Okay, the depth of your misapprehension here is impressive. You have focused on the 'universes in black holes' notion - which has been around for decades - to the point where you missed the important stuff, stuff that is nowhere to be seen in the fecund universes notion (which is itself only a special case application of the holographic principle.)
I'm gonna try to help you out here.
Previous iterations of the holographic principle as applied to black holes have not included the critical aspects of the linked article.
These include, for your reading pleasure:
1) Resolution of the inflation problem by means of the ECKS torsion mechanism
2) The unification of quantum mechanics and GR in terms of describing subatomic particles
3) Matter/energy genesis by means of the torsion principle inside the event horizon, including baryogenesis asymmetry in matter/antimatter
4) Explanation of the arrow of time via infalling matter through the event horizon.
None of these key points are present in anything you've described. What you have described is the fecund universe principle, which suggests that universes arise from the collapse of black holes, and that natural selection operates to favor new universes that can in turn generate more black holes. It includes none of the above critical points, which are what make this theory worth noticing.
The fact that you said something as fantastically oblivious as this:
The fact that the values of the universal constants would evolve over many iterations of the universes going through black holes isn't a similarity? Bull****. The only difference is that one predicts there wouldn't be a singularity / collapse.
suggests to me that you completely missed all four points.
What you have done is taken a general principle that Smolin, the fecund universe man, endorses - the holographic principle - and from there assumed that this was nothing different, in the process completely overlooking at least four world-shatteringly important changes that will totally reshape physics and cosmology if they are substantiated. You are apparently not even
aware that Smolin favors loop quantum gravity and thus would not have reached the conclusions in this proposed theory (which rely on a different synthesis of QM and GR.)
This theory explains the arrow of time as an
emergent from something that also resolves inflation and you think it's no different from the fecund universes hypothesis because they both involve black holes? Are you aware that nearly everything written about the holographic principle in the past few decades describes universes inside black holes? That is
not what is important here.
Forget the black hole universe thing. That's been around for 30 years. What is important is the four points outlined above.
EDIT: removed a hilarious, cutting and beautifully composed but probably nonetheless ill-advised description
