In the way that you've phrased the question the answer would have to be no - but that appears to be what you want and that's what's meant by a leading question, so chosen to ignore all evidence to the contrary - which given the subject at hand would be historical, and foundational.
After all Aristotle was writing two Millenia ago; and two thousand years is some time for his ideas to be incorporated into the philosophical fabric in many different ways; after all we are not so far away from Newton or Maxwell, but the language of both are now sufficiently different that a well-educated physicist will have severe difficulties reading their work - yet we have no problem at all stating that now their work is influential, and still influential - Newton on space and time, and Maxwell on the notion of a field.
And this takes us to a position that Gadamer posited, which is that there has been a loss of properly historical consciousness, we might say a kind of 'rootlessness' in knowledge.
Still, in the terms of your circumscribed circumspection, and exclusionary practise - I mean the extremely narrow remit of the question, but taking into account comments by Rovelli, and Maudlin at face-value when they say Aristotles reflections on space, time and the continuum were profound - the Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Math & Logic, in III.2 Aristotle and the intuitionistic continuum relates that:
From Aristotle onwards, mathematicians and philosophers have found this viscosity - this topological unspittability is inconsistent with the view that the continuum is made up of independent points - atoms ... This is a central part of Aristotles Physics and Metaphysics.
Kant endorses this alleged inconsistency, as well as Brouwer - in his early work.
To be sure Cantor, Dedekind and others succeeded in creating such a continuum, but Brouwer pushed all this aside.
Now, one avatar of intuitinionistic mathematics is Topos Theory; and there have been some work by physicists on this - here are a few titles:
Heunon & Spitters: a topos for algebraic quantum mechanics
Isham & Doering: A topos foundation for theories of physics
You might also find the essay by Karin Verelst & Bob Coecke in the inter-disciplinary book Metadebates on Science: Einstein meets Magritte worth looking into, its titled Early Greek Thought and Perspectives for the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Preliminaries for an Ontological Approach; it's also available on the arxiv; it begins by:
At the origin of our approach lay two encounters between Greek thought and Quantum Mechanics ... the first encounter has been presented in a short lecture byC.Piron in which he attempted to develop a realistic QM-interpretation based on two concepts fundamental to Aristotelian metaphysics, viz. potentiality and actuality. The second one is the doctoral dissertation of D.Aerts . It both by content and title dealt with the problem of the One and the Many, the central theme Plato inherited from the fifth century philosopher Parmenides of Elea ... the thought instruments developed by Plato and Aristotle ... are in use up to the present, be it in slightly modified forms ... our position will be that this classical contradiction has slipped through the ages unimpaired, but in different forms such as to make it hardly recognisable in our present epistemological and ontological concepts, both in philosophy and science. A revelation of this implicit presence by reconstructing the outlines of its historical pathway then becomes the necessary first step towards an approach for the tackling of problems it eventually causes in todays science. The argument will lead us to the conclusion that the paradoxes appearing in QM represent such a problem ...
...This is so because Being, over a lapse of time, has no stability. Everything that it is at this moment changes at the same time, there it is not. This coming togther of Being & Not-Being at one instant is known as the principle of coincidence of opposites. It is crucial to see that this principle is connected to the possibility of motion, for being in motion implies to and not to be at the same time at a certain time, at a certain place. It further implies the unity of the world in the sense that there are no separated objects, its ontology is dynamic.
- the bolded text is not my emphasis, but was emphasised as such in the original.