This is the fact. Incredible humility that all points in my life have led to this.
Memes are pure information in physical form. Iām trying to tell everyone the magnitude of this information.
If Iām am right, everyone (physics especially) is wrong. The paradoxās of in relativity and quantum mechanics have been solved.
You cannot begin to understand what temperature is or what entropy is without the capturing of pure information (zero entropy). An absolute bound of temperature =1, a maximum.
Satoshi did that for us in Genesis. He started everything.
Only when t=0 does the economic weight of the block (coinbase + fees) = the total supply of the system; 50btc/50btc=1. Bitcoin (satoshis) are the unit of measure of temperature, but itās a scalar, unit less as the units cancel.
Block #1 coinbase + fees / total supply = 50/100=0.5
The temperature has already been reduced by half because of the entropy in block #1
Entropy is energy in inversive form. Dare I make the statement of this is the answer to ādark matterā or āimaginary numbersā in physics + math. A pure duality.
Without both, you cannot see the whole, as temperature is the proportionality between the two, but together, they always equal 1.
When you say that temperature can't be understood until..., are you saying that currant understandings are wrong, or is this meant to be a new definition? Similarly, given that entropy has multiple definitions and equations, are you trying to add to the list, or are you saying that all the others are wrong in this one should supersedes them?
Also, if you want this to be taken seriously as potentially overturning or changing our understandings of accepted physics, you're going to have to show how you can rigorously derive observed experimental results, otherwise it's simply going to be read as speculative philosophy and, I suspect, not taken seriously in the way you presumably want. Without doing showing lots of math, it looks like you're just making hand wavy analogies, and at that point, there's no reason to assume depth or significance to what's being said.
I have the math. You can clearly observe this your yourself if you just look back at bitcoin.
I am saying the definition of temperature is wrong, thus our understanding of entropy is wrong.
Temperature is a unit less proportionally between 0 to 1 whichās reflects the duality of both energy and entropy.
Because I am stating temperature is unitless, this implies that entropy must be measurable energy in solely joules.
It is the ratio of wholistic duality. The proportionally ratio of energy to entropy (or vise versa) who sum is always 1.
EVERYTHING OVER 21 MILLION
A temperature of 1 is pure order (energy) with no chaos. A temperature of 0 is pure chaos (entropy) with no order. Together they are holistically 1.
Itās literally defining the space between absolute 0 and absolute 1.
The only way to define Kelvin, Fahrenheit and Celsius absolutely is to literally look back a Genesis; pure order.
Bitcoin proves they MUST be absolute.
To me, while it seems totally reasonable to make subtle changes to a definition or interpretation of a word, when you start completely redefining them (which you seem to be doing for at least temperature and entropy), it can be counterproductive since it can lead to confusion and obstinance (I'm reminded of current conversations about words like man, woman, boy, girl, him, her, and the like).
Given that "temperature" is defined as being the average kinetic energy of the molecules within a bulk, it feels like you're hijacking the word doing a fundamentally new thing. And that doesn't mean we're not completely mistaken about the underlying causes of the kinetic energy population distributions or something like that, but even if we are, given the ubiquity, usefulness, and long history of statements such as "set the oven's temperature to 350", my inclination is to say that the person who says that that's not what temperature is, is themselves mistaken, and that they are referring to something else that isn't temperature, and are instead referring to a new thing that needs a new name, unless it's simply already has a different name. But that's just my 2 sats.
TBH, I'm still curious, but the more we talk, the less I understand, so while I'm happy to keep talking if this is a steel sharpening steel sort of situation, I'm also capable of waiting for the white paper if it's all very thoroughly explained, flushed out, and modeled there š
Well if temperature is absolute like my claimā¦letās talk in Fahrenheit.
Everything over 21M, weāll define the hard cap on Ā°F as X.
