Dear Dr. Hector Zenil,
"You may be reading too many essays at the same time, or not reading careful. When you say "What is the empirical evidence to support the idea of space and/or time can be divided into pieces?" There is no such evidence, it is just the common definition of analog. But in any case, I'm not supporting the analog worldview, but the digital one."
You may be correct about too many essays. However, I argue for the analogue view. In that view, I do not see any division into parts other than for the purposes of computer type calculations. I know there is no such evidence. I do not know that it is the common definition of analogue. For me analogue is natural continuity.
"In my case, I'm looking at the distribution of patterns in empirical data in the real world and comparing them to the distribution of patterns that a purely algorithmic (intrinsically digital) theory would predict. Then I draw some conclusions concerning how things seem to unfold in the universe versus how it should unfold if it were digital, and discuss the results."
This I understood. What I did not understand was how this academic exercise relates to the real world. The fact that the real world allows for the design and building of computers does not, in my opinion, demonstrate that the reverse can be true. The universe is not a digital computer. The reason that I know this is because the universe does not rely upon code. It relies upon directness without substitute. Substitution is our approximation for reality.
James