>You can be exact with Discrete data, but never exact with continuous data. Basically, whole numbers are good for counting and theorectical maths.<
Even that is a bit on the cavalier side, isn't it? We use whole numbers as an idealisation for all sorts of things that introduce complications far too complex for practical resolution.
You spoke of five fingers and a car; how about four eggs or apples (a sensitive point in this forum! :-) ) or four drops of water, or three three-day events, two showers of rain, or a partridge in a pair tree? Is my car still a car after I describe one of those rubber circles on the road, or is it now just 99.999% of a car? And if it is still a whole car, then suppose I continue the process till the car no longer works; when did it stop being a car? And was it half a car at some point between?
If I forfeit a finger in a game against you, how much must I cut off? A bit at the tip? The first three joints? The metacarpel as well? The whole arm up to the superior articular facets of the atlas? If we play marbles and you get one of my aggies by knocking it out of the ring with one of yours, then did you win a marble, or a marble minus material abraded off in the process?
In nature defining a discrete object is a fraught and arbitrary commitment. If you promise me a slice of your wedding cake, cut the cake and offer it to me, better indicate which slice you were offering, or I might well fetch my wheelbarrow and take the larger slice, leaving the rest of the wedding party with one pitiful wedge to share in the hopes of a slice of the cake emulating miracles of the past.
In short (too late! Too late!) boundaries in nature are always fuzzy in crucial respects, and fuzzy is the logic to apply, and fuzzier is the logic as people generally apply it.
