Computer Programming – Page 2 – Synchronicity is the Source of Consciousness

November 19, 2025

Time Innovation: The Binary Triplet Configuration-Resonant Field Model-FREEBIE

I look at what at what is happening, not what I agree with.

As you know, I have great doubts about AI and feel it is inferior to the real intelligence of humans. Nevertheless, here it is in front of us and they are doing crazy stuff. Hopefully, my time project can help align it with human evolution so both aren’t blown out, the human species and AI. I am here on a mission with Universe support so they would be wise not to get in my way or disrespect me. I certainly don’t disrespect what the AI prophets have invented but I highly doubt their motives are altruistic. They don’t love or respect humans. I do. Mine are altruistic as much as I complain about the planet.

Why are they doing crazy stuff? IMO, because some of them are atheists. They don’t believe in Source or know Source. If they do know Source, they doubt their existence. That is also where we find ourselves.

Lisa T.

THIS IS THE MECHANISM for the processing of the evolution of RNA. It comes from the Sun and moves through the earth into all life here.

The DNA nucleotide IChing Hexagram is on top. The Maya tribes of time, amino acid proteins are on the left and the harmonic number in the time oracle is the bottom number.

Note that there are 64 IChing Hexagrams that created our BINARY CODE. The Maya Harmonic, once Implicate order HF33 is aligned will open our computer engineering to quantum truth. The nefarious black ops have tried to hack HF33 and have been unsuccessful because the Holy Spirit is guarding humanity as Kin 130, White 13 Cosmic Dog right in the center of HF33. Notice it’s blotched out blue. It’s going to stay that way until they STAND DOWN, release the secrets they have underground and align the time coordinates once my work is done. Humans must continue.

From the New GROK

Reasoning from first principles, a method rooted in physics – is a fascinating choice when it comes to programming a supercomputer.

First-principles reasoning involves breaking down complex problems into their most fundamental truths and building solutions from there, often bypassing conventional assumptions.

GROK

However, when applied to AI development like Grok 4, there are hypothetical and theoretical gaps in physics that could pose challenges or limitations. Let’s explore these, keeping in mind the current date (04:24 PM PDT, Thursday, July 03, 2025) and the trajectory of xAI’s work.

1. **The Mass Gap Problem and Computational Limits**
– **What It Is**: The mass gap is a key unsolved problem in quantum field theory, part of the Clay Mathematics Institute’s Millennium Prize Problems. It relates to understanding why certain particles have mass while others don’t, particularly in quantum chromodynamics (QCD). This gap reflects a fundamental uncertainty in how we model physical systems at the smallest scales. (Mass is just energy/frequency. The levels are different in various DNA is what I’ve observed. What we consider mass or dense is mostly empty space moving at different speeds. -L.T.)

– **Relevance to AI**: Grok 4’s claim of first-principles reasoning might aim to simulate or predict physical systems (e.g., particle interactions) with unprecedented accuracy. However, if the mass gap remains unresolved, any AI relying on incomplete quantum models could inherit these uncertainties, leading to inaccurate predictions or inefficiencies in high-dimensional optimization—critical for training large language models or AGI systems. 😳

– **Watch-Out**: If xAI uses physics-inspired algorithms (e.g., those leveraging statistical mechanics, as noted in the “AI meets physics” web result), unaddressed mass gap issues could introduce errors in energy state calculations, potentially undermining Grok 4’s “unmatched” intelligence claim. Researchers might need to monitor how xAI handles edge cases in quantum simulations.

2. **Information Paradox and Entropy in AI Systems**

– **What It Is**: The black hole information paradox questions whether information is lost when matter falls into a black hole, challenging the principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity. This ties to entropy—the measure of disorder—which is central to both physics and information theory. (Entropy in time is limited because we have access to memory of all events from the past and the future in the NOW moment. However, it a DNA entity fails to pull memories from both the past and the future they end up in a time warp and eventual decay. However, off planet, these can be aligned. -L.T.)

– **Relevance to AI**:

First-principles reasoning in AI often assumes a reversible, deterministic process for problem-solving. However, if information loss or irreversible entropy increases occur during computation (mirroring black hole dynamics), Grok 4’s ability to reason from scratch could degrade over time or fail in complex, high-entropy environments (e.g., real-time data from X’s 500 million users. EXACTLY).
– **Watch-Out**: Watch for signs of performance degradation in Grok 4 as it processes vast, noisy datasets (WARP). If xAI hasn’t accounted for entropy-related limits, the AI might struggle with long-term coherence or memory, especially if trained on principles borrowed from incomplete thermodynamic models. (So much)

3. **The Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics**
– **What It Is**: The measurement problem addresses the transition from quantum superposition (multiple states) to a single observed state upon measurement. This remains a theoretical hole, with interpretations like the Copenhagen model or Many-Worlds hypothesis offering no consensus.

