A supposedly physics theory, even if in agreement with physical observations, should be expressed in mathematics, not discursive, "qualitative", language. For mathematics is IMO not only "measures", but "the language of nature". Thus, if a model like the one put down in this book will not, or cannot, be properly expressed in mathematics, then it cannot be properly called a "theory" by our modern standards (unless we wan't to go back to the Middle Ages).
Second: I didn't found any argument in the book as to why infinities and singularities do not really exist in nature. In fact an alleged original "first cause" in truly outdated Aristotelian fashion, is stated in the book as TGB (The Greatest Protobody). But what really is a TGB, the book does not say. Should it not be considered as an - inevitable - singularity in this "theory"?
To me this is the major flaw in this work, namely, the going-back to the most simplistic and naive form of classical causality, where one and only one principle is considered as the basis of all. Ironically, the same paradoxes of non-locality that hurt so much modern physics, apply to this model. I see no way how it can explain synchronous action at a distance - which objectively occurs in nature, even in our nervous system.
So, having said this, I must say I agree with most of its criticism of modern cosmology (Big Bang). I also agree on the scalarity (independence of scale) of physical phenomena. OTH we know of the spiral constancy in natural phenomena since Fibonacci and the Golden Ratio. But also the recently found hard core (ferrite) of the Sun and the difference (faster) rotational speed of Earth's core would be two possible positive predictions of this "model".
Lastly,this book should be 1/5th its lenght. It's unbearably long and repetitive (the most repetive statement is of course how good and original this "theory" is). if you just read the last chapter (Theory of interaction - the simplest description of nature) you're done with it.
In conclusion, like Mandelbrot's Fractal Geometry of Nature or Fredkin's Digital Mechanics, we don't really have here a "theory" but a conceptual framework.