I didn't find this to be a very useful article. It takes steps to create an abstract-symbolic definition of meaning, but doesn't develop it further and also doesn't use it again in the rest of the article. At least half of it could have been left out, therefore.

The conclusion is also rather trite, and seems to adopt humanity's tendency towards techno-optimistic hubris as a proxy for meaning. The conclusion doesn't support the thesis that science can lead us to meaning. I can appreciate the complexity of human society by reading the Koran, or going to a death metal concert. I don't need science for that.

Science is truly great, it is the most successful and useful paradigm for organising knowledge. But I don't think it is a path to meaning, no matter how much you romanticize it. It's just as likely to kill us all and destroy the planet as it is to save it, the former being considerably easier than the latter.