Your vast oversimplification of NP-completeness demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of this topic beneath the surface. There are many sound arguments

Your vast oversimplification of NP-completeness demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of this topic beneath the surface. There are many sound arguments for P != NP but no mathematically-rigorous proof. This paper is an unsound argument for P = NP. Computer scientists won't be popping champagne if a proof for P = NP or P != NP is found. If P = NP, then the crypto community will have to rethink some of its fundamental assertions. If P != NP, then we can continue along. No respectable computer scientist would ever discourage someone from considering P = NP, but scientific evidence should guide a reasonable hypothesis rather than flowery language. Let me make it clear that I'm not trying to bash your viewpoint, this is more of a general thing you should understand - scientific direction is guided by empirical evidence and not by human beliefs. When you guide scientific intuition with human intuition, then your reasoning is easily misguided by papers like this one, where human intuition takes the place of scientific rigor.