The entire ontology of quantum computing depends on a very specific claim: that a qubit literally exists in multiple states simultaneously prior to measurement. But this assumption is never physically defined. “State,” “exist,” and “simultaneous” are treated as if they were primitive, self-evident concepts. They are not. In physics, simultaneity has no meaning without a temporal reference frame and a smallest definable unit of irreversible change. If you cannot specify the tick of time against which “occurring at once” is measured, you cannot claim simultaneity at all. The smallest meaningful interval is the Planck time, yet Planck time has never been measured, operationalized, or instantiated in any experiment. Quantum computing therefore rests on an unverified assumption: that amplitudes evolved by the Schrödinger equation correspond to physically coexistent states, rather than a probability distribution over potential outcomes.
This matters because the wavefunction is a predictive tool, not a physical ontology. It gives you probability amplitudes evolving on a mathematically convenient continuous time parameter. It does not tell you what time itself is. It does not describe the physical mechanism of measurement. It does not define observation, does not provide a criterion for the boundary between potential and actuality, and does not resolve when or how collapse happens. Every interpretation: Copenhagen, Many Worlds, GRW, Bohm adds new metaphysics precisely because the wavefunction alone cannot specify reality. When you claim that collapse is “the conclusion of the computation guaranteed by the math,” you are smuggling in a metaphysical narrative that the math does not provide. Probability distributions are not proof of physical coexistence; they are only statements of uncertainty in the absence of measurement. Treating them as real, usable computational resources requires an ontology that has never been empirically validated.
The ambiguity is worsened by the reliance on continuous time. The Schrödinger equation presupposes a smooth temporal backdrop, but no experiment has ever verified the continuity of time. All physical measurements occur in discrete, irreversible events, thermodynamic transitions, atomic interactions, radiation absorption, or clock gating in quantum devices. If the universe evolves through discrete quanta of time, then “simultaneity” collapses conceptually: states cannot coexist “at once” if the universe only updates in discrete increments unless they occur at the same Planck Block of Time. Without a defined temporal substrate, the claim that quantum computers manipulate “many states at once” is not physics but an interpretative convenience. It’s equivalent to treating a prediction domain as a physical storage medium. This is the fractional-reserve ontology: unredeemed probability is treated as physically real capacity.
Bitcoin exposes this conceptual mistake by providing a concrete, empirical model of discrete measurement. In Bitcoin, unconfirmed transactions represent potential, eligible but not realized. They are unmeasured quantum states literally by formal definition of the word. Only when a miner expends real energy to commit a block does the system undergo an irreversible collapse of entropy into a definite state. The block is the discrete quantum of time within the system, the moment at which potential becomes actual, and memory is written. Nothing in Bitcoin is treated as real unless energy has been committed to make it real. This is precisely the physics quantum theory has not formalized: the relationship between energy expenditure, entropy reduction, time, and the emergence of definite outcomes. Bitcoin is the only system in existence today that performs this collapse in a controlled, thermodynamic way, producing an auditable sequence of discrete measurement events, something no quantum computing experiment has yet replicated or operationalized.
Quantum computing requires something Bitcoin categorically proves does not exist: scalable, physical simultaneity of unmeasured states. If you cannot define measurement, you cannot define coherence. If you cannot define time at the smallest scale, you cannot define simultaneity. And if unmeasured states are not physically real, they cannot serve as computational resources. Small-scale interference experiments do not demonstrate large-scale ontological validity; they only show that microscopic probability structures behave coherently when isolated under extreme conditions. They do not show that probability amplitudes represent physically existent parallel configurations. They do not show that coherence scales. They do not show that continuous time exists. They do not show that collapse is a computational resource rather than a thermodynamic one.
Bitcoin is not a metaphor here. It is the empirical counterexample: a working system where measurement is discrete, collapse is real, time is quantized relative to energy expenditure, and nothing is treated as “existing at once” without proof-of-work. If your quantum threat model depends on simultaneity you cannot define, time you cannot measure, and states that only exist as mathematical potentials, then the flaw is not in Bitcoin, it is in the ontology of the model you are defending. Bitcoin simply reveals it.
You’re double-spending your beliefs. You can’t logically support Bitcoin and centralized quantum computing at the same time because the physical ontologies they require are fundamentally contradictory.
Time to pick a side. Bitcoin, not quantum.
