Your paper starts out saying a lot of things that are blatanly false. This is not a good way to make a reasoned argument.
You say, for instance, that "the Academy" has consistently refused to get serious about foundational questions, whereas doing that has been a major theme of twentieth century mathematics, and many great mathematicians have made it their life's work. You claim physicists have trouble with string theory because they make use of set theory, which is simply nonsense. I suspect you don't know much about string theory. You claim the axioms of set theory have not been questioned, which is drivel. You sneer at people who do what you claim you think should be done, namely study the foundations of mathematics, and put the word "supposedly" before "difficult", indicating that you think set theory and logic are dead easy. But do you know any serious set theory? You claim that most mathematicians could not define a vector or a function, as if you possessed the secret decoder ring which made you smarter than the rest of us.
In short, you sound, just in your opening few paragraphs, altogether too much like the kind of people we constantly come across here on sci.math. You sound like a crank. I think you *are* a crank. I suggest you stick to subjects you've studied, and not sound off on topics you don't understand.