This might be broad so let me narrow it. Concerning points and mereology, is it coherent to make points - extentionless entities - compose extended objects? If so, then the idea of "material point objects" is a coherent one and extension is no longer the primitive, defining characteristic of materiality/physicality. Extension is reducible to non-extension.
Some might say, as I have seen, that material point objects are incoherent, and that points are, at best, merely a conceptual tool placed at certain locations on extended objects, and are thus neccisarily abstract. Extension is irredicble. By connection, physicality (objects that are extended) is an irreducible notion.
To note, the people I have seen back the irreducibility of physicality are explicitely opposed to the idea of actual infinity. Material objects are not reducible to actually infinitely small extensionless simples. The material object would be annhilated at that point and would be indestinguishable from nothing.
It is also possible that someone might object to extension being the defining characteristic of material things.
One conversation that talked exactly about what I am looking for was with none other than ol' Kant and his antimony about the composition of material objects where he argued against ultimate extentionless simples. This ciew has fallen out of favor it seems.
I've bought several metaphysics books hoping to get some commentary on points - material, conceptual, what have you - but have been disappointed so far because they seem more interested in other topics.
What is the ontological status of points?