I think that the answer could be "yes, if well done". The best advantage I see is the possibility to have a digital antialiasing filter much more sharper than a physical one.
Let me explain (geeky here (1)) in one dimension. If you want to sample something at, say, 100 points/mm, the Nyquist theorem says that for avoiding aliasing (typically shown as moire in the images) you should cut all frequencies in the input signal above 50 points/mm. Notice that once aliased data is in, is in. You can't distinguish it from the real data, so it's impossible to remove.
Now, making a physical filter that cuts completely the frequencies above 50 p/mm and let pass the frequencies below is impossible; the filters have to transition from "pass" to "no pass" in a finite range of frequencies. Filters that have faster transition(2) are much more complex to do (especially the optical ones). Let say that a reasonable "transition band" is 10 p/mm for a physical filter.
So you have to compromise between aliasing and band (moire and sharpness in imaging). for example, you can filter from 20 p/mm and have very little moire but a loss in sharpness; or filter at 45 p/mm and risk a bit of moire with more sharpness, or pass on the filter...
If you oversample at say 1000 p/mm you move simply the problem up, no? But suppose you really want 50 p/mm. So you now put a physical antialiasing filter at 200 p/mm (easy to do, no aliasing). And then you can use a digital filter before (re)sampling at 100p/mm --- and this filter is just software so that you can make it really much more fast at a reasonable price, especially with modern hardware: say you can do the transition in 1 p/mm. So you have at the end the equivalent of the first system, but you can put the final filter at 49 p/mm and having no moire whatsoever (3).
On the negative side, having more pixel means having more electronics, so it means that the total area of the chip used for sensing is smaller in a higher megapixel sensor. That could be in part corrected by the microlenses, but it generally means that a hit in noise (high ISO performance) is to be expected, too.
(1) my background is analog electronics. This post describes a technique that is widely used in digitizing signals like audio or biological ones. Forgive me if I use a quite strange terminology.
(2) in electronics we call this filters "sharp", not "fast". I used fast to not cross meaning with sharpness of the image.
(3) No idea if Sharp do all of that. Just guessing.