Recently this question blew up in terms of traffic and voting comparatively to our average amount on the site but I am honestly perplexed as to why the question has stayed open.
(I apologize in advance for this small exhibition I'm about to do, but I think it's necessary to explain why I think the question shouldn't be open.) This question, I believe at its core, is asking whether or not spacetime is continuous or discrete. As people have pointed out in the comments, when the OP says "analog" and "digital" they really mean "continuous" and "discrete". As much as the question is outlining a paradox that the current top voted answer concludes is some form of one of Zeno's paradoxes, at its core the question is whether or not the universe is continuous or discrete, which I would justify by reprinting the final paragraph from the question: "So, does my example prove the universe to be digital? Or, is the universe analog, and this is a paradox? Or does my logic fail somewhere?" The question is asking about the divisibility of spacetime more than it's asking about the paradox itself.
So, my question then becomes: why is this question still up? I see two reasons why it shouldn't be. One is because that is not a philosophical question; it is at best a borderline case between physics and philosophy, but there are plenty of examples of questions being closed which lie on that same line. The second, and I think more pressing reason, is that if what I've outlined is the question being asked, then it is a duplicate question, both on this site and a very many times on physics.SE (this and almost all of the related/linked questions are questions about the same thing). My experience on this site before now has been that duplicate questions get closed extremely fast, sometimes even faster than the once-in-a-while completely-rambling-and-incoherent questions. So, I am surprised that this question wasn't closed in the same way. To that last point as well, if someone is of the opinion, like @Jobermark is given their answer, that the question might not fundamentally be about the granularity of spacetime and is actually about Zeno, then again it is assuredly not a unique question.
So, as was pointed out in the comments of this metaquestion by @Isaacson and myself, it seems incredibly weird that there are only (now) three votes to close on this question which is at worst a borderline-not-philosophy question and at best a duplicate question. The second highest voted comment, which not only exceeds the aggregate up vote count on the question (the comment has 36 and the aggregate up vote on the question is 15) but it also has more votes than the total amount of votes on the question (36 to 27, which means that even if people could down vote it, it still would have gotten more reactions than the question itself), is a comment that points out how the question is not a philosophy question and is just a question about math. I do not understand how thirty-six people agreed with that comment and yet only three people have voted to close the question. I can understand if a majority of the people that voted on the comment don't have the reputation to vote to close on this site, but it still seems incredibly weird to me that this community, which is big on voting to close as a duplicate and big on voting to close borderline questions, hasn't done so already.
As was mentioned in the above conversation that I linked to, one idea that I had which @Isaacson agreed with is that there might be a position towards amnesty on this question because of the fact that it blew up and received so much traffic. However, I raised some suspicion as to whether or not that traffic actually flows to the rest of our site. To quote @Isaacson:
With regards to the traffic, a quick glance at the homepage shows that your reservations are justified, the sub 100 view tallies common before the viral question continue unaltered after it. The 11,000 viewers simply came, looked at (and voted on) that one question and then left.
So, any hope that a viral question will cause some sort of increase in regular traffic or new users to our site doesn't seem to be justified (at least given the face value site analytics that people without the reputation for the internal and Google analytics can see).
Lastly, @Keelan edited the question to remove some of the fluff (which I agree with as a generally good practice) but that in some way shows that at least one moderator does condone the question being on the site, despite the large support from the comments pointing out why it isn't a good question. I don't think it is the end of the world if a popular question gets special privileges that let it bypass being a duplicate question, given how rarely it happens (obvious slippery slope) but I think that at least having an on the record answer to this question would be a good thing as it can set a precedent for the future.
Sorry for the repetition, but I'll repeat my question to close this out: why is this question still open? Is it because it is given special privileges since it became a (relative to our site) viral question? If this is an example of "popular question privilege", what is the justification for that privilege's existence if it allows for duplicate and borderline questions to remain open?