Do you believe that since something is a necessary condition it therefor contributed to the act? — NOS4A2

My impression is that you're narrowly focusing on the immediate cause of an act, and ignoring the fuller context.

A necessary condition is both a contributing cause and a necessary cause of the act.
Necessary causes
If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the prior occurrence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur.

Contributory causes
For some specific effect, in a singular case, a factor that is a contributory cause is one among several co-occurrent causes. It is implicit that all of them are contributory. For the specific effect, in general, there is no implication that a contributory cause is necessary, though it may be so. In general, a factor that is a contributory cause is not sufficient, because it is by definition accompanied by other causes, which would not count as causes if it were sufficient.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Sassy Justice is satire, not a fraud. — NOS4A2

Adding a watermark does not hinder satire. Even if satire is evident in its original context, a video can be copied, truncated, and distributed on social media without the context.

vandalizing someone’s work violates their free speech.

Does a person not have the right to control the use of one's image? Using someone's image without permission to convey a falsehood is fraud, and if it casts a negative light on the person, it constitutes slander. The alternative to a watermark would be more draconian fraud and slander laws and/or laws against using a person's image without permission.

Deepfakes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. It will eventually become impossible to determine if they're real. Video/ audio evidence has traditionally the best possible evidence of acts (whether by politicians or petty criminals). Sophisticated deepfakes make it harder than ever for rational people to discern what is true.

So why not get better at discerning what is true than giving some people the power to be the final word on truth? — NOS4A2

You completely ignored my point. Deepfakes can make it harder to discern the truth, and this is a case of unequivocal truth. It does not entail empowering some person or group to make a judgement- it entails exposing an unequivocal falsehood at its source.

So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?"

Misinformation cannot control a motor cortext. It did not plan the attack or load the weapon. Information cannot act. It did not contribute to the act because it is incapable of contributing. — NOS4A2

You agreed the disinformation was a necessary condition to the bad act. That logically implies that in the absence of the disinformation, the act would not have occurred. In your defense of your position, you're coflating "necessary and sufficient" with "necessary". I haven't suggested that the disinformation alone caused the bad act, but you keep treating it that way- so you aren't confronting the issue I brought up.

who's harmed by such a requirement?

I did answer this question. — NOS4A2

I can only find you falsely asserting it's a violation of free speech. This doesn't stop anyone from saying whatever they want, nor does it prevent them creating fake videos- so no rights are being infringed. (There's no right to commit fraud).

deep fakes are not "unequivocal lies", — NOS4A2

That's utter nonsense. They depict a person saying/doing things they did not do - and they appear real. It's fraud. It's fine to parody, and watermaking wouldn't prevent that.

for us to figure out on our own accord what is true or false without a third party such as yourself. — NOS4A2

Deepfakes are becoming increasingly sophisticated. It will eventually become impossible to determine if they're real. Video/ audio evidence has traditionally the best possible evidence of acts (whether by politicians or petty criminals). Sophisticated deepfakes make it harder than ever for rational people to discern what is true.

This has been addressed already. Do you believe that playing violent video games leads one to shoot up schools? Should we ban violent video games, or sue the developers? Not everyone that plays violent video games goes and shoots up a school. Why? — Harry Hindu

False equivalence. Deep fakes are inherently falsehoods, whereas videogames are inherently fictional. I haven't suggested banning them - I just proposed identifying what they are. Video games are clearly identified as GAMES; no one is being deceived.

So are you saying that we should depend on the person who knows he is faking it to add watermarks to their own video? — Harry Hindu

Software is used to create them, and these software tools could automatically add a watermark. If someone removed the watermark, hacked the software, or developed their own, they would be criminally liable.

If not, who decides what is a deep face video and what isn't if not logic and reason?

Deepfake can entail faking a voice and image of a public figure. There's nothing ambiguous about it. Logic and reason can't identify it, if it's sufficiently sophisticated- and the sophistication is getting increasingly better.

In the absence of deepfakes, logic and reason would dictate treating videos as among the best evidence for determining what a person has said or done. If we can't even trust videos, our ability to discern truth is severely hampered.

Doesn't the deep fake video need to be released so that it is exposed to public criticism - to logic and reason. If it isn't released and circulates among a private group, how are we suppose to stop that? Your proposals to solve the problem do not seem to fit with the way these things work.