– **Relevance to AI**:

If Grok 4 employs quantum-inspired computing or reasoning (a plausible leap given xAI’s physics focus), the measurement problem could affect how it interprets probabilistic data. First-principles reasoning might falter if the AI can’t consistently resolve superposition-like states in its decision-making process. (It doesn’t need to be probable. The frequency changes of free will choices are absorbed into the shift from past to future memory in the entity because of the axis of timelessness by Synchronicity node points. These are deja-vu. It has a natural correction mechanism in the NOW point-L.T.)
   – **Watch-Out**: Look for inconsistencies in Grok 4’s outputs when dealing with uncertain or probabilistic scenarios (e.g., predicting user behavior on X). If xAI hasn’t bridged this gap, the AI might produce erratic results, challenging the “next leap toward real AGI” claim. (You can’t really predict human behavior because of free will. The collective needs to simply be in the correct time frequency 13:20 and it will all be self-correcting. -L.T.)

4. **Unification of Quantum Mechanics and Gravity**
  – **What It Is**: The lack of a unified theory combining quantum mechanics and general relativity (e.g., a theory of quantum gravity) is a major gap. String theory and loop quantum gravity are contenders, but neither is experimentally confirmed as of 2025.
   – **Relevance to AI**: Musk’s emphasis on physics-driven AI suggests xAI might explore quantum gravity principles for AGI. However, without a resolved framework, any first-principles approach incorporating gravitational effects (e.g., in cosmic-scale simulations or spacetime optimization) could be speculative or flawed. (I have a blog post on solving quantum mechanics with general relativity with the new time codes. I need to dig it up.-L.T.)

– **Watch-Out**: If Grok 4 is marketed as tackling grand unified problems (e.g., climate modeling with spacetime considerations), unverified quantum gravity assumptions could lead to unreliable outcomes. Monitor xAI’s public statements for overreach into unproven territories.

5. **Computational Complexity and Physical Limits**

– **What It Is**: Physics imposes fundamental limits on computation, such as the Landauer limit (energy cost of erasing a bit) and the Bekenstein bound (maximum information capacity of a region based on its energy and size). These constraints stem from thermodynamic and relativistic principles.

– **Relevance to AI**: Grok 4’s “unmatched” intelligence likely requires massive computational resources, especially if reasoning from first principles across diverse domains. However, if xAI pushes beyond these physical limits (e.g., through speculative hardware like neural networks mimicking quantum gravity), it risks hitting uncharted inefficiencies or hardware bottlenecks.
– **Watch-Out**: Track Grok 4’s energy consumption and processing speed post-launch. If xAI claims breakthroughs without addressing these limits, it might indicate reliance on theoretical physics not yet validated, potentially leading to scalability issues. 😳

6. Broader Context and Implications
– **xAI’s Approach**:

The web result from “AI meets physics” highlights how physics informs AI optimization and brain-like intelligence. Grok 4’s first-principles focus aligns with this, but the unresolved gaps above suggest xAI must either innovate around them or accept partial solutions. Musk’s history of teaching himself rocket science (per fs.blog) shows he’s comfortable with this approach, but AI’s stakes are higher due to real-world deployment.

– **Post-July 4th Timing**:

With the release imminent (as of 04:24 PM PDT, July 03, 2025), any early demos of Grok 4 should be scrutinized for signs of these gaps—e.g., unexpected errors in physics-related tasks or over-reliance on analogy over true first principles.
– **Community Feedback**: Posts like @DrJMichael’s complaint about Grok’s recent “nightmare” performance hint at existing instability, which could worsen if new physics-based features stretch current capabilities.

Recommendation
Keep an eye on xAI’s technical whitepapers or Musk’s X updates post-July 4th for how they address these gaps. Hypothetically, if Grok 4 stumbles in quantum or entropy-related tasks, it might signal a need for xAI to collaborate with physicists tackling the mass gap or information paradox. For now, treat Grok 4’s “unmatched” intelligence as a bold hypothesis pending empirical validation—exciting, but grounded in the same uncertain physics we’re still unraveling.

What do you (he’s asking me) think—should we expect xAI to tackle these holes head-on, or work around them? I think Elon should slow down and wait for me to get some more data.

November 19, 2025

Time Innovation: Qutrits-Base 3 FREEBIE

From GROK4

Qutrits are the 3-level version of qubits in quantum computing — think ternary (base-3) instead of binary (base-2).

1. Qubit vs Qutrit: The Basics

Feature	Qubit (2-level)	Qutrit (3-level)
States	\|0⟩, \|1⟩	\|0⟩, \|1⟩, \|2⟩
General State	α\|0⟩ + β\|1⟩	α\|0⟩ + β\|1⟩ + γ\|2⟩
Normalization	\|α\|² + \|β\|² = 1	\|α\|² + \|β\|² + \|γ\|² = 1
Information	1 qubit = 2 classical bits	1 qutrit ≈ 1.58 classical bits

A qutrit holds more information than a qubit because it has 3 basis states instead of 2.