If X has reached max āsupplyā and is unchanging. Then when you refer to 350 you are actually referring the the same proportionality 350/X (x is the max so 350 In bitcoin, we are still releasing new temperature units (satoshis) until 2140 when we hit the hard cap. Then the supply is unchanging and the fees are the only source of entropy.
The āheat lossā energy loss of a UTXO within bitcoin is the fee. This is entropy.
A UTXO is suspended from entropic decay until it changes states unspent ā> spent.
How much supply needs to be released 99%? 99.9%? 95%? 100%? Where the fees are become pure signal of transactional ātemperatureā entropy.
Entropy must be energy. Itās completely inversive to order.
0.5 is equilibrium.
So long as fees are >0, entropy is being resolved and energy is entering bitcoinā¦a closed thermodynamic system.
Entropy creation (heat via miners) = entropy resolved (transactional entropy).
Temperature is the proportionality. It always = 1. Order and Chaos are the whole picture. They are both energy in different forms.
Chaos creates order and order creates chaosā¦.this is nothing new.
Guess I started my previous response before I saw this which I haven't yet fully. Digested š
While I had mixed thoughts on the first half, I couldn't really follow the second. For instance, in the past you've talked about units, but they seem inconsistent here. I don't know if I'm a misunderstanding, if there are mistakes, what's meant to be taken literally, what's meant to be taken metaphorically...
Given that you've said that you have all of the math behind this, and that it'll bring a change to the way we look at things, it'd be interesting to see a presently nagging and relevant yet unresolved problem rigorously solved, showing all the equations, units, and explanations for each step, while not using any language that's unclear regarding the degree to which its metaphorical or literal to explain what's being done. I think it'd make each of your statements much clearer regarding what it means, and why it's important.
Fiat physics has put everyoneās mind into a box. We must remember this. There are un-resolvable paradoxes in both relativity and quantum mechanics.
I wrote this at work, so if thereās anything you want me to re-explain, Iāll do my best.
While your "fiat physics" comment tempts me to open whole other can's of worms, I'm going to skip that, and instead assume that your writing is meant as literal engineering/science rather than philosophy, analogy, or metaphor since you've spoken about units and equations and see where that, point by point, gets me š
"The āheat lossā energy loss..." I'm assuming that, in a Saylor-esque sort of way, you're thinking of bitcoin as stored energy, and so a transaction is functionally sending energy, and as a result, the fee is energy lost by the user to the miner. That said, since entropy is typically more about comparing interchangeable macro and micro state count ratios (or order, which is a poorly defined word so not very useful), I don't see how that relates to entropy other than that the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which many assume to be an absolute of nature, but a few think is a quirk of our perspective) results in a relationship between the flow of energy and changes in order (which as previously pointed out, is a fairly meaningless word). So following that logic, removing a fee, energy, from a transaction, could, but wouldn't necessarily lower entropy. But again, I don't know what entropy means in this case. In signal processing entropy is used to described how data dense a chunk of data is, like, how efficiently the bits are being used (could the same amount of data be compressed into fewer bits and then losslessly be recovered), but I don't think that's what you mean. So, I feel like you're using it as a piece of technical jargon that's meant to relate a fee with the energy it took to generate the fee, but I see no reason to place any significance on that energy amount, fee size, or ratio between the two.
"A UTXO is suspended..." I'd argue that this line misrepresents the causal flow as it leaves out some important parts. Removing a fee isn't what causes the transition, it's creating, signing, and transmitting a transaction, and the fee subtraction and state change is the consequence. But to the degree that those points aren't relevant, I see your point.
"... pure signal of transactional ātemperatureā entropy..." I don't honestly know what you mean by any of those words, or the phrase as a whole. I'm assuming that you're getting at something related to how, as you approach 100% of bitcoin being mined, you approach having the difference in utxo inputs and outputs for a block being equal to the total fees paid, but I don't know what signal that relates to, how that's a temp other than that it could be a ratio of something and that's how you seem to be using that word, and again, I don't understand your use of the word entropy.