If sufficiently sophisticated, they will become impossible to distinguish from actual videos. Further, their existence provides an excuse for a public figure to deny incriminating video evidence of wrongdoing. No longer will we be able to say "seeing is believing".

Understand that we aren't quite at the point where deepfakes are indistinguishable from real videos. But we're heading in that direction, so now is the time to get out ahead of the projected future problem.

Fox News lost a big lawsuit to Dominion Voting Systems for spreading lies that hurt their businss. Was that inappropriate?
— Relativist
But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about misinformation. Who gets to define what misinformation is, if not logic and reason? — Harry Hindu

I've personally been discussing DISinformation: lies. Disinformation that is repeated becomes misinformation - a tougher problem to deal with. But knowingly spouting falsehoods isn't so fuzzy. Fox knew they were telling falsehoods, and were appropriately held to account.

The person who creates a deepfake video knows he's faking it - lying. That's not a matter of alternative opinions, it's an unequivical fact. That's worth addressing, and entails no ambiguity.

No, you’ve addressed nothing I’ve said, while I’ve answered countless of your questions and tried to follow your logic in good faith. — NOS4A2

You didn't answer these specific questions:

Regarding Edgar shooting up the Pizzaria: you agreed the disinformation he received was a necessary condition to his action, but then you (bizarrely) claimed the disinformation did no "contribute" to his bad act. I asked, and you did not answer: "So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?"

Regarding my proposal to require watermarks on deepfaked videos, I asked (and you did not answer): who's harmed by such a requirement?
In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?"

What questions of yours did I fail to answer?

You addressed nothing I said. You seem to be unable to think beyond "censorship bad".

The damage of fraudulent speech, as demonstrated through Common Law, is measured by its demonstrated result. The level of criminality that may be involved concerns the question of malicious intent — Paine

So you agree it's a reasonable infringement on free speech, because it can cause damage.

So far, I have made exactly one proposal: to require watermarking of deepfake videos, which are fraudulent by their nature. Do you agree this would be a reasonable step?

Why not just leave everyone alone instead of harming them and their work? It would be better for all of us. — NOS4A2

Such deepfakes are unequivocally a lie, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's free speech. Identifying them for what they are benefits those of us who seek facts. So who's harmed by such a requirement? In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?

Deepfake videos are becoming increasingly lifelike. 100% of them are unequivocal lies, so I suggest some level of governance over them is reasonable. For example: requiring a watermark identifying them as fakes. This wouldn't impede free speech, it would just require disclosure that the content isn't real.

People here don't seem to realize that censorship and free speech is a double-edge sword. — Harry Hindu

Free speech has never meant the freedom to say whatever you want wherever you want. Are laws against fraud and libel to be dispensed with because they infringe free speech?

Fox News lost a big lawsuit to Dominion Voting Systems for spreading lies that hurt their businss. Was that inappropriate?

Axios is a left-leaning source of information. It seems to me that both sides engage in misinformation equally and reject science when it is politically expedient. .. — Harry Hindu

The Axios article linked to a Pew survey that showed Republicans are more likely than Democrats to mistrust scientists.

...Many Democrats have rejected biological facts regarding sex

I've never seen anyone denying the biological facts regarding sex. Are you perhaps referring to the trend to treat gender as a social role that can sometimes be inconsistent with biological sex?

What really sucks is the level of politicization that has infiltrated society today. — Harry Hindu

Yes, that's unfortunate and it's exacerbated by the political parties. GOP leaders have to cater to their base by appealing to their anti-science trends and the embrace of conspiracy theories. In the process, they draw in more of the lunatic fringe - to which they will them endeavor to continue to court. The only remotely similar thing I see the Dems doing is to tiptoe around policies and attitudes toward transgenders.

Here's an idea: how about we take campaigning for a position of power out of the equation? Impose term limits on Congress. — Harry Hindu

Everyone gets one term? I'd support that, but it won't happen - it would take a constitutional amendment. I'd like to see critical thinking skills taught in schools- but I anticipate Christian groups would oppose it.

The right to question authority is a type of free speech — Harry Hindu

Of course, but there has been an unhealthy trend toward treating expert opinion as no more credible than the opinion of a blogger on the internet- especially among Republicans. See: https://www.axios.com/2023/05/28/misinformation-science

Questioning authority is healthy. Countering it with disinformation is not.

