If time is quantized and discrete the entire formalism falls apart Will. Superposition and decoherence mean completely different things when time is quantized.
What is a block?
Discussion
k
So is Bitcoin not evidence of quantized time to you? If not, what exactly is a block?
If continuous time were fundamental, why do non-contradiction (no double spend), state validity, and finality require discrete blocks? Why does Bitcoins fundamentals collapse unless time advances in indivisible steps?
Either discrete time is essential to preserving consistency, or continuous time is doing no real work here. Which is it?
That is literally the axiom you are relying on here.
So if times quantized how would it show up in quantum computers? Would it fail after a certain threshold? Alternatively why does it work at all?
The entire mathematical formalism collapses because it depends on taking derivatives (on breaking time into infinitesimal pieces). You simply cannot do that if time is quantized and discrete. Once that assumption fails, everything built atop of the assumption fails as well.
This fundamentally changes the meaning of superposition and decoherence. In a quantized-time model, superposition is no longer a physically coexisting computational substrate; it is a potential state that exists between discrete ticks of time. Decoherence is no longer a gradual dynamical process, it is the unavoidable result of a time tick itself: a measurement. Under those conditions, the current mathematical framework is not incomplete; it is invalid if time is discrete.
That would imply physics is misidentifying what it is observing. What is being called a “logical qubit” is not a stable substrate existing across time, but a description of unresolved potential under an assumed continuous-time model. The substrate itself is not physically real in the sense required for computation, it is inferred.
If you genuinely believe computation can be performed on unresolved states across time, then go do it on Bitcoin.
Bitcoin already gives you everything a “logical qubit” is supposed to provide: a globally defined state space, unresolved states that persist across discrete ticks of time, strict non-contradiction rules, and a clear measurement event that collapses possibilities into a single outcome. The mempool is full of fully specified, mutually exclusive state transitions that remain unresolved across blocks. They are public, conserved, and enforced by consensus.
So if superposition is a real computational substrate, stop theorizing about it in sealed labs and error models. Compute on Bitcoin. Use UTXOs. Use the mempool. Demonstrate interference, phase manipulation, or speedup in a system where the states are observable and the rules are fixed.
Only then does the problem become obvious: nothing “computes” in the way quantum computing claims, because unresolved states across discrete time do not form a substrate, they form potential. Resolution only occurs at measurement, and measurement is irreversible. That’s not a limitation of Bitcoin; it’s a property of time itself. If you don’t understand Bitcoin physically, you don’t understand time at all.
Bitcoin doesn’t just meet the criteria for a “logical qubit”, it exposes why the concept collapses once you demand an open, verifiable system.
Clearest version yet, Jack. 🪬
Keep going 🧡
Thanks Chris! Your support is appreciated.
OK learning as I go so correct any mistakes but I cant find anything that makes quantum computers inherently impossible just because of quantized time. If it were the case why do QC exist at all?
Is the real issues decoherence and correlated errors instead of local errors.
So it's not a physics issue but an engineering one that prevents scaling?
correct
If time is quantized and discrete, this is simply untrue and you know it.
You will not admit it, you’ve trusted an axiom that Bitcoin openly disproves. Go and verify it for yourself.
you are a crackpot
Answer the question Will.
If time is quantized and discrete, what happens to the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics and quantum theory?
your premise is incorrect, time is not discrete
Where is your proof?
Gödelian limits already explain why this axiom cannot be settled by measuring Planck time from within the system. Physics cannot falsify its own temporal assumptions internally. Bitcoin sidesteps that limitation by building time as an object. If continuous time were truly fundamental, the system would not work.
Bitcoin gives us something physics cannot: a physically instantiated state machine where time is constructed, not assumed. You cannot subdivide a block temporally without destroying causality, finality, determinism, and non-contradiction. Bitcoin simply does not function under continuous time. If discrete time were not fundamental, Bitcoin would be impossible, yet it runs, globally, verifiably, every day, every ~10 minutes a new block of time is constructed.
Bitcoin is my proof you are wrong. What is a block?
Blocks aren't ticks of a universal clock; they are discrete units of informational space (geometry). The mining process follows a Poisson distribution, meaning the "tick" is a random variable. The next block could arrive in 1 second or 1 hour. This variance proves the system is a byproduct of work in continuous space, not a fundamental temporal unit.
The purpose of applying a scientific method is to prove yourself wrong, and in failure, reinforce your hypothesis. I think you know this and just don't care, which is why I can't continue this discussion absent good faith.
To answer the question of "which is it," you suggested yourself that mining is worthless, as it represents proof of "no real work" being done. #Bitcoin