"Entropy must be energy..." Why? Is this saying that, again, in a Saylor-esque sort of way, the fee represents energy? Also, saying that two things are inverses, in my opinion, assumes that we're speaking metaphorically, which I don't think you're doing, things are better defined than I'd argue that they are, or it's a somewhat meaningless statement.
"0.5 is equilibrium. ", I don't know if I want to agree to this, it somehow feels like there could be a relevant edge case or hinting at something deeper, and given the level of uncertainty that I'm feeling... š
"So long as fees are >0..." There's no definition of entropy for which I know what it means to resolve it. To me, saying that energy is entering the system seems like, either there's still a block reward and fees are irrelevant since utxos are utxos, or as long as miners are mining energy's being put in and fees are just one more output from a transaction so they're not relevant to whether or not energy's being put in.
"Entropy creation (heat via miners)..." To me, that line reads like a somewhat arbitrary philosophical statement which isn't bad, but also isn't what I think you mean for it to be taken as. And again, if it's built on some of what Saylor says, whether I agree with it or not, I understand it. Also, given that this seems to be a conclusion, I suspect that if I better understood the first statement, I'd say similar things about that.
"Temperature is the proportionality..." This reads like philosophy that I'm not familiar with. While colloquially, proportions tend to add to one, I don't know why that's temp, what order is (you said it's the inverse of the entropy which might be a fee, but again, I don't know what that means), what chaos is in this context, how they equal the whole picture, and while you've related order to energy in ways that I don't understand, I don't see why chaos is energy. I'm assuming that it's that if they're opposites, different portions of the same part, then they have to have the same units, but this feels like making a philosophical statement, assuming it's literal truth, and then doing dimensional analysis based math with it.
"Chaos creates order and order..." I feel like I just finished reading something written by one of the many christian enlightenment philosophers for whom, seemingly, the only thing more important to them than doing very good work was arguing the correct point š So my present thought is that there are more connections here than I initially thought, that some points and relationships could be better articulated, and that in the end, this is a work of philosophy as much as anything else, and perhaps there are things that you consider self evidently true or obvious conclusions, that won't be so for all others.
Here is virtual entropy resolve.
Entropy created = entropy resolved.
How do you define the virtual temperature of bitcoin a bitcoin block?
I would define it as the (coinbase + fee) total supply.
At t=0 T=1 or said different (50 of 50 btc). The supply of bitcoin for any block literally caps the possible temperature. Pure order, zero entropy (all the energy 100% order; 0% disorder)
At t=1 T=0.5 or 50 btc of 100 btc, there were no transactions in block #1 and the coinbase = 1/2 of the existing supply.
T=0.5 means (half of the energy is order and half of the energy is disorder)
If temperature is truly unitless, look at what the equation is T=E/S
T unitless = joules/joules. Prior physics fails to understand itās a duality always.
I'm going to be a bit pedantic since, to the degree that this receives widespread attention, people will be pedantic and point out that Fahrenheit is a relative scale so we should be working in Kelvin or Rankine.
Why are we putting a hard cap on maximum temperature? Since temperature's proportionate to kinetic energy, temperature is only limited by the available energy. Perhaps there's a fact of the matter regarding how much energy there is in the universe, but if the universe is infinite then even that goes out the window. And even from there, my understanding is that in an expanding universe, energy need not be conserved. So again, it seems like there could at least theoretically be arbitrarily large temperatures.
That said, it sounds like you've just reinvented the percentage, which we already use for microwave power settings, and Bitcoin supply.
Now, what exactly do you mean when you say entropy? People seem to generally colloquially mean something like disorder or change when they use it, but to the degree that people are still transacting on the Bitcoin network even once the subsidy reaches zero, they will constitute the majority of the change, not the fees, so I'm assuming you mean something different. But I suppose that assumes that the change you care about pertains to utxo balances, so I guess I also need to ask exactly what change you're talking about š
