Obviously your unknown theorist is rather naive. It's not worthwhile reading any more that he/she has to say. All of his/her considerations have been dealt with in cosmology including how inflation ends, in a split second.
However, the variety of physically credible cosomologies abounds just because there is no opportunity to view the early universe or even achieve energies of that sort in particle accelerators. That essentially makes cosmology into metaphysics, or in reality, religion. Each new cosmology is a new creation story. The big bang has been replaced by the cyclic superuniverse, based on string and membrane theory; and more recently Ms. Randall of Harvard has our universe living in a 3-d megauniverse. It's all religion, but based on the principles of physics and healthy imaginations.
Personally I like the cosmology of Smolin, now at the Canadian Advanced Institute, who proposes that baby universes are born in the massive black holes of a mother universe, and that this has been going on for generations and generations, essentially forever, so that now the prevalent universe is the one that creates the greatest number of black holes, which coincidentally are universes that produce organic lifeforms. I particularly like this one because it agrees with Hindu scripture found in the Bagavatum. Since it's all religion anyway, we may as well use revelation to select the most likely cosmology. For example, the Old Testament six day creation story would be the least likely on the basis of the principles of physics.