Yes, agree that suggesting "true" is unclear, and in fact in science doesn't really talk about true things but rather than ability to predict the way things behave. We are still in the dark about the fundamental nature of reality. Science is still useful of course, but only insofar as it has a useful purpose. It's more like an engineering subject.

I think what I've just said foots with your calculus comment, and also a Wolfram-like interpretation is closer to "truth" and your point on discretisation.

Why do you think discretisation/quantisation is necessary for the "physical"?

What can I search for to find his comments on this subject?

> Why do you think discretisation/quantisation is necessary for the "physical"?

We are trying to explain, the physical reality we find outselves in, so, if the universe is fundamentally quantized, it must be discrete, as continuous math would reify infinities.

> What can I search for to find his comments on this subject?

You could check Curt Jaimungal's youtube, Hooft was on it recently.