We agree on the necessary condition. We disagree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring... — NOS4A2

It was bad that Edgar shot up the Pizzeria.
A necessary condition for this occuring was his hearing the disinformation.

So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?

That’s misinformation. You last sentence in the post to which I disagreed was “ So are you open to considering ways to limit the spread of disinformation, if it doesn't infringe on free speech rights?” — NOS4A2

You're wrong. Here's the entirety of the post:

↪Relativist

My theory is only that the disinformation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for these acts to occur. Do you disagree?

I do not. — NOS4A2

So you believe Edgar would have driven to the Pizza Parlor and shot it up even if he'd never heard the falsehood. That's irrational.

Nope. I believe it didn’t cause him to. — NOS4A2

You're being evasive. I agreed that under a strict definition of cause as that which is necessary and sufficient to resultvin the effect , the disinformation was not the cause. If you read carefully, you'd know that was not on dispute. And yet you repeated the assertion that the disformation didn't cause it.

I have repeatedly asked you if you agreed the information was a necessary condition. You have not clearly answered that. Your "nope" seemed to imply that you do not believe Edgar would have shot up the Pizza Parlor.

You started this thread, so its odd that you seem to want to avoid serious discussion.

And as John Milton argued, the censors deny themselves (and others) the opportunity to see falsity collide with truth. By giving the authorities the right to determine truth and historical fact, they push for the stupidity of mankind. — NOS4A2

Censorship is not the only way to deal with disinformation.

Well, it should have been clear because I linked to the post I was replying to, as I always do. — NOS4A2

The last sentence in the quote was my question: "do you disagree?" You responded. "I do not".

I agree that it was a necessary condition to the event. So is air, water, guns, and pizza. I disagree that it contributed to the event you mentioned and therefor ought to be minimized. — NOS4A2

So you believe Edgar would have driven to the Pizza Parlor and shot it up even if he'd never heard the falsehood. That's irrational.

I haven't suggested any actions (yet). I was just pointing out that more free speech doesn't address the problem...and also that the problem is very real.

It seems pretty simple to me that the obvious solution to the existence of misinformation is more free speech, not less of it. — Harry Hindu

Why didn't free speech prevent a man from shooting his way into a Pizza Parlor to rescue nonexistent child victims of sex trafficking from a nonexistent basement?

You know as well as I do that I was disagreeing with this claim:

So you agree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring. It therefore follows that it would be good to minimize it. — NOS4A2

No, that wasn't at all clear. I asked you a specific yes/no question - that you answered. Now you're blaming me for your answering it wrong.

You are trying to maximize rather than minimize misinformation. And still nothing bad has become of it. All of it reflects on your own behavior instead of threatening me and my safety.

I first need to clarify the distinction between misinformation and disinformation. Disinformation entails falsehoods being promulgated. Misinformation is broader, and includes people being misinformed for a variety of reasons.

In my first post, I listed a number of bad things that disinformation led to. You focused narrowly on the personal responsibilty of the individuals who acted. You correctly noted that the disinformation wasn't necessary and sufficient for the act to occur. I didn't dispute that, but I pointed it that it was a NECESSARY condition for those acts. Edgar, the Pizzagate shooter, never would have done it had the disinformation not existed.

That doesn't excuse Edgar from his crime. It doesn't mean his personal responsibility for his act is less important than the lie. But it's still the case that this bit of disinformation was a necessary condition for Edgar's act to occur. I don't see how you can rationally deny that.

I do not agree, and am not open to considering ways to limit the spread. — NOS4A2

I had previously asked:

My theory is only that the disinformation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for these acts to occur. Do you disagree? — Relativist

You answered:

I do not. — NOS4A2

Did you misunderstand the first question?

If so, then explain why you deny that in the cases I cited, disinformation was a necessary condition.

Great! So you agree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring. It therefore follows that it would be good to minimize it.

So are you open to considering ways to limit the spread of disinformation, if it doesn't infringe on free speech rights?

Just note that many people read it and did nothing of the sort. So you have one instance of someone reading it and then later committing the crime. Compare that to the many others who did read it and then did nothing.

