The problem with his theory is that it probably can! But it doesn’t mean anything. To me it seems like his entire exercise is akin to re-inventing mathematical

The problem with his theory is that it probably can! But it doesn’t mean anything. To me it seems like his entire exercise is akin to re-inventing mathematical physics with, say, type theory instead of set theory, or to handle the surreal numbers rather than merely the reals, or likewise to restrict only to the computational reals. Any one of these exercises might lead to newfound theoretical understanding. But that’s far from obvious at the onset, and my inclination is that these would be enormously complex undertakings that would only muddle the physics rather than clarifying anything[1]. Regardless, if you were halfway through this project and managed to pull something like the Einstein field equations out of your mess of math, it hardly proves anything. You started with a very general model that can express a great deal of general mathematics, and all you did was pull some specific mathematics out of it. It’s particularly egregious with Wolfram because nobody is impressed that cellular automata can express a great deal of mathematics which looks like physics. [1] Perhaps some approach will make certain computations easier (e.g the type theory approach and certain problems with group representations) but that’s different from new theoretical understanding. The point is that none of these approaches seem likely to give a testable prediction they differs from the “standard” formulation.