The Philosophy of Roger Bacon

...there will be no lack of divisibility occurring among things, such that all things would be [reduced to] grains Latin: grumula; small particles or grains, a term often used in medieval physics to discuss the granular nature of matter or light things, or fire or earth or sky, where it reaches a single species that is filled. But once again, in a third way, they seem to end according to another mode, and this objection is well stated, through which it is argued against [this] note? that [a body] is divisible according to all points. Truly, there is that which is divisible through point a, and according to point b, and according to point c; and thus and totally according to division according to all [points], which however can now be divided in a body through all those same points. This is never said [to be impossible] because it is possible; and that a body is divisible according to all points.

Regarding this, many seem to give no response, including the propositions The OCR reads apostoles, likely a transcription error for propositiones (propositions) or oppositiones (objections) which are first interpreted concerning a certain solution. In the Latin, nothing is obtained except that he himself [speaks] poorly, by no grace, because previously [it was said] a body is divisible according to all points. This is also said to the ... illegible or unknown name, possibly albian it can be declared through that which is "to be divided" by reason of its nature, or by reason of that which is potentiality potentiality Latin: potentia; the capacity for a thing to be changed or divided, as opposed to it being already changed or divided (actuality), so that there is a falsehood there.

According to the way [the argument goes] here, by reason of its being divided, this is implicitly possible through the word of the ... unclear; likely domini (Lord) or a specific master the fullness of time. And therefore "act" and "actually" carries force, which is impossible to happen. Here it is said by reason of the term, that it is said by reason of the term of the word potentiality; then an equivocation equivocation Latin: equivocatio; a logical fallacy where the same word is used with two different meanings concerning potentiality occurs.

For potentiality is said to be twofold according to the third [book] of the Physics Aristotle’s Physics, Book III, is the foundational text for medieval discussions on motion, the infinite, and potentiality: one which is as if leading into its own proper act, or towards motion; it is of potentiality as a man can sit or eat when he is not hindered. And by a blessed will, the other is the potentiality which reduces to an incomplete act, or is mixed from potentiality toward a further act. For this reason, the definition is said to be that by which it can be divided in act into two halves, or truly it is terminated.

This is a property, and here it is used according to every genus of quantities, so that a division into two can be called infinite infinite Latin: infinitum; referring to the "potential infinite" where a line can be divided forever, though it is never "infinitely divided" in reality, such that it never stops. This we say regarding "pure act"; in the first mode, it is potentiality toward two. In the second mode, in the proposed [argument], for all this, a body can be divided through all points, it must be distinguished in the same way as before, and according to the parts of the equivocation. But concerning motion, it is argued again, leading with my hand in speaking...