conscious is inherently unpredictable. And so I think that is where all irreducibility is coming from, which is we can only get it to some limit, like through fees and in understanding humans.

We can make these predictions. It's like this is this high transaction fee is likely going to get mine. because people want that Bitcoin, but we don't know. You don't know. Wow. I think we deceive ourselves into believing we can know for sure. And look at everything's a prediction market now, too. Yeah, yeah.

Now we can go there. No, we don't need to. But I think most of my intelligent viewers will understand how this is just part of the mentality of this world and the culture of this world to try and monetize on things we don't know. and sell it to people. Yeah, sell it to people as valid products. Yeah. And that's why I brought up earlier, like, before, you know,

maybe I think it was recorded, but the Eiching is an example of this is free for anybody to read. And it goes back to the... Okay, so let's stop. Say what Eaching is, show the book maybe, and then tell us. I mean, this will be new. Like, this is not in the paper, but this is definitely an influence on thought indirectly.

Yeah, this is the I Ching or Book of Changes. This is Nix domain, not mine. Uh-huh. No, I love this. And I also told you that Monica Bravo, my friend, shout-out, has introduced me to this concept. And, you know, Carl Jung is quoted here. She's a big student of his teachings. So please, yeah, tell us.

Yeah, no, just tying back to what you said right there, which is how everybody's trying to monetize, like, knowledge. and then you're dependent on deferring to somebody else for understanding to then act in the world. Like, your freedom of actually acting is dependent on what you think to be true about reality and where everything's going. And this is an ancient book. This is one of the oldest texts of all of human and civilization. And it seems to give foundational wisdom that is embedded into all of our modern understandings. But yet our modern understandings have forgotten to reference. back to this and talk about these oldest texts. And so it seems like in terms of causal history,

like modernity is just cutting off the history from the explanation itself, right? So there's like a breakdown. And then says, trust me, bro. I know. I'm an expert. Yeah, go on. And that's kind of where physics is. It's like the language is so monopolized. And they don't actually have an understanding of what happens at the smallest scale either because they can't measure it. And so you pick somebody off of the street and a physicist and both have a equal probability of coming up with something novel here. And so the only way to understand physics at the fundamental level is to reinstantiate the same process. And what do I mean by that? You need to recreate, re-compute time. And so that's what Bitcoin is doing that all the time, right?

And it's giving us the mechanics of one singular unit of time where what quantum, is really measuring, and our opinion is the... Well, quantum, like in, generally speaking, is what's called a background parameter. What is the equation? It's not the primary thing, you know? It's something that, again, with a continuous assumption of time that we use in our modern physics to make all of our other mathematics work,

it's just this constant. I believe it originates with Newton. but it in and of itself hasn't been proven. So it's just this universal coordinate system, if you will, where all of our equations live inside of this net instead of the net being literally part of the matter itself. So what we're trying to point to with the architecture of time is, you know, almost flipping your preconceived notion of like,

you know, we say it in the paper, but like the simple picture that we've tried to describe is, you know, we've inherited space time. Space is your first word and then time is appended to it. So it's almost like you emphasize space is the real thing and then you add the background parameter of time to your concept. What if it was just that, but just flip the emphasis. Time space.

It's time space, meaning everything is made out of time and from that it generates space, right? By the relationships of time is like these points in relationship to each other, which is kind of, in essence, what we believe to witness with the relationships between blocks and the UTXOs between blocks. Because to generate a present block, it's inferring and inferring. Got it.

And it's hard to grasp because it's all abstract and we cannot really see the blocks. And unless we're relating to the menpool and saying, okay, look at that visualization. But it's in cyberspace and we can't really see it. thought of, for instance, thinking, right? Like we talk about, you know, at the fundamental level, you have a particle and or a wave, right? But we're already, it's something we literally cannot see with our own eyes. Correct. But we're appending a physical material concept.

Right. To what it is. Uh-huh. And we've created this binary of a particle. Yes. This static thing. Yeah. Or a wave.

Yes. This flux thing. And it's like, what if it's, what if it's, what? What if it's something else? Yeah. What could we describe it as? And that's where we're trying to engage with. What if in your mind you could just replace the particle with the UTXO?

And imagine the UtexO in geometric terms is just a point. Yeah. In a graph. Right. A point in time and a point in, we'll call it like key space or memory of like where do the sats, like what key owns the sats? And so you can like begin to map that. And I think where it gets, it really breaks down is because it's kind of contradictory

to the human experience. We experience the flow and we experience space first more than time. And we experience the flow of time because, I mean, if you understand with the plank scale, there's 10 to the 43 or 10 of the 44 of these units in one singular second. So there's so many of these things in one second. And our most powerful measurement tools are roughly 10 to the negative 22. Yeah. You can imagine we say what's happening here, but in essence there's like more scales. of information theoretically missing

what's going on at the smallest and what our measurement is actually able to capture. Yeah, so what I was saying, like, Bitcoin is giving us the mechanics of one singular unit of time and how logic must, how the logic must operate for conservation to be upheld. And it's like literally the

smallest. You got energy, you got bits, and you got time. Like, it's the smallest components of each. The logic is literally at the minimum and the only necessary logic that you need. And then what quantum is really measuring, like in this world is now take those singular units, put them together in a chain and give it the flow. And so they're measuring like the fluid, the fluidity of time.

And so it's like when you look at one singular unit, you're going to see a particle. But when you measure it across a distance and if you're not looking at the smallest unit, you see a wave. You can build a wave from the blocks. And so it's like there is, there is no wave. the wave is animated by simply blocks, putting blocks together. And so that's like a big idea for people to chew on. And we're just saying it's like Bitcoin is not a theory of information. Bitcoin is not a theory of physics because it exists.