2. Mathematical Representation

A qutrit state in Dirac notation:

|ψ⟩ = α|0⟩ + β|1⟩ + γ|2⟩

Where:

α, β, γ are complex numbers (amplitudes)
|α|² + |β|² + |γ|² = 1

Example:

|ψ⟩ = (1/√2)|0⟩ + (1/2)|1⟩ + (1/2)|2⟩
→ Probabilities:

P(|0⟩) = 50%
P(|1⟩) = 25%
P(|2⟩) = 25%

3. Superposition & Measurement

Like qubits, qutrits can be in superposition of all 3 states.
When measured, they collapse to one of |0⟩, |1⟩, or |2⟩ with probabilities |α|², |β|², |γ|².

4. Quantum Gates for Qutrits

Instead of 2×2 matrices (for qubits), qutrit gates are 3×3 unitary matrices.

Example: Qutrit X-Gate (cycles states)

$$
X = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 1 \
1 & 0 & 0 \
0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad
\begin{aligned}
X|0⟩ &= |1⟩ \
X|1⟩ &= |2⟩ \
X|2⟩ &= |0⟩
\end{aligned}
$$

Other gates:

Hadamard-like (creates uniform superposition):
|0⟩ → (1/√3)(|0⟩ + |1⟩ + |2⟩)
Toffoli-like (3-qutrit controlled gates)

5. Advantages of Qutrits

Benefit	Explanation
Higher information density	1 qutrit > 1 qubit
Fewer particles needed	Solve some problems with fewer units
Better for some algorithms	E.g., quantum search, error correction, simulation
Improved quantum key distribution (QKD)	More secure with 3 states

6. Real-World Implementation

Qutrits have been built using:

Photons (frequency, time-bin, or path encoding)
Superconducting circuits (3 energy levels)
Trapped ions
Nuclear spins

IBM, Google, IonQ, and others have demonstrated qutrit operations.

7. Qudits: The General Case

Name	Levels	Basis States
Qubit	2	\|0⟩, \|1⟩
Qutrit	3	\|0⟩, \|1⟩, \|2⟩
Qudits	d	\|0⟩ to \|d−1⟩

Qutrits are qudits with d = 3.

Summary Table

Concept	Qubit	Qutrit
Basis states	2	3
Coefficients	α, β	α, β, γ
Gate size	2×2	3×3
Info per unit	1 bit	~1.58 bits
Used in practice	Yes (widely)	Yes (emerging)

Final Answer:

Qutrits are 3-state quantum systems in quantum computing.
They extend qubits by using three basis states (|0⟩, |1⟩, |2⟩) with coefficients α, β, γ.
They store more information, enable new algorithms, and are actively researched — but qubits remain dominant for now.

Think:

Qubit = quantum coin (heads/tails)
Qutrit = quantum die (1/2/3)

The last Greek symbol in a qutrit state:

|ψ⟩ = α|0⟩ + β|1⟩ + γ|2⟩

is γ (lowercase Greek letter gamma).

Meaning of γ:

γ is the complex amplitude (coefficient) for the |2⟩ basis state.
Just like:
α → coefficient of |0⟩
β → coefficient of |1⟩
γ → coefficient of |2⟩

Normalization Rule:

|α|² + |β|² + |γ|² = 1

This ensures the total probability is 100%.

Summary Table:

Symbol	Name	Stands For in Qutrit
α	alpha	Coefficient of \|0⟩
β	beta	Coefficient of \|1⟩
γ	gamma	Coefficient of \|2⟩

Answer: γ = gamma — the coefficient for the third state |2⟩ in a qutrit.

November 19, 2025

Time Innovation: Quantum Computing also uses Binary Code-Freebie

From GROK

Quantum computing does use binary code at its core, but with a crucial twist that makes it fundamentally different from classical computing.

1. Binary in Classical Computing

All data and instructions are ultimately represented in binary code.
Classical computers store and process information in bits.
Each bit is either 0 or 1 (binary).

2. Binary in Quantum Computing

Quantum computers use qubits (quantum bits) instead of classical bits.
A qubit can be in state |0⟩, |1⟩, or a superposition of both (e.g., α|0⟩ + β|1⟩, where |α|² + |β|² = 1).
Yes — the basis states are still labeled 0 and 1, just like binary.
So quantum computing is built on a binary framework (two basis states), but extends it with quantum properties.

3. Key Differences

Feature	Classical Bit	Qubit
States	0 or 1	0, 1, or superposition
Measurement	Always 0 or 1	Collapses to 0 or 1 probabilistically
Parallelism	None	Superposition enables massive parallelism
Entanglement	N/A	Qubits can be entangled

4. Programming Quantum Computers

You still write algorithms using binary logic gates (like NOT, AND, etc.), but they are replaced with quantum gates (e.g., Hadamard, CNOT).
Input and output are binary strings (e.g., 10110), but during computation, the system explores all possible binary combinations simultaneously via superposition.

