What is ridiculous?
May've just drawn a circle and claimed that it describes all of science.
Sorry if that seems harsh, just.. this looks like someone's having some sort of crisis. It's worrisome.
The 9 lines imply all equations of physics. Every Lagrangian of physics is included. The lines are also coherent: none contradicts another. They are complementary: the cover all observations and all fields of physics. No field of physics is left out. The lines are also correct: every calculation fits with observations withing measurement accuracy, since the standard model (with neutrino masses and PMNS mixing) and general relativity exist.
For example, Line-5 suggests that entropy is never below the Boltzmann-constant. Which simply isn't true; there're notions of zero-entropy, where zero is less than the Boltzmann-constant.
For another example, Line-2 suggests that nature itself is local; this would contradict non-local effects, e.g. entanglement, and would seem to prohibit faster-than-light recession.
Or, maybe those lines were meant in a way that doesn't have those problems? But maybe they have different problems? Who knows! -- which is the bigger problem.
This is usually described as ["not even wrong"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong ). Because, to be wrong, it'd have to make more sense first.
"Zero entropy" is indeed against the laws of physics - in this universe. It may be different in other universes.
Line 2 does not speak about locality, but about the speed of light. Entanglement does not violate the speed of light - in this universe. It may be different in other universes.
If you know what a Lagrangian is - in quantum theory, in quantum field theory, in the standard model and in general relativity - you also know that there is no random interpretation in the 9 lines.
Which is kinda my point -- those 9-lines aren't all of science.. unless, I guess, if you assume that all of science is a given. But then, why even have 9-lines when 0-lines could do?
Then it's hard to avoid critiques because there're obvious flaws. For example, yes, there're totally productive notions of zero-entropy -- even if not in the models you're used to. For another example, macroscale-constants haven't been demonstrated to emerge from the Standard-Model -- for example, it hasn't been demonstrated that astronomical-scale measurements aren't influenced by unknown factors, such as many-body forces, which might cause results that'd differ from those predicted by the Standard-Model. And since we can measure some of those things not known to emerge from the Standard-Model, the idea that the Standard-Model captures everything -- including those things not known to emerge from it -- doesn't follow.
But then that seems to be getting off-topic, because while there'd seem to be many things off about this, the one I'd really stress is that those 9-lines don't contain what they claim to.
Indeed, it is a sport to boil down everything to a smallest set of assumptions. That is how the nine lines arose.