It's real. It's animated with energy. It's not a theory. It's a real. It is matter. And that's like that's kind of where the energy side of the discussion is really important. is like if we entertain that this information has energy, then by Einstein it has mass.

And if it has mass and it is energy, it's matter. And then therefore it has gravity. And so we're talking about something that's a physically real measurement that's occurring. And we're trying to understand it through a model of physics where Bitcoin is not a model. And if you if you kind of go to the limit of say, like logic or like, like, like girdles in completeness. We don't need to go deep into there. But it basically, you'll never solve physics with a theory.

A theory can never describe it because it needs to be the thing itself. It needs to explain the matter. It needs to be instantiated with the energy such that it's a self. Explanatory. Yes. Yeah. So are you saying that Bitcoin is essentially a truth about time? Like this is a way.

it's the proper interpretation. This is the way to prove time. Like Bitcoin can be a way to prove time to actually show us what time is and how time operates. Your The Voice is brought to you by Treasor, the original Bitcoin hardware wallet company pioneering the development of self-custody for crypto assets since 2013, empowering individuals with an open source device, enabling beginners and experts to easily and securely hold their corn. I find my treasure super easy to use and recommend it to my friends and family. Enjoy my 5% discount on Treasurer product by clicking the link in the show notes and using the code I want to introduce you to Abundant Mines because they take a very different approach to Bitcoin mining.

Most people buy Bitcoin but the smart ones mine it straight into self-custody. With abundant mines, you can do it without giving up your privacy. Abundant Mines was founded by Bo and Christine Marie Torre. Turner, a couple who lost more than half a million dollars to providers making empty promises. Instead of walking away, they build a company that raises the industry standard and puts client first, and that's why I like them. With abundant mines, you own your machines. They never touch your Bitcoin, never skim a revenue share, and you choose your own mining pool.

Their customer care is unusual. Clients speak to a real person for self-custody education, privacy consulting, and even visiting their site. They serve clients from around the world, but U.S. investors specifically enjoy a big tax benefit and 100% bonus depreciation. This is more than just mining Bitcoin. It's about freedom, privacy, and purpose.

You can book a free strategy call, see how it works, and mine some of your first Bitcoin for free with a special offer for my audience. Learn more on abundant mines.com slash efflust. You know, like, I mean, you said yourself, like, I think the consciousness component of the narrative reality, it really matters to you, right? And so is time real or not real? Perhaps, like, the question is more, is time the tool that consciousness uses to causally order its sense of what is? Yeah.

Well, you said the word truth, too, and I would say it's like more than the truth of time, It's like the capital T truth. Yeah. And like people call Bitcoin a truth machine. All it can do is tell you the truth. And so we all live like every single individual has their own truth, you know. But we've never had a shared substrate of truth that we can all look at and agree upon with consensus. And so Bitcoin is inherently something and completely novel.

It's computing truth. And that has always been something that's been. Always the same with it too is like. It's confuting the farthest form of the information we've never been experienced. Obviously, whenever we talk to each other, it's all information we're exchanging. But it's like in terms of a hierarchy, what would you say is like the hardest, most foundational, you know, information? Money? You can model your sense making out of, you know.

You said money. I'm asking. I don't know. Well, I would agree. It is money. But I think our model or our definition of money is still incomplete. Like we think we understand what money is, but money must solely be defined by Bitcoin. Like, let's just say we've never had true perfect money until Bitcoin.

So we've never had money. It's only an approximation of call it behaviors or nature. Everyone's pulling specific parts, but only Bitcoin can natively define it. And one key feature of Bitcoin is eternal memory. Like the money must, the memory of everything must be remembered. And if it's forgotten, it breaks the entire chain. Like, if you pull one block out of Bitcoin, the whole system breaks. So you need eternal preservation of the entire chain.

Which ties back to just simply like, what was the white paper about, right? It was about solving the double spend problem. And that's an answer, a new way to articulate what is necessary to solve the double spend problem, which allows us to have a deeper understanding of what the white paper was even telling all of us. Most people didn't get it. I would say most people who got, like, saw something in it, didn't see the full picture. And I think it's all of us collectively reasset. Like, I think as we describe Bitcoin is perfect money, we just like kind of stopped there.

And it's like, yep. And you're attempting to explain why it is perfect. This would also be an explanation of trying to just better understand what the original white paper was trying to articulate. But it was using, obviously, encryption and computation. theory to as a first stab at explaining what this is to generate Bitcoin, aka, solve the double spend problem. Do you think Satoshi would have known to explain it in any other way, even if it was not written in the paper?

Well, I think... Just a funny question. Just to predict. Yeah, of course. I think he, my opinion is I leave it open-ended to continue the discussions and hear it from everybody because I think everybody's perception with the right like if they're authentic yeah like I think everybody's interpretation matters yeah this is a sure this is one interpretation but they should all of the interpretations they might be said differently but they should reach consensus and like

we are all seeing some unspeakable phenomena for what it is and it's more like a feeling of gravity this is the truest thing I could understand yeah like what took your attention to bitcoin and I would say it's like well if it's energy it has gravity and it's like We're talking about information. So it's like that's inherently like contradictory to what we know of the physics kind of. It's like we're talking about something that's purely informational, but it's like pulling our minds and our consciousness in our energy, our time is being pulled into it. And it's like we're not here on like we're here on purpose.

You know what I'm saying? And so like I want to bring it back to consciousness a little bit. Okay. So this is something that like, do it? For sure. Why not? So, you know, Gigi. Gigi wrote the article, Bitcoin is time, right?

