Thank you for the Henri Poincaré reference. I also have to think of Rancière, of Benjamin. Truly terrifying and yes, a culmination of the vector of modernity through Calvinism and a reifying of an eschatology. EDIT: The issue with Kantian time/space distinction versus special and general relativity is that it is about velocity. The closer we come to c, speed of light, the more an object travelling at such speeds would attain its Eigenzeit, or its Owntime, versus angezeigte Zeit, or observed time - i.e. temporal dilation or contraction. It is not a question of opinion, but of physical aspects of spacetime. Even at regular speeds, when two synchronized atomic clocks are flown around the globe twice - one eastward and one westward - also known as the Hafele-Keating experiment, they are found to disagree at the end of their journeys. So does Nick Land perceive it as truly just a technological instantiation of Kantian time - hence being separate, or doing away with space? And how could this have implications beyond transactions, beyond a "mere" theological time if you will? Thank you for your answer!
The Generals problem makes me think how we actually solve anything by communication. At some point it probably comes down to a nod, a quick glance that tells of approval, or a written form. With the proof-of-work method, you slow down interaction at some point, keep it on low heat, make everyone agree with each other, and then proceed forward - to speed up, you must speed down sometimes.
Allowing for that I have not had the privilege of seeing the entirety of the seminar whence this is drawn, I confess I’m unclear how the blockchain as an instantiator of specific sequence vindicates Kantian temporality. Perhaps it relies on Kantian temporality, but this is not the same as a vindication. In fact, perhaps that reliance could indicate a vulnerability in the blockchain, if it doesn’t account for relativity?
(N.B.- My understanding of Kant is one derived from a more Continental training. Hence I was a bit surprised at the fashion in which you glossed his significance as relating to practicality. Certainly, that is very much a theme in Kant, but one of, by my lights secondary import, and, one really shared by all the Moderns. Certainly, both Descartes and Hume were hardly fans of counting the angels on a pinhead. What rather I take to be the central thrust of Kant’s project is the preservation of the moral and aesthetic as at the heart of human life. Or, out otherwise, he was resisting the disenchantment with nature that has been engendered by the emergence Galilean science.)
Yea this was little more than a hint... The main issue is that, for Kant, space and time are indeed separate. Bitcoin fabricates a temporality that is indeed separated from space; Bitcoin's time is not reducible to space in the fashion that non-Kantian time is folded into space by someone like Einstein. So the idea of leaving behind Kant's notion of time is shown to be wrong and Kant vindicated. There are a few other Kantian ideas that Land sees illustrated or corroborated by Bitcoin as well.
Read more at otherlife.co/spacetime
Please, can you repeat it again?
Another great presentation, and it's very interesting to think of Kant's work in light of Bitcoin. I'll have to think more on this...Well done!
If the 2:45 leaves Harrington Station at 75mph, when will it arrive to vindicate Kant?
The real target of the paper is Piscean black magic mind control.
@PulsatingShadow just a heads up you added this to your Jorjani playlist
@@threeblindchickens😳
It's a ledger that has consensus. it doesn't have anything more to do with time than any other agreed upon tally.
5:23 "the story goes like this"
Nice.
The edit is too choppy, I found it hard to listen to this
It's not his edit, it's his IQ
10:00 Cartography, the art and science of graphically representing a geographical area, usually on a flat surface such as a map or chart.
What's the relevance of the word "hash" to cartography though? Did he mean "cryptography"?
Thank you for the Henri Poincaré reference. I also have to think of Rancière, of Benjamin. Truly terrifying and yes, a culmination of the vector of modernity through Calvinism and a reifying of an eschatology.
EDIT: The issue with Kantian time/space distinction versus special and general relativity is that it is about velocity. The closer we come to c, speed of light, the more an object travelling at such speeds would attain its Eigenzeit, or its Owntime, versus angezeigte Zeit, or observed time - i.e. temporal dilation or contraction. It is not a question of opinion, but of physical aspects of spacetime. Even at regular speeds, when two synchronized atomic clocks are flown around the globe twice - one eastward and one westward - also known as the Hafele-Keating experiment, they are found to disagree at the end of their journeys.
So does Nick Land perceive it as truly just a technological instantiation of Kantian time - hence being separate, or doing away with space? And how could this have implications beyond transactions, beyond a "mere" theological time if you will? Thank you for your answer!
The Generals problem makes me think how we actually solve anything by communication. At some point it probably comes down to a nod, a quick glance that tells of approval, or a written form. With the proof-of-work method, you slow down interaction at some point, keep it on low heat, make everyone agree with each other, and then proceed forward - to speed up, you must speed down sometimes.
The current enables the current. If the plug gets pulled, is it the end of the end of space-time?
Allowing for that I have not had the privilege of seeing the entirety of the seminar whence this is drawn, I confess I’m unclear how the blockchain as an instantiator of specific sequence vindicates Kantian temporality. Perhaps it relies on Kantian temporality, but this is not the same as a vindication. In fact, perhaps that reliance could indicate a vulnerability in the blockchain, if it doesn’t account for relativity?
(N.B.- My understanding of Kant is one derived from a more Continental training. Hence I was a bit surprised at the fashion in which you glossed his significance as relating to practicality. Certainly, that is very much a theme in Kant, but one of, by my lights secondary import, and, one really shared by all the Moderns. Certainly, both Descartes and Hume were hardly fans of counting the angels on a pinhead. What rather I take to be the central thrust of Kant’s project is the preservation of the moral and aesthetic as at the heart of human life. Or, out otherwise, he was resisting the disenchantment with nature that has been engendered by the emergence Galilean science.)
Yea this was little more than a hint... The main issue is that, for Kant, space and time are indeed separate. Bitcoin fabricates a temporality that is indeed separated from space; Bitcoin's time is not reducible to space in the fashion that non-Kantian time is folded into space by someone like Einstein. So the idea of leaving behind Kant's notion of time is shown to be wrong and Kant vindicated. There are a few other Kantian ideas that Land sees illustrated or corroborated by Bitcoin as well.
Thank god Justin has two Phds otherwise I‘d feel like a crazy person listening to this
Wait a min. I thought there was no time.
In any case I’m pretty sure it’s the absolute space machine that’s being built.
Cause CaPiTaLiSm
I'm sorry man. Crypto shit is so damn boring.
You dont understand it.
@@NotraNaum no it's just honestly boring af