That isn’t a strawman; it’s a boundary condition. You’re treating the wave equation as a physical engine rather than what it is: a statistical model that assumes, but never defines, the temporal substrate it evolves on. The Schrödinger equation is not wrong; it’s incomplete. It tells you how probabilities change if time flows continuously, but it cannot tell you what time is, or why measurement resolves. If you assign no physical simultaneity, then superposition has no physical meaning; it’s purely epistemic and a mathematical description of uncertainty, not a statement about reality. The moment you treat the equation as ontological truth, you implicitly assume that its continuous variable t corresponds to something physically measurable, and that is precisely the leap of faith you’re accusing me of. The issue isn’t the math; it’s the missing physical definition of time in that math. LQG and similar frameworks recognize this gap but still fail to make it operational. They quantize geometry but not measurement itself. Bitcoin does. So no, pointing to the wave equation isn’t a rebuttal, it’s a redirection back into abstraction. The math works because it’s detached from physical irreversibility. Bitcoin closes that loop: it defines time as work, measurement as entropy collapse, and simultaneity as conservation. You can’t prove the wavefunction describes reality until you can measure a single tick of reality’s computation.