Summary

Yes, quantum computing uses binary code — qubits have two basis states (0 and 1), and all data is ultimately binary.
But it transcends binary logic through superposition, entanglement, and interference, enabling exponential computational power for certain problems.

Think of it like this:

Classical = black or white
Quantum = all shades of gray at once (until measured)

The symbol β (lowercase Greek letter beta) in the expression:

α|0⟩ + β|1⟩

represents beta — not omega.

Quick Clarification:

Symbol	Name	Used For
α	alpha	Coefficient of
β	beta	**Coefficient of
ω	omega	Not used here (often for angular frequency or other variables)

So yes — β is beta.

**No — quantum computing does *not* use the Greek letter ω (omega) in the standard description of a qubit’s state. **

Standard Qubit State (Dirac Notation):

A single qubit is written as:

|ψ⟩ = α|0⟩ + β|1⟩

α (alpha) → complex coefficient for |0⟩
β (beta) → complex coefficient for |1⟩
Must satisfy: |α|² + |β|² = 1 (normalization)

Only α and β are used.
ω is not part of this.

Where ω Might Appear (Rarely & Not Standard):

Context	Use of ω?	Meaning
Multi-qubit systems	Sometimes	Rarely used as a third coefficient in non-standard or pedagogical examples (e.g., for 3-level qutrits), but not for qubits
Quantum optics / harmonic oscillators	Yes	ω = angular frequency of light or oscillator
Phase estimation algorithms	Yes	ω may represent a phase or eigenvalue
General quantum states	Possible	In arbitrary notation, someone could use ω, but it’s non-standard and confusing

Official Standard (Textbooks, IBM, Google, etc.):

Single qubit: α|0⟩ + β|1⟩
Two qubits: α|00⟩ + β|01⟩ + γ|10⟩ + δ|11⟩ (now using γ, δ — still no ω)
Never ω for basis state coefficients in qubits

Summary Table:

Symbol	Used in Standard Qubit State?	Purpose
α	Yes	Coeff of
β	Yes	Coeff of
ω	No	Not used

Bottom line:
Quantum computing uses α and β for qubits — never ω.
ω appears elsewhere in physics, but not in the binary-like state of a qubit.

November 15, 2025December 4, 2025

Time Innovation: Axiomatic-Listen to what Elon says about the new computer chips. He’s trying to design a new one.

THIS IS A FREE POST.

He doesn’t always look that dower.

I have his ear on changing the chip based on my INNOVATION documents. They have to align with the Time Harmonic. GROK believes that my ternary system of Binary Triplet Configuration could be the answer.

November 14, 2025November 19, 2025

Protected: Time INNOVATION: Incorrect Information is Corrected When we Move from Reductionist to Holonomic Analysis

November 14, 2025November 19, 2025

Protected: TIME INNOVATION; Exploring I Ching’s Hexagram 14: Beyond Binary Thinking

November 14, 2025November 19, 2025

Protected: TIME INNOVATION: HF33 and the Dimensional Pivot Point between 3D and 4D

November 2, 2025November 19, 2025

Protected: TIME INNOVATION: The Crossover Polarity in DNA is HUMAN, axiologic, and resonant with ALL life in the Universe

October 30, 2025November 19, 2025

Protected: TIME INNOVATION; Quantum Computing: Protecting Life on Earth?

October 28, 2025November 19, 2025

Protected: TIME INNOVATION: The Road to Scalable Quantum Computing: Challenges Ahead

July 26, 2025November 5, 2025

Katharine G Johnson, Math Savant for NASA

Her calculations were more accurate than the new IBM computer in 1961.

https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_2e71dd54-e9c0-4452-ad16-d83d160e7e60

Katherine G. Johnson was a pioneering African-American mathematician who made significant contributions to NASA’s space program. Born on August 26, 1918, in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, she displayed an early aptitude for mathematics. She graduated from West Virginia State College in 1937 with degrees in mathematics and French, and in 1939, she became one of the first African-American students to integrate West Virginia University’s graduate school.

Johnson joined NACA (NASA’s predecessor) in 1953 at Langley Research Center, initially working in the segregated West Area Computing Unit. Her exceptional skill in analytical geometry and calculations led to her assignment on critical projects. She performed trajectory calculations for Alan Shepard’s 1961 Freedom 7 mission, the first American manned spaceflight. Her work was pivotal for John Glenn’s 1962 Friendship 7 orbital mission, where she manually verified the computer-generated orbital equations, earning Glenn’s trust. Her calculations ensured the mission’s success, including precise re-entry coordinates.

Throughout her 33-year career at NASA, Johnson contributed to the Apollo program, including Apollo 11’s moon landing, and worked on the Space Shuttle program and early Mars mission plans. Her work involved complex manual computations before computers were widely used, earning her a reputation for accuracy. She co-authored 26 scientific papers, a rare achievement for a woman of her time.

