> It fails as a counterexample for our inability to potentially understand reality without flaw In both comments I assert that phenomena cannot be wholly model

> It fails as a counterexample for our inability to potentially understand reality without flaw In both comments I assert that phenomena cannot be wholly modeled (or replicated). The gist is that descriptions and replicas are always lossy to some extent. The second comment just expands on why, relating it ultimately to physical limitations (features) of physical reality. You can get uncannily precise and predictive with some knowledge - engineering, manufacturing, math - that any lossiness is truly negligible. Especially the smaller the scope and more "medium sized" the object or idea in question. But compounded, and at extreme scales, the incompleteness of our understanding of reality shows. I agree with your 1 & 2.