Chapter 4 3. The world (on light and on man)

introduction The formation process of the world is a natural process. In the natural process, the nature itself can analyze the disorder in the chaos according to the law, and the chaotic particles conflict with each other to form a unified vortex movement.In this swirling movement, they gradually split into the three "elements" of earth, air and fire.Due to continuous rotation, the earth "element" cast aside the center, and gradually formed the earth and the planets; the fire "element" stayed at the center, and gradually formed the sun and stars; the air "element" formed the ether that fills the space of the world.The author bravely declares in the article: "Give me extension and movement, and I will make this world."

Chapter One The Difference Between Sensation and the Thing That Produces Sensation The subject of this article is light.The first thing I would like to call your attention is the difference between the sense of light we have (that is, the concept of light produced in our minds through the medium of the eye) and the sense of objects that make us feel light (that is, the sun or fire that we have). , the feeling we call "light") is different.In spite of the general conviction that the conception of light which we have in our minds is exactly like the body from which it is derived, I see no reason which would give us any conclusive proof.On the contrary, I have deliberately made a number of observations which give us reason to cast doubt on this idea.

As we all know, language bears no resemblance to what it refers to.Yet they make us think of these things accordingly, often even when we do not pay particular attention to the sounds or syllables of the words.It may happen that we hear some kind of speech, and fully understand its meaning, but then cannot tell in which languages ​​it was spoken.Words are nothing but conventions of people. If there is a language sufficient to enable us to think of things with no resemblance to it, why has nature failed to set up some symbols for the sensation of light, even though the symbols themselves have no real content but only resemble this sensation?Isn't there already smiles and tears in nature, so that we can read joy and sorrow in people's faces?

Perhaps you will say that the ears of the incomplete can only allow us to hear the sound of speech, and the eyes can only allow us to see the expressions of crying and laughing, and it is our brain that can recall the meaning of these sounds and expressions.It is our brain that conveys to us what our ears hear and our eyes see at the same time.Along the same lines I can say that it is also our brain that gives us the idea of ​​light when the eye perceives an action called light.To avoid wasting time discussing this issue, I will give another example. Suppose we only heard a certain speaking sound, without noticing what it meant, would we recognize the concept of this sound formed in the brain as a sounding object?Man opens his mouth, turns his tongue, and breathes out, and I don't see that these actions have anything in common with the concepts that make us imagine sounds.Most philosophers insist that sound is just a vibration of the air that is conducted to our ears.So, if the sense of hearing transmits to the brain a real image of an object, instead of making us imagine a sound, this makes us imagine the movement of parts of the air which move our ears.But not everyone takes philosophers at their word, so I'll cite another example.

Of all the senses the sense of touch is held to be the most real and certain, and if, therefore, I make it known that even the concepts which the sense of touch enables us to imagine bear no resemblance to the objects from which such imaginations originate, I would like to be When I say that the vision is the same, no one will be surprised.We all know the sensations of itching and pain, which our brains produce when objects touch us.And this feeling bears no resemblance to those external objects.If you pass a feather over the lips of a sleeping child, he himself will feel itchy.Just imagine, is this itchy feeling similar to what this feather brings?A soldier fighting fiercely in the field may be wounded without feeling it, and when he withdraws from the field to calm down, he feels pain and believes he is wounded.A surgeon was called, and when the armor was removed for examination, it turned out that the soldier was in pain only from the pinching of the buckles and straps beneath the armor.If the soldier's sense of touch could feel the bandages and create that impression in his brain, there would be no need to go to the surgeon and tell him what he felt.

Now, I see no reason to believe that the sensations produced by the light of objects themselves are any more like sensations than the itching of feathers and bandages.I have not hitherto given instances in which it is entirely convincing that there is a difference between the light of an object itself and that which enters the eye of man.I just want to let you know that there must be a difference, in case you accept an opposing view, and to enable you to better assist me in exploring this issue further. Chapter two Composition of light and heat in flames I think there are only two kinds of objects that can produce light in the world, namely stars and fire (or flames).It is obvious that stars are farther away from man than fire, so I will first try to explain what I have observed about fire.We can see with the naked eye that when we burn wood or other similar objects with fire, the flame continually touches many tiny particles of the wood and tears them apart, creating light, air, and smoke, and what remains is ash.If you like, you can imagine the shape of the flame, the heat generated and the process of burning wood into a very different substance.For me, I worry about making the mistake of thinking that there is more to the wood than we can really see.I therefore tend to confine my thoughts to the motion of the individual particles of the wood.You can add "fire" and "heat" to the wood as you like to make it burn.But if it is supposed that only some of the particles of the wood move, isolating these particles from their neighbours, then it is conceivable that the wood will undergo no change or change.On the other hand, take away the "fire", take away the "heat", and make the wood go out.If you agree with me that there is some force which causes violent motion in the good parts of the wood to separate it from the ashes which remain of the fire, then I think that force alone is capable of producing the observable Similar changes.

