Dispute about the Ontology of the Properties of Nature: Robert Boyle versus Peripatetics, Spagyrics, and Mathematicians

Abstract

Numerous works and the experimental practice of Robert Boyle lead to the realization that one of the most important issues he is trying to raise concerns the ontology of the properties of nature. He formulates his opinions in opposition to the theories of Aristotelians and Paracelsians working in the 17^th century. These opinions should be considered also in the context of mathematical concepts. Boyle states that the properties of the body depend on the system and structures formed by its corpuscles/atoms. On the other hand, their matter (shape, mass) and motion are their fundamental properties. Sometimes, he mentions also number. However, as Boyle states, an additional, non-material factor should be introduced to clarify the complexity of nature in a better way. He calls it a structural elementary component or structural factor (‘Architectonic Principle or power’). Obviously, the question arises how this ‘component’ differs from the ‘forms’, ‘nuclei’ etc. present in the theories of his adversaries and what consequences for the ontology of nature result from its acceptance?