When CMB anisotropies are studied, one question is to see the the universe is isotropic or anisotropic -- these are two different uses of the word isotropic, on completely different scales.
The current prevailing science is saying that the CMB anisotropies are telling us the universe is isotropic...
The linked paper does however talk about an apparent deviation from this standard picture...but that is not what the word "anisotropy" is about in that quote.
Gurzadyan is not the most representative researcher to cite. While doing a PhD in astrophysics I remember a paper coming out where Gurzadyan co-published with Penrose but the paper had obvious flaws due to basic lack of understanding of statistical simulation, and there were many other groups jumping on showing it wrong within a few days..
IIRC the problem was that it was assumed that independent random variables in one space would still be independent after a linear transform (Fourier transform/spherical harmonic transform). I.e. failure in basic statistical algebra stuff underpinning the statistical simulations. This was not nitpicking, the whole result vanished once other groups redid the experiment with corrected algebra.
The talk was all about how Penrose could possibly have been fooled into putting his name on the paper -- and why he would not retract it even after many pointed out the blatant entry level mistakes.
Penrose has published many papers on ghosts of black holes from another universe (see https://www.livescience.com/63392-black-holes-from-past-univ... for commentary), but 0811.2723 does not have Penrose as an author or state a reference to him by name.
