I think you've mixed up a few mostly unrelated things together to make a point. You're correct in that the larger point to be made is that analog and digital computing are paradigmatically distinct and analogies are hard to draw across that divide.

However, "bits" is just a quantity of information in a certain base. We could discuss it in "nits" if you prefer. The point is that information per se remains real even if the specific representation is based on some assumption of digital computing.

The rest of your comment is unfortunately out of scope of this article although it deserves some discussion on its own merit.