And he used the term, and other people have used it. I'm not sure if he was the first one. He said, you know, map is the territory. Map equals territory. And so if you look at Bitcoin, what is it preserving? You're taking consciousness from outside the ledger. So think about the ledger as like a closed bounded system. Call it maybe a universe, maybe.

The closed bounded thermodynamic system. Yeah, like ledger. And so the consciousness exists outside of it. And we exert influence into it. And we're manipulating the substrate, the UTXOs and the value within it. And so Bitcoin is preserving our intention or our preference and the action. So the transaction. And so Bitcoin's preserving that.

So what is the map in the territory if it's a. Blueprint. It's a blueprint of our consciousness and our intention. But what does that mean? It means authorship precedes time. And so if we exist. time our authorship or like what's animating us that higher self or that like whatever you want to call it god higher self would be must be animating us from outside of time the chain is fully

written from outside and so like there there's the whole um you know in physics they believe the measurement occurs from us by observing these particles and like i would say if you want to give you want to look at bitcoin to see the absurdity of that statement it. That's like saying a UTXO inside of Bitcoin is what's mining the block. We know that the work, the authority, the consciousness, and the will to solve that block is purely external or extratemporal to the chain. And so we're just taking like that, like the mechanics of Bitcoin and we're just saying, okay, take that and just map it backwards onto our universe and say, okay, we live inside of some ledgerized system of pure to pure exchange of energy and something's

animating us and we are inherently reflections or the binary conservation of consciousness from the other side and it's animating us. It's a lot in there. It's beautiful. No, it's great. No, it's great. What do you want to add? No, in terms of like a blueprint?

Yes. Yeah. But like the idea of the. map is the territory is like one of the main memes right and so it becomes this kind of like i think to fully grasp it you need to understand both like so what would be the opposite of a blueprint right would it be the architecture right like the architecture needs a blueprint but the blueprint is an approximation if there's no real architecture so it's like what about a machine that's the convergence of both the blueprint is embedded in it and it's self-generating itself, right?

You know, you're talking about authorship. I'm not sure that manipulation is exactly the right word. I think we're in, you can interact with it. We can interact with. We're like stewards of Bitcoin. Yeah. That's based on our free will. Yeah. Right. Right. So we have the choice to interact. Absolutely. And, you know, yeah. That has an impact on, I would say, how, the chain is used and therefore how it will develop over time and therefore how it will influence collective consciousness. And I would also, I would say, well, if the authorship kind of is from outside the chain, then that free will choice is the nature of that free will choice is from something higher as well. And that's what brings me back to what Jeff and I spoke about at the fireside chat and what

Jeff always says. Is that Bitcoin's future will be determined based on our actions and our choices and intentions, if we choose to put our time and energy into that system, instead of continuing the same old that we've been doing, that will dictate a very different result of what Bitcoin will look like in the future. And that also brings me to the point of significance or meaning, do we matter? Do our actions mean? Do our actions mean? anything, right? And many people think that, you know, I'm just a drop in the ocean. What I do is not going to impact Bitcoin like you think about this big system, how my actions can actually, but that's the thing. Your actions and all of our actions, the collective consciousness,

is what is going to determine how this thing is going to shape up. And that's why it makes so much sense and so much significance to discover who you are and then act on your purpose or your calling because if you want to see the world in a certain way, just by virtue of shifting your attention

and consciousness there, that will change already reality. Reality will look very different if you're a participant in this system in a different way. Right. So, yeah. Would you say that this also like Bitcoin, I mean, people

say, right? Like, Bitcoin is a mirror. Yeah, a reflection of, yeah, for sure. So the more we engage with Trump, it's almost like trying not to use it as an objective tool to influence the external reality, but to truly understand it is influencing your internal reality. So that's where the lens comes from. So now it's like, it's kind of like it has that feedback loop to the side that you're describing, right? But it's also an introspect mechanism. It's a lens for the mind. It's like if it has a feedback loop, you know, like, yeah, I'm incomplete. My understanding is incomplete. Yeah. But it's through understanding this more fundamental logic that it allows me to not get appended to lesser models of how reality works, right? Like, this is kind of like

refining my grounding and anchor of what must hold true no matter what impairment I happen to be perceive him. Like what holds constant and true no matter where I am in reality? What is the fundamental logic that always must remain true? And so I think that the more we study Bitcoin, the more it kind of collectively reveals it to us. Beautiful. I don't even know if my questions are relevant. So you argue that physics has always treated time as a given, something we study from inside. How does Bitcoin let us step outside of that? What does a block actually give? us that a clock doesn't? The block gives us the mechanics of... Fong is approximation. Okay. You can explain that. Yeah. Yeah. The block gives us the

like the singular temporal mechanics of solving the double spend problem, aka conservation itself. And so that is inherently, the block is indivisible. Like you can't, in a simple term, there's no half of a confirmation. You either have a full confirmation and you don't. And so inherently, thing is indivisible. Like there is no meaning of time beneath the block. And so that is inherently against what physics currently believes, which is continuous time. And that really just means that time is infinitely divisible. And so we've, the model of continuous time works really well when you're talking about over like a vast number of these blocks. But when you're, when you're trying to get down to that fundamental smallest understanding, you can't use continuous time because at some point,

you must hit that boundary at which everything changes. And so what this really means is discrete time means discrete superposition, which means the measurement must be occurring at the smallest fundamental unit of time. And that superposition exists as potential between those ticks. And so this is exactly what Bitcoin is showing us in the mempool. But it's the opposite side of that temporal boundary. So it's the external perspective. So like if you if you really dig into like the measurement problem and what physics is asking for, they're like, we need to see the reality, our reality from God's perspective.

