The very nature of a point itself is where philosophers and
physicists alike get all wonky and woozy. Yet it is akin to "How
many angels can fit on the head of a pin?" For measure, you need
points. For points, you need order. For order, you need measure
and for measure you need order. They're conceptual requirements
without which one can fly off into la-la-land like trying to
find a fundamental fraction representing the square root of 2.
It's not that a paradox lies at the heart of all things but
rather that the nature of the things appear to have a minimum of
3. You do not have a > you have a>b. Even if you bring the
subjective into the equation, you have observer, observed and
the act of observation. An equation.
