I think he's arguing that the traditional math is right, but it doesn't model reality. It's beyond my pay grade.
That's not a new argument. That's exactly why there is a paradox.
But that's the rub; if the "traditional" math/physics is RIGHT, how can you tell it DOESN'T model reality?
IOW, if the "traditional" mathematics/physics always gives the correct answers, in what practical sense can it be said to NOT model reality?
Lastly, if this guy is on to something deep and profound, then his theory should be able to make falsifiable predictions that "traditional" math/physics does not make, and then we can see who's "right." And if his theory makes no predictions that differ from "traditional" math/physics, then on what basis is his system to be preferred over the "traditional" one?