|
It had been suggested that the 146-element Glossary structure should be chosen over the 144-element structure, because it allows for a substantially larger number of possible combinations to be created. What do I mean by that? Suppose I had three stones, marked A, B, and C. In how many different ways can I arrange them to one another. The answer is six. However if had four stones, I find that there are 24 different ways in which these stones can be arranged. If I had five stones, 120 combinations are possible, and for six stones 720 combinations can be created to arrange them. As you can see that number of possible combinations becomes dramatically larger. In the case of 144 different stones (or different Glossary definitions) the number of possible combinations is so large that a number with 250 digits would required to represent those possible different combinations. For all practical purposes a 250 digits long number represents infinity. (See factorials) Now in the case of 146 different stones the number of possible combinations would be dramatically larger again. Indeed, it is 21,170 times larger. It would result in a 255 digits long number. However, is this enough of a reason to assume that a 146-element structure should therefore be chosen? I answer to myself, saying, no. In a practical sense there is no difference between the two. Even in mathematics it is recognized that 21,170 times infinity, is after all, still infinity. Thus, I need to consider other factors. Now science tells us that if a number of universal principles were to exist that determine the relationship of each stone to each other, only one combination would be possible, whereby the larger structure would be more precise. Is this a valid statement? I must answer to myself that it isn't a valid statement. The science of mathematics disproves this assumption. For instance the famous Pythagorean Theorem that in a right triangle the squares of the smaller sides, added up, are equal in area to the square over the larger side, can be proven in many different ways. Over the last 2,500 years 43 radically different proofs of this universal fact have been developed. Each one is unique, different, and correct. In fact, when challenged to do so I was able to develop a proof out of my own resources, which turned out to be different from any of the 43 'official' proofs, a new addition, and there may be many more possible. I read a statement that 367 such proofs have been developed. And even then, there may still be more coming to light. This leads to a fundamental question about the Glossary structure. What do we aim to achieve with it? Do we aim to create something of the nature of the Pythagorean Theorem, or do we see is a pedagogical structure designed for our learning that urges us the explore the underlying universal principles of our human and divine existence, in the manner as these principles were explored in the processes to prove the Pythagorean Theorem? That is the path I have chosen. I don't see is as an invitation to create another universal theorem. As I see it, the Universal Theorem has been put on the table eons ago, which states that man is created in the image of God, or more precisely, that God and man are one in being. I see countless proofs of this theorem possible in divine science, in the discovery of universal principles. It serves no purpose for me to speculate how many possible proofs there may exist. For myself, the important aspect is the discovering of the universal principles involved and their operation in the divine universe of Truth in which our humanity unfolds. That challenge, thank God, appears to be inexhaustible without a finite end in sight. The fact that multiple solutions to a proposition are possible has first been recognized by the Flemish mathematician Albert Girard in 1629. He believed that a polynomial equation of degree n always has n solutions. This recognition became known as The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. This extremely difficult recognition remains yet to be made in divine Science. The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra remained unproven until 1799, when Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss proved it developing a higher scientific concept of geometry that takes us beyond Euclidean space. On this basis he developed three more such proofs. In a sense he shut down in the process another 'Flat Earth' type doctrine. It appears that this principle applies to scientific discovery itself, that as many solutions are possible as universal principles can be discovered to pertain to a specific theorem. The many solutions that have been discovered for the Pythagorean Theorem prove this proposition to some degree. As for proving the theorem that God and man are one in being, it appears that we have not even begun to discover the vast range of proofs that are possible, in healing, in elevating civilization, ending wars, and eradicating division, poverty, and violence in the human world.
|