>>32
You made that concept up. You were talking about how sqrt(2) is computable but requires an infinite amount of memory/time to compute. Well, guess what? Then it's not computable. Because the notion of computable functions when applied to numbers pretty much boils down to just the rational numbers (those that can be fully computed in finite time), it is a useless concept, and 'computable number' was therefore instead defined to instead mean a number that can be
approximated to any degree by a Turing machine. Thus your whole idea of computable functions that require infinite resources is wrong.
This ties in to
>>14 because if the universe is computable (likely, otherwise why wouldn't we, inside the universe, be given access to this hypercomputing power?), then it also does not require infinite computational resources to run, and then it cannot be continuous. All these concepts of discreteness, computability, DFAs, etc, are highly interrelated.