This will have only been partly covered in this thread so far - Jakob has already been familiar with my philosophy for a while now, so some of it has probably been skipped.
The logic is that there are no gaps of nothingness to separate “different things”, and any gaps of somethingness to separate “different things” will themselves have no gaps of nothingness between them and the things they separate either etc. So with the impossibility of gaps in experience, it must therefore be fundamentally continuous.
Seeing experiences as discrete is therefore fundamentally an error, which makes it even more interesting that it’s so useful to do so. You can’t formulate knowledge without dissecting the fundamental continuity of experience because knowledge is meaning, and a means requires a start separate from an end. One thing “meaning itself”, tautologically, doesn’t mean anything - meaning and definitions have to be in terms of something else. Hence the necessity of plural discrete experiences to Epistemology, even though Ontology necessitates singular Continuous Experience as I explained just before.
This is only further corroborated by other things I’ve been saying so far on this thread. For example, plural fundamental bases either create a “chicken or the egg” circularity or no fundamental basis to know anything at all like with Postmodernism. The utility of models of discrete experiences is in how well they are conceptually reconnected back together to match Continuous Experience - that’s how you know and test anything epistemically. The sum of the parts is never quite the same as the “gestalt”, so there’s an inevitable gap between useful knowledge and truth, making utility relatively “true to” absolute Truth. The world is never more than one way at any one time, and it’s this singular ontological standard that’s required to evaluate any plural number of epistemologies. And no matter what you try to do away with, to arrive at what this sole unity is, you’ll be confronted by experience as the concrete form of existence in the abstract. And without experience as existence, you have nothing at all. That’s how you know it’s experience that’s continuous at the foundation of all ontology. It’s all the many things you can do with this foundation, dissecting it and reconstructing it to better approximate this single foundation, that is the challenge of epistemology.
The fundamental “error” of discrete experiencing makes sense though, because knowledge is useful insofar as it differs from “what is”, or is becoming. Continuous Experience is naturally continuously emerging unto itself, and so to predict and control this, you need grounds to determine how it’s going to be before it gets there. Knowledge is prediction and control, and that’s power.