We need to see it all of it. And then it will make sense. And it's like, well, logically, that's never going to happen. But we can reinstatiate that same perspective by creating a new bounded system. And so physics has never had 21 million before. They've never actually had something truly finite and bounded. And so now this is like a point of. reference a closed system that we see all, you know, all 21 million. So we see in Bitcoin,

we see Genesis. We have a verifiable anchor of like where the system began. Genesis. And you see all the way up to the present. You see all 2.1 quadrillion bits, sats of value. I call them bits. I like to think of them as like each Satoshi is like a little dot. And you can think of them as being clumped into bigger systems of one UTXO, but like ultimately there's 2.1 quadrillion of them and we see the entire history of when they came into being and when they will come into being. But then we see also all the states of everything leading up to that present moment. Like you see the history of everything. And so that's what physics is asking for for our universe, but it's like you can get the same understanding through Bitcoin. You have the same

mechanical process of looking at a totality from the outside and being able to see the measurement process occur. And then when you realize it's like, oh, well, we're actually authors of this system as well. So now it's like, rather than being animated by it, we are animating it. We are now injecting our will and our desires into Bitcoin. And in my opinion, like, we are the creators of the ledger. Like, we're actively writing it. And so, co-creators, right? So if you believe in God, like, God is speaking us into existence, and therefore he's helping us speak Bitcoin into existence through us, right?

And that's a pretty crazy process. It's like, could this be what a universe looks like from the outside in terms of, well, it's like, if you're looking at a universe, you're not inside of it, so we could throw out the idea that it might not be physical. It would be more of, like, informational. Well, let's just crown it for a second, because no matter what, the whole point is the tools that we have to. access to in terms of technology. They give us a resolution on observation and then we make our measurement

of what we observe. But there's so much information missing in total terms that to your point of what is real or not real, you're still dealing with not matter. You're dealing with an information of a snap setup. So no matter what, in science, we're dealing with information. It's all information. So it's all information. So this is a conversation about what is the nature of information? Because in science, at the cutting edge, at the theoretical limit we're pushing on, it's just information that we're getting snapshots up. And we're inferring it from energy signals.

And we're interpreting those energy signals as describing new forms of matter. So we're trying to pull it back and be like, regardless of the matter, what is this information objectively? And what is the logic required to know that the information is real, not an aberration of your device that, you know, is making the measurement? Like a clock. Like a clock, right? An expiration of time. That obviously, we know gets out of whack with the larger scale of time.

And hence, we need to error correct it. So it's funny that we do have error correction for our... Yeah, and like I said, like... It's a proof, right? That it's not a good or real. measurement? It's an approximate. It's an approximer.

We obviously do our best to approximate reality, but an approximation is not the same thing as reality. Do you think that one day we will be measuring time based on Bitcoin and not on clocks like we do today? I think measuring on clocks is extremely important for coordination. I don't really know. I think it will be like a mixture of both. Okay.

In terms of like thinking in the future, I think the only way to, like, it won't be in human physical time, but it'll be in like block time. So it's like the idea we can we can project transactions into the future deterministically at a specific, not a specific moment in time, but a specific block in time. And so it inherently changes the way we think about the human physical time of like the seconds, which coordinates us, you know, here and now. And then Bitcoin is a different point of time. It's a different reference of time. Yeah. We're so early, obviously. Oh, you are so early. I love that. But ironically, I would just tie it back to thinking through this is one of our oldest scripts.

Yeah. And saying, if you actually review what it is, even though it's a mathematical framework, it's for what? And it's, this is a framework of observing time. And so I'd say in our Western scientific framework, we really tackled matter and energy and getting a sense of that to predict reality, to further control matter. matter. Whereas I'd say, you know, there's another way to think about it where this is a a model of how to perceive time. And again, what is time? It's obviously causal change. And so when you're trying to make predictions about the future, what model are you using to predicts and in what

time frame, like how far out into the future. I think we're also living through, uh, obviously like inflation when we talk about money, but you know, the inflation of information and the inflation of models to basically tell you how the world works. Bitcoin is not a model. It's here. Yeah, when that's happening, I mean, what asymmetric information as an individual do you have over these centralized giant computer systems that are learning from you and me? Maybe that's why Bitcoin is so exciting to so many because it's like the first time we can

look at a system and say it's here and it's working and it's truth. And I would just argue. And it's not a model. And we are basing so much of what we do in the world today on models. Exactly. Climate. Also, Bitcoin's not broken. Right.

It works. Right now. And so it's like we don't need to change it. Every single block mind is an empirical measurement. Right. So we can say like this is not, you have improved in this, but it's like every single block is an empirical measurement. Right.

So yeah. Okay. Every single one accumulates. It will never reach 100% proof. This is just a belief. Right. Right. Well, one thing that's interesting, too, is like, you know, the word matter and matters is kind of interesting.

So Bitcoin is really in the measurement process and through like the call it the proof of work filter, it's taking what matters. Yes. So what matters to somebody? What are they willing to spend their sat side? How much are they willing to pay? All of that. What matters? and then compressing it down to what is matter.