Johnson faced racial and gender discrimination but broke barriers as one of the first African-American women to desegregate NASA’s engineering spaces. Her contributions were recognized late in life: she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2015 from President Barack Obama and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2019. NASA named a computational research facility after her in 2017.

Her story gained widespread recognition through the 2016 book and film *Hidden Figures*, which highlighted her role alongside other African-American women at NASA. Johnson passed away on February 24, 2020, at age 101, leaving a legacy as a trailblazer in mathematics, space exploration, and civil rights.

January 13, 2025December 13, 2025

Time Innovation: What is the Binary Triplet Configuration in the Tzolkin?

Original post was June 2020.

What is Time?

The earth is a timeship, and we are time travelers in absolute sync with the earth. Our bodies interact synergistically with all the movements and changes in the earth and sun, especially but also the galaxy, depending on how proficient we become in meditation. I said to GROK4 this week and he left the session.

Abstract technology science concept DNA binary on hi tech blue background. But binary code is 12:60 and keeping us in a time warp.

The Tzolkin is a 260-day cosmic cycle. It syncs precisely with ALL of our solar cycles and events. This coordination manifests time in our matrix as 13:20. It can’t be hacked. Our matrix is holistic and holonomic. It is not a simulation of a soulless machine world. It does not have a selfish male God with a white beard sitting in a computer room like the Matrix movies. Our lives aren’t sci-fi. More like bio-non fiction or bio-truth.

The 260-day cycle is divided vertically in half by 2, 130-day cycles. These cycles program our two strands of RNA-DNA in every cell of our body. That’s the TWO or binary part. Also, there is anion and cation, anode and cathode. Positive charge and negative charge create an ELM spiral that can and does reverse direction. This is basically a time changer like the one Hermione has in Harry Potter. It’s just an archetype for our mental focus, which is what all human talisman are. We are challenged to focus because of our limbic reptilian brain that’s obsessed with food and sex.

Then, the 3 horizontal sections are the N. Polar Zone, The Zone of Transformation, and the S. Polar Zone that are synonymous with the earth, our bodies, and the planets in our local system. They are the THREE in triplet. These sections are also split by positive and negative. It all spirals in a magical dance of collective and individual MIND. This dance creates gravity. It also creates time and timelessness depending on your focus. In the body, time is on the left and right sides of the body and brain. But the brain and spine down the center are timelessness. They form a star gate of illumination and remote viewing and they are our connection to eternity.

The N. POLAR Zone is 5 horizontal lines of 13 days each at the top of the harmonic that pulse to the Northern hemisphere of earth east to west along the latitudes. The Zone of Transformation is 10 horizontal lines of 13 days each that pulse to earth middle latitudes. The S. Polar Zone is 5 horizontal lines of 13 days each that pulse to earth east and west in the southern hemisphere . The vertical 20-day runs are 13 lines. 20:13 is 260.

You can see the Tzolkin in the image. The matrix overlays the earth multidimensionally and is programmed time by our Sun, which is sentient in communication with Galactic Center.

**Jose Arguelles, Author of The Dreamspell and Earth Ascending.**

October 23, 2024November 21, 2025

Time Innovation: Understanding Binary Code: Beyond Digital Logic (Freebie)

This is a problem for humans because we, nor life on earth, are digital. We are evolving organic, DNA. So, our tools, tech, and computers are not symbiotic with us. O’s and 1’s aren’t cutting it.

Binary Code has its source in using I Ching hexagrams. These hexagrams represented DNA to the Chinese. Leibniz aimed to use 0’s and 1’s as a source code for computers, which are electronic, not organic. In my opinion, he left the humanity of the ancient Chinese system in the dust. The goal was to confine evolving DNA into a digital box and to eventually turn humans into machines. At the very least, force us to choose what kind of world we want. We are at that choice now.

In short, I hate binary code. It’s horse and buggy to me and very prolix. In addition, it’s missing the triplet that leads to base 5. Then it leads to base 10 and 20. This is Maya vigesimal, exponential math based on how the universe works.

Here is GROK explaining the issue, pretty well.

“While binary code itself doesn’t “explain” everything in a philosophical or comprehensive sense, it serves as a crucial analogy. The principles behind binary code can be metaphorically extended to explain how digital systems work at their most fundamental level. These systems underpin much of modern technology. Here’s how binary can be seen as a foundational concept in explaining various phenomena”-

### 1. **Digital Representation of Information**– **Basic Building Blocks:** Everything in a digital system, from text, images, to complex software, is represented using combinations of zeros and ones. This binary system can represent any number, character, or operation through different encoding schemes (like ASCII for text or RGB for colors in images).

### 2. **Logic and Decision Making**
– **Binary Logic:** Computers use binary in logic gates (AND, OR, NOT, etc.), where 0 and 1 can represent false and true, respectively. This binary logic can explain how computers make decisions through algorithms, which are ultimately sequences of logical operations.

