A man born blind would not imagine Space as we do. We give it always some dilute, or duskish, or dark colour—in short, we imagine it as visible, or intromitted by the eye, wch he would not do. (M23) Proinde vim inferunt sacris literis qui voces hasce (v. tempus, spatium, motus) de quantitatibus mensuratis ibi interpretantur. Newton, p. 10. (M24) I differ from Newton, in that I think the recession ab axe motus is not the effect, or index, or measure of motion, but of the vis impressa. It sheweth not wt is truly moved, but wt has the force impressed on it, or rather that wch hath an impressed force. _D_ and _P_ are not proportional in all circles. _d d_ is to 1/4_d p_ as _d_ to _p_/4; but _d_ and _p_/4 are not in the same proportion in all circles. Hence ’tis nonsense to seek the terms of one general proportion whereby to rectify all peripheries, or of another whereby to square all circles. N. B. If the circle be squar’d arithmetically, ’tis squar’d geometrically, arithmetic or numbers being nothing but lines & proportions of lines when apply’d to geometry. Mem. To remark Cheyne(64) & his doctrine of infinites. Extension, motion, time, do each of them include the idea of succession, & so far forth they seem to be of mathematical consideration. Number consisting in succession & distinct perception, wch also consists in succession; for things at once perceiv’d are jumbled and mixt together in the mind. Time and motion cannot be conceiv’d without succession; and extension, qua mathemat., cannot be conceiv’d but as consisting of parts wch may be distinctly & successively perceiv’d. Extension perceived at once & _in confuso_ does not belong to math. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ The simple idea call’d Power seems obscure, or rather none at all, but onely the relation ’twixt Cause and Effect. When I ask whether A can move B, if A be an intelligent thing, I mean no more than whether the volition of A that B move be attended with the motion of B? If A be senseless, whether the impulse of A against B be followed by ye motion of B(65)? ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Barrow’s arguing against indivisibles, lect. i. p. 16, is a petitio principii, for the Demonstration of Archimedes supposeth the circumference to consist of more than 24 points. Moreover it may perhaps be necessary to suppose the divisibility _ad infinitum_, in order to demonstrate that the radius is equal to the side of the hexagon. Shew me an argument against indivisibles that does not go on some false supposition.