I love the philosophical stuff of physics but I find the cited article completely incomprehensible [ . . . ] It may be the inadequacy of the reporter's writing skills.

Or the market the article was written (and edited) for. I had the same problem.

What piques my interest is that my man John A. Wheeler says there's some merit in the new paradigm.

Same here, Phil... if Wheeler's intrigued, there may well be something to it. I'd like to see what Hawking has to say, too.

I did a bit of Googling, and came up with a follow-up paper by Lynds on Zeno's Paradox (unfortunately the link to the PDF format version was broken when I tried it). Here's a quote from it:

As such, instead of being arguments against the possibility of motion, the paradoxes are critiques of our underlying assumptions regarding the idea of continuous motion in an infinitely divisible space and time. [ . . . ] We of course know that motion and physical continuity are possible and an obvious feature of nature, so there has to be something wrong with the initial assumptions regarding the paradoxes. But what? Although Zeno's paradoxes may at first seem like whimsical little puzzles and as though they could be quite easily disposed of without much thought and effort, they show themselves to be immeasurably subtle and profound, as Bertrand Russell once characterised them, when examined in detail, and over the centuries mathematicians, philosophers and physicists have continually argued about them at great length. These people can be divided into two camps: those that think there is no real problem, and those who believe that Zeno‘s paradoxes have not yet been solved (Morris, 1997).

This is what I get out of it (so far; haven't read the whole paper yet): just as the three spacial dimensions are infinitesimably divisible, so is the fourth: time. And, just as quantum indeterminacy creeps into measurement of spacial properties (position, velocity) as the intervals decrease, so it does into measurements of time. Thus, there cannot be an independently determinable instant of time. The concept is "merely" an assumption - albeit one upon which mathematical analysis of physical processes is based.

I could be way off...

I wonder if Lynds has read Douglas Hofstater's Godel : Escher : Bach, and if Hofstater has read Lynd's paper yet.