Congratulations on a very well written and thought provoking paper, Dr. Ojo.
To dig deep into the past like this and put things in perspective is inspiring, and of substantial benefit to anyone interested in discovering the road we might be taking into the future.
The way I interpret your concept is that the Planck length indicates that all things are substantial, and that therefore there is no zero-dimensionality; to me, this is a clear illustration that It and Bit are both physical, but dimensionally different.
Physics, as you point out, has avoided this concept and instead gone down the road of abstraction (as in Zero Dimensionality) instead of substance, or physicality - leading it into a dis-equilibrium that erodes its significance in solving our fundamental contradictions.
The problem with incorporeal abstractions being accepted as foundational, is that they become substantial anyway - over the course of the Observer's evolution: The abstractions of geometry have contributed quite fundamentally to our concepts of the Cosmos, and to our brain's development - and this has placed borders and shapes upon the field of reality, borders that are nonetheless no more that agreed upon parameters for our calculations or observations.
They work for many purposes - but they also give rise to our contradictions. Wheeler sought to build particles out of geometry - and one could say that evolution does that - and is presently creating, in Physics, an increasing divergence between our concepts and the harmonious correlation of the phenomena of our experience.
I think it is important to factor human evolution into your argument: Long before the abstractions of Plato and Euclid (which obviously did not come out of nowhere) there were more primal abstractions - and it is upon all of these that we have built our assumptions, and indeed our Species Cosmos over the millennia.
Your concept of 'digital physics' is fascinating - and if information has physicality (as I put forth in my essay), and if the monads of our information (Sensory-Cognitive monads, if you will) correlate with the monads that are the foundation of the Cosmos (Planck-particles), then software might well be able to compute the correlations between inorganic, organic, and sensory-cognitive phenomena one day.
Another point that came to my mind, as you quoted Newton: "...space is capable of having some substantial reality. Indeed, if its parts could move ... and this mobility was an ingredient in the idea of vacuum, then there would be no question about it - parts of space would be corporeal substance."
In my view, if all is monads, even information (in the brain and in computers), then the Cosmos, being the sum total of these Particles, has 'parts' - what I call Zones - that correspond and correlate with the Particles of the system, since there can be no other structure. (There's more to say on this, but I'm generalizing; I elaborate in my essay).
In an argument on substantiality I find it hard to agree with you, I must say, that 'No other place exists outside the universe to expand into, nor is there any to be left behind after collapse.'
I sense another abstraction subtly edging into the 'substantial' world you describe.
Instead, I put forth 'substantial' links (which I don't think contradict anything you say) between our Cosmos and a General Field of energy that produces variant Cosmae - and thus gives rise to monads (or what I call 'Pulses').
I'd love to hear what you think about these points, and about my essay. I truly enjoyed yours - all the best!