I tried reading Vaz's paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.3823 and failed to understand it. He goes fast, uses variables without defining them, assumes a lot of reader familiarity with Wheeler deWitt equation and blows off all kinds of minor details which don't seem so minor -- at least not to those of us not already experts about Wheeler deWitt (which is to say, 99%+ of physicists & mathematicians). So... I can't say if it is brilliant, nutty, or what. To understand it, perhaps somebody could rewrite he paper about 4X times the length now actually explaining stuff, or a more dedicated reader than I could also read lots of other things in parallel.