It’s not like it was developed by random nobodies, and it’s not like the default assumption should be that some work is the result of cranks (the default assumption should be agnosticism towards it)
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.