[NateEag]

I think OP understands that calculus is an enormously powerful tool.

I think the OP's point is that much like the Newtonian physics that paired with calculus to put a man on the moon, calculus is a pragmatically magnificent tool that doesn't yield exactly correct or perfectly accurate answers for many questions. Just "enough accuracy for the problem you're solving," in some very real senses.

[peteradio]

Huh, what are we talking about here? Calculus does give exact results. What questions are we talking about? Fundamentally statistical questions are going to have inherent uncertainties, its got nothing to do with Calculus.

[FollowingTheDao]

Calculus make use of the fundamental notions of convergence of infinite sequences and infinite series to a well-defined limit.

What you are calling an exact result is only a limit function. All “things” will measure infinitely.

[peteradio]

Still not understanding what your issue is with calculus. I think so far you only have a problem with its outcomes when you feed it garbage. We expect to see "Calculus" diverge when integrating near the lattice spacing. I don't think we wholly disagree but I am doubtful you are going to make headway fighting against calculus.

[FollowingTheDao]

I don’t have a problem with calculus, I’m just expressing its limitations. Using calculus to know the area of a circle is useful but it never really measures the area of a circle because the area of any circle is infinite.