Bob Coeke of Oxford University states: "What makes this really interesting is that it gets away from the usual debates over multiple universes and hidden variables and so on. It suggests there might be an underlying physical geometry that physics has just missed, which is radical and very positive". He added that "Palmer manages to explain some quantum phenomena, but he hasn't yet derived the whole rigid structure of the theory. This is really necessary."
“Can fractals make sense of the quantum world?” by Mark Buchanan
What we have here is a swipe at an explanation and not the whole explanation, but it is sufficiently pleasing that it merits noting and when the whole is proposed, it is very likely that a prediction can be made that can be rejected that would not otherwise be obvious.
Unfortunately, if the "new theory" actually "gets away" from this -- which I seriously doubt it does -- it cannot possibly be correct. Belle's Theorem is not an argument: it is a rigorously correct mathematical result. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox is not a paradox at all: it is a description of what actually happens in our world. Claiming that the correlated spin of one particle doesn't really effect the other at a distance because this is simply "the reality" and the other possible correlated spin state is "not a reality" is tautological.
To take a simpler example: The behavior of sufficiently smooth functions on their boundaries completely determines their behavior throughout the volumes in which they are defined. This is a (admittedly imprecise statement of a) mathematical fact. Consequently we can describe our physics as happening throughout the volume of space-time, or, if we desire, we can consider that reality an illusion for something that is happening simply on the boundary of the universe with the same physical laws (suitably mathematically rephrased on that boundary). This has led to some silly articles about how we may be nothing more than "holographic projections of something that is happening on the edge of our universe." Well, actually, we are, and we are also happening inside the physical volume of the universe, because the two things are not different. The physics is not changed.
Back to the instant case: the fact that the cat lives sometimes and dies other times is not altered by this new interpretation. Unless the "new theory" can actually predict when the cat dies, the uncertainty principle, non-deterministic causality, and all the so-called "paradoxes" remain, and are not answered by hand waving arguments that in some cases the cat lives because that's the way it goes, and in some cases she dies because of the same "explanation."
Sorry, but it has the stench of the weak anthropic principle: either it's trivially true, or it's not science. I hope there is a lot more to this new "theory" than the article conveys.