Isn't this his personal blog? The domain name is "stephenwolfram.com", this is his personal website. Of course there will be "I"'s and "me"'s — this website is about him and what he does.
As for falsifiability:
> You have some particular kind of rule. And it looks as if it’s only going to behave in some particular way. But no, eventually you find a case where it does something completely different, and unexpected.
So I guess to falsify a theory about some rule you just have to run the rule long enough to see something the theory doesn't predict.
I think the comparison is unfair. Wolfram is endowed with a very generous sense of his own self worth, but, other than the victims of his litigation, I'm not aware that he's hurting anybody.
A lot of words and excitement, reminding me of the String Theory -- is very generic, able to explain anything (and be quickly adapted to any new stuff it was failing at before), but that makes it useless -- a useful theory should predict something that other theories cannot, something that can be tested.
That's why I asked for the falsifiability. If there was a phrase like: "here is an experiment idea that can show which theory is correct" -- perfect. Or at least something like: "here's the real-world prediction that is very hard/impossible to calculate in other theories, but this theory makes it easy" -- at least it'd be useful for calculation.
> My thoughts keep running to two other geniuses: Isaac Newton (Wolfram’s predecessor in revolutionizing science) and Donald Knuth (another contemporary computer scientist). ... But both were also gracious and modest, something that Wolfram is not.
Uhm, Knuth -- yes, but Newton was pretty arrogant, vindictive, obsessive about his reputation, and unable to tolerate criticism. Some even claim he stole ideas, like the inverse-square law.
Didn't find anything on falsifiable criteria -- any new theory should be able, at least in theory, to be tested for being not true.