Arbitrarily defining something called a "Plank block", then demanding a physics needs to conform to it is a violation of every form of the trivium. Your arguments are reminiscent of the ancient Soph...
You’re reacting as if something is being imposed on physics. It isn’t. A postulate is being explored: if time is discrete at its base, what does a tick of time actually look like?
Physics already admits a boundary where continuity breaks down. The entire framework rests on a quantized limit. The paper is asking what that means structurally, not demanding conformity to anything.
If time is not discrete, what is it made of?
If continuity is fundamental, where does the Planck limit come from?
If irreversible state change produces ordered succession in a real system, why is it illegitimate to study it?
Calling something “Sophistry” is easy. Explaining what replaces the postulate is harder.
Where does the argument actually fail?
Physics already admits a boundary where continuity breaks down. The entire framework rests on a quantized limit. The paper is asking what that means structurally, not demanding conformity to anything.
If time is not discrete, what is it made of?
If continuity is fundamental, where does the Planck limit come from?
If irreversible state change produces ordered succession in a real system, why is it illegitimate to study it?
Calling something “Sophistry” is easy. Explaining what replaces the postulate is harder.
Where does the argument actually fail?
1
