This is a remarkably short paper for the big claims it makes. For me it has the feel of starting at the answer and then working backwards to find the original question. Which is a perfectly valid approach, as long as there is at least some constraint or indication that was indeed the original question asked.
We've seen time and again in physics where people can create awesome mathematical frameworks that try to explain it all. Then every time the model disagrees with reality, the model or it's parameters are slightly tweaked so it's in line again. For me this isn't very useful, as we would like to use the model to make real predictions. Not just chase our tails.