It seems impossible to imagine an object moving another object without its own motion.This being the case, I can conclude that the fire acting on the wood consists of tiny particles moving independently of each other in an extremely rapid and violent manner.When in motion, they continually strike various parts of the objects they encounter and are able to move those parts that do not create much resistance.The parts of the flame may be said to move independently, but we never see each part as they act on the objects they touch, but they always work together to lead to one result.It can also be said that their movements are very rapid and violent, but we cannot distinguish them visually because they are too small.Therefore, if their speed of motion is too small to make up for their tiny shape, they will not possess the aforementioned power.

I did not mention the direction in which the individual particles move because the force of motion and the force that determines which direction to move are completely different, and the two are not interdependent and can exist independently (as I explained in "Optics" like that).In fact, we can simply think that each part is moving in a free way.This approach minimizes drag depending on the position of surrounding objects.In the same flame, some parts may be rising while other parts are going down; some parts may be moving in a straight line and other parts are moving in a circle;When you see that almost all parts tend to move upward, you need not look for any other reason than that, that in all other directions the bodies touched by the flame almost always give it more resistance.

Now that we have seen that the parts of a flame move in this way, it is sufficient to imagine its motion in order to understand how it has the power to consume wood and burn it.I then suggested that we might ask the question whether the same principles are sufficient for us to understand how flames furnish us with light and heat.If it can be understood in this way, there is no need to discuss whether flame has other properties.We shall be able to say that the other properties are only different effects of the action of this motion which we now call "light and heat."Speaking of heat, I think the feeling we might have is what is perceived as a burning sensation when this movement is intense.As we have said, there is nothing like the concept of pain outside of our minds.We can also believe that there is nothing analogous to the concept of heat outside our minds.Of course, this sensation should be produced in us and pass through something that is established by various movements of many tiny parts of the hands and other parts of the body.This idea is supported by numerous direct observations, such as the fact that our hands heat up simply by rubbing them against each other.Speaking of light, we can also imagine this movement in the flame enough to cause us to feel it, and since this is the main part of my work, I will try to explain it to some extent when I begin this discussion clear.

third chapter Solids and liquids I believe that the world is forever in endless motion.We notice the most remarkable changes (years, months, days) and then we can also observe: the air is constantly blown to and fro; the sea is never peaceful; the springs and rivers are constantly flowing; Grand buildings also collapse and end up in ruins; plants and animals are always growing or dying.In short, nothing is constant anywhere.From this I clearly know that the phenomenon of the endless movement of many particles in the flame is not unique; other objects also have such particles, but because the particles are too small and their motion is not so violent, we cannot feel it through the senses. arrive.