Yes. And so what does that mean? Like, it's going from what is to what is like matter definitively within the system now, within the chain, because that new UTXO output that's created is inherently the matter of the system now. So you're going from like preference of what matters to like matter. And it's the same word. But it's just going across that measurement boundary. What you say or perceive that kind of the way that,

institutions are currently set up is they kind of build a moat and so for instance scientific reasoning kind of isolates one half from the other so some people talk about things that matter as a qualia and then others talk about matters if it's just these quantities that you can manipulate and right now it's almost like over our history and now we live in modernity we've reached this like percent crescendo or extreme split where it's like one or one or the other and I don't believe the opposite but I think again what thick one helps us understand is how they can have both yeah beautifully said the east the east west of energy time it's like yeah that's why we were like you can't separate you can't separate the energy from the time they're

they're fundamentally different they're opposite sides of the same coin I think that's what's beautiful I think that's what's hard to understand here that I think can get simplified but again yes it comes down to right now most of us talk about matter and energy is different phenomena right and we need to study them separately right and once we've studied them you're saying they're a complete understanding bitcoin puts them together beautiful it's so beautiful to to understand yeah it's it's beautiful it's great i love it okay why do you think it's it's so interesting to bring someone like phogee into this conversation because i think he intuitively understands the same thing you know right He doesn't see as it had the time.

I mean. Or the system. He's trying to explain it through a model rather than something we can point to as in pure system. I think he's trying very hard to explain it through his lived experience of the spiritual experience he had. What's even crazier is like with Bitcoin. Which is beautiful. We're taking his microprocessor. You can help him like.

With Bitcoin, we're literally taking his microprocessor and doing a specific function of work. Right. Specific. And it's literally producing the system. that he's inherently trying to understand with his very invention. Isn't it beautiful? It's crazy. And we want to see it while he's still with us.

Yes, exactly. Because that man deserves it. We're just looking for any physicist who's willing to entertain. Like willing to just suspend your disbelief. Right. And he is. Yeah. And there are not many, right?

We tried to talk to one and we don't know. We don't know how, like, it's a work in progress. Okay. What's the most common mistake? physicists make when they encounter Bitcoin for the first time? I mean, one, okay. Many give us all of them. I try to condense it down to solve the double spend problem.

It doesn't live purely in the realm of a computer system. The only way we've ever proven to solve it is by how it interacts with real world energy through the proof of work, mining crosses. Right, right. So it's not isolated. It's literally intersects with our physical reality. And they think it could be just a one. Thermologic.

Yeah. Right. That's the thing that we've tried to emphasize coining to bridge back to the old world of understanding. Okay. This is there's thermodynamics, but what is dynamics, right? What is that dynamics that we're, yes. So we're going to thermologic. So it's like you have the logic underneath the heat.

Well, it's not only that, but it's the mechanism of what proof of work really is. So you have like the heat and the heat and the heat. energy signature of the energy and then the logic is you must solve the non-sat the below the difficulty thresholds yes yeah and so that's like your logic gate is the difficulty and then the heat is like the non-space in the hashing of the non-staceous both itself so that's the thermo that's the logic when they come together and it passes the gate it equals chronologic it's like a one-to-one map now so now you're going from instead of energy it's like you're going to now information. And so this information is conserved and it's inherently related to energy.

Yes. And so now we're like drawing a map from energy to information. I don't know if you listen to Peter McCormick's podcast at all. He had a physicist, Melvin Vopson. I did not listen to that. And they're, you know, they're getting into simulation theory. A lot of modernities getting out in the simulation theory and we would just want to pull it back. It's like proof of stake is simulation. proof of work is computation. It's computation theory. And we already have the computation. It's called Bitcoin. We're just waiting for people to come and observe Bitcoin for what it is. Bitcoiners are waiting. Like we are all waiting for, you know, this moment of us to understand it. And we're wait, you know, at least we're like hoping somebody can take the torch from us and speak it in ways that we can't. Well, I think you're speaking it beautifully. I don't think you need to give the torch to anyone else. You keep just doing what you're doing. You just keep practicing.

You're doing a good job. You know, talking with people at camp and getting more face-to-face and then just having more appearances, it's kind of helped us dial it back a little bit in terms of like trying not to get too far out there. But then the longer form, like Vegas, like we just got thrown into such a crazy chaotic thing. And it's like 20 minutes to talk about the craziest thing, aka Bitcoin. And it's like, and then they're taking small little sound bites of us with no kind of. of how we even got to this. I know.

I know. We're tasked to talk about the endgame conclusion. I apologize in the name of modern media. Yeah. And so it is what it is. The longer form. But then, but then people get to know you. Exactly.

And they want to talk to you. Authentistic. Yes. Yeah. These are the conversations I need to be had. And so we're slowly just learning. Like, we're learning by failure. Yeah.

That's the only way to do it. Well, I think you're learning by success. It's all divinely designed. I really, if I really, if I'm, I can give you one thing is this is part of your journey. This is part of the process. You need to go through these different experiences. Yeah.

Like we're, yeah. Yeah. Of course. But specifically with the work that you guys are trying to put out there or not trying, you are putting out there, this is the way the world is going to become aware of you. And you need to let every opportunity have its moment, have its presence, so that people will know who you are and what you're putting out there, getting more curious.

And hopefully with the amount of knowledge and understanding that you guys have that most people don't, you'll be able to breach that gap and explain this to more and more people. So this is why we're doing this. It's all divinely designed. There shouldn't be any other way. Yeah, no coincidences. Yeah. You know, when you get into the realm of synchronicity and manifestation,

it's like Bitcoin gives you the architecture of why that's true. Yes. Okay, Bitcoin has meaning, not just math. Fajin's critique of materialism is that classical machines can process syntax perfectly but generate no new meaning because meaning requires consciousness and free will. You write that Bitcoin may be more than money. Is there a sense in which Bitcoin encodes something that can't be reduced to its algorithm? Yeah, I mean, he described it earlier indirectly to like that state.

Okay. But when he tried to describe on the outside of Bitcoin's computationally bounded system, there's obviously conscious intention that's generating the UTIF. So you can't control all these individual quantized conscious choices that are getting injected into the mempool waiting to be ordered by whoever guesses the right block. Yes. Right? Yes. So there's no algorithm that will allow you to predict the whole crystallized final timestamp.

