按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
would be quite erroneous to use the expression a quantity of
dollars； on the contrary； I must call them aggregate； that is； a
number of coins。 And as in every number we must have unity as the
foundation； so a phenomenon taken as unity is a quantity； and as
such always a continuous quantity （quantum continuum）。
Now； seeing all phenomena； whether considered as extensive or
intensive； are continuous quantities； the proposition： 〃All change
（transition of a thing from one state into another） is continuous；〃
might be proved here easily； and with mathematical evidence； were it
not that the causality of a change lies； entirely beyond the bounds of
a transcendental philosophy； and presupposes empirical principles。 For
of the possibility of a cause which changes the condition of things；
that is； which determines them to the contrary to a certain given
state； the understanding gives us a priori no knowledge； not merely
because it has no insight into the possibility of it （for such insight
is absent in several a priori cognitions）； but because the notion of
change concerns only certain determinations of phenomena； which
experience alone can acquaint us with； while their cause lies in the
unchangeable。 But seeing that we have nothing which we could here
employ but the pure fundamental conceptions of all possible
experience； among which of course nothing empirical can be admitted；
we dare not； without injuring the unity of our system； anticipate
general physical science； which is built upon certain fundamental
experiences。
Nevertheless； we are in no want of proofs of the great influence
which the principle above developed exercises in the anticipation of
perceptions； and even in supplying the want of them； so far as to
shield us against the false conclusions which otherwise we might
rashly draw。
If all reality in perception has a degree； between which and
negation there is an endless sequence of ever smaller degrees； and if；
nevertheless； every sense must have a determinate degree of
receptivity for sensations； no perception； and consequently no
experience is possible； which can prove； either immediately or
mediately； an entire absence of all reality in a phenomenon； in
other words； it is impossible ever to draw from experience a proof
of the existence of empty space or of empty time。 For in the first
place； an entire absence of reality in a sensuous intuition cannot
of course be an object of perception； secondly； such absence cannot be
deduced from the contemplation of any single phenomenon； and the
difference of the degrees in its reality； nor ought it ever to be
admitted in explanation of any phenomenon。 For if even the plete
intuition of a determinate space or time is thoroughly real； that
is； if no part thereof is empty； yet because every reality has its
degree； which； with the extensive quantity of the phenomenon
unchanged； can diminish through endless gradations down to nothing
（the void）； there must be infinitely graduated degrees； with which
space or time is filled； and the intensive quantity in different
phenomena may be smaller or greater； although the extensive quantity
of the intuition remains equal and unaltered。
We shall give an example of this。 Almost all natural philosophers；
remarking a great difference in the quantity of the matter of
different kinds in bodies with the same volume （partly on account of
the momentum of gravity or weight； partly on account of the momentum
of resistance to other bodies in motion）； conclude unanimously that
this volume （extensive quantity of the phenomenon） must be void in all
bodies； although in different proportion。 But who would suspect that
these for the most part mathematical and mechanical inquirers into
nature should ground this conclusion solely on a metaphysical
hypothesis… a sort of hypothesis which they profess to disparage and
avoid？ Yet this they do； in assuming that the real in space （I must
not here call it impenetrability or weight； because these are
empirical conceptions） is always identical； and can only be
distinguished according to its extensive quantity； that is；
multiplicity。 Now to this presupposition； for which they can have no
ground in experience； and which consequently is merely metaphysical； I
oppose a transcendental demonstration； which it is true will not
explain the difference in the filling up of spaces； but which
nevertheless pletely does away with the supposed necessity of the
above…mentioned presupposition that we cannot explain the said
difference otherwise than by the hypothesis of empty spaces。 This
demonstration； moreover； has the merit of setting the understanding at
liberty to conceive this distinction in a different manner； if the
explanation of the fact requires any such hypothesis。 For we
perceive that although two equal spaces may be pletely filled by
matters altogether different； so that in neither of them is there left
a single point wherein matter is not present； nevertheless； every
reality has its degree （of resistance or of weight）； which； without
diminution of the extensive quantity； can bee less and less ad
infinitum； before it passes into nothingness and disappears。 Thus an
expansion which fills a space… for example； caloric； or any other
reality in the phenomenal world… can decrease in its degrees to
infinity； yet without leaving the smallest part of the space empty； on
the contrary； filling it with those lesser degrees as pletely as
another phenomenon could with greater。 My intention here is by no
means to maintain that this is really the case with the difference
of matters； in regard to their specific gravity； I wish only to prove；
from a principle of the pure understanding； that the nature of our
perceptions makes such a mode of explanation possible； and that it
is erroneous to regard the real in a phenomenon as equal quoad its
degree； and different only quoad its aggregation and extensive
quantity； and this； too； on the pretended authority of an a priori
principle of the understanding。
Nevertheless； this principle of the anticipation of perception
must somewhat startle an inquirer whom initiation into
transcendental philosophy has