(Second November 2017) The UNBELIEVABLE similarities between the ideas of some people (2011-2016) and my ideas (2002-2008) in physics (quantum mechanics, cosmology), cognitive neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and philosophy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CONTENT\n Some preliminary comments on âVacariuâs dark listâ\n Introduction of my approach epistemologically different worldsâ: paragraphs of my works 2002-2008 \n \n I.\tPHYSICS, COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY\n Chapter 1 Did Sean Carrollâs ideas (2016) (California Institute of Technology, USA) (within the wrong framework, the âuniverseâ) plagiarize my ideas (2002-2010) (within the EDWs framework) on quantum mechanics, the relationship between Einstein relativity and quantum mechanics, life, the mind-brain problem, etc.?\n Chapter 2 The unbelievable similarities between Frank Wilczekâs ideas (2016) (Nobel Prize in Physics) and my ideas (2002-2008, etc.) (Philosophy of Mind and Quantum Mechanics)\n Chapter 3 The unbelievable similarities between Hugo F. Alrøe and Egon Noeâs (Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Denmark) ideas (2017, USA) and my ideas (2002-2008) (Bohr's complementarity extended to ontology)\n Chapter 4 Similarities between Adam Frankâs ideas (2016 or 2017?, University of Rochester in New York , USA) (âMinding matter - The closer you look, the more the materialist position in physics appears to rest on shaky metaphysical groundâ) and my ideas (2005, 2008)\n Chapter 5 (June 2017) (June 2017) Strong similarity between Carlo Rovelliâs ideas (Italy) in two books (2015) to my ideas (2002-2008) \n Chapter 6 The unbelievable similarities between Simon Friederichâs ideas (July 2017, University of Groningen, University College Groningen, Faculty of Philosophy the Netherlands) and my ideas (2002-208-2016)\n \n \n II.\tPHYSICS\n Chapter 7 The unbelievable similarities between Radu Ionicioiu (Physics, University of Bucharest, Romania) and Daniel R. Ternoâs ideas (2011) (Physics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia) and my ideas (Quantum Mechanics)\n Chapter 8 The strong similarity between Pikovski Igor, Zych Magdalena, Costa Fabio, and Brukner Äaslavâs ideas (June 2015) and my ideas regarding the Schrodingerâs catâs interactions with its environment (the gravitation of Earth) (both entities being macro-objects) (Quantum Mechanics)\n Chapter 9 The strong similarity between Elisabetta Caffauâs ideas (2015, Center for Astronomy at the University of Heidelberg and the Paris Observatory) and my ideas (2011, 2014) regarding the appearance of Big Bang in many places (Cosmology)\n Chapter 10 Did Wolfram Schommers (2015, University of Texas at Arlington, USA & Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany) plagiarize my ideas? (Physics)\n Chapter 11 The strong similarities between Dylan H. Mahler, Lee Rozema, Kent Fisher, Lydia Vermeyden, Kevin J. Resch, Howard M. Wiseman, and Aephraim Steinbergâs ideas (2016, USA) and my ideas (Quantum Mechanics)\n Chapter 12 The unbelievable similarities between Bill Poirierâs âMany Interacting Worldsâ (2016) and my EDWs (Quantum Mechanics)\n Chapter 13 Unbelievable similarities between R. E. Kastnerâs ideas (2016) (Univ. of Maryland, USA) and my ideas (2002-2008)\n Chapter 14 Unbelievable similarities between Christian de Ronde (2017) and my ideas (2006-208)\n \n III.\tCOGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY OF MIND\n Chapter 15 Did David Ludwig (2015, Philosophy, University of Amsterdam) plagiarize many of my ideas? (Philosophy (of Mind)\n Chapter 16 Did Georg Northoff (2011-214, Psychoanalysis, Institute of Mental Health 9\n Chapter 17 The unbelievable similarities between Kalina Diego Cosmelli, Legrand Dorothée and Thompson Evanâs ideas (2011, USA) and my ideas (Cognitive Neuroscience)\n Chapter 18 Did Theise and Menas (2016, Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA) and Kafatos C. Menas (Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York; Schmid College of Science & Technology, Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA) plagiarize my ideas of Physics and Cognitive Neuroscience and Philosophy (the mind-brain problem, quantum mechanics, etc.) from 2002-2008? \n Chapter 19 Did David Bourget (forthcoming 2018) (Director, Centre for Digital Philosophy, Western University (or University of Western Ontario) plagiarize my ideas?\n \n IV.\tPHILOSOPHY (of Science)\n Chapter 20 Did Markus Gabriel plagiarize (2013, Philosophy, Bonn University, Germany) my ideas (2002-2008)? (Philosophy)\n Chapter 21 The unbelievable similarities between Andrew Newmanâs ideas (University of Nebraska, at Omaha, USA) (2013) and my ideas (Ontology)\n Chapter 22 The unbelievable similarities between Alexey Alyushin (2010, Moscow, Russia) and my ideas (Ontology)\n Chapter 23 Did Jani Hakkarainen (June 2017, University of Tampere, Finland) plagiarize my ideas (2002-2008)?\n Chapter 24 The unbelievable similarities between Dean Ricklesâs ideas (2017, HPS, Univ. of Sydney) and my ideas (2002-2008)\n Chapter 25 Did Sebastian de Haro (2017, forthcoming 2018 , HPS, Cambridge, UK) plagiarize my ideas (2002-2008)\n \n V.\tOTHERS\n Chapter 26 The unbelievable similarities between other peopleâs ideas (after 2013) (for instance, Tahko E. Tuomas (University of Helsinki, Finland 2016), Côté B. Gilbert (Sudbury, Ontario, Canada 2013), Dan Siegel (Mindsight Institute, USA, 2016) and my ideas (2002-2008); Did Dirk K. F. Meijer and Hans J. H. Geesink (2017) (University of Groningen, Netherlands) plagiarize my ideas (2002-2008)? (2017) âTaking Heisenbergâs Potentia Seriouslyâ, R. E. Kastner , Stuart Kauffman , Michael Epperson : Quite similar ideas to my ideas (2008)\n \n \n \n \n Conclusion [Obviously, there are other âspecialistsâ that published UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas but I have not discovered them yetâ¦]\n Bibliography\n [Some people haven't read my works but they claim my ideas can be found in other works. Soon, they will discover EDWs in Shakespeare, Bach, Sophocles and ET's letter sent 10 million years ago... me vs. people who have plagiarized my ideas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ciFTP_KRy4 ]\n
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».