that you claim to be equal are those separate from the entity occupying them, such as the void and empty space already mentioned. As for the spatial region included in what is denoted by the entity itself—its side, limit, and extremity—this is dependent on that entity. These spatial regions differ as the entities occupying them differ. The spatial region of each such entity—its limit, extremity, and side—corresponds to its reality. This is evident: in this sense, the spatial region of gold is gold, and the spatial region of silver is silver.

As for his statement in the fifth argument, “Whatever occupies a particular spatial region is like someone bound and paralysed,” he may be told: This can only be said if it occupies an existent spatial region separate from itself. But where the spatial region is included in what is denoted by the entity itself—its limit and extremity—this does not follow, just as it does not follow for all other entities occupying space. This is evident. Indeed, the absence of this would entail nonexistence for all other entities occupying space. This is evident. Indeed, the absence of this would entail the nonexistence of part of the thing.

The second response is to say: If someone says that He occupies a spatial region and means by “spatial region”