CCCL

341. If you reduce the size/volume of a body of reference to a non-dimensional point, the ultimate inside/outside relationship is revealed. Outside no longer exists. The entire universe can be defined as lying inside any given point of reference and is therefore finite, bounded on all sides by the same point.

342. Thus, just as the universe lies in all directions from any given point in that system, any given point lies in all directions from anywhere in the same system, contains it, and puts a finite boundary around the universe.

343. It might be suggested that a proponent of tetrahedronal geometry may as well increase the number of axes at will—develop a five-dimensional, six-dimensional, etc. system. There is nothing saying this is not possible.

344. The four axes approach, however, is the simplest model that can account for all spatial relationships without employing negatives. Fewer axes can define only a portion of space; more become redundant. If five axes are used, for example, one must always be defined as exerting null force on the point being located. Otherwise, any given point may be defined with an unlimited number of non-proportional coordinates. Thus, each point would lack a defined orientation. Normal Euclidean solid geometry actually uses six axes to define space, but the coordinates of three of those axes is always null. x and -x are two of the axes, etc. A point cannot have a coordinate on both axes.

345. To change one’s orientation in the universe, one must either “go there” or “be there.” The process of being takes no account of a time-lapse. The speed at which you go defines how much time is created in the interval.

346. Rationale for the development of a numeric/geometric system with no negatives: In a three dimensional spatial system, only one-eighth of the universe is “real” or having +x, +y, +z coordinates. Yet, by definition, that one-eighth is infinite.

347. The other seven-eighths of the system—also each deemed infinite—attempt to measure at least one coordinate as less than nothing. In reality, in order to deal with that quadrant, we must assume that a point within it lies a positive distance from the origin along a fourth, fifth, or sixth axis which we have arbitrarily defined as being negative. In fact, however, negative distance does not exist. Nor does negative space.

348. To go “outside” our system is equivalent to going a negative distance. Outside is, thus, a non-reality, all of our universe being defined as being inside our system, therefore finite, defined by any single point in the system.

349. Our strength is frequently defined in terms of what we cannot do rather than what we can do.

350. When there is motion, motion preempts simultaneity. Our moving, rotating, revolving globe cannot be perceived relative to other realities, but only relative to where realities have been. (17)

EDITOR’S NOTE: Wesley almost lost me as I attempted to parse his first point in this section. There is a mathematics joke—which I have on good authority that Wesley had never heard—that goes: Three mathematicians were looking at a flock of sheep. The first said, “The smallest linear footage of a fence that would enclose the sheep is a square. It has the greatest area inside for the linear footage.” The second said, “The smallest linear footage would be a circle as the square would waste interior space.” The third drew a circle around himself and said simply, “I define myself as being outside.” In essence, Wesley has posited the same theory. A point, having no dimensions, can have no inside and outside. Wesley holds that inside and outside are the same. Therefore, any point in the rational universe lies in all directions from any other point. The universe is bounded by that single point.

Now my head hurts.