No you're just being bokners.
It’s like we’re discussing whether Pepsi causes burps.
I’m saying: “Lots of people have been witnessed drinking Pepsi and then burping, we can even test it ourselves.”
You’re saying: “The letter P cannot be proven to exist and that is the first letter in the word Pepsi ergo there is no such thing as Pepsi and so it’s impossible to burp from it.”
I’m simply asking you to provide me empirical evidence that supports the claim assumption that time is infinitely divisible, and you won’t. So therefore you are assuming that it’s true.
But, if time is quantized and discrete, everything you claim falls apart.
The assumption of time is beneath any physics or experiments.
You refuse to engage in providing evidence, you refuse to admit you are assuming something to be true that has NEVER been proven, and you won’t even discuss the outcome if that assumption was wrong.
I guess it’s hard to be honest when you ask someone the right questions.
Look, your position isn that quantum computing doesn’t exist.
Yet in the real world we have quantum computers doing quantum computing.
How are we supposed to have a discussion in light of that contradiction?
Either we resolve that or there's nothing to say.
