It is utterly unlike string theory.

String theory is a very rigid coherent theory. It has produced plenty of deep mathematical insights. I personally don't believe that it describes our universe, but it is possible to calculate its properties.

Wolframs "Theory" is a bunch of relatively conventional ideas (by high energy physics theory standards), tied together by wishful thinking and speculation. In parts it seems almost possible to show that the ideas are actually contradictory. It is only saved by being to vague to fail coherence checks.

It is, to use the old cliche, not even wrong.

There are exactly zero free parameters in string theory [0]. The details of why string phenomenology is hard is a difficult subject, but the characterization you've given of it is not correct. If you have a proof that string theory is not self-consistent, you should publish it, because there is no such proof in the scientific literature today. (Source: my PhD in physics.)

Unfortunately, there is a ton of misinformation about this topic on the web. For example, people love to say that string theory predicts anything and everything. But it predicts (and rejects) a lot; it’s just that all of the known predictions happen to fall into the categories of (1) predicting things that are very hard for humans to measure (behavior of black holes at long time scales, graviton scattering, etc) or (2) retrodicting things we already know are true (e.g. gravity, Lorentz invariance, etc.). This state of things isn’t by design of nefarious string theorists designing their theory to be untestable, it’s just cruel fate of what comes out of the math. Hopefully someday we can find some other type of prediction, but string theory isn’t easy.

[0] See e.g. https://indico.cern.ch/event/630393/contributions/2890113/at...