Constantin,
Thanks for your comments. I find difficult to address your arguments agains my essay one by one because I think there is a misreading from your part at several levels but I will do my best to address some of the most fundamental.
I can say, as I said before, that nothing in my essay is pretending to be a mathematical (or even physical) proof, it is statistical evidence in favor of a personal worldview (and an original research as acknowledged by my peers upon publication of my work in books and journals). I'd also like to tell, again, that I'm not even jumping to the conclusion that the world is digital but rather algorithmic, the reader can then jump to the digital hypothesis using Occam's razor, if they wish.
I think I also clarified that my definition of the continuum is limited and I can acknowledge that you make a fair point, it is as limited as it was the space to talk about it in this contest. I could unpack more about the continuos case, but my main concern and what I stand for is that there is not even a general agreement of what continuity might be, while for the digital case the consensus is almost unanimous, both intuitively and formally in some extent.
Concerning whether an elementary particle carries information, you say it carries its mass, size and so on. I do not agree, a particle may have these properties only when interpreted from outside, a particle only has mass when measured related to other matter, it has a location only when fixing an external framework, and it has a size only when compared to other things. The particle by itself, from my point of view, does not store any of these parameters in itself, and it is only when interacting with others that this information is possible chaining itself into other processes (this makes more sense if seen under my algorithmic view, because it is processes that gives the algorithmic sense to the world in my view).
I see you are re-using your argument against Tommaso Bolognesi's essay regarding your claim that "At the center of a black hole lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature becomes infinite. Thus, at the center of a black hole a digital computation is not possible because spacetime curvature becomes infinite." From it I guess it is you who claims to hold a proof that the world is analog, or at least that it is not discreet. Unfortunately, I don;t think the claim will convince most researchers, including me, simply because not knowing what happens inside a black hole doesn't rule out anything, but specially because physics as we know them are also inapplicable inside a black hole and scientists do not throw their theories away. But again, I'm not even standing strongly in favor of the digital hypothesis as I'm doing for the algorithmic case.
Finally, most if not all of my essay is based in hard science, particularly the mathematical theory of information and computation, except for my particular worldview that this contest is encouraging people to share with others to trigger interesting discussions.
I find difficult to argue against claims such as: "There are advanced theories supported by nobody because all money is absorbed by false theories [link inserted to your own work]. The human race will NOT survive the next thousand years without teleportation and true Science."
I will let others judge by themselves, but it is always a risk to tag science as 'true' science, specially when arguing against someone else theories in favor of yours.
Thanks for sharing.
