Ok, now the click bait has worked, let's consider a manner of speech we carelessly employ: 5D chess.
Before reading on, have you played 2D chess? If not, consider listening to Gotham Chess channel over at YT, and start with his oldest videos.
But, no matter whether you played or not, 2D is actually quite simple. There are 64 squares. 32 colored squares, and 32 white squares. Each square can only hold 1 piece.
As you see the board, you immediately surmise that the game is limited. It is limited in geographical space, but also in time. This means that a benefit to one player is the loss to the other player.
Each game has basically 3 parts. The opening, the middle part, usually a part where all kinds of pieces are removed from the board to create space and the upper hand, it is also called: piece exchanges. For instance, you could capture the horse of an opponent, but loose the Bishop with which you took it. That is an exchange. The final and third part is the check mate (hopefully) or the remise/stale mate.
Now imagine 3D chess. This means that there is an additional dimension to the game. No longer is there just horizontal and vertical and its derivative diagonal, but height is added. Compare it to a war on the field. The appropriation of the ability to fly, puts this 3rd dimension in practice. Now you can hoover over your opponent, and pin drop all kinds of ordinance on his head, in excess of the reach of land based weapons.
Let's add two more dimension, based on the first 3:
1. Time.
Time is linear and subsequent, like 1,2,3,4. or Today, tomorrow, next week.
#2. Timeline
This is divergent to 1. I won't go into all the rules here, but consider the fact that by playing this game: benefits and disadvantages are not immediately apparent. IT is even considerable more difficult to check mate. You could end up with 5 kings, or 1 king surrounded by 8 queens.
So, 5D chess is as far removed from 2D chess as the Newtonian mechanical physics from Quantum physics.
See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGqhzaf9JuI
Real world 5D Chess Master
So, what does this all mean in relation to Trump when we call him 5D chess master?
Consider this video, from the 21st to the 30 minute mark. https://rumble.com/v6wyb1g-arrest-hillary-clinton-here-we-go-redacted-news-live.html
Did you notice? You can hear this interview moving seamlessly from battleground tactics to political strategy. And what is the end result?
- Trump is held hostage to interests of the old guard. 2.Trump did a 180 to what he has always believed.
- It is insane!
Although I enjoy listening to Macgregor's analysis when it comes to on the ground military matters, as soon as the talk moves to something else, he loses it. I would say, the world look indeed different from the position of a battle tank, say 20ft up when compared to 20.000 ft or 40.000 feet.
Let's consider tariffs or sanctions. This is what Macgregor had to say in February about that subject. https://youtu.be/XAKD32xBYJQ
2 months later, White House announces quite an interesting trade deal with China. Why? Because our Chess master has them by the balls. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/05/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-secures-a-historic-trade-win-for-the-united-states/
The current situation: https://tariffcheck.org/countries/china
in others words: it is quite comfy: 30% USA, 10% CCP. Insane, Doug, insane!
When it comes to all these matters, we comprehend, they are all connected. IT seems our friend here has no clue as to their deep connection. He is perfectly capable of seeing the trees, but incapable of seeing the forest. Especially, if one neglects to consider the Q posts …..the wider story.
This bring me to the following:
Would you, if you had been serving in Washington’s Army back during the Revolutionary War, stayed with him for 30 more days, when asked, and crossed the Delaware?
If your answer is yes, then what would have been the reason for you to do so? What are the signs that wold have made you trust him this one more time?
And if so, where is your trust in your Commander in Chief now, whom you’d now rather impart being a hostage to the same old agenda, instead of trying to look at it from a wider perspective?
So, When Nathalie says: we are not tribal, we want to discuss the reality on the battle field, it seems like she is referencing Ukraine. And that may very well be. But realities on THAT battlefield differ from Douglas’ projections of its meaning in relation to the situation in the US. So, why does the interview always end up undermining trust in our CiC?
Because they know better? No. Because they lack both knowledge and loyalty. https://greatawakening.win/p/19BGcsWgQS/x/c/4eSmVKbNBPb
And of course these can be fear driven, e.g. for not being taken seriously by those Macgregor thinks are important to him.
Promises made Promises kept is not just a slogan or a political punchline. We are living through the manifestation or the realization of these promises made.
But what is trust? The equation to trust is quite simple: transparency + correctness = trust. I dare say: we were informed of what would happen, what the game is, we researched it. We see that Potus is doing what is correct.
And I think this is where they go wrong. But I do admit, as my GF would say: "Skipper, otherwise there is no story to tell".
I see where you are coming from. thanks for honoring me with your exposition.
When it comes to the alone question, I see no reason to support a problematic relationship with it for atheists at all. I am afraid you misread what it is. By the same token, I see really no reason for a problem for a theist.
When considering the individual, there may be a problem, depending on the rules of his worldview he convinced himself of.
When you mean that you would not have a problem with being alone, well, that is in itself a lie, as a you clearly belief in beings of a different nature than we. So, we are not alone, as the question about intelligent life is settled. How else would you explain angels, either fallen or not.
When it comes to those who are atheists .. there are several sorts of them. Some are staunch materialists. Others are more spiritual oriented.
The same happens when one would approach this universe from a perspective of Newtonian viewpoints. It works to a degree but also has a side effect: man all of a sudden has become a mechanical system, not symbiotic on a material plain, and quite not the quantum traveler. This leads to the type of thinking of solving the appearance instead of the basic issue. This type of difference, I already pointed out in what happens when reading a Brief History of Time.