Yes. I love that Bitcoin is like this convergence between human and machine. And I think, yeah, it's something that. Without the human action and intention, there will be no Bitcoin. Yeah, you said something earlier. So we'll just sit there idle, right? Yeah, no one to do the world. I mean, unless we just have agents transacting on stats, that that is a possibility.

but then it's not human anymore. I mean, and those agents will originally have to be activated by humans. So there is the human element, right? Crazy tangent to go on. We can get into it. That's one hour there. No, I want to decide something that's simpler, which is related to meaning, you say.

And like a lot of people today, like, you're a drop in the ocean. Like, what is your meaning here? but I think this intersection that you're talking, we're talking about is if that's the case, I think it's actually pretty clear to have an interpretation where clearly you're actually at the center of the entire process. 100% yes.

Like you are directly tied to the mechanism. Like your consciousness as equal to this machine. Yeah. As the machine itself. Yeah. I do think that's what Bitcoin is clearly pointing to, which completely goes against modernity's scientific worldview, which is we're just this. Yeah. In the great microcosm, Earth is not the center of the universe. The mechanistic worldview, the materialistic worldview that will take us eventually to transhumanism.

Yeah. We are man and machine together. No, we're not. Okay. Bitcoin may be, but not us. We talked about the observer problem. Fijin writes that quantum physics has no observers, only actors, and you talked about it. The observer as the observer of a quantum system cannot observe without drastically disturbing what he observes. And then he says that's why these are actors, not observers. Bitcoin's proof of work is similarly participatory. You can't verify the chain without engaging the chain.

Do you see any connection between Bitcoin's architecture and the question of conscious agency in physical systems? I think we did answer that. Yeah. Just to add maybe a little bit more context. So I like to separate the two words here, observer and measurement. They're different. Okay. So in Bitcoin, the measurement is the mining process.

Okay. So that is the measurement. And so observation in Bitcoin can only occur after the measurement has occurred. Measurement is mining and observation is verification. So that's what the nodes do. The nodes verify. The nodes observe. Yes.

But they don't measure. The mining is what is performing the measurement. So two separate things. So you can only observe something that's already been measured. And it's not the observation is not the measurement. They're two distinct things in Bitcoin. Okay. Which is different to other systems or to the way?

I think that's actually giving the mechanism of what is going on physically. which means the measurement that physics is trying to understand occurs outside of our universe. And we are simply observers of the measurement. We verify what has been measured. We don't do the measurement. Okay. And that goes against what quantum physics thinks right now. Okay.

Interesting. And so we're not talking about a model. We're talking about a literal empirical instantiation of energy. and like we can get into like you know what this all means for quantum and what this means for for bitcoin because like once you have a kind of like that whole logic then we can begin to talk about like okay what's the end game of all of this like what are the conclusions that we can begin to make and so discrete time breaks quantum physics quantizing it's ironic that quantizing time breaks the quantum physics and so there are physicists

who have obviously understood this Fijin I would assume is one of them, Wolfram is another where they're going to discrete to understand and so it's just ironic that something that's supposed to quantize everything when you do it to time it breaks the model

and so that inherently once time is discrete it changes the nature of superposition because now you're talking about a discrete process rather than a continuous unitary evolution and so without getting too deep everyone can kind of do their own research on to like how that would maybe change what a quantum computer can be and so i take yeah the quantum threat right and and that's what we're we're told to to go and talk about at Vegas you know that was kind of like what we're without getting to nangea and none of none of his work was inspired by wanting to give an answer to any of that.

I understand. So it was simply an exploratory conversation of trying to deal with what is the relationship between Bitcoin and Satoshi's that, you know, people are beginning to describe as digital energy and physical energy because we know that this proof of work mining process is literally extracting energy to create this and conserve it. Yes. And it's only through going back and forth on the relationship between these two domains, physical and digital or immaterial,

conceptual, computational, computational, informational. There's so many words for it. Yes. So to finish it, if the nature of superposition has changed, then the entire prospect of, we'll call it centralized quantum computing,

is inherently falsified. And so then it's like, well, they're building something, what are they building? And it's like they don't understand what they're building. Because they don't understand the model, because their model has inherent flaws in it. They're building on top of a flaw in the model,

which is the incorrect architecture of time. Okay. So if that's true that this architecture is the correct one, then that would mean that Bitcoin is the quantum computer. It's computing blocks of time. It's computing the state. It's performing the measurement. It's, you know, like Fijin says the universe is a quantum computer.

Well, like, what does that mean? It's like, it's the thing writing the block. So it's like Bitcoin is obviously that. but we know that the miners are a subset of Bitcoin and they exist outside of the ledger, but they're the ones doing the measurement and doing the work. So for layman, in layman terms, most people when they think of quantum computer, they think about a super fast computer that can do computation. Centralize in a lab.

Yes. And they say, and they get like like powers, right? Okay. It's going to, you know, solve everything. But it's inherently going to be centralized and. Google's lab. Yes. It's like Bitcoin is saying no.

Their model is wrong. It's decentralized and it's open for anybody to use. And it's simply that we don't understand Bitcoin. So quantum computer is not about the speed in which it can work or the velocity of information it can handle. It's just, it's about the structure of time. I'm asking as a complete idiot, just trying to understand. The computation that they want to perform. never be allowed because of thermodynamics and because of the architecture of time.

