But then I had a different thought: what if it's the other way around? Take the famous Zeno's paradox about motion being impossible. The argument is basically that there's an infinite amount of space between any 2 points. So you can't travel from one point to another without traversing an infinite amount of space.
Most people now say that Zeno's reasoning was wrong logically. But I don't think so. I think his mistake was his assumption that continuous motion is the right model. After that, his reasoning is fine. In other words, if it is possible to move from one point to another, then this refutes continuous space. Motion is inconsistent with continuous space.
Platonic continuity is the illusion. The discrete is not an approximation for a true, continuous underlying reality: it's exactly the other way around. Continuity is the flawed, approximate model that our brains have come up with to model a discrete underlying reality. Why should our brains have developed this way? I can only guess that nature found this the most efficient thing that worked well enough.
I'm sure many smarter people before me have thought of this and figured out what it would mean for physics so I'm probably wrong. But it certainly helped me to see the other side of the argument and I've never been able to see the Platonic view as anything but naïve since this occurred to me.