MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7005918728

(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

2017· book· en· W7005918728 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · 2017
Typebook
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphysicsComplementarity (molecular biology)Philosophy of physicsMaterialismPhilosophy of scienceEinstein
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTENT\n Some preliminary comments on “Vacariu’s dark list”\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 (Italy) in two books (2015) to my ideas (2002-2008) \n Chapter 6 The unbelievable similarities between Simon Friederich’s 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. 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 Chapter 13 Unbelievable similarities between R. E. Kastner’s 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 Evan’s 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 Newman’s 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 Rickles’s 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 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); Did Dirk K. F. Meijer and Hans J. H. Geesink (2017) (University of Groningen, Netherlands) plagiarize my ideas (2002-2008)? (2017) “Taking Heisenberg’s Potentia Seriously”, R. E. Kastner , Stuart Kauffman , Michael Epperson : Quite similar ideas to my ideas (2008)\n \n \n \n \n Conclusion [Obviously, there are other “specialists” that published UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas but I have not discovered them yet…]\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

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation)Same topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207