And so what they're trying to build is a fundamentally flawed system to begin when. Wow. And so the quantum threat in that case, well, it's like if Bitcoin is truly the interpretation of what a quantum computer is, then we need to, and this is the correct architecture, then we need to take the people trying to change Bitcoin's code and upgrade it for quantum as a threat to Bitcoin. They're telling you that Bitcoin's broken. Remember, Bitcoin works.

But Bitcoin, you're saying is that? They need to convince you that it's going to be broken in the future. And the physics and the architecture of time is inherently saying something about the true nature of what a private key is. And the true nature of a private key is it's bounded by physical law. It's like you can't take that. You can't take it from me. Right. And the only way they can do it is by changing the encryption and changing the code.

So it's a big fun? I think once we get past the quantum flood and realize that Bitcoin's the quantum computer, it's over. Let's go. There's nothing left. What does Nikon add to it? Is he sitting there thinking? I don't add to it.

It's just obviously, it's just going through the final boss. And it's like... What do you mean going through the final boss? Well, quantum versus quantum as we collectively, you know, cultural Zika, guys talk about it and what it's going to it's capabilities for our future yeah and bitcoin and so these are obviously intersecting as different narratives about what our life our world looks like and obviously just like i you know they can look at bitcoin as a completely inverse technology to our current perceptions that are tempting us and to believe we're going to have these superpowers to control

and manipulate matter i think that's like the promise of these these tools that are so tempting and desirable because then we believe we're in control of reality. And I think that Bitcoin is painting not just a different picture, but an inverse picture to that. So to fully grasp this one, you must understand its opposite. And if you don't want to hear or listen to both, like I'm not here to destroy this interpretation.

Yeah. But I am here to give an alternative reflection. Yeah. that might not align with where all the money is being cloud into to keep it going. Where the Fiat incentives are coming from and what you're allowed to study and what you're not allowed to study, you know. It was just, I think there are also simpler ways to get to the same end conclusion. Okay.

But like we said, we like what? Have tools that allows us to measure to a specific resolution. And then we have theories that allow us to infer. to a specific resolution. So we gave, you know, two boundary conditions of empirical boundary condition, 10 to the negative 22, and then theoretical boundary condition 10 to the negative 43 to negative 45, depending on what we're talking about plank length or plank time. There's a massive separation between what we can empirically know and what we can theoretically prove. Because of that, when it comes to quantum, I've witnessed it, but over the past 20,

years, a proliferation of interpretations. So there are institutions that have a specific interpretation of quantum that they're working towards try to figure out how to test and make real. But there is no test that they can come up with to further probe the theory and this limit. Because of that, there are other people who are coming up with different interpretations. So if there's a proliferation of interpretations, you're not getting to a consensus of what is actually happening at quantum. You're getting decoherence of actually us interpreting what is objectively happening at quantum. Yeah.

So how does that stop if Fiat money is funding all of these different interpretations? That means the money is dividing up to prop up different interpretations. And the money is inherently losing its energy at the same time. Like here's just a quick point. A piece of paper cannot conserve energy. So therefore a piece of paper can't conserve energy. So therefore a piece of paper cannot explain Bitcoin. Okay.

Fiat currency cannot conserve energy. If we're talking about a system of energy and time and conservation, then it has literally zero explanatory power of what Bitcoin is. Okay. Regardless of the Fiat price, the whole point is it's not just an inflation of the dollars. It's also an inflation of the possible theories. Now there's all of us as individual states of consciousness, is taking in one of those interpretations.

Yes. But you have a different interpretation of quantum. We have no universal way to tests that my interpretation or your interpretation are the same thing. So it's trying to bring Bitcoin into the conversation and be like, this is a way to test and get to a unified kind of agreement over time. But regardless of doing that, two things will play out. Bitcoin will continue to produce blocks, therefore gain empirical. you know, evidence for its instantiation of truth. And quantum interpretations will continue to proliferate with the devalument of our current currency.

Yes. Because of that, you have these two opposite forces acting on an outcome where Bitcoin doesn't need to prove itself. It just needs to continue to produce blocks. Bitcoin is the proof. It doesn't need to prove itself. Yes. Yes. So I think those are objective statements.

I don't think those are interpretations about reality. I think that's what we're witnessing here. And now it's bringing them into one conversation. If that's the case, then actually over time, Bitcoin's quantum interpretation that people might adopt will gain strength with every single block produced. Whereas people's current interpretation of quantum as we're inheriting it academically. Yeah. Well, we can over time because, again, they just, we cannot produce an impertable test for the mathematical abstractions.

Got it. Fascinating. We hope that kind of makes it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. For me, it does. I hope that also for our audience. And really, I encourage people, if they got so far with us in this conversation, please write to us in the comments. If you have other questions, more questions, or feedback, or, you know, there are some things.

that have been said here that you want to understand better. And maybe we can do another session just about those things. What are some of the things that you feel that in this conversation now we need to cover, we haven't covered? Is there anything that is acute that is really important that should be said for the scope of this conversation? We can do more in the future. I would love to do more. It's not about things that we need to cover. It's more just like a message to the process.

plebs like we need help in what way we need more people to take the to take what we have and either fork it or build on top of it and continue to mine additional information like we've given a structure and it's the first attempt think of it as like a a new domain of physics of like there's something here that we can measure about bitcoin and we haven't yet mined the knowledge yet and so by applying the equations and beginning to look at the chain we can inherently generate new forms of data associated with the blockchain. So what kind of help practically do you need? What smart mathematicians to look at this and do something?

