Analysis of Change

If there is one thing that is a certainty, it is that change happens. Substances may undergo changes of location (motion). Substances can change change from one substance into another.

Let’s take the example of two substances whereby one changes into another.
X changes to Y + Z

1) If X actually exists at time point A (Ta) and Y + Z actually exists at any timepoint after A (Ta+x) then it must follow (if we are to have real change and not annihilations and creations) that Y + Z potentially exists at Ta. If Y + Z does not even potentially exist at Ta, Y +Z cannot exist at Ta+x due to a process of change (only due to annihilations and/or creations). The potentially existing Y + Z at Ta is also real, not just formal or intellectual or imaginary.

2) The potentially existing Y + Z cannot change itself into and actually existing Y + Z since it does not actually exist but only potentially exists. Thus potentially existing substances cannot be reduced by themselves to actually existing substances. Potentially existing substance can only be reduced to actually existing substances by some other already actual principle.

3) If X is to change to Y + Z due to the process of change, it must also be intrinsically possible for X to change into Y + Z. If it is not intrinsically possible for X to change into Y + Z, then no extrinsic factor can change X into Y + Z.

4) If X entirely disappeared into nothingness and was substituted with Y + Z, then we should not regard the former as having been changed into the latter. Rather, from such a view, X was annihilated into nothingness and the Y + Z created out of nothing. Such a view then supposes that all change is simply a series of annihilations and creations and there is no reason to suppose that this is what is constantly taking place in nature.
Thus, if X is to change to Y + Z due to the process of change, there is something that must remain throughout the change (a substratum of change) for it not to be simply a series of annihilations and creations.

What is the nature of this substratum of change that underlies substantial change?

It cannot undergo change itself since it too then needs to have a substratum of change?
It cannot have any dimensionality capable of arrangement since any change in it too would need a substratum of change.
It has to have the potential to be any actual substance (see point 2: potentially existing Y + Z at Ta).

What would be the best way to describe this substratum of change of substantial change? Would pure randomness or chaos with the potential to be an actual substance be an adequate definition of the substratum of change substantial change?

Geez, must be Jesus! No, wait - maybe it’s Aristotle? Do I win the prize?

The Luminiferous aether ? Did I win the prize?

Tediously empty garrulousness interspersed with hijacked jargon and abducted formalisms posing as profundity? Do I win the prize?

'Luthon64

I find it helps if you first separate the copper from the silver.

I stopped reading at

Let’s take the example of two substances whereby one changes into another. X changes to Y + Z

it sounds like maths. i hate maths.

Dear TeleoPhroners

Thank you for your private message referencing this thread. Please be advised that I have neither the desire nor the intention of engaging you privately, so kindly confine your messages to the public forum. Failure to do so will result in your private messages being reposted on the public forum.