I do not want to stop to inquire into the causes of the motion of these parts, but it suffices for me to suppose that they have been in motion since the existence of the world.If so, I can judge from this that their motion may never have stopped, or even changed the way of motion except for their own reasons.That is to say, it is true that the predominance and energy of self-motion in one body may be transferred in whole or in part to another body, and then no longer remain in the original state; but it will not disappear completely in the world either.At this point, I feel like I have a solid case, I just haven't had a chance to narrate it yet.At this point one (like most scholars) might imagine that there are some extremely fast motions in the world, going on at incredible speeds, which are the source of all other motions that appear in the world. Chapter Four Void, and how it prevents us from feeling the presence of something in it We must look at air in more detail.Although air is also an object, it cannot be perceived by human senses like other objects.In this regard, we should free ourselves from the delusions we have had in our childhood.From the beginning we think that there is nothing around us except those objects that can be perceived by the senses. Even if we feel the air (to some extent), it is not like most objects. As perceived, has a sense of substance or solidity.In this matter, first of all I am glad that it has been observed that all bodies, whether solid or liquid, are made of the same bodies.Each component of this substance is surrounded and collided by other parts to become an object with a certain hardness and volume.Imagine the impossibility of the individual parts continually forming a harder and smaller object.According to my opinion, if a vacuum can exist everywhere, then this "vacuum" must be a hard solid and not a liquid.It is obvious that the parts of a solid can be squeezed together more easily than a liquid, because a liquid is in constant flow, whereas a solid is stationary. For example, fill the jar with powder, shake and tap the jar to even out the empty space to load more powder.If the liquid is poured into the jar, it will immediately and automatically dissolve into any small space in the jar.In fact, philosophers often use some experiments to prove that there is no vacuum in nature.Examining these experiments, it is easy to find that all those spaces which one thinks are spaces, or which are thought to be only air, are in fact full, and filled with the same matter, as the spaces in which we perceive other bodies to exist. We know by observation that the heaviest bodies in nature can rise, and the hardest can shatter;Would you be kind to tell me how probable it is if, while these changes in nature were taking place, the airs, which readily spread in all directions, could remain near each other without touching or with other bodies in contact? To believe that well water rises against its nature just to fill a pump pipe?Or if there is a minimal vacuum between its parts, do we really think that the water in the cloud need not fall to fill the terrestrial space?Here you may raise a rather important question, that unless there are spaces between the liquids, or at least spaces made by the other parts in motion, the individual parts of the liquid do not seem to be able to move without rest, as I have said. sports.It's hard for me to answer this question without knowing the following.From various observations it is known that all motion in the world proceeds in a certain circular manner, that is, when one body leaves its position, it always enters the position of another, and this goes on and on till the end. one, and the last will at the same instant occupy the place vacated by the first.Space, therefore, has no more vacuum when bodies are in motion than when they are at rest.It should be noted here that the occurrence of this movement does not necessarily require that the parts of the object move in unison, but must be arranged in a precise circle or in a true ring.Even if the parts of an object are equal in size, this is not necessarily the case, and any inequalities in size or shape can easily be canceled out by their velocities. We are used to thinking that air is just a kind of empty space, so when objects move in it, we don't always realize these circular