My view is indeed the opposite. It seems trivial to me that reality has actual infinities as seen from a discrete pov.

A trivial example: you can partition the environment into an infinite number of objects. And which partition scheme you choose is, in some sense, abitary.

Eg., "object: the edge of the glass", "composite: edges of glasses on the table", etc.

Reality admits an infinite number of such schemes, and also forcloses an infinite number (eg., if "pen"=pen, then "paper"!=pen).

I dont think one can meaningfully speak "of reality", ie., provide a discrete linguistic/propositional account, which avoids these infinities.

I also think there is no meta-scheme, so one cannot even order (in terms of fundamentality) which scheme is 'the really real' one.

It's my view that the reason for this issue is that cognition is discrete but reality continuous. Since discrete aggregations arent enough, likewise "aggregative models of atoms" arent enough for chemistry.

An aqueous solution, just like a society, is much more than merely the sum of the properties of its members. When we partition the world with a discrete scheme, we introduce "emergent properties" which are only the "leftovers from our reductive failure".

The only problem infinity poses is to being realised by a discrete sequential process. That can never be actually infinite. But everything else can!