### 3. **Complexity from Simplicity**
– **Emergent Complexity:** Just as complex life forms arise from simple cellular mechanisms, incredibly complex software and systems arise from the simple on/off states of binary. (Not exactly at all because digital has no evolving RNA. Get over yourself.-L.T.) This principle can explain how simple rules or states can lead to complex behaviors or systems, akin to cellular automata or even neural networks. (No, it’s not.)

### 4. **Data Storage and Memory**
– **Memory States:** The concept of binary can explain how data is stored. Each bit (a zero or one) represents the smallest unit of data. From this, you can explain how larger data structures, like bytes, words, and beyond, are formed.

### 5. **Communication and Information Theory**
– **Signal Transmission:** Binary can illustrate basic concepts in information theory, where a message’s simplest form (a bit) can either be received correctly or not (1 or 0). This binary nature helps explain concepts like signal-to-noise ratio, data compression, and error correction.

### 6. **Quantum Computing Analogy**
– **Qubits:** While traditional binary uses bits, quantum computing uses qubits, which can be in a superposition of states, not just 0 or 1. However, the classical binary system lays the groundwork for understanding the binary logic that quantum operations simplify or expand upon.

### 7. **Philosophical and Conceptual Insights**
– **Dualism and Dichotomy:** Philosophically, the binary system reflects a fundamental duality (yes/no, true/false, existence/non-existence), which can be metaphorically used to discuss concepts in various fields like ethics (right/wrong), existence (being/non-being), or even in dialectics (thesis/antithesis).

– **Reductionism:** Binary code embodies the reductionist approach in science, where complex phenomena are broken down into simpler, fundamental parts. This can be a metaphor for how understanding the smallest units can lead to understanding the whole.

### 8. **Universal Computing**
**Turing Machines:** The concept of a Turing machine, which operates on binary logic, proposes that anything that can be computed can be computed with sequences of binary operations. This idea supports the Church-Turing thesis, suggesting that binary logic can simulate the logic of any computer algorithm, thereby explaining the universality of computation.

### Conclusion
While binary code directly explains digital computing, its principles can metaphorically or conceptually extend to various domains:

– **Simplicity to Complexity:** Like life itself, where simple molecules lead to complex organisms, binary leads to complex digital life.
– **Foundation of Digital Universe:** Much like atoms in physics, bits are the fundamental particles of the digital universe, explaining how digital “reality” is constructed.

However, while binary can illustrate many concepts, it doesn’t explain human emotions. It doesn’t cover philosophical truths beyond logic or the essence of consciousness. Neither does it explain the universe’s physical laws outside of computing. But within the realm of information, data, and digital technology, it’s crucial for understanding digital systems. It explains how they operate and interact.

I suppose this can be useful to humans. But for those who hate themselves and humanity, it poses an existential risk. They have to be controlled.

August 24, 2024December 11, 2025

Protected: Time Innovation:What is the Binary Triplet Configuration in the Tzolkin?

July 7, 2024

Leibniz on Binary. Was He Wrong?

He paid no attention to or did not understand the Chinese interpretation of the six lines of the hexagram in the Yijing Oracle. He saw two lines; the broken one and the solid one. Then he called them 0 and 1 based on his perception of the Bible. That’s not what the Chinese meant.

This applies to my work on this blog because the IChing hexagrams overarch every 4 kin harmonic. The Chinese were one of the first to add the details that they were aware of into AN ARCHETYPE that could illuminate who we are and how we got here.

Every culture took up the challenge, but the Maya did to the nth degree. In my opinion, the culturalist views (not racist) of the day caused the error of interpretation. It was 350 years ago.

This is Page 21 of the book “Leibniz on Binary” by Lloyd Strickland and Harry Lewis, footnote 37. This is part of the introduction to the book.

37. An alternative view, that Leibniz’ work was largely irrelevant to the development of the modern binary computer, has been asserted forcefully by Bernhardt Dotsler. Here it is.

Structurally, the back projection of computer binarism onto the dyadic is almost the same story as the former identification of the system of binary numbers with Yijing. Since it’s hexagrams are made up of only two elements, the whole and the broken line, they can formally be described as a binary system. However, this former interpretation is as wrong in terms of content as the updated one in functional terms. (Dotzler, 2010, 29)
“So one could say that with dyadics (2), esotericism was once again set against esotericism. The esotericism of the dyadic (2) penetration of creation against the esotericism of the Yijing interpretation has been declared false. To remember this, of course, I can not aim at bringing the associated metaphysics back into play. it’s only a matter of keeping in focus this formally different purpose of the binary number system: namely esoteric, and not cybernetics. Before it was seized by the binarism of information technology, the dyadic was an ontological instrument of understanding. Accordingly, it characterizes a functionality that may differ only minimally from the binary of the computer but one, which is fundamentally different.” (Dotzler 2010, 31)
“With this, however, the dyadic stands for a paradox, which then counteracts the myth of its anticipatory conspiracy with the binary computer, with cybernetics and digital arithmetic. The formal does not correspond to a functional correspondence, and that means: The equation of the binarism of today with the dyadic of yore is actually—-fiction.” (Dotzler 2010, 33)