motions, but look at how a fish swims in a pool: if the fish doesn't swim to the surface, then even if they swim extremely fast, they will not cause water movement at all.From this, it can be clearly seen that the fish is only pushing the water in front of it, rather than pushing the water in the whole pool indiscriminately.The water they're propelling through allows them to better complete their circular motions and to better fill the space vacated by their movements.This observation suffices for circular motion, but I would like to introduce another observation.Since the top of the barrel is closed, the wine in the barrel cannot flow out of the gap in the bottom of the barrel.But it is not so appropriate to say that this is caused by "fear of a vacuum", as is commonly believed.We know very well that wine has no mind of its own, let alone fears anything; and even if we imagined that wine itself had a mind, I see no reason why wine should be afraid of this vacuum.On the contrary, we must say that the wine does not flow out of the barrel for the following reasons, that outside of everything there is air, and that if we want the wine to flow out of the barrel, we must make an opening in the top of the barrel so that the air can enter and occupy it. The wine is positioned so as to form a circular motion. In conclusion, I do not have to insist that there is no vacuum at all in nature.I am afraid that if I explain this in a long speech, the paper will appear very protracted.The above few observations are not enough to fully prove this point, but they are at least further confirmation of it.The space in which we perceive nothing is filled with the same matter as in the bodies we perceive, at least as much of this substance as the space occupied by the latter. substance.We would think, for example, that a ship full of gold bars or lumps of lead contains no more matter than an empty ship.To many, this may seem strange.The judgment of these people is limited to the range of their fingers, and they will imagine that there is nothing in the world but what they can touch.But think a little more carefully about how we perceive, or fail to perceive, objects, and I'm sure at this point we'll find there's nothing implausible about it.We have hitherto taken for granted what is felt all around us, and what is, on the contrary, always present but rarely felt, and what is always there but not felt at all.Our hearts have a lot of heat, but we don't feel it because it's always there; we're all underweight, but we don't feel uncomfortable; we don't even feel the weight of our clothes because we're used to wearing them .The reason could not be simpler, and it is certain that these objects are imperceptible unless they undergo some change in the representation of our senses.In other words, the changes are moving in some way tiny bits of matter that make up the senses.Objects don't always stay the way they are; given enough energy, they can undergo certain changes.When these bodies act upon the senses, something is destroyed, and when they cease to act, the damage is naturally repaired.Look at these objects which continually touch us, if they always possess an energy which changes our senses and moves some parts of our sense matter, then these parts must have been moved at the beginning of our life, and These parts are thereby completely separated from the other parts.In this case, only a part of the substances remains in the senses, which completely resists the action of those bodies.In this way these objects are not perceived by our senses in any way.From this you can see that there are undoubtedly many spaces around us in which we cannot perceive the presence of objects through our senses, even though these spaces contain objects compared with the spaces in which we can feel objects very well. , not very little.However difficult it is to conceive that the general air we inhale when we breathe is as dense as water or soil.Air in motion becomes wind, and appears solid when enclosed in balloons, although they consist only of scattered bits of gas and smoke.Philosophers agree that the air is thin, and we accept this accepted view, which can be easily ascertained by observation.By thermal excitation, the constituent parts of a drop of water can be separated, producing much more ordinary air than can be contained in