Take the cat paradox: contrary to many nonsensical interpretations, QM doesn't really require the cat to be in a superposition of live and dead states until an observer shows up. What it requires is the existence of an Hermitian operator, in this case a life operator, and the application of the life operator to the cat's state vector in order to do a measurement. Presumably, the cat herself has access to this operator (she knows if she is alive or dead.)
In this allegedly new formulation, the cat was always alive in the Invariant Set. Or... she was always dead in the Invariant Set. The application of the life operator then takes a measurement, which reveals her to be alive (or dead, as the case may be.). This is pretty much the same as Tipler's perspective, it is not new and it is not really particularly interesting. It still does NOT answer the question: "If I perform this experiment on 1000 identical cats with 1000 identical experimtental setups, why do 667 cats wind up dead and 333 of the cats wind up alive?"
The Invariant Set answer appears to be: because the 667 dead cats were part of actual reality, just as the 333 live cats were part of actual reality.
Just so. But why?
I just can't agree. I believe that this paper points to a new way of understanding much. I have seen variants of this general postulation from the state space side which contains all possible outcomes from the beginning of time. The reality that we can observe and live in is the result of the collapse of this greater set of possibilities into actualities that we see as the flow of time.
This paper takes this general concept that has been around and more carefully defines it and relates it to the most vexing questions of "working" quantum mechanics and thus clears away the paradoxes and muddles that point to completely illogical conclusions from the view of standard reasoning, but are completely possible from a quantum mechanical stand point.
This theory explains why what is ... is.. and what is not is not, by proposing a set of possibilities that are, if you would, meant to be.
Now he may or may not be correct about this.. for ultimately this might lead to some sense of pre-destination, but as they state in the article, the system he proposes allows for intention, human interaction, other interaction to determine the state, like picking one chute rather than the other in a water park which points reality in that direction never to return to the same choice point again.
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.