At the same time it misses the point of the natural sciences.
Hypergraphs as described are more like Calculus than Physics. Of course, describing gravity with calculus was a brilliant discovery but you can't just have calculus and say "that's gravity". You need the connection between the two.
His model is inherently computational. It would be like saying "here's a computer that can execute things" and then proving that you'd created the Linux kernel or something.
It's not a very surprising claim to say that a particular fact can be represented in a system which can represent anything. Mathematicians (well, most anyways) don't go around claiming they've discovered the secrets of the universe because math _could_ describe it in principle.
I think he's excited because he thinks that in this framework we can just "throw compute" at the problem to enumerate the possible theories of everything, and automatically rule out the ones that don't align with reality.
I've often wondered why they don't get the same vitriol. I think it's mainly because they're still attached to physical formalisms: gauge theories, algebras, known symmetries and conservation laws, etc. It at least has some constraints, even if they're not testable.
Back 20 years ago when Wolfram released A New Kind of Science, my GR teacher said about that book: "Science makes predictions, not press statements." Even Hawking got in a lot of trouble in his later years when he'd announce all those extreme claims and walk them down without ever publishing anything. It really surprises me how much press coverage this guy can get over 2 decades without actually making a theoretically testable prediction.