In reference to quantum mechanics, I am right on your sids. The minute truths of existence express themselves through their larger appearances. But they are two sides of the same coin. A big problem with the way a lot of people will approach this is due to Kant. Most believed he killed metaphysics, but nothing of the sort. He simply seperated metaphysical discource from emprical discource because the terminologies seldom overlapped. But in regards to your comment, there is a tretise called Pascal's Infinite Indefinitism that states, no matter how far up we look,and no matter far down we reach, we always reach an indivisble point. A point of pure energy. The discrete can only express a contiuum by reference to its connection to that pantheistic layer of reality. The greeks termed it, "Han Kai Pan", the one that is all.

still a lot more to read in this thread but Kant published a less than popular work entitled, Negative & Positive Sums, at least in referenxe to my education. Claimed numerical continuum must be an illusions because this, the electromagnetically regulated reality we perceive, is almost always the world of zero. Meaning no matter what we find via the senses and our sensory based instruments we find only +1 & -1 of discrete objects. Fichte expanded way more on the topic but there is something to consider in regarding this exostence as The World of Zero.

John made an important point that seldom comes up in this debate. Its also important to note that the original version of this example did not include Ship B. That was added way later in history, around Kant's time if I'm not mistaken. However, when the Greek's posed this question it was in the pre-Cartesian sense of identification. And in the sense of identification, a possession require agency, thus Theseus' ship is always the one captained by Theseus & his crew.

But in the later examples, Theseus is long since passed on, therefore is Ship A or Ship B Theseus' Ship. Semantics is important here, because the words we use necessarily condition our view of the situation. In this case, once Theseus' ORIGINAL ship is torn apart, neither are Theseus' Ship anymore. Ship A is a new ship that takes up the same point in space/time that occupies the point that was once occupied by Theseus' ship. Ship B is a 'reconstructed' sum of the parts of Theseus' original ship.

Not sure if anyone is feeling those answers, but that is a possible outlook after having addressed this problem through multiple lenses and looking for different aspefts embedded in the argument.