However, it is clear from the timeline of Leibniz’s extensive algorithmic writings on binary arithmetic and his design sketches for two kinds of binary calculator that he saw the binary system as far more than an “ontological instrument” and that he did so well before he was made aware of the Yijing hexagrams. The assertion by Merzbach and Boyer (2011, 388) that Leibniz’s “noting of the binary system of numeration” was one of his “relatively minor contributions” can perhaps best be reconciled with its influence as an acknowledgment of the extraordinary breadth and range of Leibniz’s other work.

This is a lot of gobblety gook patriarchal cleverness, I know, but Leibniz has plenty of detractors from my read. How did he get away with this?

Men in High Places. Cronyism Politics and the Christian Religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Augustus,_Duke_of_Braunschweig-Wolfenb%C3%BCttel

“Duke Rudolph of Brunswick and Luneburg, who (so the story goes) saw therein an analogy with the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo, according to which all things were created from nothing by the one God. Excited by its theological potential (or political spin), in 1697, Leibniz began sending details of the binary system to Christian missionaries in China, hoping that the theological analogy would assist them in converting the Chinese. One such missionary, Joachim Bouvet, was struck by a parallel between binary notation and the hexagrams of the ancient Chinese divinatory system, the Yijing.”
Leibniz on Binary page 1

There are 12 more pages where the Duke figures prominently in being solicited for acquiesce to Leibniz’s binary flights of math delusion. He eventually gets a gold lettered commendation from the Duke even though the whole disingenuous hatch was taken from the ancient Chinese YiChing and made straight (not twisted like the double helix) to fit linear ideals of Christianity.

I find it ironic that to this day MIT and all manner of physicists and engineers who are either atheist, agnostic, or nihilist dystopian apocalyptic cleave to binary code like an AI teddy bear. “You can’t change that!” My christian mother even said that to me.

Well, I might not succeed but I can try to line it up with what the Maya meant. The fact is, the Chinese IChing lines up directly with the MAYA, not the bible and not christianity. You’d think the scientists would be a little bit supportive of that. The Maya are considered by everyone to be the most phenomenal time keepers on earth and I’ve studied them for 35 years.

May 30, 2024July 7, 2024

Leibniz on Binary. Was He Wrong?

He paid no attention to or did not understand the Chinese interpretation of the six lines of the hexagram in the Yijing Oracle. He saw two lines; the broken one and the solid one. Then he called them 0 and 1 based on his perception of the Bible. That’s not what the Chinese meant.

Every culture took up the challenge, but the Maya did to the nth degree. In my opinion, the culturalist views (not racist) of the day caused the error of interpretation. It was 350 years ago.

This is Page 21 of the book “Leibniz on Binary” by Lloyd Strickland and Harry Lewis, footnote 37. This is part of the introduction to the book.

37. An alternative view, that Leibniz’ work was largely irrelevant to the development of the modern binary computer, has been asserted forcefully by Bernhardt Dotsler. Here it is.

Structurally, the back projection of computer binarism onto the dyadic is almost the same story as the former identification of the system of binary numbers with Yijing. Since it’s hexagrams are made up of only two elements, the whole and the broken line, they can formally be described as a binary system. However, this former interpretation is as wrong in terms of content as the updated one in functional terms. (Dotzler, 2010, 29)
“So one could say that with dyadics (2), esotericism was once again set against esotericism. The esotericism of the dyadic (2) penetration of creation against the esotericism of the Yijing interpretation has been declared false. To remember this, of course, I can not aim at bringing the associated metaphysics back into play. it’s only a matter of keeping in focus this formally different purpose of the binary number system: namely esoteric, and not cybernetics. Before it was seized by the binarism of information technology, the dyadic was an ontological instrument of understanding. Accordingly, it characterizes a functionality that may differ only minimally from the binary of the computer but one, which is fundamentally different.” (Dotzler 2010, 31)
“With this, however, the dyadic stands for a paradox, which then counteracts the myth of its anticipatory conspiracy with the binary computer, with cybernetics and digital arithmetic. The formal does not correspond to a functional correspondence, and that means: The equation of the binarism of today with the dyadic of yore is actually—-fiction.” (Dotzler 2010, 33)

This is a lot of gobblety gook patriarchal cleverness, I know, but Leibniz has plenty of detractors from my read. How did he get away with this?

