ial magnitude nor a plurality, but infinity itself is its substance and not an accident of it,Moncler Branson, it will be indivisible; for the divisible is either magnitude or plurality. But if indivisible, it is not infinite, except as the voice is invisible; but people do not mean this, nor are we examining this sort of infinite, but the infinite as untraversable. Further,Moncler Grillon, how can an infinite exist by itself, unless number and magnitude also exist by themselvess-since infinity is an attribute of these? Further, if the infinite is an accident of something else, it cannot be qua infinite an element in things, as the invisible is not an element in speech,Belstaff 2014 Nové Bunda, though the voice is invisible. And evidently the infinite cannot exist actually. For then any part of it that might be taken would be infinite (for ‘to be infinite’ and ‘the infinite’ are the same,Peony Tall Czyścibut 1873, if the infinite is substance and not predicated of a subject). Therefore it is either indivisible, or if it is partible, it is divisible into infinites; but the same thing cannot be many infinites (as a part of air is air,Germany Drakt, so a part of the infinite would be infinite,Moncler Maya, if the infinite is substance and a principle). Therefore it must be impartible and indivisible. But the actually infinite cannot be indivisible; for it must be of a certain quantity. Therefore infinity belongs to its subject incidentally. But if so, then (as we have said) it cannot be it that is a principle, but that of which it is an accident-the air or the even number.
This inquiry is universal; but that the infinite is not among sensible things, is evident from the following argument. If the definition of a body is ‘that which is bounded by planes’,Belstaff Rayne Blouson Bunda, there cannot be an infinite body either sensible or intelligible; nor a separate and infinite number, for number or that which has a number is numerable. Concretely, the truth is evident from the following argument. The infinite can neither be composite nor simple. For (a) it cannot be a composite body, since the elements are limited in multitude. For the contraries must be equal and no one of them must be infinite; for if one of the two bodies falls at all short of the other in potency,Kyle Lowry Drakter, the finite will be destroyed by the infinite. And that each should be infinite is impossible. For body is that which has extension in all directions,Newcastle Drakt, and the infinite is the boundlessly extended,Belstaff Staple Bunda, so that if the infinite is a body it will be infinite in every direction. Nor (b) can the infinite body be one and simple-neither, as some say,Skottland Landslagsdrakt, something apart from the elements, from which they generate these (for there is no such body apart from the elements; for everything can be resolved into that of which it consists, but no such product of analysis is observed except the simple bodies), nor fire nor any other of the elements. For apart from the question how any of them could be infinite, the All,Mats Hummels Drakt, even if it is finite, cannot either be or become any one of them, as Heraclitus says all things sometime become fire. The same argument applies to this as to the One which the natural phil
相关的主题文章：
http://gategate.sakura.ne.jp/gategate/hakobbs/light.cgi
http://www.astro.com/cgi/aclch.cgi
http://www.olginfo.com/discuz/viewthread.php?tid=438223&pid=518158&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid518158 |