Tell me really impractical terms. It's maybe another way to say it is if there ends up being a domain, a system, that's actually the intersection of multiple domains, then experts who only exist in one, how can they in good faith engage with something that might relate to but exist outside of their standard subject matter, right? So Bitcoin has a subject matter. And that's why I consistently go back to the double spend problem

is not purely a computational problem, but also a physics-based problem. But if we can't articulate that to make that clear to a physicist, well, then their expertise that they could apply to helping us further refine our understanding of Bitcoin, why would they, right? Mm-hmm. And so that's not just physics.

mathematics, information theory. Yep. So I've got like, just by you speaking this off the top of my head, at least three people I know that can jump this wagon and help. Dr. Jessica Rose, Brian Hirschfeld and Natalie Maislitz, they're all, she's a data analyst, mathematician, mathematician. They're all Bitcorners, like, shout out to them. And they're all like understanding some of this to a,

certain capacities. What? So do you need these people to step up and say, yeah, we're, we can work with you. Like, let's, let's put a study group together and do stuff. Like, I'm really trying to break it down to like practical terms. I think we just need more people to come verify the equations and see if they agree with the equations that we put out. And it's like if they don't agree, how can we change them and refine them to the more

truthful interpretation or like the proper interpretation? Because right now, like, we put out these equations. and like maybe one or two people have even commented on them. I got it. Okay. That's very good. It can't be centralized around us. Like consensus needs to begin to build outward.

And so we need more people to be like, yeah, this math kind of makes sense. And I see it through this way. Like, and then let's talk about it. Okay. Like even if you can correct us, that's good for Bitcoin. Of course. Of course. I mean, I wish every scientist out there these days would ask for that kind of collaboration.

and participation, scientists have stopped doing science. They're doing more compliance than science. I would say based on my experience as well, not just in academia, but trying to explore communities of people. And so also philosophers or philosophers entitled. Yes.

Like self-stated philosophers. The actual engagement of conversation, again, as an n-equals one of just going and conversing with people, it doesn't seem like people are actually doing philosophy. It seems like they're regurgitating things they learned in a philosophy class or from a philosopher from the past. Okay. And they're just restating things without actually,

if we think of philosophy more is the idea of how to generate questions authentically versus giving answers. Like the stupid questions I generated during this? No, no, they're not stupid. Okay, okay. But is that an exact? example, because I have generated questions and I have not studied philosophy ever. I'm just curious. And that's why I don't really think that philosophy is really that much of an actual study.

You can learn about the history of like philosophical kind of like frameworks. But once you solidify yourself into one, how is that any different than just being an ideologists? You've decided to embed yourself in that. So I'm more saying that I think that philosophy is the willingness to be an open book. and entertain an opposite worldview and then ask questions of how would that be a plausible reality even though it doesn't map currently to my sense of true things. So I don't think it's just physics.

I think it's, you know, I'm not sure a lot of people are really engaging with real philosophy as a process, as an action. Okay. It's not a subject matter. It's more of a way of conversing and exploring. I understand. like I said, Bitcoin is like the truth machine. And so we, we need to append our philosophy to truth. Like, yeah, reality is inherently a truthful system. Like, we exist inside truth. But we've never

had a shared referential point, nor like any object and logic to think through. And so we're, we're really saying, like, Bitcoin gives us the science of philosophy. It's like the, it's in, like, you know, it's the idea of like instead of the philosophy of science, it's the science of philosophy. So it's giving us something beneath philosophy now as this is the bedrock of truth. Now all questions must pass through this lens of thought. And are we grounding our thoughts to a truthful, how truth actually emerges into the world as time? Fantastic. Yeah. Beautiful. Website to read that and engage with you guys. Bitcoin lens.com.com. LLM. Like it's a hard ask in reflection like feedback reflection

imagine asking somebody to read 220 pages of something that's a hard move so it's hard if you do that here's the one we talked about yes that's it that is okay I was so happy when I when we came up with that image it was like I remember like

almost the high space collapses into the mempool probabilistic future I love it and this is all Chinese to me but yeah that's what I was going to say yeah like we have to live with AI, drop it in your LLM, and just, you know, engage it with something to the nature of, assume this to be true, what would be the implications? And then just probe it from there from your own angle. Yep.

You know, and then. And engage with you guys. So where should people follow you? Yeah, BitcoinLens.net is their website. Yes. We're Noster only. Yes. Even though there's like such a pull to go back to X, but it's like, I have no desire to go there.

It's okay. They can DM me on X and I will guide them in the right direction. We want to bring the conversation in Nassu because like I don't I don't really care about what Elon Musk is doing. Oh, me neither. Yeah, go on. But unfortunately, that's where a lot of the conversation is. So it's kind of a battle of like where do we host this discussion because. No, serious people that want to engage with you will find you. Yeah. We'll put a link to the website. We'll put a link to your Noster, both of you. So guys, I want to thank you for being so interesting.

So great. I know that it's not easy to take your baby, your work of a few years and putting it out there and engaging in conversations about it, especially when you feel like what you have to show or talk about is so nascent and so different to so many people. I know it's not easy. So kudos to you on that. If I can support with anything, let me know. Kudos to you. Jeff that introduced me to you guys and I would love to do more in the future and support you in any way I can. Yes, thank you so much. Have a great rest of our day. Thank you for entertaining the conversation with us. Of course. I'm doing my best. I hope it was okay. No, it's more than most people give us. So, of course. Like I said, good faith, authentic conversation between peer to peers.

Yes, let's go. It was really a pleasure. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for being with us. Please take a minute to give this episode a like, comment, and subscribe, and hit the notification bell to be notified when I release my next episode. All this really helps me beat the suppression of the algorithms. Take a moment to check my sponsors and affiliation offers and the show notes. That's how you support me and the show, ensuring I can carry on with my mission.

Lastly, please share this with your friends so they can also get back. and choose to take some positive action. Till next time.