Interpretation vs Compiled

This is gonna be a bit of a silly one.

There are two terms we use to describe how far away a programming language is from the output: interpreted and compiled.

But this makes me think... This is a spectrum. Python and Lua are commonly given interpretted, but what about Java? Java is compiled to an intermediary bytecode before then being INTERPRETTED to the native machine's instructions.

How far can we go with this definition?

Well, let's first think of the extremes:

Compiled

First thought that comes to mind is CPU instructions are the most compiled. But then you wonder, the CPU still has a lot of roundabout ways to execute your instructions in order to get a result.

Therefore mechanical linkage is more "compiled" than a CPU, there is less indirection between your input and the outputs. But now we have to think, mechanical linkage isn't always the most direct either. Do we get molecular with this? Or are we now just describing all of chemistry and physics?

Interpretted

So Python clearly isn't the most interpretted, even of the programming languages we have. But what about human language? Isn't someone telling someone else to write a program in Java that is then interpretted in a virtual machine into CPU instructions more "interpretted"? But now we get into the problem of human thought, nurture vs nature, etc.

Conclusion

I don't know where I was going with this.