the space occupied by the water.Here we can draw the definite conclusion that there are a large number of small gaps between the various constituent parts of the air, and that is all.These interstices, as I have said, cannot be empty, and therefore I conclude that there must be one or many other bodies mixed with the air, filling as closely as possible the tiny interstices between the parts.With that in mind, I have one final question to consider: Is the same for other objects?I hope that through the above discussion, it will not be too difficult to understand the nature of light. chapter Five Elements and their properties Philosophers believe that above the clouds, there is an air that is purer than our air, unlike the air around us, which does not contain the water vapor that exists on the surface of the earth in its composition, but only a single and the philosophers also believed that above this layer of air there remained a purer substance which they called the element of fire.Furthermore, philosophers believe that these two elements, air and fire, mixed with water and earth make up all the objects on the earth below.From this point of view alone, I may suppose that the parts of the common air which we breathe are filled with purer elements of air and fire, and that these bodies interlaced with each other form bodies of various degrees of hardness. chunks. In order for you to understand my point of view on this subject, and not to think that I am forcing you to believe all that the philosophers have said about the elements, I must describe them in my own way.This is followed by a brief description of the three elements of Fire, Air, and Earth.Descartes distinguished them only by size, shape, and direction of motion. --Translator's Note When explaining these elements, I did not use the so-called "hot, cold, wet, dry" properties like philosophers.If you find this strange, then I will tell you that, to me, these properties themselves seem to require explanation.Indeed, unless I am mistaken, not only these four properties, but all other kinds of properties, even the composition of inorganic substances, are to be explained, not conjectured.Apart from the manner of movement, size, shape, and arrangement of parts, there should be no guesswork about what is important.I shall, therefore, make it easy for you to see why I do not recognize any other elements than the three I have described above.For there must be a difference between these three elements and what other philosophers call "mixtures" or "composites."The difference, in fact, is that the constituent parts of these mixtures always have different properties which oppose and antagonize each other, or at least have no tendency to depend on each other.But in fact, the composition of the elements must be single, and there must be no property that cannot be perfectly coordinated with each other. Each component can promote the interdependence relationship between each other. No such construction can now be found in the world, except for the three elements I have already described.Regarding the construction, I used to put other objects to make it stop when I analyzed the first element.Furthermore, they are not necessarily of any limited size, shape or condition.The structure of the second element (qi) is mainly that its components are moderate in size and moderate in movement.If there were any cause in the world which would enhance its motion and reduce its size, it would be that, like so many other bodies, there is exactly an opposite, so that it always remains in a moderate state and maintains its equilibrium as before.The third element (earth) is constructed in such a way that its parts are so large or so close together that they always have the power to resist the motion of other bodies.The constitution of all mixtures can be examined, if one wishes, by various motions, shapes, sizes, and different arrangements of the parts of matter.I am sure you will find that there is no construction that is not contained in its own nature.These properties cause matter to have a tendency to undergo change, constantly change, and reduce to one element. Descartes went on to explain why the objects around us must be "mixtures" of the three elements or their particle complexes. Likened to a sponge, its "pores" are filled with particles of the first and second