say： 〃It is possible to infinity； to proceed to still higher
conditions in the series。〃 In the first case； I am justified in
asserting that more members are empirically given in the object than I
attain to in the regress （of deposition）。 In the second case； I
am justified only in saying； that I can always proceed further in
the regress； because no member of the series。 is given as absolutely
conditioned； and thus a higher member is possible； and an inquiry with
regard to it is necessary。 In the one case it is necessary to find
other members of the series； in the other it is necessary to inquire
for others； inasmuch as experience presents no absolute limitation
of the regress。 For； either you do not possess a perception which
absolutely limits your empirical regress； and in this case the regress
cannot be regarded as plete； or； you do possess such a limitative
perception； in which case it is not a part of your series （for that
which limits must be distinct from that which is limited by it）； and
it is incumbent you to continue your regress up to this condition； and
so on。
These remarks will be placed in their proper light by their
application in the following section。
SECTION IX。 Of the Empirical Use of the Regulative Principle
of Reason with regard to the Cosmological Ideas。
We have shown that no transcendental use can be made either of the
conceptions of reason or of understanding。 We have shown； likewise；
that the demand of absolute totality in the series of conditions in
the world of sense arises from a transcendental employment of
reason； resting on the opinion that phenomena are to be regarded as
things in themselves。 It follows that we are not required to answer
the question respecting the absolute quantity of a series… whether
it is in itself limited or unlimited。 We are only called upon to
determine how far we must proceed in the empirical regress from
condition to condition； in order to discover； in conformity with the
rule of reason； a full and correct answer to the questions proposed by
reason itself。
This principle of reason is hence valid only as a rule for the
extension of a possible experience… its invalidity as a principle
constitutive of phenomena in themselves having been sufficiently
demonstrated。 And thus； too； the antinomial conflict of reason with
itself is pletely put an end to； inasmuch as we have not only
presented a critical solution of the fallacy lurking in the opposite
statements of reason； but have shown the true meaning of the ideas
which gave rise to these statements。 The dialectical principle of
reason has； therefore； been changed into a doctrinal principle。 But in
fact； if this principle； in the subjective signification which we have
shown to be its only true sense； may be guaranteed as a principle of
the unceasing extension of the employment of our understanding； its
influence and value are just as great as if it were an axiom for the a
priori determination of objects。 For such an axiom could not exert a
stronger influence on the extension and rectification of our
knowledge； otherwise than by procuring for the principles of the
understanding the most widely expanded employment in the field of
experience。
I。 Solution of the Cosmological Idea of the Totality of the
position of Phenomena in the Universe。
Here； as well as in the case of the other cosmological problems； the
ground of the regulative principle of reason is the proposition that
in our empirical regress no experience of an absolute limit； and
consequently no experience of a condition； which is itself
absolutely unconditioned； is discoverable。 And the truth of this
proposition itself rests upon the consideration that such an
experience must represent to us phenomena as limited by nothing or the
mere void； on which our continued regress by means of perception
must abut… which is impossible。
Now this proposition； which declares that every condition attained
in the empirical regress must itself be considered empirically
conditioned； contains the rule in terminis； which requires me； to
whatever extent I may have proceeded in the ascending series； always
to look for some higher member in the series… whether this member is
to bee known to me through experience； or not。
Nothing further is necessary； then； for the solution of the first
cosmological problem； than to decide； whether； in the regress to the
unconditioned quantity of the universe （as regards space and time）；
this never limited ascent ought to be called a regressus in
infinitum or indefinitum。
The general representation which we form in our minds of the
series of all past states or conditions of the world； or of all the
things which at present exist in it； is itself nothing more than a
possible empirical regress； which is cogitated… although in an
undetermined manner… in the mind； and which gives rise to the
conception of a series of conditions for a given object。* Now I have a
conception of the universe； but not an intuition… that is； not an
intuition of it as a whole。 Thus I cannot infer the magnitude of the
