Only if you don't understand the way aliasing is created and if you ignore the way system resolution is arrived at. Stop thinking this lens out resolves that sensor or the other way around, it just doesn't work like that.
Look at the Nyquist limit, or as we often refer to it in digital photography, Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA), the more pixels we get the less aperture we have to show off those pixels. Already pixel density is such that f5.6 gives us the "sharpest" images, more pixels will demand ever better glass and the "sweet spot" will get lower and lower such that we will have less dof to display that resolution.
It isn't that diffraction will get worse, but at the moment we can resolve the diffraction above f8, which is the main reason the 36mp cameras don't actually return much better resolution figures than 24mp cameras, more mp will enable us to resolve the diffraction at apertures faster than f5.6. Once the diffraction limit (Nyquist limit) is hit then aliasing is no longer an issue and neither are AA filters. It will be a very long time before Nyquist limits are hit for very fast apertures.
I was just putting it in simple terms there by using the examples of sensor vs lens resolving ability. I still stand by the underlying principle: its pointless to declare a sensor (if you ever genuinely could) to have such a high resolution as to not need an AA filter, as the resolution is so high (in those declared scenarios, which can no doubt be overcome with a different, possibly future lens, or technique etc) that the AA filter is no longer the limiting factor anyway.
Any form of blurring prior to sampling has the potential to mitigate aliasing. Diffraction, subject motion blur, camera shake, focus accuracy, AA filter, optical aberrations etc.
I did some calculations on MP and diffraction caused by aperture ratio some time ago (I think I posted it here on CR) - while we're closing in on the point of diminishing returns with normal use apertures right now (f5.6 to f8), I think it was something in the region of 300 + MP with an f1.4 lens - but realising that resolution to its full potential would require beyond Otus levels of wide open sharpness (there's no way the current Canon 50/1.4 would do it, regardless of the identical DLA calculations) and one hell of a steady tripod with mirror lockup, and probably an electronic shutter too.