They are unanswerable questions, because they depend upon assumptions, consensus, and representation, not the muddle of reality. Yet the opposite, reductive, binary notion is pervasive in our perceptions, our culture, and our language. The problem, they would have us believe, is one of scale. I don't think so, and I suspect none of us would think so, if we would take a moment to reflect. I think they have lost track of the paradox that analysis depends on.
Analysis captures static snapshots of a living process.
It culls and selects those snapshots to gather representative ones. It accounts for the unrepresentative by discarding it. Even if the movie has more frames per second than we can perceive, it is still a fragmented representation of the process. A case in point is photography. What that means is that once you magnify the image enough, it becomes individual colored grains.