This is not an argument, it's posturing.
Ok, Matt. Though I've already spelled it out elsewhere for another coy poster, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- once -- that you're not just trolling and you really can't see why the burden should be on people like you to explain why there's a cogent thought in this paper worth discussing, not the other way around.
The thesis of this "scientific paper" is basically like a couple of tokers sitting around in their parents' basement saying "DUUUUDE... what if the money in our savings account DOUBLED EVERY YEAR?!??? By the time our parents kick us out, we'll never have to work again. We could just, like, go to the bank and tell them they need to do this and stuff, 'cause we'd be totally poor if they didn't. DUUUUDE."
I sure do hope you can see (1) why a thought process like that -- which is indisputably mathematically correct, and yet utterly decoupled from reality -- shouldn't ever leave that basement, much less be published in what professes to be a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and (2) that most professedly sentient beings would not haughtily demand a blow-by-blow explanation as to why.