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！
phenomenon； for example； a change）； we call the degree of reality in
its character of cause a momentum； for example； the momentum of
weight； and for this reason； that the degree only indicates that
quantity the apprehension of which is not successive； but
instantaneous。 This； however； I touch upon only in passing； for with
causality I have at present nothing to do。
Accordingly； every sensation； consequently every reality in
phenomena； however small it may be； has a degree； that is； an
intensive quantity； which may always be lessened； and between
reality and negation there exists a continuous connection of
possible realities； and possible smaller perceptions。 Every colour…
for example； red… has a degree； which； be it ever so small； is never
the smallest； and so is it always with heat； the momentum of weight；
etc。
This property of quantities； according to which no part of them is
the smallest possible （no part simple）； is called their continuity。
Space and time are quanta continua； because no part of them can be
given； without enclosing it within boundaries （points and moments）；
consequently； this given part is itself a space or a time。 Space；
therefore； consists only of spaces； and time of times。 Points and
moments are only boundaries； that is； the mere places or positions
of their limitation。 But places always presuppose intuitions which are
to limit or determine them； and we cannot conceive either space or
time composed of constituent parts which are given before space or
time。 Such quantities may also be called flowing； because synthesis
（of the productive imagination） in the production of these
quantities is a progression in time； the continuity of which we are
accustomed to indicate by the expression flowing。
All phenomena； then； are continuous quantities； in respect both to
intuition and mere perception （sensation； and with it reality）。 In the
former case they are extensive quantities； in the latter； intensive。
When the synthesis of the manifold of a phenomenon is interrupted；
there results merely an aggregate of several phenomena； and not
properly a phenomenon as a quantity； which is not produced by the mere
continuation of the productive synthesis of a certain kind； but by the
repetition of a synthesis always ceasing。 For example； if I call
thirteen dollars a sum or quantity of money； I employ the term quite
correctly； inasmuch as I understand by thirteen dollars the value of a
mark in standard silver； which is； to be sure； a continuous
quantity； in which no part is the smallest； but every part might
constitute a piece of money； which would contain material for still
smaller pieces。 If； however； by the words thirteen dollars I
understand so many coins （be their value in silver what it may）； it
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 complete
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 e