I am well-qualified to evaluate that paper, and the math is easily within my grasp.
I'd never seen that paper before, but it just reinforces my opinion. As with everywhere else, he tries to equate the vague notion of "meaning" with mathematical information, ignores relevant theorems, and makes some unsupportable assertions. Most of his schtick involves trying to redefine the strict mathematical definition of "information" to the looser pedestrian definition so that he can try and shoehorn it into supporting his conclusions. I doubt he's ever written a paper that is actually strict and rigorous relating to information theory, particularly since he is still attempting to discover something novel in the basics of the field. It is kind of like the cranks that think they have a special insight into rudimentary physics that has never occurred to anyone else that will allow them to design a perpetual motion machine
BTW, the paper is actually an essay dressed up like a math paper, in case you couldn't tell. Apparently you don't understand the paper...?
One more thing to add to the list.