This article would be better if it emphasized more on how and why the philosophy doesn't really have a practical use. It can, and some of these points can be useful if applied to a practical game design or project, but here it's like the author is asking questions he doesn't really have answers to. I know that may kind of be the point, but in that case, I've read many articles just like this.
Proceduralism is the future, but only when computers become powerful enough to create art assets. Creating plots and stories procedurally will hardly ever be better for a gaming experience than what a few script writers can do, and there will never be a need for it. Creating procedural battlefields that allow a user to drive a tank accross an entire planet is feasable, and if Google Earth can do it right now (with a static planet), why wouldn't cloud computing do it in the future (with a procedural planet)? Being able to fly through a huge universe in a space ship and then zoom into a procedurally created city and ability to see all of the people/vehicles, that's what gamers dream about. Perhaps one day, all or most game genres will be unified in some such online universe, but that will probably have to wait for CPU time server-side to become cheaper. I've done research on this and could go on forever, but, basically I agree that a mixture of all of these ideas in the article will probably start to drip into the real world and practical usage.