The main reason for this "it's all over my head" feeling that one gets when reading his thoughts is that he freely invents new concepts with names like "branchial space" and "multiway hypergraph" and "slicing rurial space" that sound sciency/mathematical and give you the feeling "oh if I only understood math/CS/physics better then I knew what he is talking about" while in reality this is all his own terminology and thus the reader has of course not really a clue of what's going on. It's because he does not clearly define what he is talking about or gives discussions of the properties of the things he throws around, but just "as it turns out there is this beautiful thing I call this-and-that and it's exactly like feynmans path integral" and then we're just supposed to sit in awe. That's not how you communicate scientific progress. It's all just smoke.

Of course one feels inadequate in an article supposedly about fire if all we ever get presented with are different shades of grey smoke and "as it turns out it's beautiful" and "I've researched this smoke since the 80s".