At any rate, turning around the question, Let's say we are not alone. Wherein lies the rub for a theist? His earth centered worldview. Like in earlier times when religion insisted upon a geo-centric worldview.
This demonstrates that is not a matter of theism or atheism, but the rules that makeup the individual worldview.
Your reluctance and your description of what inter-dimensional beings would mean, is not geared towards salvation. See, this is your thinking. After al, you belief you are saved by an inter-dimensional being. It would be a disservice to yourself, to maintain the projection of your own views onto others.
When it comes to a new type of thinking, it always starts with something that has not been thought before. That is the EUREKA moment. If I were to be corny about it, I would say, ecclesiastics said something about: there is no new thing under the sun. That may very well be. But I am still looking for the lightbulb and the LED in there. Surely it must be in there somewhere. Right?
But I am not corny, so I will dispense with that. Consider the worldview that the earth is flat and man is confined to earth, and the the oceans are falling of the earth. If you were believing such nonsense, well, I am sure you would not participate in any expedition based upon the worldview that the earth is a globe and you could sail east or west upon the same degree of latitude and arrive at the same spot.
Even though such notions may induce fear, and may even be held by people who were not learned in these matters, slowly over time, this globe idea spread and is now the 96% of people adhering to such a view. The reason I am using this analogy is the underscore that when a certain view is ingrained and held by a majority in the population, a new idea is difficult to implement.
So, can we time travel, or even use these notions about time and timelines in a way that is more productive than a toy, a game?
Of course we can. But the rabbit hole this opens, would totally upend our worldview, is it not? And how would we regard the few that comprehend this and their capacity to use it?
Then, what we would regard as dictating the rules, is merely playing a different game.
It could be self explanatory if we would suppose a move from zero-sum game to sum-game. If you wish all people to become successful, not at the behest of others, like the EIC/VOC mentality has always been, but pushing all of us towards a higher plain of living by using the tools at our disposal to become successful, the effects would still fit within our 3D approach. And indeed, has nothing to do with time or time--lines.
But, if only what you know is important and valid, then you are not in the business to expand your knowledge. To increase your knowledge there has to be a challenge to the existing paradigm. Something needs to be out of order, not explained.
The intriguing thing is, that at a certain point in time, 3 worldviews existed. Geo-centric, Helio-centric, and something in between: the Tycho Brahe system. Quite fascinating. But the challenge has to be there.
And if, as you say, you have spent 50 years solving technical problems, often in novel ways, you know this to be true. But there is a difference between novelty and innovation. Holding up a middle finger instead of the index finger may have been a novelty at some point, but hardly an innovation.
Whatever it is, it all starts with a challenge. Man has to think about it, puzzle with it, wrestle with it. As Edison allegedly said: I know 10.000 ways to NOT make a lightbulb. Yet he knew one way to make one, and that has made all the difference.
In light of the foregoing, how can this be perceived as a logical open minded way of thinking? Is there any challenge in preconceived and fixed mental positions?
You misunderstand my first point. The discussion was about aliens and whether we are "alone." A Christian knows he is always with God, so there is no sense of being alone. The problem arises from atheists who look behind themselves and see no one. I speak from some personal knowledge, having been an atheist for 40 years. So, the reference to the infinite universe is a two-edged sword: it can mean alien beings are out there...or not. I've had reason to delve into the requirements for traveling even to nearby stars and they are tremendously challenging. The farther out you look, one might suppose the greater the likelihood there will be someone existing. Unfortunately, the farther out you look, the lesser the likelihood they can travel in our direction. So much for that.
Simply put, there is no meaning to the idea of "inter-dimensional beings." No evidence of any such phenomenon. It is philosophically equivalent to magic. You might as well be talking about fairies and goblins. At that level, they may have more credibility. The artful sophist always likes to cloak old, untenable ideas in fresh paint.
The globe of the Earth was a fact from before history. Eratosthenes arrived at a fairly correct calculation of its radius in 240 BC. I am professionally educated in physics and its history, so you don't need to explain the march of theory. New theories prevail because they QUANTITATIVELY explain phenomena unexplained by a prior theory. Not because they are simply new ideas (hypotheses), a point not well understood on this page. (It is, by the way, a dreadful state of affairs that 4% of grown people are as ignorant as babes.)
I have nine patents to my name, and other inventions that were not moved to patent protection, so kindly don't talk down to me about innovation. In my employment, I innovated an analytical approach that combined system trades into a unified theory, and did well with it for about 30 years.
One must first have a mind open to evidence. If there is no evidence, it does not matter what fanciful hypothesis is proposed. Read the Journal of Galilean Electrodynamics, if you want to consider some actual new theories with an open mind.
Fascinating to read you argument. It is a peculiar amalgamation of the a person who is clinging to his material atheism, and struggling to allow a wider view.
Thanks for that.
No clinging to material atheism. Just because I know a lot about the material world does not mean any clinging to atheism. Do you really have no idea how we have come to know about the material world? Any list of scientists of the past 400 years will consist mainly of Christians. God has given us eyes to see.
If you will not read the Journal of Galilean Electrodynamics, you don't have any grounds to claim a wider view. (I also read fantasy and science fiction for entertainment, but I don't confuse them with reality.) You might also want to read the works of Rupert Sheldrake, regarding paranormal phenomena. Or Maj. Donald Keyhoe regarding UFO phenomena. Evidence first, theory afterward.