No. It’s great engineering, but only based on quantum mechanics, any interpretation of it you choose, that applies to all quantum computers (my understanding, I didn’t look into this one especially). Or even just based on classical physics, since it’s been proven equivalent if I understood this great interview and his paper correctly (that point of the multiverse is addressed at my chosen time point, but for sure watch the whole interview from the start):
I added bold below, the italics are his, and his words, this development “boringfies” quantum mechanics:
This paper introduces an exact correspondence between a general class of stochastic systems and quantum theory. This correspondence provides a new framework for using Hilbert-space methods to formulate highly generic, non-Markovian types of stochastic dynamics, with potential applications throughout the sciences. [..] In addition, this reconstruction approach opens up new ways of understanding quantum phenomena like interference, decoherence, entanglement, noncommutative observables, and wave-function collapse.
[..]
In what follows, it will be important to be keep in mind the distinction between deterministic hidden-variables theories and stochastic hidden-variables theories.Bell’s original nonlocality theorem, as formulated and proved in 1964 [71], only addressed the case of a deterministic hidden-variables theory.
[..]
Bell’s 1964 theorem therefore establishes that any purported formulation of quantum theory based on local deterministic hidden variables is ruled out empirically.At first glance, there might have seemed to be just two available options in response to Bell’s nonlocality theorem. Either one could accept a theory of nonlocal deterministic hidden variables, or one could deny the existence of nonlocal deterministic hidden variables
I would look into p-bits rather than just qbit based quantum computers:
Bridging the gap between classical bits and quantum bits