elements, which cannot be perceived by the senses.See Article 6 of Part II of the Principles. --Translator's note... There are many other issues that need to be explained here.I am also happy to add some arguments to make my point of view more credible, but in order to prevent the long speech from arousing everyone's disgust, I intend to introduce it in the form of a fable.In the process, I hope to be able to tell the truth clearly and more vividly and receptively than the straightforward narrative. Chapter Six A description of a new world and the properties of its constituent substances Then take a moment and let your mind wander outside this world to observe another world.That is a brand new world in fantasy, and I will bring it to everyone.Philosophers tell us that space is infinite, and we should take it for granted that we should believe them, because they invented space, to avoid being hindered or confused by this infinity, we can try not to go straight ahead in this world , we only need to enter a time point far enough away.At this point in time, all the creatures that God created five or six thousand years ago have not yet stopped at some definite point, and we can assume that God has recreated a lot of matter around us, so that no matter which direction we go in the imagination There is no feeling of emptiness. The sea is limited, but when people sail in the sea by boat, what they see seems to be infinite, and there are more seas than we can see.In the same way, although our imagination seems to be infinitely stretchable, we assume that God's newly created matter is finite, but we can still think that this matter fills more space than we can imagine.To ensure that there is nothing unpleasant in this assumption, let us not let the imagination go too far.We purposely confine our imagination to a definite not-too-large space, say not greater than the distance between the earth and the main stars in space.Let us also assume that the matter created by God spreads far in all directions.We can do a better job of limiting the sphere of our thoughts than we can of God's work. Now since we are making this matter without scruple, according to our imagination, we may, if we please, attribute it to a quality whereby there are no absolute things which one cannot fully know.For this purpose we may especially assume that this matter has no special constitution like earth, fire, or air, or any other like wood, stone, metal, etc.We may also suppose that this substance has no heat or cold, dry or wet, light or heavy properties, nor any taste, smell, sound, color, light or other such properties that nature has.It must be considered something that is not well known. On the other hand, we don't consider this substance to be what philosophers call "elementary substance".For that "elementary matter" philosophers have completely discarded its structure and shape, leaving nothing that allows us to clearly understand it.We prefer to imagine this substance as a real and complete solid, uniformly filling all the length, width, and height vectors of this huge space, and our thoughts stay at the center of this space.Parts of this substance always occupy a corner of that vast space, and are arranged with such precision and fit that neither a larger one nor a smaller one can be squeezed; Existence excludes the existence of other objects. We may add that assuming that this matter can be divided into as many particles as we can imagine, having as many shapes as we can imagine, each of which can perform get as much motion as possible, and we assume that God really divides it into many, many such particles, some of the same shape, some of another shape, and so on, no matter how we try to imagine it, some people think that God These particles are separated from each other so that spaces can be created between them.That's not the case.We prefer to think that the difference created by God within this substance is entirely due to the variety of motions of particles in this substance given by God.In the first instant of creation of these particles, God caused some particles to start moving in one direction and others in another direction; made some particles faster and others slower (or even made them no exercise at all).We suppose that God has created nothing else than the above, that he has established no order or