Robinsonsketch

How many versions of you exist simultaneously right now? #sketch #art #drawing #artist #illustration #sketchbook #artwork

From the first day we were created as an approximation for that reason we call it evolution. Nothing is decisive, everything applies for the simple fact of construction or building. Keep digging to enjoy this little piece of land. 🌎

@TheProjectUnity The one and only

Who speaks for Earth if Aliens arrive?

@QuantumTumbler There’s something beyond us we haven’t created and control us. That’s the unmeasurable tool we need to direct our curiosity for a Better cosmic reputation. Love mate. Btw I like your insights 😎👊🏽

This is exactly the kind of thing that gives legitimate curiosity a bad reputation 😭 It looks profound because it mixes sacred geometry numerology Hebrew words wave terminology AI-generated diagrams …but there’s no actual mechanism, derivation, predictive model, or falsifiable structure underneath it. You can literally generate infinite combinations of “frequency + geometry + consciousness + ancient language + numbers” and make aesthetically convincing nonsense. The dead giveaway is phrases like “the first 2 digits of the 5 are the amount of repetition needed to complete the circle” That sounds technical until you ask “defined how?” “measured where?” “predicting what?” “tested against what data?” And then it evaporates.

The universe doesn’t “speak” in numbers. Humans use numbers to describe patterns the universe appears to follow. Still beautiful though. And honestly this specific pattern is cool because it comes from simple base-10 structure (1111^2 = 1234321) (11111^2 = 123454321) etc. So when you take the square root, you just reverse the construction. Not mystical. Just emergent symmetry from positional arithmetic. Which honestly is exactly why math is so fascinating in the first place.

@QuantumTumbler I simply say: it is a living symbol, like many before it throughout human history. And symbols have power precisely because reality is deeper than what we can currently measure or control. That is the honest claim.

@QuantumTumbler That can only be measured by lived experience, not by external repetition. I don’t ask anyone to believe this as objective cosmic physics.

@QuantumTumbler 12 is the divider wave 🌊 between each code. The first 2 digits of the 5 are the amount or repetition you need to complete the circle and the last three digits is the intention of the wave. All of them are rule by Violetta is 7 attack to the 12/7 meaning 10.

@QuantumTumbler Thoughts 💭

@Gaby_duLuco @silvano_trotta violette / Vollette is part of 515 / 7 charge

@silvano_trotta Je chante "A la volette" depuis toute petiote et ça marche ! Et si la douleur est hard, je fais du calcul mental compliqué. Prenez des notes, la CIA 🐤🐦🐤 (Ça fait des milliers d'années que c'est pratiqué mais vaut mieux tard que jamais 😄)

Bon les Amis, je ne sais pas si cela marche, alors avant d'en rigoler, pourquoi ne pas tester car la femme dans la vidéo raconte que cela provient d'un document déclassifié de la CIA. J'ai vérifié, et effectivement ce document existe et public depuis 2003. Si vous avez une douleur quelconque, testez et dites-moi dans les commentaires si cela fonctionne, on ne risque rien à essayer. Traduction mot à mot du document de la CIA : « Regarde avec les yeux fermés la partie de ton corps qui est la source des signaux de douleur. En regardant, répète dans ton esprit le nombre 55515. Quand tu fais ces deux choses, les signaux de douleur vont lentement diminuer jusqu’à ne plus être importants. » C’est exactement ce que dit la fille de la vidéo : concentre-toi sur la zone de douleur + répète le code. Je pense qu'il faut dire les chiffres 1 à 1... Si vous avez mal quelque part, essayez, et racontez-nous. Au pire on aura perdu quelques minutes.

@HustleBitch_ There you have it.

🚨 WOMAN SAYS REPEATING THIS 5-DIGIT “QUANTUM CODE” SHUTS OFF PHYSICAL PAIN — AND PEOPLE ARE FREAKING OUT AFTER TRYING IT A woman is going viral after claiming physical pain can be reduced without medication… simply by repeating a mysterious number sequence: “55515.” According to her, the sequence acts like a “quantum code” that sends a signal from the brain directly into the area of pain to calm the body naturally. Her instructions: • sit with the pain • focus on where it’s coming from • repeat the code over and over • allow the body to “receive the signal” But the internet immediately took the video down a much deeper rabbit hole. People are now connecting it to the CIA’s declassified Gateway Process documents, the controversial research program that explored consciousness, frequencies, altered states, and the hidden potential of the human mind. Now the comments are completely spiraling: • “Why did this actually calm my migraine??” • “The human brain is way more powerful than we’ve been taught.” • “Why was the CIA researching consciousness in the first place?” • “This sounded insane… until I tried it!” What exactly did the CIA discover about the human mind… and why does it feel like the public still only knows a fraction of it? 📹: TikTok/aviaamber_

@realBigBrainAI Humans experience reality as embodied agents embedded in multidimensional physical and psychological space, while current AI systems mostly process symbolic representations detached from direct lived experience.

Mathematician Terence Tao offers a counterintuitive take: AI doesn't look intelligent because our definition of intelligence was wrong all along. He argues that the entire history of AI has followed a predictable pattern: "The history of AI has been here's a task that only humans can do, like maybe it is read natural language or win at chess or solve a math problem, and then one by one someone finds some AI algorithm that also does that." But every time a machine cracks one of these "uniquely human" tasks, we move the goalposts. The solution never feels like real thinking: "You look at how it's done and it doesn't feel like intelligence. It's, oh, it was some trick. You just cobbled together these neural networks and you ran some algorithm, and we were looking for some elusive intelligent way of thinking, and we don't see it in the tools that actually solve our goals." Tao then flips the problem on its head. What if the issue isn't with the machines, but with us? "But maybe it's actually because intelligence is not what we think it is." He points to large language models as the clearest case. What they do sounds almost embarrassingly simple: "Large language models in particular become very successful, and a lot of what they're doing is just predicting the next token, clicking the next word in a sentence. And that doesn't sound like something which is intelligent." To show why this feels wrong, Tao draws a comparison to how we'd judge a human doing the same thing: "If you ask someone to improvise a speech and they have no preparation, and at every moment they're just saying the next word that comes to their mind, you don't think that this could actually work." And yet it works for LLMs. Which forces an uncomfortable possibility: "Maybe that's actually a lot of what humans do as well."

🌊🥂