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.
