It remains to dispose of the arguments which are supposed to support
the view that the infinite exists not only potentially but as a
separate thing. Some have no cogency; others can be met by fresh
objections that are valid.

    (1) In order that coming to be should not fail, it is not
necessary that there should be a sensible body which is actually
infinite. The passing away of one thing may be the coming to be of
another, the All being limited.

    (2) There is a difference between touching and being limited. The
former is relative to something and is the touching of something
(for everything that touches touches something), and further is an
attribute of some one of the things which are limited. On the other
hand, what is limited is not limited in relation to anything. Again,
contact is not necessarily possible between any two things taken at
random.

    (3) To rely on mere thinking is absurd, for then the excess or
defect is not in the thing but in the thought. One might think that
one of us is bigger than he is and magnify him ad infinitum. But it
does not follow that he is bigger than the size we are, just because
some one thinks he is, but only because he is the size he is. The
thought is an accident.

    (a) Time indeed and movement are infinite, and also thinking, in the
sense that each part that is taken passes in succession out of
existence.

    (b) Magnitude is not infinite either in the way of reduction or of
magnification in thought.

    This concludes my account of the way in which the infinite exists,
and of the way in which it does not exist, and of what it is.