I never thought I'd see a misunderstanding of what "implies" means in science versus in logic be the fundamental mistake made in a paper on logic for science.

Here's the truth table for implies (if) in logic.

    | A | B | If A then B |
    |---+---+-------------|
    | T | T | T           |
    | T | F | F           |
    | F | T | T           |
    | F | F | T           |
    

Show this to anyone in the sciences who hasn't done logic and you'll instantly get the objections "But hang on, the two rows at the bottom don't fit!".

This is where you need to add temporal logic so that the scientific understanding of A casually implies B can be represented in logic.

In short the paper does nothing of the sort of what it says it does because it fundamentally uses the wrong tool for the job.