Infinite Divisibility of Matter. 55 



Art. VIII. — Infinite Divisibility of Matter.* 



(Communicated for this Journal.) 



The arguments which favor the doctrine of the infinite divisi- 

 bih'ty of matter are derived from the wonderful extent to wliich 

 subdivision has been carried in actual experiment, and from the 

 supposition that if a magnitude however small may be assigned 

 or imagined, a fractional part of it may also be assigned or imag- 

 ined. As there appears at present little probability that the nega- 

 tive of this question will soon be established by experiment, the 

 result of which heretofore seems rather to favor the reverse, if it 

 were possible to arrive at a satisfactory theoretical conclusion, 

 though the result might not be of any practical importance, some- 

 thing would be gained on the side of truth. 



The writer must however deprecate the charge of presumption 

 which might attach to any attempt to decide on a point which 

 has been the cause of so much agitation in the world of trans- 

 cendental philosophy — a question which all the metaphysical 

 talent of Germany has not been able to determine, and on which 

 the physical researches of English inquirers have only enabled 

 them to form a surmise. 



The primary error appears to have arisen from the gratuitous 

 assumption that divisibility is a universal property of extension, 

 in whatever magnitude it may occur. This, as may hereafter 

 be shown, amounts to nothing less than begging the question. 

 But for his adherence to this opinion the German Euler would 

 have set the matter at rest long ago ; and Dugald Stewart con- 

 sidered a perception of the truth of infinite divisibility as almost 

 intuitive. 



* Philadelphia, Feb. 19, 1840. 

 To the Editors. — Seeing in the abstract of the proceedings of the British Associ- 

 ation for the Advancement of Science given in the last number of your Journal, 

 some remarks by Prof Whewell on the infinite divisibility of matter, in which he 

 adheres to the old geometrical opinion, if I may so call it in opposition to that of 

 modern chemists, I have ventured to offer a few words on the subject, notwith- 

 standing the notice on the back of your Journal, that every paper shall be accom- 

 panied by the name of the author. This, peculiar circumstances prevent me from 

 giving; and I am persuaded that should you deem these remarks worthy of an 

 insertion, they will not be rendered the more forcible by the name of a subscriber 

 and constant reader of your Journal. 



