Dear Branko
I read your essay with interest because of your supposition that the world is made of 'opposites'. Of course the mass of the universe and your "hypothetical quantum mass (2.723388288 * 10^-69 kg)" are not opposites at all, which seems to undermine your argument, which in part seems to ride on the back of work by Nichmachus where he says, "Everything that is harmoniously constituted is knit together out of opposites..." (http://jeff560.tripod.com/h.html). I might attribute the error in interpretation of the word 'opposites' to a Google translator, but I don't think this is the problem. Opposites cannot be knit together because they share nothing in common. Hence we reach for 'relationships' to hold them together. There is a paper by Armstrong on this, for which my previous essay makes reference, if you are interested.
I note that your value of the "hypothetical quantum mass" seems unsupported. I found its value only in papers written by you. Perhaps you might explain how you arrived at the value? Citations might have helped.
As such, your determination of the Planck mass as a geometric mean seems to be derived in reverse, meaning you propose the hypothetical quantum mass by beginning with the Planck mass, so your argument then becomes tautological and descriptive alone, which could then not be fundamental. That said, it just may be that this value might be in some way equivalent to the minimum value of my Harmony Set, which is surprising. I say this because the form of the harmonic mean is suggestive of a connection, but it would take quite a while for me to find out. Still, given the effort you have put into writing the essay, the coincidence is worth mentioning, if it helps.
You state: Each planet and star have its final lifetime, but Kepler's laws describing relations between them are eternal. The same applies to Newton's, Maxwell's and Planck's laws ... and the phenomena to which they relate. This is incorrect. Neither Kepler's nor Newton's laws are accurate, as shown by measurements. That is why General Relativity is so amazing - it predicted variations from Newton's laws without any need to adjust parameters to make things fit. As for the phenomena to which you refer, saying these are eternal is unsupported. Can you provide evidence for the truth of this claim? If the universe is accelerating, such phenomena are unlikely to be eternal.
Next, recognise, as Riemann and Hilbert did, that Euclid's idea of 'point', 'line' and so forth remain primitive. They are assumptions made by him, and are not well defined, so aligning this to a singularity is difficult. This remains a problem for General Relativity and QM also. Indeed all of contemporary mathematics has equivalent problems at foundation. Such problems do not occur for the Harmony Set, so I am hopeful that in producing a well-founded model these issues will be washed away by showing how space and time is produced in the first place.
I am spending all this time writing about your work because I think that your efforts are admirable and look a bit like what I started with. Instead of 'opposites' shift the idea a little to recognise that you are just talking about equivalence and difference. Then you may find that my previous essay https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1904 will feel like coming home.
Best wishes