This study investigates how
algorithmic codes that extend beyond conventional notions of chaos and disorder
within a system platform can be invisibly transmitted to surrounding
environments. These transmissions occur through vibrational Frequencies or
non-observable mechanisms and subsequently influence broader neighborhood
systems (Systems A, B, C, and D) across two interconnected domains of the
physical and the non-physical. Environmental side effects that emerge during
early stages may reappear later, gradually degrading core system
characteristics and operational stability. (Fig.1)
To examine this paradoxical
phenomenon, a black-box testing methodology was employed, supported by an
intuitive analytical model. This approach was used to observe, test, and
predict algorithmic behavior in the non-physical domain, encompassing both the
Conscious and Subconscious Components of System Owners participating in
feedback loops.
Chaotic conditions within a system
platform can propagate malfunctioning algorithmic codes into adjacent systems
through direct social interactions as well as through unidentified mechanisms
operating beyond conscious awareness. Hidden chaotic patterns embedded within
the platform emit signals that reach the Conscious Components of both internal
and external System Owners, extending beyond formal system boundaries. Within
their Subconscious Components, these signals activate Survival and Fear Instincts,
forming a Network of Competitive Instincts that heightens vigilance within the
non-physical domain. (Fig.1)
The side effects of this largely
incomprehensible process may ultimately materialize in the physical world as an
energetic strategy. These strategies are shaped by multiple conscious
decision-making patterns that have been subtly influenced, or infected, by
unfriendly algorithmic codes rooted in Survival and Fear instincts operating
within the Subconscious Components. The transmission and evolution of
algorithmic codes beyond chaos and disorder unfold through the following phases:
(Fig. 1)
Phase One: Dispersed signals of chaos
emerge within the system platform as latent threats. These signals trigger
algorithmic responses that extend beyond the Survival and Fear instincts of
neighboring System Owners in the non-physical domain. These signals can even be
transmitted evasively from neighboring platforms to the Conscious and Subconscious Components of
System Owners.
Phase Two: Systems Owners respond by
either challenging or reinforcing the chaotic platform's owner, often
encouraging adherence to conservative strategies. These responses aim to
preserve stability, resist changes, prevent system modifications, and
aggressively eliminate obstacles within the physical system platform. Strategy
replacement is frequently perceived as a risk that could destabilize their own
systems.
Phase Three: The Conscious and
Subconscious Components of the System Owner managing the chaotic platform
become increasingly antagonistic and active; thus, decision-making shifts
toward intensified, hostile instinct-driven modes within the non-physical
domain. Survival and Fear Instincts override default optimal cognitive
processes, prioritizing short-term problem resolution while ignoring early
indicators of long-term system degradation or collapse.
Phase Four: System resources in the
physical domain are explored and modified recklessly, without an optimal
strategy or standardized operations. Driven by subconscious offensive
instincts, the System Owner attempts to suboptimize the platform by eliminating
perceived obscurities deemed overhead. Thus, it includes adopting radically
inconsistent quality standards and implementing the so-called Rambo Model, a
strategy intended to quickly establish harmonic balance by reducing costs and
simplifying complexity by removing suspicious or poorly understood system
elements.
Phase Five: Empirical observation
indicates that while modifications driven by the Rambo Model Strategy may
produce short-term effectiveness, the algorithmic model ultimately introduces
greater complexity across both internal and external physical systems, as well
as within the non-physical domain. Therefore, resolving the underlying chaos, disruptive,
and instinct-driven interventions amplifies systemic instability, compounds the
original problem, and eventually extends complexity to neighbouring platforms.
Observation 1:
Algorithmic
codes that operate beyond chaos and disorder can propagate across both physical
and non-physical domains, directly influencing environments and the minds of
other platform owners. A key source of global hypocrisy in achieving final
complexity resolution within a system platform, and in developing resources
throughout system operations, arises when algorithmic codes that exceed the
Subconscious Components of Systems Owners become entangled in the resolution
process. These entanglements generate contradictions, as the
algorithmic codes originating from Subconscious Components are incompatible
with the nature of existing resource constraints. Such global hypocrisy
prevents the system from reaching optimality during its final resolution cycle.
As a result, chaos and disorder are amplified. They may subsequently spread
throughout the system environment, enabling similar disruptions to infiltrate
the platforms of other System Owners within the physical domain.
Observation 2:
Economic perspectives have consistently occupied a central role in
human decision-making, particularly in contexts where System Owners and
administrators seek to remove barriers and optimize the use of available
resources. From this standpoint, economic considerations guide the
identification of inefficiencies, the allocation of capital and labor, and the
restructuring of processes to ensure smoother and more productive system
performance. By emphasizing cost-effectiveness, scalability, and
sustainability, decision-makers aim not only to eliminate operational obstacles
but also to enhance overall efficiency and long-term viability. Economic
reasoning becomes a key driver in shaping policies, technologies, and
organizational structures that support the continuous and effective functioning
of complex systems. Consequently, System Owners may prioritize economic perspectives over
humanitarian and environmental considerations when directing system resolutions for fundamental changes.
Observation 3:
This study
hypothesizes and proposes that algorithmic frameworks capable of extending
operational influence beyond the Conscious and Subconscious Components of
multiple Systems Owners may induce quantum coherence and synchronize the
vibrational frequencies of external entities. Through this process, a
previously concealed capability of the Conscious Component emerges within a
non-physical domain. The resulting entity is identified as Quantum
Consciousness in the non-physical domain. Thus, it exhibits unpredictable,
highly volatile states and has the potential to influence the physical world.
Without external regulation or intervention, such influence may lead to
self-reinforcing and destructive feedback cycles.
