Akinbo,
As I pointed out in my response on my thread, you raise far more issues than can be easily answered.
The ancient Romans are castigated for not having a zero in their number system, yet they were a notoriously practical minded people and given that zero creates more problems that it easily solves, they may have left it out on purpose, like that relative one deals with as little as possible.
Yes, a dimensionless point is a mathematical contradiction, because lacking any of the three dimensions means it is a multiple of zero. A dimensionless point would be as real as a dimensionless apple.
A monad is not a perfect solution either. In order to have an irreducible dimensionality, like a Planck unit, one must be able to theoretically assign it some size. Two problems with this; For one thing, you could always "theoretically" cut that size in half. Saying otherwise is just an appeal to authority. For another, in order to have size, it must have boundaries, which requires structure and definition smaller than the proposed unit. If you make the walls of its container dimensionless, you only push the problem away, you don't solve it.
As for something and nothing, they are not the computational 1 and 0. In order to measure anything, even nothing, you need something to measure/detect whether it does, or doesn't exist. So actually it is 1 and 2. The detector silent and the detector ringing.
As for Zeno, it doesn't matter how many times you add a zero, you still have zero, so there is no such thing as a line of dimensionless points.
The real zero is empty space. It is not a singularity or bound in any way, because it is nothing. Being nothing, it cannot move, therefore it is inert. It is against this inertia of empty space that the speed of light is limited. Thus the faster an object goes, the greater the drag on its internal activity and so the slower its clock runs. Eventually at the speed of light in this vacuum, there is no internal activity and so no more energy that can be converted into increased speed, so the speed of light in the vacuum is an absolute limit. If space were truly relative, then nothing would prevent separate frames, with normal internal activity , moving past one another at the speed of light. There could be living beings in that beam of light flowing through your window, if space were not the ultimate frame.
Centrifugal force is another example of the inertia of space. If motion is entirely relative, then why would an object in an otherwise empty frame ever have measurable spin? And if it didn't, why would an object with only the most distant light as outside reference have any centrifugal effect if it is spinning? It is only because space is zero, the absolute, universal state, that such things are real effects and limits.
Now you might argue centrifugal force is not affectted by the frame moving, much as spinning a child on the suface of the earth is not affect when the child is moving in the direction of rotation, versus the other direction, but that is only because it is so incremental. At near the speed of light, the spin of an electron is decidedly affected, thus creating length contraction. Also General Relativity do describe gravity as warped spacetime and if you were to spin that child in a circle up and down, it would seriously matter whether it is the upward motion, or the downward motion.
I think gravity is a basic vacuum effect of radiation contracting into mass. Much as releasing radiation from mass creates significant pressure.
So since physics treats everything as measurement and space is described as a measure between mass points, so that when they are drawn together, it is considered a contraction of space, gravity is another form of length contraction of the collapsing energy and the mass that is its concentrated form. No need of gravitons or gravity waves when all we need is for light in space to be more diffuse then light absorbed into mass.
Time, on the other hand, is an entirely different situation. My last year's contest entry dealt with the problems of our understanding of time.
After this, then comes the issue of what is epistemic and what is ontological. Consider that past and future are not ontologically real, so even the notion of determinism is epistemic.
Regards,
John Merryman
Ps, You do have a very intelligent perspective on the deeper issues, so I will grade you appropriately.