36 Prof. W. A. Norton on the Fundamental 



points separated by finite distances, every one of which acts 

 upon every other point, and hence that there can be no such thing 

 in Nature as an atom that has continuous extension. Now 

 this principle is no inevitable deduction from recognized facts ; 

 for the only certain knowledge furnished by the entire range 

 of physical science with regard to the so-called atoms, is that 

 they have certain properties and active powers. The essential 

 origin and mode of evolution of these properties and powers must 

 for ever remain an impenetrable mystery. It may be confidently 

 asserted that few links of the mystic chain that binds each 

 ultimate atom to the throne of the Creator will ever be certainly 

 discerned. We may indeed recognize that the so-called " che- 

 mical atoms M are really complex in their constitution, and 

 should accordingly be termed li primitive molecules," as both 

 Professor Bayma and myself maintain, and frame hypotheses as 

 to the nature of their physical constitution and the immediate 

 origin of the forces they exert, suggested by physical phenomena, 

 and to be tested by comparing the deductions from them with 

 facts ; but the elements, or primary atoms, of which they are 

 composed, what are they ? Are these of necessity mere points, 

 mere mathematical centres of force ? Is it not absurd to sup- 

 pose that when we can know nothing of the essential nature 

 and origin of the primary powers, or activities, of these atoms, 

 anything can be predicated with certainty with regard to their 

 size and the question of their continuity or non-continuity, and 

 to claim that a certain conception formed of their geometrical 

 character is not an assumption, not an hypothesis, but an absolute 

 verity. Our author's "demonstration," that an atom having 

 continuous extension is an impossibility, rests upon the assump- 

 tion that if an atom be conceived to be continuous, each point 

 of it must act upon every other point in the same manner and 

 in the same degree at equal distances. Now in our absolute 

 ignorance of the manner in which force and matter are linked 

 together, how can we be sure that this is an inevitable conclu- 

 sion. It is in fact a mere inference from the assumption that 

 force may be evolved from a mathematical point, and take effect 

 upon another mathematical point which is the centre of a similar 

 activity. If this be a truth, the knowledge of it can be gained 

 from inspiration alone. 



Let us examine it a little from a philosophical point of view, 

 somewhat different from that which our author occupies. The 

 principle of activity cannot subsist in a mere mathematical point, 

 for activity implies a something to act, and a mathematical point 

 is nothing but position. Also a mathematical point cannot be 

 acted upon, for an activity exerted implies something having 

 receptivity, and a mathematical point can have no such pro- 



