RomanJoe wrote:

If we found elementary particles that don't undergo substantial change, would this entail that all apparent substantial change in the physical world is really just accidental?

Two points.
Firstly I don't believe so because I don't believe there even could in principle be elementary particles that could not undergo a substantial change - surely at least God could change it. I also follow Aristotle and the Scholastics (or at least Saint Thomas) in believing that any body can in principle be divided and is divisible. It would be curious and necessary to see the argument and reasoning why even physically a particle would be precluded per some necessity from undergoing a substantial change.

Secondly I believe Aristotle asserted things like flesh and bone are substantial even though they are elemental compounds or a ratio - following Empedocles - of the elements. Aristotle might have even argued that, e.g., H2O was a substantial form. Indeed, H2O* would be a bad definition of water if it did not include the actuality of the chemical bonding or uniting of the hydrogen and oxygen to form an actual covalent bond. In this way, hydrogen and oxygen are the matter of water but its specific or particular way of bonding is the actuality and the form of water.

*Indeed again, I imagine someone could falsely understand H20 meaning water if they did not have some elementary understanding of chemistry and realize that by H20 we mean a specific chemical formula.

Last edited by Timocrates (1/02/2018 4:16 pm)