proportion, but that the world is composed of such chaotic, disordered chaos that poets can only describe.Nevertheless, it is enough that God has instituted these movements and their laws in such a grand manner.These laws of nature are enough to make all the particles in the state of chaos straighten themselves out and arrange themselves in a good way to form that very perfect structure of the world.In this perfect world, we would be able to see not only light, but everything else, both general and specific, that exists in the real world.Before we spend more space explaining this world, pause for a moment to think about this chaotic state, and observe that there is nothing in this world that everyone cannot fully understand, so we cannot be indifferent to it.For example: Speaking of the properties I have introduced, you may have noticed that I assume that they are only such a class of things that you can imagine.As for the matter of which I conceive the world, there is nothing simpler or more comprehensible than inanimate matter, and this conception of matter is included to a large extent in every other thought we can imagine.So we must be able to imagine this substance, unless we think nothing of it. Philosophers, however, are so perceptive that they can spot problems in things that seem perfectly clear to others.They find the so-called "basic matter" rather inconceivable.This experience caused them to miss out on the substance I'm talking about.So at this point I must tell them that, if I am not mistaken, all the difficulty they have with regard to matter is simply that they want to discern this matter by its quantity and its space-occupying properties—that is, Want to discern matter by its space-occupying properties.Of course, I'm hoping these philosophers are right here, because I don't want to stop my work and go against them, but they shouldn't be surprised if I make the following hypothesis.I think that the quantity of the matter I have described is not so different from its substance, as the number is not so different from the things by which it is counted.Philosophers should not be surprised if I imagine that this expansion of matter, or its space-occupying property, is not an accident, but lies in its actual constitution and nature.They will admit that it is easier to imagine matter this way.My purpose is not to explain the material existence in the real world like they do, I just create a world as I like.There is nothing in this world that even the stupidest man can't imagine, but this is a world made by my imagination. If I put the least incomprehensible thing into this new world, it may also cover up some deep-seated contradictions that I have not noticed, and people will think that I must be assuming some impossible. thing.Conversely, since all the things I propose here can be observed intuitively, it is clear that God would create them in the new world even if they did not exist in the old world, since there is no doubt that God can create us Everything imaginable. Chapter VII The natural laws of the new world I don't want to waste any more time, I want to tell you, and what are those laws God endowed to nature.What is the way in which nature sorts itself out of the chaotic state of disorder I have been talking about.Note first that I am not using "nature" here to refer to some goddess or other imaginary power, I would rather use the word to refer to matter itself.Here I think it synthesizes all the properties I have given it, and this synthesis proceeds from the condition that God continues to preserve it in the same manner as he created it.From the fact that God continues to preserve nature, it must follow that there must be many variations in the individual particles of nature.I don't think it seems to be entirely attributable to God's action for these changes (because God's actions are eternal and unchanging).I therefore attribute these changes to nature, and to laws in which they occur, which I call "laws of nature."For a better understanding, it may be recalled here that in discussing the properties of matter we have assumed that particles of matter have varied motions from the moment they are created, and that on all surfaces of the particles they are all connected to each other with little gap between any two.From this we must be able to conclude that from the moment these particles start to move, they start to collide with each other, constantly changing the way of moving, and making their movements diversified.