Well
tiberry, first we are not really doing philosophy but science,
so there is as much a quantitative as qualitative background, and one of us could be wrong.
And you cannot judge what is absolutely true, you can only judge what you know.
Everything we know is based on how we define it.
And as our tools & knowledge base grows so does our knowledge,
so let's only base it on pertinent knowledge otherwise we could argue to infinity.
And that is essentially worthless.
Second, all dimensions ARE elementary properties of the universe.
By its definition, it is what we are working in.
Third, you have to have a reference to something, again otherwise it is essentially worthless
Something existing by itself, is just a point.
And it has to do something, it is just a point and again worthless.
And please don't tell me that a point by itself is worth something.
Because it all depends on the scale,
anything in a Void is Infinity.
You have to have a duality, it is essential to existence.
So, since we have eliminated the possibility of a single point,
and non-active particle with no point of reference.
We now have space & time.
A dimension to HAVE something in.
A dimension to DO something in.
That IS fundamental if I've ever seen the word.
BTW, if you are measuring something, YOU are the reference.
ANY mass has to have a space & a time.
These are aspects of our universe, and mass affects what is in, and vice versa.
Thus Gravity, which is NOT a Force, but a warp in Space & Time, the Dimensions it sits in.
We feel this, it affects its surroundings.
This is why we can treat it AS IF it was a Force.
This is fundamental, and this HAS been tested again & again.
Thus it IS a property of the universe, and NOT just a measurement.
And you are correct, on one point...the Theory of Relativity is incomplete.
And since Dimensional Theory is my specialty, and this is what I've based much of my own work on,
I've realized this...it needs to be expanded.
There is more than just space & time
as dimensionals aspects of this universe, the definitions need to be broadened and added to.
Hopefully, I can prove this in the future.
BTW, there would be no such thing as a 0 dimensional being outside the universe,
because once you have that entity you are back to it taking up some space & time.
It doesn't matter to what scale you are referring to.
I think, therefore I am.
Any existence, any consciousness is being, thus there is space & time.
First you have
0, the void, nothing, and thus essentially worthless.
Then you have
1, a point, this is just mathematical, and again essentially worthless.
(if it has ANY mass, then you've got space & time, and even at an infinitesimal scale, a universe)
But back to
2, a line, again this is just mathematical, a scale now, which can interact.
(this is an essential aspect, you have to have SOME point of reference, otherwise worthless)
You now have time & probability come into play. Because at ANY scale or interaction, there are these.
And now to
3, a plane, this is also just mathematical
And finally
4, a solid, this is when you get to ANY type of mass.
Thus your statement that mass is more fundamental is incorrect.
You have to get to two steps further from where the idea of Time comes into play,
before you get to substance.
You HAVE to have the Dimensions, before you have the Mass.
And they both affect each other.
And your own idea of a "being" outside OUR universe,
obviously doesn't have mass,
but it does have SOME dimension,
it IS within something.
Hopefully, this clears things up.
