Dear Andrej,
I was fascinated by your proof, well written, presented, argued and illustrated so of great worth. But I think it may contain a fundamentally flawed assumption which prevents it's completion, which I discuss in my own essay.
Firstly I agree most of what you propose. "Everything is a Change", "geometry of motion..". as a platform for unification. But suggest there is; "a way to express space (and) time independently,"
I think you are absolutely right in saying "The truth that we are facing is that our predictions would never be exact." and this is what I think I have rationalised by challenging the assumption, or questioning your statement 1=1. I agree it's absolute truth mathematically, when manipulating symbols as cardinalisations, but suggest nature is different, there being no two identical physical entities at observable scale, as Leibnitz Law and possibly contrary to the assumption of QM. I identify this fundamental assumption as the root of all confusion and 'background noise' in science.
This is why computation can't handle "the ideas of infinity, i.e. computer doesn't"think"."
The 'described mechanism' may not; create grids from zero to infinity. But perhaps changes down to a minimum of gamma or the plank length, between 0 and 1.
I hope you will read my essay and justification, and see the power of an ontology based on a Bayesian 'included' not excluded middle for nature.
None the less a good score is due for your essay. I look forward to your comments here and/or on mine. please ignore the dense offputting abstract but believe the nice blog comments.
Very best wishes.
Peter