The implication is that almost any practicing physicist would parse this as crank-ish, so we can discuss it operating from the shared position that it needs to be defended to be worth spending time on. Similar to how most physicists are not going to spend any time responding to random crank emails, because they parse as cranks; the burden of credibility is on the writer.

Credentials offer some credibility, but imo not enough to make this seem worth spending time on.

Anyway, if I had to put the criticism into words: the entire page is weird jargon that doesn't appear to solve any problems that we have, puts a simple problem into inscrutable metaphysical terminology, and the authors didn't feel like they needed to provide any examples of their model being useful or providing any insights. So my reaction is to ignore it until they do the work of showing why we should care.