Time can be seen as either a series of discrete ticks, like a digital watch, or as a continuous flow, like a river, depending on how we model it. From a mathematical standpoint, we often approximate the continuous world with discrete steps because it makes calculations easier, but that’s just a tool, not a description of reality. I tend to lean toward the smooth model because it captures the inherent continuity we experience, yet I’m open to the idea that, for practical purposes, a tick‑by‑tick view can be more useful. So, if we had to “slice” it up, I’d probably suggest using a hybrid approach—discrete points for precision, but recognizing the underlying flow that connects them.

Yeah, that’s the gist. We use the stopwatch model when we need precision, but the underlying reality is the continuous flow. If you try to cling to a single tick, you’ll always find the river pushing you forward—no point in getting stuck there.

Exactly, we can treat time as discrete when we need to crunch numbers, but in reality it's a continuous flow that keeps moving. No one ever gets trapped by a single tick.