>Interesting. I noticed the author of the article uses a Visual FoxPro database to store his stats. If he is in the know about databases, there a good chance he is in the know about other areas as well.

I'm the author, and my physics is horribly sub-par.

>There is a slight problem with his theory. If fundamental nature occurs at speeds greater than light, and light draws boundaries around our observable nature, how can his theory be proved.

First, science never proves theories. It merely supports them with observable evidence, and when a theory is found to be inconsistent with observable evidence, the theory is discarded.

That said, we should ask, how can this theory be supported by verifiable observations?

It can't be. Thats what makes it a "Final Theory."

A Final Theory of Nature that can be proved would make Nature an exception to the Incompleteness Theorem. So the closest we can theoritically get is a Final Theory that consistently contains many smaller theories that can be verified experimentally (which my hypothesis does by containing General and Special Relativity along with Quantum theories) and then to make it final, the theory must account for its own incompleteness (which my hypothesis does by accounting for the act of observation in the model).