If your theory is that those words cause people to commit harmful acts, you’ll likely need a greater sample of evidence to support it. — NOS4A2

My theory is only that the disinformation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for these acts to occur. Do you disagree?

Sure, but harmed as a result of someone’s choices, not as a result of the information. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. — NOS4A2

Are you suggesting that Edgar Welch would have shot up Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria even if he had never read that Democrats were sex trafficking children? That's ludicrous.

I’m just saying the information never caused the harms you mentioned. The choices of those involved did. So why must I worry about the information? — NOS4A2

As I said: because people are harmed as a result. This is true EVEN IF there is nothing we can do about it.

False information cannot cause people to believe false information or act on false information. If you’d like to criminalize the cause of the harms you’d need to criminalize the act, for instance taking alternative medicine or refusing vaccines — NOS4A2

I answered your question: "Why should we worry about misinformation?"

Are you disagreeing with my answer? You seem to be jumping to a conclusion that I'm proposing to criminalize something. I actually didn't propose a solution.

The Pizzagate conspiracy theory led to Edgar Welch driving from North Carolina to Washington DC and shooting his way into the restaurant. Perhaps you're suggesting the falsehood didn't "cause" him to do this. I'd agree that Welch is responsible for what he did, but this father of two would never have made the trip and committed the act if he had not seen the falsehood.

So please explain: do you agree, or disagree, with the answer I gave to your question. We need to get on the same page with that before we could possibly think of ways to address it.

Why should we worry about misinformation? — NOS4A2

Disinformation does harm.

Direct harm:
-many failed to get COVID vaccines and suffered as a result.
-Increasing numbers of parents aren't getting their kids vaccinated against the various childhood diseases.
-Jan 6 2021: 4 rioters were killed. They were present because of disinformation about the election.
-Families of Sandy Hook sufferred harassment because a conspiracy theory pushed by Alex Jones
-the "Pizza Gate" conspiracy theory nearly led to deaths when a man who believed it shot his way into the restaurant to rescue nonexistent children from a nonexistent basement.
- On a personal note, I know two women who contracted breast cancer who chose "alternative treatments" hyped on the internet ("I do my own research"). One is dead; the other soon will be.

Indirect harm:
1) candidates often get elected for telling people what they want to hear - and many want to hear confirmation of the falsehoods they embrace as true. If those candidates truly believe, then they obviously have poor judgement - implying they will be incompetent. Even those who cater to those who embrace the falsehoods will need to bend policy in that direction for they own political survival.
2) the disinformation can drown out the facts, making it harder for even rational people to make informed judgements.

My point is that I was discussing what exists, not what names we give things.

Of course not they’re different objects with their own separate existence but they’re both just lumps of mass. Language here serves to differentiate between different objects. — kindred

Aren't there actual differences between objects, that would exist even if no one was around to use language?

I’d say that mass is not just a property but a thing in itself. My radio is just a lump of mass and not just a property of the radio. The problem appears to be linguistic here. — kindred

Just a lump of mass? Suppose it has a mass of 500 grams. Is it the same as a 500 gram, lead fishing weight?

Yes photons are confusing because they’re both waves and particles as far as i understand the concept — kindred

All particles behave like waves under some circumstances. They're all quanta of quantum fields (according to quantum field theory).

But matter (mass) is an existent of itself is it not ? — kindred

By writing "matter(mass)" are you suggesting matter and mass are identical? They're not.

Mass is a property that most things have, although photons are things that have 0 mass.

The original question is a fundamental question in ontology: what exists? Personally, I lean toward physicalism, which entails the premise that only physical objects exist. I don't believe properties are objects. Rather, a property is a way the object is. If I'm wrong, and properties are objects- it would have to be explained how a property is somehow attached to an object, and also explain where properties reside when they aren't associated with an object.

Physicalism could be false. Perhaps there are immaterial objects like angels and demons. I see no reason to think so, but you need to consider whether you want an ontology that treats them as, at least possible objects. If so, this means you need broader definition of "object".

In this way, it does not need to be a material/physical thing, it only requires a phenomenology. For example some forms of energy are massless (not physical) eg a photon, but still acts - has the ability to do work. — Benj96

This is confused. Energy and mass aren't existents (per se), they are properties of things that exist, and they can be converted to each other (that's entailed by E=MC^2).

