Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 2
    "But why should this be true? " Until a new, more complex theory will be discovered/invented showing that we can split them. Commented Mar 16, 2017 at 20:07
  • AFAIK, the ancient idea of "infinite divisibility" is that matter is a continuum so that if you have a clump of earth, you can cut it in half and now have two clumps of earth. Talk about splitting a particle such as an atom into very non-atom-like subparticles such as protons, neutrons, and electrons, and then splitting protons into very non-proton-like particles such as quarks is qualitatively an extremely different idea. Commented Mar 16, 2017 at 22:35
  • There is also string theory. Quantum particles being composed of strings. But, what are strings made of? What is the source of that thing? Commented Mar 17, 2017 at 2:10
  • My first thought is that if a particle has extension it has parts and if it is unextended it does not. Thus any extended particle is divisible (in principle at least), and until it ceases to be extended it continues to be divisible. Whether we can actually divide it in practice is not an important philosophical question. Commented Dec 13, 2017 at 14:12
  • @PeterJ: I think Aristotle would carefully distinguish between the possibilities of potentially divisible, but actually not; and potentially divisible, and actually divisible. Commented Dec 14, 2017 at 18:29