I don’t think my comment conflicts with any of this. Perhaps I misunderstood. I totally agree that finite element models can be used to describe the universe, that they provide value, can elucidate things we perhaps could not see with continuous analytical models that may be at a dead end, etc.

I also agree that the search for a continuous model may be simply out of our hands for the foreseeable future, and perhaps forever.

The only thing I was balking at was the contention that the universe is actually made up of finite elements. It’s possible I misunderstood the original article, but I came away with the idea that this is what was being claimed. Further, I’m not saying it is or it is not, I’m saying that particular claim was unsupported.

Great article.