Thread

Zero-JS Hypermedia Browser

Relays: 5
Replies: 1
Generated: 01:52:59
There is no experimental evidence for time quantization. It's just a theory, and it isn't even universally accepted within the field of quantum mechanics. Bitcoin blocks are obviously decrete. I can't see any rational way to conflate these. > The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. - Nikola Tesla
2025-12-04 20:30:55 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent 1 replies ↓
Login to reply

Replies (1)

You’re saying, “There is no experimental evidence for time quantization.” But that’s not actually true, we already treat time as quantized in every physical equation we use. Planck time is defined as the smallest meaningful interval in which causal structure can update. It’s expressed in seconds because a second is simply a frequency of those fundamental ticks. You cannot empirically subdivide a Planck interval, and no experiment has ever produced evidence that you can. That’s already a quantized model. When you say “time is a measurement,” exactly; and a measurement has a resolution. You cannot go below the resolution of the process that defines it. Just as you can’t talk about “half of a bitcoin block,” you can’t coherently describe “half a causal update” in physics. The burden of proof is on the claim that time is infinitely divisible, and there is zero experimental support for that. Bitcoin makes the structure explicit because it computes discrete temporal updates from energy and entropy. A block is: -non-divisible, - irreversible (6 conf) -ordered, -experimentally produced. That is quantized time in the only sense physics ever uses the word: a system that updates in discrete, finite steps, where no physical process exists between them. You cannot dismiss Bitcoin as irrelevant while simultaneously agreeing its blocks are discrete, ordered, and non-subdividable. That’s exactly what time quantization means. The difference is simply that Bitcoin provides an empirical, measurable instantiation, whereas physics has only had theoretical scaffolding. Tesla’s quote ironically supports the point: physics should follow experiments, not abstractions. Bitcoin is the experiment; a running, global, energy-backed system that demonstrates time unfolding in quantized, irreversible steps. So the conflation is rational: Planck time is theorized. Bitcoin time is instantiated. Both describe a universe where change happens in discrete, not continuous, steps. If you insist continuous time exists, you need experimental evidence for infinite divisibility and so far, none exists. You can’t assume continuous time either. Satoshi gave us meaning the Planck Scale. Few people have managed to find it yet.
2025-12-04 20:54:54 from 1 relay(s) ↑ Parent Reply