To me, and I think many other outsiders, putting a lot of emphasis on the equivalent of grammars-language-automata looks like mathematical naivety. I don't say this to be rude but because you (and Chomsky) claim to be able to interpret the implications of these mathematical results, but I don't think you are doing so correctly. Grammars look like a human (mathematical) invention and not some deep mathematical structure, and these results appear shallow. In the broader context, lots of mechanisms are able to do Turing complete computation.

This doesn't just apply to grammars. There is a huge array of formalisms (e.g. logics, type systems) out there and most just look like the result of someone saying "what if I did this?".