Before I forget, I did indeed get it wrong about the digital Vs boolean thing, but what I was getting at is the ones and zeroes thing; basically the artificial resemblance of reality thing that digital does.
I also totally loved reading what you wrote. I honestly don't know of anyone who put up so much literature on advanced topics to defend digital. I can tell you now, it did not work on me, but l do understand what you're getting at even though half the stuff you talk about goes over my head.
So what you're saying, in laymans terms is that you think analogue is digital, and you say this because you see a change of status in the real world as some sort of on/off switch. If I were to take that as valid then we might as well say a light switch is digital because it's on or off. or maybe turning over in your sleep is digital when you switch from left to right shoulder. That's not digital, it's just a change of status.
But here is the thing that is even harder to swallow. Cause what you say does not take into account that frequency and quantization are different things. If we capture real world images using a digital camera, we get moire patterns because of the quantization. If we capture real world audio using a digital system we get aliasing because of the quantization.
Capturing things in a quantized manner is the problem because the real world is not quantized. The real world is analogue, the real world is about frequency, and there you have the issue, cause as digital camera sensors and digital audio recorders prove, frequency and quantization do not get on at all. They are each others worst enemy. Analogue does smooth flowing signals, whereas digital does quantization.
The analogy I gave about the turntable is a good way describe the analogue Vs digital thing.
The stylus is vibrated, the vibration pushes the cone of a speaker which pushes the air that presses your eardrum. That's as pure as it gets, no conversion needed. You can not do that with digital. Digital needs to be converted into analogue in order for us to hear it. So while all that other stuff genuinely does fascinate me, there's no way on earth you can convince me that it's better to take analogue, convert it to digital, then convert it back to analogue - than it is for it to remain analogue in the first place.
Using a turntable, the sound remains analogue from capturing the words from the singers lips, to it beating down on your eardrums. Those sounds coming from the lips cut the vibrations into the record. Those vibrations then vibrated a stylus that pushed a speaker cone to vibrate your eardrums.
That's analogue, that's the beauty of analogue, and it's why you'll often hear people who appreciate analogue refer to it as "real". Analogue sound reproduction cannot be bettered by digital, it's impossible, because by it's very nature, digital is artificial quantization, it's not smooth and unquantized like pure, analogue audio reproduction is.
Now something else I would like to point out, and this is very important, is that I understand why people hail digital like thay do, and just as important, I understand why the math guys like yourself find digital beautiful. I think to you, digital and math are inseperable, you know this, and you see the beauty of math and what can be achieved with it, that it must result in something superior.
But it doesn't, and the reason it doesn't is because math is basically a way to measure the real world, the analogue world. The analogue world does not submit to any digital theory whatsoever, it's the other way around, because like I said, without analogue, digital cannot even exist.
To prove it, send your digital CD player over to me and I'll remove the digital to analogue converter. I'll return it to you minus the part that makes it all possible for you (the analogue part). Without that digital to analogue converter, all you can do is watch the disc spin. I could never suffer such a misfortune with a turntable, though, cause it's real, it's analogue. It's the purest way to capture the real world.
Analogue - it's what we all are - and why we're superior to robots:
