MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2194201015 · doi:10.24297/jap.v12i1.177

Quantitative Conditions and Convergent Operations That Are Compatible With the Universe as a Persistent Generator of Successive Simulations

2016· article· en· W2194201015 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Persinger, Stanley A. Koren

Bibliographic record

VenueJOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Physics and Python Applications
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum entanglementPhysicsUniversePhotonConvergence (economics)Statistical physicsGenerator (circuit theory)Dark matterEpoch (astronomy)Theoretical physicsQuantum mechanicsAstrophysicsQuantumPower (physics)Galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The capacity for computer-like simulations to be generated by massive information processing from electron-spin potentials supports Bostroms hypothesis that matter and human cognition might reflect simulations. Quantitative analyses of the basic assumptions indicate the universe may display properties of a simulation where photons behave as pixels and gravitons control the structural organization. The Lorentz solution for the square of the light and entanglement velocities converges with the duration of a single electron orbit that ultimately defines properties of matter. The approximately one trillion potential states within the same space with respect to the final epoch of the universe indicate that a different simulation, each with intrinsic properties, has been and will be generated as a type of tractrix defined by ±2 to 3 days (total duration 5 to 6 days). It may define the causal limits within a simulation. Because of the intrinsic role of photons as the pixel unit, phenomena within which flux densities are enhanced, such as human cognition (particularly dreaming) and the cerebral regions associated with those functions, create the conditions for entanglement or excess correlations between contiguous simulations. The consistent quantitative convergence of operations indicates potential validity for this approach. The emergent solutions offer alternative explanations for the limits of predictions for multivariate phenomena that could be coupled to more distal simulations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICSSame topicComputational Physics and Python ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207