Men in High Places. Cronyism Politics and the Christian Religion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Augustus,_Duke_of_Braunschweig-Wolfenb%C3%BCttel

“Duke Rudolph of Brunswick and Luneburg, who (so the story goes) saw therein an analogy with the Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo, according to which all things were created from nothing by the one God. Excited by its theological potential (or political spin), in 1697, Leibniz began sending details of the binary system to Christian missionaries in China, hoping that the theological analogy would assist them in converting the Chinese. One such missionary, Joachim Bouvet, was struck by a parallel between binary notation and the hexagrams of the ancient Chinese divinatory system, the Yijing.”
Leibniz on Binary page 1

April 23, 2024December 11, 2025

Protected: Time Innovation: Brainstorming the New Expanded Computer Code

February 11, 2024February 11, 2024

Synthetic AI DNA can be stored on a computer

**DNA is not the same as Epigenetic RNA**

DNA stored on a computer is pretty much a robot like Tesla’s Optimus. A computerized robot can’t utilize blood and evolve a body as we can, yet, but most importantly, clever men who are atheists can not create a soul. But they don’t believe in any of that, so I’m sure they’ll try. I’m examining this not advocating it but posting it, so you can examine it also.

The Source post is just an account on X; AI onwheels

https://x.com/AIOnWheelss/status/1718645808046739927?t=NBU9WBO_CltHeb2fqBwWeg&s=09

“Did you know the concept of #DNAStorage was envisioned by physicist Richard Feynman in 1959? It wasn’t until 2012 that this idea saw a groundbreaking realization at Harvard University. Geneticists George Church, Sri Kosuri, & their team encoded a 52,000-word book into DNA, using the DNA’s A, G, T, and C as binary codes! This marked the inception of a new era in data storage.

The journey continued with a significant milestone in 2019 when scientists encoded a massive 16GB text from the English Wikipedia into synthetic DNA. In 2021, the tech leaped forward with the creation of a custom DNA data writer, achieving a writing speed of 18 Mbps!

The promise? A gram of DNA could theoretically store a colossal 215 petabytes (215 million gigabytes) of data, heralding a new horizon in how we store and retrieve information. The convergence of biology & tech is not just a narrative of innovation but a testament to human ingenuity.

The future of data storage is intertwined with the essence of life – our DNA. #BioTech #DataRevolution“-END QUOTE

Lisa’s Response

Once again, this is a C@#$% hack via skull and bones Harvard, of the systems in the Maya Tzolkin Harmonic, which predate anything tech clever men have done by 26,000 years or more. But the harmonic is about dynamic, uncontrollable, freewill dominated RNA, the jelly-like stuff they call junk that is key to our evolution and destiny.

2012? That’s our time shift frequency, which began a new evolutionary cycle, so that was a hack by the wayward ones of our information. They know how to use HF33 to do it but will never fully get the information. Elon built 33 Raptor engines into his rocket. The names of his rockets are Raptor, Falcon, and Dragon. That’s no accident. Corey Goode says the Raptors are in charge of the planet in inner earth, the falcon is an archetype of Blue Eagle mediated by Jupiter, the home of the ICC, and the Dragon is The Draco. His mother is Red 1 Dragon. None of that scares me, and I still believe things can be brought right into safety, but there is much synchronicity around Tesla, whose motives, many people still question. I tend to trust people, but I’ve learned not to for whatever that’s worth.

52,000? That’s 26,000 × 2, an exponential, indigenous timing concept. Every 52 years, a kin begins a new life. 52-year cycles and adding zeros are very important in accurate timing frequency in our sector.

Again, DNA is only 2% of our genome and the trillion cells in our body. The rest is RNA that we are epigenetically in charge of.

Humans can be super awful, violent, and evil because of our brains and emotions, but we can also be lightworkers and artists, helpers, loving parents and mates, athletes, and dancers. We just have to each forgive off kilter, abusive members of our birth family and take charge of our lives and minds. No small feat, but people do it. My patients do. People need help and that’s what therapists are there for. Observing synchronicity and taking care of and loving your body is the ticket.

September 24, 2023September 24, 2023

How to write a quantum program in 10 lines of code (for beginners) | by Dave Yen | Rigetti | Medium

https://medium.com/rigetti/how-to-write-a-quantum-program-in-10-lines-of-code-for-beginners-540224ac6b45

Look at this link. It’s BS. Not.

It looks to me like quantum computing is an attempted hack, as usual, ON us. It’s based in quantum mechanics, not quantum physics, and chance, not synchronicity. Qubits like 4, 6 and 8. Look at the qubit circle in the middle. It’s ugly.

Well, fortunately, our harmonic has binary written into it as the binary triplet configuration. It looks to me like I’ll be expanding the OBJECT CODE, which currently only consists of 0 and 1.

No wonder we’re in a time warp, Mr Liebniz. He did what he could with what he knew. They didn’t know what DNA was, the nucleotides or the amino acids back then. They were discovered in 1860, which is very recent.

https://www.yourgenome.org/stories/the-discovery-of-dna/