Hyper Dimensional Design

[Dutch]

Guess.

Mentaal?

Oh nee,

Alweer ernaast, stommerik dat ik ben

 

[Daylightstar]

...( what's up with you? , you can't nail me on dishonesty)

Here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6802560&postcount=4071
you were nailed on dishonesty, amongst other dishonesties, a variation of the "it's over there" trick.

The above quoted remark by you is thus dishonesty in and of itself.
Very, very nasty.

 

[Daylightstar]

HDDesign isn't supposed to be percepted as real at macrolevel in the first place, otherwise we would have lived our lives for nothing. Apparently we live in times that it does matter to understand this multi-dimensional reality, for whatever reason.

Still no accomplishments.

 

[Dutch]

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}
So far, you've accomplished nothing.

You underestimate what I am doing, each single significant finding has reached thousands of reader whole over the world via the net. My geuss is that one way or the other, since I have started this 'research', there are hundreds of thousands of people from over the world who have been dealing with this HDDesign stuff and possibly changed their way of thinking and more important: they probably have changed their commitment to our reality as a result of it ( at least, if they've understood what this is about ).

 

[Dutch]

You've been nailed on dishonesty soooo many times.

The "it's over there" trick has been employed by you so often, it's gotten stale.

By who. You? I have never been dishonest. period. last word on this from my part

 

[Daylightstar]

... I have never been dishonest. period. ...

Heh.

It's recursive with you.

 

[Daylightstar]

... last word on this from my part

Not from my part.

 

[Sideroxylon]

as per definition, HDDesign can't ever be proven as real to everyone ( potentially it can, but we don't live that long for most

How long would data have to be collected to prove HDD to others?
What is this limitation based on?
If the evidence is not good enough for others, why should it be good enough for you?

 

[Dutch]

^{Bolding by Daylightstar}
So far, you've accomplished nothing.

with you, yes

 

[Dutch]

Here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6802560&postcount=4071
you were nailed on dishonesty, amongst other dishonesties, a variation of the "it's over there" trick.

The above quoted remark by you is thus dishonesty in and of itself.
Very, very nasty.

links, links links, to out of context remarks. Be a big boy and tell me why I am dishonest.

 

[Dutch]

Still no accomplishments.

still pending for you, you can't expect change in a minute, dont yoü?

 

[Dutch]

still pending for you, you can't expect change in a minute, dont yoü?

For you, unfortunately, it takes more than a lifetime

 

[Daylightstar]

... last word on this from my part

And yet ...

links, links links, to out of context remarks. Be a big boy and tell me why I am dishonest.

See how little weight your words carry?

Another type of behavior which is not incidental.

 

[Dutch]

How long would data have to be collected to prove HDD to others?
What is this limitation based on?
If the evidence is not good enough for others, why should it be good enough for you?

Don't you guys have a weekend? its my second since February...

The anticipated future dates with expected underlying themes should show up instantly on the patterns, that's how they are logged on the timelines. The actual events can take longer to emerge, but should be linked to the predetermined timeframe. Especially these 'covert' operations that aren't meant to hit the mainstream headlines, are found to be valid expressions of the underlying themes at the predetermined timeframes. So its not only the mainstream news at the specific predetermined timeframe, you have to be aware of the developments that will follow, but there must be a connection to the predetremined timeframe and underlying theme

 

[Dutch]

I had to edit the previous post because it was my second weekend to respond and not the firts, I don't want to be dishonest you know

 

[Dutch]

And yet ...



See how little weight your words carry?

Another type of behavior which is not incidental.

just say it in your own words Day, why am I dishonest? you have to explain

 

[dafydd]

Mentaal?

Oh nee,

Alweer ernaast, stommerik dat ik ben

Self knowledge is the best knowledge.

 

[dafydd]

You underestimate what I am doing, each single significant finding has reached thousands of reader whole over the world via the net. My geuss is that one way or the other, since I have started this 'research', there are hundreds of thousands of people from over the world who have been dealing with this HDDesign stuff and possibly changed their way of thinking and more important: they probably have changed their commitment to our reality as a result of it ( at least, if they've understood what this is about ).

That is a fantasy. You are in a minority of one.

 

[ufology]

It seems to me, that besides our 3-dimensional reality ( or 4 with time, if you prefer ) there's a hidden underlying Design ...

OK ... I snipped the rest because it gets too nebulous and have no firm reference point from which to grasp what you are saying. I can see how the skeptics would jump all over it as "woo". So let's just consider the first part, "there's a hidden underlying Design ..."

There are some implications in both the word "hidden" and "design". For the moment, let's replace the word "design" with "pattern". This will eliminate any innuendo of "intelligent design", which is another issue.

So if we purport that there is a "hidden" underlying pattern, then it must be hidden "below" something ( either literally or as an analogy ). In your model, what is this pattern "hidden" under? For example, when science looks at the smallest things possible, our material universe turns out to be nothing material at all. Rather we find that instead of little "solid" building blocks, there are nebulous fields of energy with "properties" imparted on them by some as yet undertermined means. If we look even deeper ( and we have ), most of everything we experience as real is made of not only these nebulous fields, but empty space ( nothing ). In our reality, the things we perceive as solid material objects are actually mostly empty space and nebulous energy fields organized in patterns according to mathematical rules that give the impression to our minds, at a certian scale, that it is "real".

These discoveries have led some serious theoreticians, including myself ( although I'm more of an armchair guy ) to lean toward what is called the "computational model" of the universe. This model proposes that the bits of energy and the space in between that make up our universe, constitute "data", and that the properties of matter for which we have no explanation are imparted by the system that is generating this environment, which we call the universe. Now in this sense, we might be able to say that the "hidden pattern" might be analagous to the surface of a hard drive disk, or the crystal lattice of some other memory storage medium or whatever.

To explain this further, let's imagine that computers have become so sophisticated that they can generate game characters that are aware of their generated environments and can interact with them on their own. This actually isn't too far off in the future.

Now imagine one of these characters deciding to have a closer look at their world. What would they find? They would in fact find that their realm, including themselves, are made of large collections of very small things and maybe give them some name analagous to what call atoms.

As they looked closer and closer down into individual patterns, they would actually be looking at the patterns of tiny magnetic particles organized on a hard disk layer. However because they couldn't see the actual particles outside their environment, to them the pattern would be just ghostly energy "fields" organized by mathematical principles that seem to be imparted on them from some unseen source "hidden below" their level of reality ... very much like what our actual situation seems to be.

Are we talking about something similar, or are we talking about something else for which I have no concept?

j.r.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Sounds like a science fiction plot. How would they be able to see beyond the application layer as far the hardware layer?