As far as I can tell, everything that exists has properties; properties (including energy and mass) don't exist independently of the things that have those properties.

Many important metaphysical questions have implications for the physical world. Metaphysics tries to figure things out with conceptual analysis (which can include math and logic) and intuition. In this case, it appears the process can't reach a definitive conclusion. — Relativist
What about the conclusion that spacetime is discrete? — MoK

I haven't seen a conceptual analysis that concludes it is discrete, but my impression is that it's typically assumed to be continuous.

But I wonder: is it really hopeless for physics? You said that treating spacetime as discrete would lead to errors if it's actually continuous. Couldn't this be tested? — Relativist

Yes, weather forecast for example. Any chaotic system in general. Even nonchaotic systems show the error in the long term. — MoK

Is it your opinion, as a physicist, that chaotic systems are not (in principle) reducible to deterministic laws of physics? My impression is that the math related to chaotic systems is pertains to identifying functional patterns to make predictions. That, at least, seems to be the nature of weather forecasts - it's not that the movement of air molecules is fundamentally indeterminstic, rather it's that it's that the quantity of data that would be needed to identify the locations and trajectory of each molecule is orders of magnitude too large to be practical to compute.

Isn't the set of steps the set of physical steps? If yes why do you use a one-to-one map? — MoK

Step (the verb) = the act of setting ones foot onto the next step (the noun; a thing).

The set of actions maps to the set of things.
The stairway consists of the set of steps, which we're stipulating as being infinite. Unlike the staircase, the acts of stepping don't exist (they are actions).

Many important metaphysical questions have implications for the physical world. Metaphysics tries to figure things out with conceptual analysis (which can include math and logic) and intuition. In this case, it appears the process can't reach a definitive conclusion.

But I wonder: is it really hopeless for physics? You said that treating spacetime as discrete would lead to errors if it's actually continuous. Couldn't this be tested?

I wasn't claiming it disproved the existence of infinitely many stairs, but it proves that an infinite number of steps cannot be completely traversed in a sequence of of steps of finite temporal duration.

This is in spite of the fact that the set of steps (the activity) maps 1:1 to the set of physical steps that comprise the stairway. The more important conclusion is that there's a logical disconnect between this logical mapping and the analogous temporal process; IOW, the mapping doesn't fully describe the temporal process; something is missing - and it would be worthwhile to develop a mathematics that accounted for this.

Zeno paradox is a metaphysical problem rather than a physical one. It tells us something about reality without a need for any measurements. — MoK

If the question can't be answered via measurement, or any other physical means, then it's unknowable. Quantum mechanics demonstrates that intuition isn't a reliable means of deciding physical* truths, so it shouldn't be too surprising.

*Although it's a metaphysical question, it pertains to the physical world.

That is not a solution but the point of Zeno. If the final step is logically impossible then you cannot complete an infinite series of finite steps therefore you cannot finish the task. — MoK

How is that not a solution? It can be framed as reductio ad absurdum:


1. Arriving at the bottom entails taking a final step
2. The defined infinite process of descent has no end
3. Therefore the infinite process of descent has no final step
4. (1)&(3) are contradictory

Stopping light - one of several:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8Nj2uTZc10 — tim wood

The speed of light (C) is a physical constant that corresponds to the light's velocity in a vacuum. The scenario in the video does not entail exceeding C, it entails slowing down light to a level that can be exceeded by non-light.

Faster than light, Cerenkov radiation - one of several:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjx0BSXa0Ks&t=169s — tim wood

Same thing. It's described here::

"Cherenkov radiation ... is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through a dielectric medium (such as distilled water) at a speed greater than the phase velocity (speed of propagation of a wavefront in a medium) of light in that medium[

And quantum entanglement, which appears to be not only faster the light, but instantaneous. — tim wood

Entanglement is instantaneous, but irrelevant to travel and communication. (see this).

On intelligence, your comment was that

Only one species developed our level of intelligence on earth, — Relativist

.
I noted there were at least eight kinds of humans. And you replied:

Hardly. None of them had a human level of intelligence. — Relativist

. The most charitable thing to say here is that it appears you're confusing knowledge, certain kinds of knowledge, with intelligence, and that's just plain a mistake. — tim wood

You got me: I was using an incorrect statistic, but my point stands that there's no basis to assume intelligence is probable. You ignored my more relevant point: the probability that the specific series of random genetic mutations from its abiogenetic ancestor on down to the first genus homo suggests intelligence is low probability.

