That's in a sense how every model works. All theoretical models of the world are human inventions that aid in making sense of the world in terms familiar to us and nothing more. If you get good results from thinking the world is made of atoms, then the world is made out of atoms. When someone comes along and explains the same thing with strings, then the world is made out of strings. Models are just 'manners of speaking'. It might very well be that you have a dozen entirely different, but equally accurate fundamental ways to talk about a thing.
It’s like when you go see an osteopath and they tell you that your stomach problem is due to your bad posture...
It's as if Stephen Wolframs mental horizon starts getting more and more restricted over the years since he tries to frame everything he sees in terms of his physical theory.
And long. Loooong. His sales pitches seem to always go in circles. Computational irreducability here, causal graph there, namedrop Wolfram Language a few times with pretty pictures, make sure that "in our models" Einsteins theory and quantum mechanics are mentioned as special cases and "surprisingly everything works out beautifully". Yeah no right.
Time to move on. I've read enough of his 20-mile-long self-praising sales pich novels. He is just going in circles.
While I am not a big fan of Wolfram’s physics (I think it’s a bit backwards that he took something that he knows very well and somehow finds that it’s how the universe works), I kind of like the idea that space and time emerge from something more computational.
I think that’s what the article should have been focused on...