This sounds like someone wrote a highly theoretical physica paper that got filtered through a journalist who had absolutely no idea what it was about, but thought it was cool, and summarized it in very vague and confused terms.

There are a lot of vague philosophical papers without much point to them. Until someone comes up with concrete evidence that this one is different - for instance a specific testable experiment - I would suggest that there is little point in paying much attention to this. Yes, I know that the paper supposedly suggested several such experiments. But the ones mentioned in the summary can ignore time because they are imprecise enough that the speed of light can be regarded as instantaneous. Where more refined versions can be performed, the speed of light shows up as an explicit factor and time dependence is important.