Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article shows how string theory is able to model nonphysical particles and how three-dimensional string theory “branes” (parallel universes) could hold dark matter and dark energy. Introspective experience from scientifically oriented groups gives us some clues of how the mind and consciousness could be described. The resulting synthesis from science and direct introspection, for understanding mind and consciousness, are presented. It shows a cosmos with: (1) A parallel nonphysical universe containing dreams, thoughts, emotions, and memories. This universe, called the psychological universe, is probably based on dark matter; (2) A parallel nonphysical universe where intuitive nonphenomenal thinking takes place and where personality and worldview are stored. This universe is called the intuitive universe and is probably based on dark energy and seems to have quantum mechanical qualities. These two universes together make up the mind such as it is defined in this article; and (3) A third nonphysical universe filled with negative energy could make up consciousness. All four universes (including the physical universe) have different vacua, dimensions, and energy levels, so they are all around us but separated. I propose that biological beings consist of a physical body in the physical universe plus entangled bodies in the three nonphysical universes. Entanglement is established by signals going both ways between the different bodies. String theory shows how the interaction between branes/universes can take place. Such a worldview seems to match the requirements from string theory so that it becomes a theory that includes the physical universe and the mind (all kinds of positive energy), and the connection to consciousness. Consciousness itself is based on negative energy, according to mathematician Luigi Fantappiè. The physical base for negative energy is still an open question.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".