Frankly, I can't understand most of this. Here are some comments.
Originally Posted by Erico Hullo
I read this book by Christopher Bek ( Philosophymagazine), The Theory of One: realizing the dream of a final theory (2015). It's core, which the author says he deliberately Occamized it to the maximum (leaving the mathematics for later), is this:
P1: There is no causality outside the cosmos because there's no time outside the cosmos. Outside the cosmos means no spacetime, and no spacetime means no causality. 
This contains the hidden assumption that there
is an "outside the cosmos".
P2: According to quantum theory of the atom, causality breaks down at Planck's constantcausality fails inside the atom that is bounded at Planck's constant. Planck's constant is a boundary of the atom. Beyond it there is no causality, and so what is beyond must be outside the cosmos. (If causality breaks down, then it means no time, which means one is outside the cosmos).

Planck's constant is a
number. In what sense is a number a "boundary"? There is also a logic error. Having said that "outside the cosmos there is no causality", he concludes that "because there is no causality this is outside the cosmos". He is effectively assuming that "A implies B" is equivalent to "B implies A" and that is not true.
P3: According to the Pythagorean Form, a body that accelerates to light speed shrinks to zero height. Light speed is then a boundary of spacetime. What is beyond this boundary must be outside the cosmos.

What?? The Pythagorean theorem says nothing about speed at all. There are erroneous arguments that the
theory of relativity says that if a body accelerates to light speed then its length becomes 0. That is erroneous because what the theory of relativity says is a body
can't "accelerate to light speed. And, again, the speed of light is a
number. In what sense can a number be a "boundary"?
C: Therefore, light speed and Planck’s constant are the same boundary of the universe.
What do you folks think of this? Is light speed a "boundary"? Is Planck's constant a "boundary"? Are they the same? Does he have something here?
Thanks,
Erico.
Calgary, AB CANADA.

I think it's nonsense! It looks to me like this author is trying to combine very separate things that he doesn't understand to begin with! And if he really referred to the "Pythagorean theorem" as you say, he needs to take high school math again!
(Looking at the url you provide, it appears that this "philosophy magazine" is created by Christopher Bek himself, to advertise his (self published) books and all "reviews" of his books are written by himself.)