<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt"><div><span>Jeff Davis wrote:</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>> "Continuous change" is macroscopic and classical and that is certainly<br>> not what I looking at here. I'm concerned with iterative progression<br>> (ie change) at whatever is the finest-grained scale. </span></div><div><br>As I said in a previous post the concept of a "finest-grained scale"</div><div>for time has been observationally discredited. I understand you</div><div>want to support a discrete or discontinuous view of time but I see</div><div>no reason why it should be given a claim to superiority when it</div><div>is observationally not the case.</div><div><br>Dennis May</div><div> </div><div><br><br> </div></div></body></html>