[.]
November 19th
11:13 PM
NOTHINGNESS & VACUUM
Il nulla non ha mezzo e li sua termini sono il nulla.Dice l’avversario che il nulla e il vacuo è una medesima cosa con dua nomi, li quale si dicano e non si danno in natura. Rispondesi che se il vacuo si dessi, e’ si darebbe il loco che lo circundassi e il nulla si dà sanza occupazion di loco. Seguite che il nulla e il vacuo non son simili, perchè l’uno è divisibile in infinito e ‘l nulla non si divide, perchè nessuna cosa po esser minore, e se di lui si dessi parte, essa sarebbe equale al tutto e ‘l tutto alla parte.
Nothingness has no centre, and its boundaries are nothingness.My opponent says that nothingness and a vacuum are one and the same thing, having indeed two separate names by which they are called, but not existing separately in nature. The reply is that whenever there exists a vacuum there will also be space which surrounds it, but nothingness exists apart from occupation of space. It follows that nothingness and a vacuum are not the same, for the one is divisible to infinity, and nothingness cannot be divided because nothing can be less than it is, and if you were to take a part from it this part would be equal to the whole, and the whole to the part.
[ NOTE: Leonardo mentions this opponent more than once, but whoever it is remains faceless as well as nameless. ]

NOTHINGNESS & VACUUM

Il nulla non ha mezzo e li sua termini sono il nulla.
Dice l’avversario che il nulla e il vacuo è una medesima cosa con dua nomi, li quale si dicano e non si danno in natura. Rispondesi che se il vacuo si dessi, e’ si darebbe il loco che lo circundassi e il nulla si dà sanza occupazion di loco. Seguite che il nulla e il vacuo non son simili, perchè l’uno è divisibile in infinito e ‘l nulla non si divide, perchè nessuna cosa po esser minore, e se di lui si dessi parte, essa sarebbe equale al tutto e ‘l tutto alla parte.

Nothingness has no centre, and its boundaries are nothingness.
My opponent says that nothingness and a vacuum are one and the same thing, having indeed two separate names by which they are called, but not existing separately in nature. The reply is that whenever there exists a vacuum there will also be space which surrounds it, but nothingness exists apart from occupation of space. It follows that nothingness and a vacuum are not the same, for the one is divisible to infinity, and nothingness cannot be divided because nothing can be less than it is, and if you were to take a part from it this part would be equal to the whole, and the whole to the part.

[ NOTE: Leonardo mentions this opponent more than once, but whoever it is remains faceless as well as nameless. ]

  1. tildemo reblogged this from leonardian
  2. achthonia reblogged this from leonardian
  3. lily-forestwave reblogged this from leonardian
  4. killedbyart reblogged this from leonardian
  5. lordchao reblogged this from leonardian
  6. reactiveactualization reblogged this from leonardian
  7. bugash reblogged this from leonardian
  8. sweet--sadness reblogged this from leonardian
  9. fladdrande-atanke reblogged this from leonardian and added:
    Perhaps some philosopher? Pacioli?
  10. hutzovina reblogged this from leonardian
  11. everbright-mourning reblogged this from leonardian and added:
    That’s the kind of debate I think woudl be facilitated by a few glasses of wine and some late nights.
  12. do-not-ever-change-who-you-are reblogged this from leonardian
  13. weeplittlecastiel reblogged this from leonardian
  14. xaidread reblogged this from leonardian
  15. leonardian posted this