If String Theorists hadn't spent the last thirty years laying the foundation for beautiful theories that can't produce any actual numbers (or even falsifiable predictions) this kind of idea probably wouldn't have been published... Oy.
As you said earlier, there’s no “there” there!
Or, to sow my age and re-use a worn expression, “Where’s the beef???”
You can’t “prove” something by definition. If he were to walk up to us with a notebook and say “Here’s the set” are we simply supposed to take his word for it? What if someone else arrives with another notebook and says “That’s not the set! This is my set and it’s the real set!!”
What do we do, flip a coin?
Something very fundamental is missing here.