The author didn't need to extend his argument that far. That wasn't my point. What he did is make some statements that are factually wrong. Reality as we know

The author didn't need to extend his argument that far. That wasn't my point. What he did is make some statements that are factually wrong. Reality as we know it does not have infinite resolution. This is categorically false. It points to the fact about how his arguments aren't fundamentally true. His point is flawed because at the low level it's false. In my argument I took it further. I made the counter point. You probably didn't read far enough. If you did you would agree with my counter point. At a high level, both of our overall points have truth. But this guy is talking about his point as if it's the one fundamental truth, and he even uses the term infinite resolution which again is false.