>>10851528A hypothesis that is impossible to falsify is not worth discussing.
This hypothesis is non-falsifiable; therefore, it is not worth discussing.
If that answer doesn't satisfy you, then try this on for size: every single conclusion we draw, anywhere, is necessarily derived from a set of axioms, statements we define to be true, which lay our logical framework. Axioms are inescapable: to be able to actually conclusively say anything is true at all, we need to have some base assumptions to work off of, even if they're as simple as "something is equal to itself", "sets are uniquely defined by their elements", "0 is a natural number", or even "I exist".
The point of all this is that you may as well adopt "spacetime is continuous" as an axiom, since there's no way we're either proving or disproving it; we already operate using a ton of axioms in logic, math, physics, and everyday life; and calculus (which happens to be the backbone of modern science) can only rigorously apply to spacetime if it's continuous.
