Postmodern philosophy, Nietzsche, Heidegger, the sophists, Gianni Vattimo.

I suppose I'll concede that.

So if tomorrow we call the sun "horse," it won't change that bright ball in the sky. — Xtrix

That bright ball in the sky is a ball in the sky only when adopting a certain perspective. Changing the perspective changes the perception and thing perceived. To one person I am a kind and gentle person, while in the eyes of someone else I'm an arrogant bastard. Am I still the same in both cases?

You are talking about perspectives on objects that are actually the same over time. I am talking about things that change, really change and are not anymore what they were before. If tomorrow the sky stops being the sky, we have no more sky, the sky doesn't exist anymore, the sky has become a horse, a real horse: how can you give a name to it?

That's the ancient problem of change. Can a vase change into spoon? Is the spoon then a transformed vase?

That's why I think it is wrong considering change as being.

Doesn't the very word, being, imply change? Can you be without change? Is being changing, or changing being? Or neither? Is change an a priori for being or becoming? Is the real state of being static, like a block universe? Fairy circles in the desert are still not explained scientifically, and neither is the sticking of gauge blocks after wring them together...

I suppose I'll concede that. — Wayfarer

Whilst simultaneously appreciating the appalling nature of such thought systems, perhaps?

It depends on what you mean by "being". Basically, we can identify two meanings, according to Parmenides and Heidegger. Being in Parmenides is absolute, absolutely abstract, it cannot be exposed to change, because change would contradict the principle of non contradiction. Heidegger forced the meaning of being towards human experience: it is impossible to humans to think of being without conditioning this thought with our human condition of being subject to time and death.

Can't we think about being without the limitations of the human condition? A transcendental state can set us free from these limitations. The static whole of the transient, transgressive, changing, differentiating, or becoming nature of subjective being can be experienced as a solid, static, transcendental state of eternal, infinite, and objective, absolute essence, dissolving all distinctions, boundaries, perspective, and diversity in still unity.

This is exactly what metaphysics, in my opinion, tries to do: a stable system, able to embrace everything, including change. This, I think, is exposed to a lot of criticism. For example: are you sure that humanity is a limit and transcendent stability is a superior state, compared to it? The opposite can be claimed. Besides, this desire of transcendent unity is suspiciously similar to the dream of dictators.

Some things never change. An elementary particle stays an elementary particle eternally. Only it's relation to other particles change.

An elementary particle stays an elementary particle eternally. — Haglund

Not. You're talking about atoms, 'indivisible particles', but there are none. Nowadays a particle is an excitation of a field.

Whilst simultaneously appreciating the appalling nature of such thought systems, perhaps? — Tom Storm

Didn't think it worth pursuing, again.

Not. You're talking about atoms, 'indivisible particles', but there are none. Nowadays a particle is an excitation of a field. — Wayfarer

I talk about what the field, a mental construct, is able to operate in. Particle states. There are not really operators in nature promoting particles from virtual to real, or changing their momenta. All there is are particles, virtual or real, interacting by coupling to virtual particles. The number of virtual particles and real particles is constant.

What you said can be criticized two ways, depending if you are talking from a scientific or a metaphisical perspective.
From the scientific perspective, assuming that what you said is true: tomorrow a scientific discovery might find evidence that what you said is wrong.
From the metaphysical perspective: as such, it is a mental costruction, not more valid than other mental constructions.

Particles a mental construction? They are out there, and in there, for that matter...

This message as well can be criticized from both perspectives.
In science: you can give evidence that they are there, but science doesn’t care if tomorrow something different will be discovered: science is based on measurements, discoveries, hypotheses, it doesn’t have any interest in finding things that must be unchangeable.
In metaphysics: you have no way to give proof that they aren’t a dream, an illusion; whatever we do can be a dream; we can’t even say that we know what a dream is. We can’t state anything for sure, we can only build mental constructions and even what I’m saying can be criticized the same way, making uncertainty endlessly more and more extended.