The biases I find is that you appear to think of life as that which comports with your ideas of life, rather than restraining yourself so that your ideas of life might comport both with what life is and may be; and, that in mentioning survival advantages there seems more than a hint of teleology. Individuals may want to survive; to say that life wants to survive requires some elaboration to make sense - and teleology is just a sometines useful convenient fiction. — tim wood

My idea of life is pretty basic: molecules that self-replicate with some degree of accuracy. Do you have a less restrictive definition?

I don't get why you bring up teleology. I earlier noted that if teleology is true, then life is more probable. However, I don't think it's true, and I've implicitly treated that as a premise in everything I've said.
Useful fictions are useful in helping to understand something, but are red herrings in a discussion where I've already indicated ~teleology is a premise.

Astute of you, or did the "maybe" give it away. — tim wood

You're verging on being rude. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were trying to be funny, but try a little harder to avoid saying things that could sound demeaning.

I understand a "logical possibility" as one not ruled out by, say, the law of non-contradiction. If you want to consider all of those, go for it. I think there are better uses for time and thinking. — tim wood

Sounds like you agree with me that something more is needed than mere logical possibility to make it worth considering.

As to simple possibility and probability, consider: in our limited experience approximately at least one planet in ten evolves myriad advanced life forms, with at least one we consider pretty intelligent. If there are at least one trillion galaxies, each with about 150 billion stars, and the number of planets at least twice the number of stars and probably many more, then you do the math on the number of advanced life forms, and the number of those we would count as pretty intelligent or even very intelligent.

This is consistent with what I told you earlier:

Absolutely it's probable there's other intelligent life somewhere in this vast, old universe. The issue is whether or not it exists close enough to us (in both time and distance) to even be detectable. For the reasons stated above, I think that's highly improbable. If you think I'm wrong, give me some basis to think it's probable. — Relativist

As you choose to mention my PM to you, it would have been nice also to include my point to you, that your arguments through lack of care and some rigor, become borderline nonsensical. — tim wood

I chose to ignore the insult, but instead responded to the sense of what you said: "I'm perfectly fine with you exposing an error in my thinking."

The only error you've exposed was in my incorrect statistic about the number of "intelligent" species, and I acknowledged that. I could nitpick your claim about "1 in 10 planets have life", because we've examined some exoplanets as well. I saw no need to do that, because I think I understood the gist of your point.

Was it perhaps also the "speed of light" thing - that I didn't explicitly refer to the constant C (because I assumed it would be understood, given the context of FTL travel - flying faster than C). You could easily have said, "oh, you must mean the constant "C", because it's well known that light travels slower in a medium". So your making an issue of it seems disingenous.

But somewhere above you observe that distances are such it's unlikely we're going to encounter any aliens any time soon - and that I agree with. — tim wood

Then what is it that you disagree with me about? Is it just that I exercised "too little care" when I said only one species developed human-level intelligence, and/or that I didn't make it clear that by "FTL travel", I was referring to traveling faster than C?

If spacetime is continuous then we are dealing with an error in treating space and time as discrete. ...

I think if spacetime is discrete and our capacity to measure spacetime interval is much higher than Planck length and time then we can treat spacetime continuously, hence we can use the continuous physical models that describe reality well. We however still have to deal with Zeno's and infinite staircases paradoxes. — MoK

OK, so we risk introducing error if we treat spacetime as discrete, but if it IS discrete, we introduce no errors by treating it (mathematically) as continuous. So treat it as continuous and use the math. Problem solved, right?

Why do we have to deal with Zeno's paradox? Is there some problem in physics where it makes a difference, or are you like the rest of us navel-gazers around here - and just curious the logical implications?

I can express my solution in everyday language.

The scenario entails reaching the bottom of a staircase through a process consisting of stepping, from one step to the next. Reaching that bottom entails taking a final step.

The infinite series entails an unending series of steps. So a final step is logically impossible.

Suppose spacetime is continuous. We still can't distinguish spatial measurements that differ less than a planck length, nor time measurements less than a planck time.

This suggests to me that we will make no errors by treating space and time as discrete, even if it is continuous. What's your thoughts?