因此，如果随后上帝以与创造它们相同的方式来维持它们，那么它不会将其维持在相同状态。也就是说，上帝行动时总是采取同一种方式，结果从本质上看总是产生同一种效果，而好像是由于偶然性，这同一效果内有许多不同的方面。人人皆知，上帝是永恒不变的，他总是以同一种方式行动，对此我们也都乐于接受。但是我没有更多地陷入这些形而上学的观点。我将建立两条或三条主要的规则，我相信，通过这两三条主要规则将足以使大家熟悉所有其它的规则。 第一个规则是：物质的单个粒子。只要它与别的粒子的碰撞没有促使它改变原有状态，它总是继续保持同一状态。也就是说，如果粒子有大小，除了其它粒子将其分割开外，它不会变得更小；如果它是圆的或方的，除了其它粒子迫使它外，它将永远保持那一形状；如果将其带至某个地方，除非其它粒子将其赶出，它将永远不会离开那个地方；如果它一旦开始了运动，除非有其它粒子阻止或延迟它，否则它将始终拥有同样的力量继续运动见《原理》第二部分第三十七条中，关于这一规则的公式。 关于大小、形状、静止和其它无数这样的问题，在我们这个旧世界里，没有人会不相信这同一规则的存在。然而哲学家们把运动排除在这一规则之外，而这恰恰是我最明确地希望包括在其内的。他们所说的运动与我所想象的运动是大不相同的，因为很容易发生这样的情况：在一个观点中是正确的东西，在另一个观点中却是错误的。他们自己也承认，他们那种运动的性质是不易理解的。为了以某种易理解的方式解释和演绎运动，哲学家们所做的都没能比这些术语更为清楚：motus est actus entis in potentia，prout inpotentia est.见亚里士多德《物理学》Ⅲ，Ⅰ201a10。笛卡尔在《规则》中的第十二规则也批评了这一定义。对我来说这些词是这样地晦涩难懂，我不能翻译它们，只好用拉丁文把它们留在那里。（事实上，用"运动是就其潜力而言的，有潜力生命的活动"这句话来翻译也不恰当。）相比而言，我这里所讲的运动的性质却是易于理解的。因此，几何学学者们，那些人类中最擅长直观地想象的人们，认为运动是比他们所研究的面和线的性质还要简单和易于理解的。事实上，他们把"线"解释成一个点的运动，把"面"解释成一条线的运动。 哲学家们也提出，有许多物体不改变地方便可进行运动，如他们声称motusadformam，motusadcalorem，motusadquantitatem（关于构造的运动、热的运动、数量的运动）以及其它无数的运动。对我而言，除了比几何学学者们所研究的线更易想象的运动外，即除了使物体从一个地方到另一个地方，其间连续占据所存在的整个空间的运动外，我不知道还有别的什么运动。 此外，哲学家们给予这些最基本的运动比静止更确定和更真实的生命力。他们认为运动只是一种独自运动而不是其它别的什么。然而对我来说，我觉得就像运动是我们所认为的物质在改变位置时的一种性质一样，静止也应是一种物质的性质，只不过是在物质停留在某个地方时我们所看作的性质。 最后，哲学家们所讲的运动具有奇特的性质。所有其它事物只是为了维护自我而奋争，都有一个完美的结果。与之不同的是，他们认为运动没有除静止之外的其它终点或目标；与自然界的所有规律不同，运动是心甘情愿地去实现自我毁灭。与此正相反，我按照相同的一些自然规律所假定的运动，通常具有在物质中所发现的所有性质和各种倾向，包括那些经院哲学家们所称的Modos Etentia Rationis Cum Fundamento Inre(在事物中所发现的思想模式和实体）以及Qualitaters Reales（它们的"真实的性质",在这一点上我坦白地承认，没有发现运动有比其它事物更多的真实性）。 第二个规则是：我假定当一个物体挤压另一物体时，它不能给另一个物体所运动，除非它在同一时刻失去了与其一样多的运动；一个物体不能夺走另一个物体的运动，除非前者的运动本身获得了同样多的增加见《原理》第二部分第四十条，第三个自然规律。 .这一规则与前述规则一样，与我们全部的观察所见非常吻合。在那些观察中，我们看到一个物体开始或停止运动是因为它被其它物体推动或阻止。通过上述规则，我们解决了经院哲学家们的难题。一块被扔出的石头在离开手后为什么还会继续运动？经院哲学家们在力图解释这一问题时遇到了困难。然而反之，我们会问为什么石头不继续永远运动？理由很容易给出。谁能否认是石头运动于其中的空气产生了某些阻力?石头在空气中穿行时我们能听到声音；扇扇子或在空中移动其它轻而大的物体时，能通过手中的份量感觉到空气在阻碍它们的运动，而不是像某些人所说的那样保持它们的运动。但是假定我们不去按照第二个规则解释空气阻力的效果，只是认定：一个物体，它阻止其它物体运动的能力越大，所提供的阻力也就越多（可能就像我们首先要论证的那样）。在这个问题上，我们将遇到一个很棘手的难点，这就是为什么石头的运动，在碰到一个较软的、给予阻力较缓和的物体时，比碰到一个更硬的、给予阻力较强的物体时减弱得更多。同样地，我们也难于解释为什么在后一种情况下，石头一碰到阻碍就会立刻改变路线，而非因此而中断或停止运动。从另一个方面看，如果我们接受这个规则，那么就根本没有什么不易解释的难题了。这个规则告诉我们，某一物体的运动由于与其它物体的碰撞而受到延迟或阻碍，这种阻碍与后者的阻力大小不成比例，而其运动的变化仅与对后者阻力的克服程度和后者按照这一规则而吸收前者放弃的运动力的程度有关。 然而，我们在现实世界上所能看到的大多数运动中，并没有感觉到物体开始或停止运动是由于被其它物体所推动或阻止。但这并没有理由使我们认为这两个规则没有被严格地遵守。很显然，物体时常得到火和气两种元素的作用，这种作用总是在我们感觉不到的情况下也存在着（如上所述），物体仅从普通空气中也可受到这种作用，我们却不能感觉到。同样很显然，有时物体也可以将这些作用传输给周围的空气，甚至整个地球。而当这种作用在后者扩散时，我们也难以感觉到。即使我们在现实世界中所经历的任何事物看起来都与这两个规则中所包含的内容背道而驰，我仍然相信，我所阐述的推理是强有力的。在所描述的这个新世界里，我是不得已才进行假设的，因为要创立一个真理，或者只是希望去随心所欲地选择真理，我们必须发现比上帝的稳定和永恒不变更加坚实和有力的依据。 上帝是永恒不变的，始终以同样的方式行动，总是产生同样的效果，仅从这个事实我们就可以明白无误地得出这两个规则。假定上帝在创造物质的第一瞬间，就广泛地赋予了所有物质一定数量的运动，那么，然后我们必须要么承认它始终使物质维持着同样数量的运动，要么不相信这样。此外，各种各样的物质粒子，其运动是散乱的，它们都具有力量，假定从那第一瞬间起，它们开始保有这些能量，或者相互之间不断地进行转移，那么我们必定会想是上帝促使它们始终不停地这样做。这是上述两个规则所包含的内容。我还要提出第三个规则：物体运动，如果不是像我们上面所说的以某种环形方式，那么则不会有任何运动。虽然物体大部分的运动是沿着一条弯曲的线路进行的，但其上每一个粒子总是独自倾向于沿着直线不停地运动〖ZW(〗见《原理》第二部分第三十九条。〖ZW)〗。因此这些粒子的行为，比如其必须运动的倾向，与其运动是不相同的。例如，我们使车轮绕着其轴心旋转，尽管其所有部分都在一个圆上运动（由于相互之间连接着，它们别无选择)，它们的趋势仍然是向前沿着直线运动。显而易见，如果其中一部分碰巧与其它部分分离，那么立刻，其运动变得自由了，便会停止旋转，继续沿着直线运动。 同样地，旋转投石环索，一旦将石头从环索中掷出，它不仅会笔直地飞出去，而且由于石头在环中时给环一个压力，飞出后还会引起绳索的收缩。显然，石头始终具有沿着直线运动的倾向，之所以做环形运动是由于受到控制。这一规则与其它两个一样，建立在相同的基础之上：仅仅依赖于上帝通过连续的行动维持每一事物的存在，这种维持不是在某些较早的时候，只是在开始维持的那短暂的一瞬间。事实上，在所有运动中，只有直线运动是最简单的，可以在一瞬间全部捕捉到。为了想象这种运动，这样思考一下就足够了：物体处于一个确定方向上的运动过程中，并且在每一个决定性的瞬间都是如此。相比之下，为了想象环形运动或其它可能的运动，必须至少考虑两个瞬间或者选两个粒子，并且要考虑两者之间的关系。我并没有说直线运动能在一个瞬间产生，我只是说要求进行直线运动的事物是存在的，在运动过程中的每一个瞬间都可做出这种选择。相反地，并非所有要求进行环形运动的事物都是存在的……鉴于此，哲学家们（尤其是诡辩学派的）在这里就找不到耍耍小聪明的机会。 那么按照这一规则，就运动的存在而言，就运动的直线性而言，只有上帝一个是所有运动的创造者。仅仅由于物质具有多样性的倾向，才使这些运动变成曲线的和不规则的。同样地，神学家们告诉我们，就我们的行为的存在和行为的善良本性而言，上帝都是我们所有行动的主宰。只是由于我们欲望的多样性倾向，才使某些行为变成罪恶的。在这里我还可以进一步建立许多规则，详细地定义每一物体的运动，在何时、如何、在多大程度上可以被改变和通过与其它物体的碰撞而增加或减少。总的来说，这些规则可使我们以一种简明的方式理解自然界中的所有现象。我很乐意告诉大家，除了上面已经阐述的三个规则，除了沿着永恒真理前进所不可避免的规则外，我不想再假定别的。那些永恒真理，数学家们经常据以进行最确切的、最浅显的证明。我所说的真理，是指上帝告诉我们的，他据以在数目、重量和量度方面安排所有事物的真实。这些真理的知识对我们的思想来说是这样地理所当然，我们能清晰地想象它们，并不会怀疑它们的可靠性；也不会怀疑，如果上帝创造了很多个世界，那么在其它世界里，这些真理也是正确的。 因此，那些能够充分检验这些真理和我们那些规则的结果的人，将能够辨认出它们作用的效果。为了应用学术术语进行表达，在这个新世界所能产生的每一个事物中，它们将被优先予以证明演示。为了删除妨碍我们的例外情况，如果愿意的话，再假定上帝在新世界中不再创造什么奇迹，智能、理性的思想等在后来假定存在的东西，都不会以任何方式搅乱自然的一般过程。然而其结果会是，我不一定非要对所讲的事物建立一种精确的证明。当大家在探寻过程中遇到困难时，我只是指指路，以使大家自己发现它们，这就足够了。