This is more of a quirk of which axioms you choose and which you discard rather than anything else. For instance, implicit in this model is a continuous representation of the universe, but the universe is not actually continuous!
People usually talk about planck length as some quantized length but it's just a scale where quantum effects are significant.
Even if continuous, I would still argue against this article. In a continuous universe non-determinism, randomness, is not needed. In the provided example I would expect no action to take place, or acknowledge that a continuous universe infers an infinite resolution of information for physical systems.
> This makes the assumption that the universe is continuous instead of discrete. Quantum physics is all about discreteness.
This is irrelevant. The discussion is within the framework of classical Newtonian dynamics. The discrete-ness of the universe has no effect whatsoever, because the moment we say we’re using classical mechanics, we assume a flat Euclidean continuous spacetime. The argument is made in these terms, and in can be proven or disproven in this framework.
> Newton himself suspected light was discrete, what he named "corpuscles".
This has absolutely nothing to do with whether spacetime itself is quantised or not. You can have a concept of point particles in a continuous space, that’s not a problem.
> In a continuous universe non-determinism, randomness, is not needed. In the provided example I would expect no action to take place
That is a good intuition.
> or acknowledge that a continuous universe infers an infinite resolution of information for physical systems.
However, this is not. Even in a continuous universe (and, until proven otherwise, our understanding is that ours is), infinite “information” is not really a thing.
That's the point. That's why a continuous universe is absurd from an informational perspective.
This is why Beckenstein was so brilliant, he was among the first to understand physical systems must fit into information theory. If they don't, physics has far worse and profound issues.
Any description of the universe is informational. We should hope that the universe is informational so that humanity can have a complete description of the cosmos. If the universe is not informational, since description by nature is informational, there would be no way to describe the universe completely.