Jessica,
I found your essay beautifully written, you definitely have a 'literary' flair. When I saw the title of your essay, I thought of Jonathan Swift and braced myself for a truly outrageous proposition, but, as it turns out, many other entrants to this contest have proposed ideas that seem somewhat similar.
In my view, a duality between things that in their essence appear to be incompatible with one another which fails to show the conceptual bridge between them presents an incomplete picture of the relation between those things, and so I cannot accept that, say, the wave-particle duality alone (i.e. without an explanation of how the two incompatible representations 'fit' each other) is a description that reflects our most fundamental understanding of quantum objects. I think that it really is within our grasp to understand what these kinds of dualities really 'mean', in the sense that a deeper reflection ought to reveal that two concepts related by a duality but apparently mutually exclusive are in some definite sense still compatible with one another.
From this perspective, it seems incumbent upon anyone who proposes such dualities to also explain in what specific sense the two ostensibly incompatible concepts can be understood to be compatible with one another after all. Without this sort of explanation, such propositions run a serious danger of degenerating into a kind of mysticism, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I fail to see much in this regard in the essays that I have read which propose that reality may be both continuous and discrete.
In the case of your essay, I do have the impression that you were actually too modest to venture into this area, as it (unsurprisingly!) will force the proposer to go out on limb and suggest ideas that are likely to be highly unfamiliar. It is not that difficult (or 'immodest') to point out places in a given theory where one or the other concept may be usefully substituted. It is much, much harder to explain in specific terms how the different conceptions can be understood to be connected to each other as clearly as we understand, say, how the the ear and the trunk of an elephant are connected to each other.
Anyway, don't let my criticism discourage you, it is was sincerely meant to be constructive. Within the scope of what you set out to do, you did extremely well!
Take care,
Armin