1/ Game theory is not a tool of social science, but rather a method of natural science for characterizing social systems. It attempts to understand how order is generated under conditions of decentralization, using a structure on par with physics. 2/ Therefore, game theory itself is a connecting point between natural and social sciences. And the person who understands this connection most profoundly is John Nash. 3/ Nash's two most important works, seemingly unrelated, are actually isomorphic: Nash embedding theorem Nash non-cooperative game equilibrium 4/ The Nash embedding theorem addresses: How non-Euclidean geometry can be continuously and completely embedded into Euclidean space. Essentially, it is a "problem of the unity of continuity and completeness." 5/ Nash equilibrium addresses: How individual rationality converges into a stable structure under conditions of no center and no coercive coordination. This is a problem of the completeness of social systems. 6/ One is the unity of geometry, The other is the unity of game theory. Different forms, isomorphic structure. 7/ Von Neumann's cooperative game theory implicitly assumes a priori community: Rules, alliances, and distribution all presuppose a central structure. 8/ Nash's non-cooperative game theory completes this theory: The system can still achieve spontaneous stability even without a central authority. 9/ This is precisely the characteristic of natural systems, not man-made institutions. 10/ The physical world has already provided a corresponding structure: Particle ↔ Individual Field ↔ Community / Consensus Force ↔ Game Theory 11/ The field does not exist a priori; It arises from the superposition of interactions between particles. But the force depends on the existence of the field. This is a centrally independent, self-consistent structure. 12/ Bitcoin is the engineered implementation of this structure in a social system. 13/ In Bitcoin: Consensus ≈ Field Game Theory ≈ Force Miners/Nodes ≈ Peer-to-Peer Particles Ledger Stable State ≈ Lowest Energy State 14/ Bitcoin's consensus does not come from trust, authority, or governance, but from continuous non-cooperative game theory among peers. 15/ Satoshi Nakamoto explicitly stated in the white paper summary: Decentralized systems must be expressed using a minimal structure. This structure is—a consensus mechanism based on time evolution. 16/ In the conclusion, he further emphasized: Decentralization is not "simple," but a stable structure formed under strong constraints. 17/ This is precisely the engineering expression of Nash's thought: Not designing order, but designing the conditions for generating order. 18/ Therefore, the essence of decentralized consensus is not a system, but a social field. 19/ It is not mandated, but naturally formed from the game theory among peers. 20/ If Bitcoin was designed by humans, it is most likely not the work of economists, nor the work of political philosophers, but rather—a Nash-like idea that emerged naturally in the world of engineering.