Have there been any good articles yet on Bitcoin through the lense of paradigm shift during a scientific revolution? As far as I know only Saylor and Breedlove have made this point evident so far. Any recommendations?
Makes a lot of sense, Bitcoin being a part of a greater scientific revolution. But the issue with Saylor (I don't follow Breedlove) is that he's turning into the same Hegelian dialectic that the creative discovery of Bitcoin itself was trying to subvert. That is to say, Bitcoin was breaking the framework, Saylor is trying to turn it into a framework. Scientific progress comes from creative 'third options'.
Moreover, when Bitcoin was created, what evidence was there that such a thing could help coordinate value? Zero. Data is kind of useless when you are trying to create a new type of data for the first time. It's the same for Bitcoin as science.
Take Black Holes...Black holes were theorized in 1916 after Einstein's theory of relativity was formalized in 1905. The term black hole was coined in 1967 after the first black hole, Cygnus X-1, was observed in 1964, by detecting electromagnetic waves (x-rays and gamma rays) from the gases of a huge blue supergiant star getting sucked into CX-1.
My point is, especially in money, people are extremely mislead by hierarchies created by mounds of "data" and "evidence". BUT, we don't even know what data or evidence to look for until we've already made a conjecture (a guess) to solve some problem in our current understanding. Want a Nobel prize? Figure out how to observe dark matter (besides gravitation lensing).
Anyway, the "scientific revolution," started during the Enlightenment, and continues to this day. It never ended. It ends wherever and whenever criticism stops. Good thing for Bitcoin, it's got anti-censorship, the ability to criticize, built in. you Counterintuitively, that self-inherent function of criticism is what makes it resilient, or "sound" (whatever that means, lol).
reply
I reckon you're Popperian, not a Kuhnian?
reply
I'm Deutschian, until we find something better. But I don't think that all of Kuhn's ideas about scientific progress are mutually exclusive from Popper and Deutsch.
"Kuhn's theory suffers from a fatal flaw. It explains the succession from one paradigm to another in sociological or psychological terms, rather than as having primarily to do with the objective merit of the rival explanations. Yet unless one understands science as a quest for explanations, the fact that it does find successive explanations, each objectively better than the last, is inexplicable." Also, from The Fabric of Reality, Ch.13
Here he's saying "That the truth consists of hard-to-vary assertions about reality is the most important fact about the physical world. It's a fact that is itself unseen, yet impossible to vary. ". Conjecture, creativity, which is not based on observation, but part of something we don't understand yet, consciousness, is where objective progress comes from.
Our knowledge about knowledge, what Popper gives us, is that all observations are theory-laden. That means that if we want better theories/explanations, we need to criticize our best existing theories.
What David Deutsch adds is that theories are explanations, and not just any explanations--they are hard-to-vary. His go-to example is something like, "If I tell you a pound of grass can cure the common cold, you know that you don't need to test that explanation and eat a pound of grass because the explanation is easy-to-vary," in other words, it could be a pound of dandelions or rosemary--what's important is the explanation for why grass. This may seem obvious, but then why is homeopathy such a huge industry?
There is no hierarchy to go by, that's a mistake that gets in the way of progress. A new explanation can replace any level of the chain. This is part of the point of Constructor Theory, whose goal is to redefine the entirety of physics to be based on counterfactuals instead of trajectories. The conjecture there, I think, is that if we do we may be closer to having a better theory/explanation of consciousness.
Also, I tried to write a blog post about this, but kind of gave up when I got too distracted by comparing Bitcoin to ATP and how it could be used to automate trust models for constructors in constructor theory--and how that may aide with consciousness, but I couldn't figure out how to link ATP as an abstraction for coordination for explanations besides the selfish progress from randomness that evolution provides.
But, related is this tweet from Paul Sztorc. I also have this nice explanation/metaphor that I came up with today: "Anyone who gets on a boat that sails forever will always be joining at the beginning of an infinite ride. But, the trick is figuring how to make repairs and upgrades while sailing." Bitcoin is just part of the boat, it's a voluntary resilient global economy whose security model doesn't rely on the nation state model, but it's importance for upgrading the boat (of life) is recognized by all Bitcoiners, I think, and it's our job to try and get that explanation out there into the world WHILE improving it.
reply
I've read it. I'm thinking about writing an article about Bitcoin through that lense, as I've hardly seen any. I'm asking cause maybe I'm unaware of some good ones already out there, so then there wouldn't be any need other than structuring the knowledge for myself.
reply
If you haven't read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, I highly recommend it. It's likely what has influenced their model around this.
reply