JCN
So what exists if it is not static, in the sense that for a certain period no form of change occurs? How do you define any given substance if it is in more than one physical state, because it then involves change, ie differences, ie more than one? Stuff can only be in one physically existent state at a time (ie static, I could not think of a better word, but have explained it many times), or how can two such states in the same sequence both exist at the same time? Ultimately there must be non-divisibility. Your film analogy is correct, this just involves ultra high frequency in terms of duration and extreme minuteness in terms of what constitutes a change.
Making the same points again, with quotes from your second paragraph: "Do the existent states in my universe flow smoothly from one to another". One to another what? If something "flows" ("smoothly" or otherwise), then there needs to be a definable (ie static) something, not two or more different states of the something. "Or do they jump jerkily from one to another so rapidly that I'm unable to detect their jerky nature". Must do, but it is only "jerky" if there was some ability to sense the extremely minute alterations involved, occurring at extremely high frequencies.
"I'm not sure it's essential that we definitively answer the analog vs. digital question. Do you see this question as being central to our discussion? If so, why?"
I am not bothered about it being characterised as the 'analog v digital question'. But this is the most important point, in a number of key points, about how reality must occur. And the answer is that there must ultimately be discreteness. Go back to my leaf. Bud, leaf grows in size, starts losing green colour, falls off, disintegrates. Now, how does that sequence physically occur if not in discrete existent states? There are not two or more physically existent states in existence at the same time as the sequence progresses. There is only one, at any point in time (which constitutes the present). If not, where are the others? Answer: nowhere. By definition, they have been superseded by the new present (existent state), because alteration(s) to the previous one occurred which resulted in it, and the cessation of the previous present. Something cannot change, but then still be in existence. There can only be something. Not something, plus what it was before it became that, plus, even, what it might become when it changes.
"Believe it or not, Paul, (I hope you're sitting down) I agree with you on this"
Actually, I think you do. But this is directly contradictory to what you say above. And you then say: "This is where clocks enter the picture. Unfortunately, it's also where trouble enters the picture". Clocks (timing) does not enter the picture. What does, is an alteration(s) to that physically existent state, so there is now a different one. There is only ever one, But it is different from the previous ones, and the rate at which these changes occurred can be compared with one another, ie irrespective of substance. And this is timing. What is "more than" (in your words) is change, which results in a different reality (existent state). Timing being a human devised duration measuring system.
Which brings me back to my original point(!), that this 'operational time' is not considered as the entirety of what constitutes 'time'. The real problem is that 'time' as exemplified in terms of change, has been reified into reality, ie it is considered to be an attribute of reality. So now there is a logical problem resolving how when there are (effectively) more than one state in existence at a time, there appears to be only one. Which results in this nonsense about the nature of its existence being dependent on the sentient organism (in the code, observer frame of reference, waveform collapse). And as you say, a complete confusion over what can constitute the past, present, future.
"Do you believe that those are accurate depictions of reality? I don't"
No. And the irony is that they are incorrect because they are based on philosophy, ie a flawed presumption as to how reality occurs.
Paul