I don't understand why you refuse to understand the word pure act

Then what is the PAA in the gear example?

What substance?

It is still the Pure act. The gears cannot exist without the pure act, each of their attributes needs an explanation.

What is the pure act?

Pure act is pure act

It's not something like a motor, that was just an analogy

Pure act is God

If you posit anything, you then also need to posit God.

And we clearly are changing and such, we are very contingent

We are local, we are composed, etc

Well no what is the pure act in this example?

The gear example?

God

Pure act does not change no matter what the example is

God is in my gear example?

It is purely actual

I didn't put him there

You don't need to, he is implicated by ontology

As I've proven

well no we've argeed that PAAs exist, though I think they can exist in the form of systems

but I don't know why the PAA would have to have all the characteristics of God

So we agree Purus actus must exist correct?

yes I agreed to that a long time ago

I just think they can exist in an additional capacity than a substance

I've refuted that

It must be a substance

why?

Because it's *actual*

wait define actual again

To be in existence in a certain respect

so anything actual is a substance?

Yes

shouldn't this mean that processes are a substance?

No

since a process is actual

Processes are parasitic on things that are actual

but they still exist no?

Like flowing water just signifies water that is flowing

They don't exist in the way that we call things actual

okay then which certain respect does something need to exist in to be actual?