(third July 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\n Introduction of my approach epistemologically different worlds”: paragraphs of my works 2002-2008 \n \n I.\tPHYSICS, COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY\n Chapter 1 Did Sean Carroll’s ideas (2016) (California Institute of Technology, USA) (within the wrong framework, the “universe”) 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 Wilczek’s 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 Noe’s (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 Frank’s ideas (2016 or 2017?, University of Rochester in New York , USA) (“Minding matter - The closer you look, the more the materialist position in physics appears to rest on shaky metaphysical ground”) and my ideas (2005, 2008)\n Chapter 5 (June 2017) (June 2017) Strong similarity between Carlo Rovelli’s ideas in two books (2015) to my ideas (2002-2008) \n Chapter 6 The unbelievable similarities between Simon Friederich’s ideas (July 2017) 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. Terno’s 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 Časlav’s ideas (June 2015) and my ideas regarding the Schrodinger’s cat’s interactions with its environment (the gravitation of Earth) (both entities being macro-objects) (Quantum Mechanics)\n Chapter 9 The strong similarity between Elisabetta Caffau’s 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 Steinberg’s ideas (2016, USA) and my ideas (Quantum Mechanics)\n Chapter 12 The unbelievable similarities between Bill Poirier’s ‘Many Interacting Worlds’ (2016) and my EDWs (Quantum Mechanics)\n \n III.\tCOGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY OF MIND\n Chapter 13 Did David Ludwig (2015, Philosophy, University of Amsterdam) plagiarize many of my ideas? (Philosophy (of Mind)\n Chapter 14 Did Georg Northoff (2011-214, Psychoanalysis, Institute of Mental Health 9\n Chapter 15 The unbelievable similarities between Kalina Diego Cosmelli, Legrand Dorothée and Thompson Evan’s ideas (2011, USA) and my ideas (Cognitive Neuroscience)\n Chapter 16 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 17 Did David Bourget (forthcoming 2018) (Director, Centre for Digital Philosophy, Western University (or University of Western Ontario) plagiarize my ideas?\n \n IV.\tPHILOSOPHY\n Chapter 18 Did Markus Gabriel plagiarize (2013, Philosophy, Bonn University, Germany) my ideas (2002-2008)? (Philosophy)\n Chapter 19 The unbelievable similarities between Andrew Newman’s ideas (University of Nebraska, at Omaha, USA) (2013) and my ideas (Ontology)\n Chapter 20 The unbelievable similarities between Alexey Alyushin (2010, Moscow, Russia) and my ideas (Ontology)\n Chapter 21 Did Jani Hakkarainen (June 2017, University of Tampere, Finland) plagiarize my ideas (2002-2008)?\n \n V.\tOTHERS\n Chapter 22 The unbelievable similarities between other people’s 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) \n \n Conclusion \n Bibliography\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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,299 | 0,206 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».