regress from the quantity or magnitude of the world； and determine the
former by means of the latter； on the contrary； I must first of all
form a conception of the quantity or magnitude of the world from the
magnitude of the empirical regress。 But of this regress I know nothing
more than that I ought to proceed from every given member of the
series of conditions to one still higher。 But the quantity of the
universe is not thereby determined； and we cannot affirm that this
regress proceeds in infinitum。 Such an affirmation would anticipate
the members of the series which have not yet been reached； and
represent the number of them as beyond the grasp of any empirical
synthesis； it would consequently determine the cosmical quantity prior
to the regress （although only in a negative manner）… which is
impossible。 For the world is not given in its totality in any
intuition： consequently； its quantity cannot be given prior to the
regress。 It follows that we are unable to make any declaration
respecting the cosmical quantity in itself… not even that the
regress in it is a regress in infinitum； we must only endeavour to
attain to a conception of the quantity of the universe； in
conformity with the rule which determines the empirical regress in it。
But this rule merely requires us never to admit an absolute limit to
our series… how far soever we may have proceeded in it； but always； on
the contrary； to subordinate every phenomenon to some other as its
condition； and consequently to proceed to this higher phenomenon。 Such
a regress is； therefore； the regressus in indefinitum； which； as not
determining a quantity in the object； is clearly distinguishable
from the regressus in infinitum。
*The cosmical series can neither be greater nor smaller than the
possible empirical regress； upon which its conception is based。 And as
this regress cannot be a determinate infinite regress； still less a
determinate finite （absolutely limited）； it is evident that we
cannot regard the world as either finite or infinite； because the
regress； which gives us the representation of the world； is neither
finite nor infinite。
It follows from what we have said that we are not justified in
declaring the world to be infinite in space； or as regards past
time。 For this conception of an infinite given quantity is
empirical； but we cannot apply the conception of an infinite
quantity to the world as an object of the senses。 I cannot say； 〃The
regress from a given perception to everything limited either in
space or time； proceeds in infinitum；〃 for this presupposes an
infinite cosmical quantity； neither can I say； 〃It is finite；〃 for
an absolute limit is likewise impossible in experience。 It follows
that I am not entitled to make any assertion at all respecting the
whole object of experience… the world of sense； I must limit my
declarations to the rule according to which experience or empirical
knowledge is to be attained。
To the question； therefore； respecting the cosmical quantity； the
first and negative answer is： 〃The world has no beginning in time； and
no absolute limit in space。〃
For； in the contrary case； it would be limited by a void time on the
one hand； and by a void space on the other。 Now； since the world； as a
phenomenon； cannot be thus limited in itself for a phenomenon is not a
thing in itself； it must be possible for us to have a perception of
this limitation by a void time and a void space。 But such a
perception… such an experience is impossible； because it has no
content。 Consequently； an absolute cosmical limit is empirically；
and therefore absolutely； impossible。*
*The reader will remark that the proof presented above is very
different from the dogmatical demonstration given in the antithesis of
the first antinomy。 In that demonstration； it was taken for granted
that the world is a thing in itself… given in its totality prior to
all regress； and a determined position in space and time was denied to
it… if it was not considered as occupying all time and all space。
Hence our conclusion differed from that given above； for we inferred
in the antithesis the actual infinity of the world。
From this follows the affirmative answer： 〃The regress in the series
of phenomena… as a determination of the cosmical quantity； proceeds in
indefinitum。〃 This is equivalent to saying： 〃The world of sense has no
absolute quantity； but the empirical regress （through which alone
the world of sense is presented to us on the side of its conditions）
rests upon a rule； which requires it to proceed from every member of
the series； as conditioned； to one still more remote （whether
through personal experience； or by means of history； or the chain of
cause and effect）； and not to cease at any point in this extension
of the possible empirical employment of the understanding。〃 And this
is the proper and only use which reason can make of its principles。
The above rule does not prescribe an unceasing regress in one kind
of phenomena。 It does not； for example； forbid us； in our ascent
from an individual human being through the line of