Infinite divisibility of extension does suppose the external existence of extension; but the later is false, ergo ye former also.
Qu. Blind man made to see, would he know motion at 1st sight?
Motion, figure, and extension perceivable by sight are [pg 060] different from those ideas perceived by touch wch goe by the same name.
Diagonal incommensurable wth ye side. Quære how this can be in my doctrine?
N.
Qu. how to reconcile Newton's 2 sorts of motion with my doctrine?
Terminations of surfaces & lines not imaginable per se.
Molyneux's blind man would not know the sphere or cube to be bodies or extended at first sight[199].
Extension so far from being incompatible wth, yt 'tis impossible it should exist without thought.