Can't we think about being without the limitations of the human condition? A transcendental state can set us free from these limitations. The static whole of the transient, transgressive, changing, differentiating, or becoming nature of subjective being can be experienced as a solid, static, transcendental state of eternal, infinite, and objective, absolute essence, dissolving all distinctions, boundaries, perspective, and diversity in still unity. — Haglund

No, this is exactly what we cannot do. We must respect the fact that thinking about anything, is, by its very nature something limited by the human condition. So it is absolutely impossible to "think about being without the limitations of the human condition". "Thinking" is fundamentally limited by the human condition therefore these limitations inhere within the thinking. So if we want to take the perspective of some sort of disembodied being, we are not even talking about "thinking" anymore, nor would this disembodied being be properly called an "intellect", as "intellect" is attributed to a thinking human being. We can't even properly call it a "being"

That's why this whole approach is fundamentally flawed. The appropriate approach is to recognize the reality of our limitations, attempt to understand them and determine how they influence our thinking. So from the Kantian perspective for example, we should see that these fundamental limitations are described as the a priori intuitions of space and time. These base intuitions inform the way that we see and apprehend things, in a way which we cannot avoid. When we come to understand this basic reality, we can move beyond these intuitions, to a deeper level, to see how these intuitions themselves, might be altered toward something more real, by locating the basic limitations at an even deeper level.

Just wonderin’.....if a base a priori intuition informs unavoidably, how might it be altered? Wouldn’t experiential consistency be questionable?

I do not say mind is physical or non-physical. — Jackson

Do you say that any things are non-physical?

No, this is exactly what we cannot do. We must respect the fact that thinking about anything, is, by its very nature something limited by the human condition. So it is absolutely impossible to "think about being without the limitations of the human condition". "Thinking" is fundamentally limited by the human condition therefore these limitations inhere within the thinking. So if we want to take the perspective of some sort of disembodied being, we are not even talking about "thinking" anymore, nor would this disembodied being be properly called an "intellect", as "intellect" is attributed to a thinking human being. We can't even properly call it a "being" — Metaphysician Undercover

What I mean is to let go thinking, perspectives, interpretations, knowledge, views, angles, POV's, etc. all together. To transcends the boundaries, limits, stipulations, concepts, conditions, the brain and body, or physical reality, to step step over or out of them and roam in the no one's land of the pure divine creation, into pure pristine and divine essence. To be the static and eternal infinity created by the gods in their efforts.

Do you say that life is a dream? If so then I dont agree. Most of the time I can tell if I'm awake. It's true though that while dreaming you often don't know that you're dreaming until you wake up.

We can imagine different levels of dreaming. What is important is not that you don’t agree, but that nobody in this world can find any evidence that they, or me, or both, or everybody, are not in a dream.
I would even say that we are for sure in a dream, we are a brain in vat for sure, simply because whatever we think about is filtered by our brain. The vat is our brain itself.
We need also not to forget that even the idea of being in a dream is questionable, otherwise we would have the reassuring certainty that we are in a dream. But we don’t even know what a dream is, what reality is, what “being” means, we don’t know anything and even this not knowing anything is completely uncertain. In this context, I disagree with Socrate’s assertion “I know that I don't know”: we don’t know the meaning of knowing, nor of not knowing. We use a lot of words and concepts just because we feel it possible, we like it, but we need to be humble about whatever we think.

Cosmic inflation is no indirect evidence — Haglund

I disagree.

Do you say that any things are non-physical? — bongo fury

Sure.

That's why I think it is wrong considering change as being. — Angelo Cannata

You aren’t listening.

Change is something. Therefore change “is.” Is-ness is being.

Unless you’re claiming change is nothing— which is an absurdity— then there’s no disagreement.

“Being” is not permanence.

Sure. — Jackson

For example?

Saying “change is something” is a human conceptualization, which is, metaphisics. As such, it is exposed to criticism. It is humanly impossible to guarantee that our reasonings are true and correct: we never know if tomorrow we might discover an error in our reasoning. So, you have no way to guarantee that your statement “change is something” is true or correct; this applies all the same to the consequence that you think you can get: “therefore change is”.

For example? — bongo fury

Most of our life has nothing to do with physicality. Like our ambitions, hopes, memories, relations to friends.

Saying “change is something” is a human conceptualization, which is, metaphisics. As such, it is exposed to criticism. It is humanly impossible to guarantee that our reasonings are true and correct: we never know if tomorrow we might discover an error in our reasoning. So, you have no way to guarantee that your statement “change is something” is true or correct; this applies all the same to the consequence that you think you can get: “therefore change is”. — Angelo Cannata

I don't agree with your definition of metaphysics that it only refers to absolute and unchanging objects.