Statement of the Changist Research Program

1. Purpose

Changism is a philosophical and scientific research program centered on the claim that reality is most adequately understood not as a collection of static substances existing upon a temporal stage, but as an ordered continuum of change. Its central task is to clarify the ontological, conceptual, and physical implications of taking change, rather than substance, as fundamental.

Changism seeks to contribute at four connected levels: the correction of misleading metaphors in the language of science, the articulation of a realist process-monist ontology, the development of a non-stage account of time, and the application of this framework to unresolved problems in modern physics and cosmology.

It is not a rejection of physics, but an attempt to read physics more faithfully at the level of concepts, ontology, and operational meaning.

2. Core Thesis

The core thesis of Changism is that change is ontologically primary.

From this follows a connected set of claims:

Reality is fundamentally processual rather than substantival.
Order is immanent in change rather than imposed upon it from outside.
Time is not a container, medium, or independent flowing entity, but the relational ledger by which ordered change is counted, compared, and sequenced.
Energy is not a substance, but the conserved quantitative currency through which change is regulated and balanced.
Apparent “things” are relatively stable patterns within ongoing processes, not exceptions to process.

Changism therefore proposes that the deepest intelligibility of reality lies not in static being, but in structured becoming.

3. Scope

The Changist Research Program operates across four interrelated domains.

3.1 Conceptual-linguistic scope

Changism examines the language by which physics and science are explained, with special attention to metaphors that may mislead philosophical reflection. It aims to distinguish operational content from inherited imagery, especially where terms such as “time,” “energy,” “space,” “field,” “force,” and “object” are prone to reification.

3.2 Ontological scope

Changism develops a realist process-monist ontology. It investigates how persistence, identity, lawfulness, and structure arise within a world understood as fundamentally dynamic. It does not deny the practical reality of objects, but interprets them as stable organizations of process rather than metaphysically primitive substances.

3.3 Philosophy-of-time scope

Changism advances an alternative to stage-based theories of time, including presentism, eternalism, and the moving spotlight theory. It proposes instead that time be understood as the relational ledger of ordered change, not as a pre-existing arena in which change occurs.

3.4 Physics and cosmology scope

Changism explores whether conceptual clarification regarding time, change, order, and energy can illuminate open problems in physics and cosmology. Particular attention is given to questions in which temporal concepts may be doing hidden or misleading work, including but not limited to the problem of time in quantum mechanics, relativistic interpretation, and cosmological tensions such as the Hubble tension.

4. Aims

The Changist Research Program has the following numbered aims.

Aim 1. To clarify the operational meaning of scientific concepts

Changism seeks to reformulate key concepts in a way that remains faithful to their mathematical and experimental roles while avoiding misleading metaphors. Its aim is not terminological novelty for its own sake, but greater conceptual precision.

Aim 2. To correct reifications inherited from scientific language

Changism investigates where ordinary or pedagogical language may suggest substance-like interpretations that are not required by the underlying physics. It aims to reduce confusion generated by container metaphors, flow metaphors, stage metaphors, and other forms of linguistic reification.

Aim 3. To articulate a realist process-monist ontology

Changism aims to provide a coherent account of reality in which change is fundamental, order is immanent, and apparent stability is understood as persistence within process. This ontology is intended to be realist, not merely instrumental or linguistic.

Aim 4. To develop a non-stage account of time

Changism aims to formulate and defend an account of time as the relational ledger of ordered change. This includes criticizing accounts of time that treat it as an independent stage, container, or moving spotlight.

Aim 5. To reconceive energy within a process framework

Changism aims to understand energy not as a hidden substance but as the conserved quantitative currency of change. It seeks to show how this interpretation is compatible with standard physics while being conceptually clearer and ontologically more coherent.

Aim 6. To reinterpret modern physics without altering its successful formalism

Changism aims to offer process-centered readings of relativity and quantum mechanics that preserve empirical predictions and mathematical structure while revising their metaphysical interpretation where needed.

Aim 7. To generate new conceptual approaches to open physical problems

Changism aims to test whether improved clarity about time, change, and energy can contribute to unresolved issues in cosmology and fundamental physics. It treats conceptual reform not as a substitute for physics, but as a possible aid to progress where hidden assumptions may be obstructive.

5. Methodological Principles

The Changist Research Program proceeds according to the following methodological principles.

Principle 1. Fidelity to established physics

Changism does not reject well-confirmed physical theories without strong empirical reason. Where it offers reinterpretation, it does so while preserving the successful mathematical and observational content of standard physics unless explicitly proposing a speculative alternative model.

Principle 2. Linguistic rigor

Because philosophy works primarily through concepts and language, Changism treats linguistic precision as methodologically central. It regards bad metaphors as potentially productive for pedagogy but dangerous for ontology.

Principle 3. Operational priority

Changism gives priority to what is operationally defined, measured, compared, and calculated. Where a term invites metaphysical confusion, Changism seeks to recover the experimental and formal practice from which the term derives its meaning.

Principle 4. Ontological parsimony

Changism avoids multiplying metaphysical entities where ordered process is sufficient. It resists reifying time, energy, and other structural notions into additional substances or containers unless required by argument or evidence.

Principle 5. Realism about process

Changism holds that processes, relations, and structured transformations are not merely convenient descriptions but belong to reality itself. It rejects the assumption that only thing-like substances can be fully real.

Principle 6. Separation of levels

Changism distinguishes carefully between mathematical formalism, operational meaning, philosophical interpretation, and speculative extension. This separation is necessary to prevent metaphysical claims from being mistaken for established physical results.

Principle 7. Testability where applicable

Where Changism enters the domain of physical modeling rather than interpretation, it accepts the requirement of empirical accountability. Speculative proposals should aim, where possible, to recover known results and generate distinguishing consequences.

Principle 8. Continuity across scales

Changism seeks conceptual continuity between everyday processes, biological organization, relativity, and quantum theory. It assumes that reality should not be divided into unrelated ontological regimes without necessity.

6. Research Commitments

Changism is committed to the following working commitments.

To distinguish consensus physics from Changist interpretation at all times.
To avoid presenting metaphorical reformulations as replacements for equations.
To preserve the difference between philosophical clarification and physical theory construction.
To treat conceptual analysis and scientific application as mutually informing but not interchangeable tasks.
To remain open to revision in light of better arguments, stronger formulations, and empirical results.

7. Boundaries of the Program

Changism does not claim that physics alone settles metaphysics, nor that metaphysical reflection can replace empirical science. It does not treat all traditional terminology as false, but as often in need of interpretive caution. It does not claim that a process ontology is directly proven by any single equation, but rather that such an ontology may provide the most coherent reading of a wide range of scientific and experiential realities.

Likewise, Changism does not assume that every unresolved problem in physics is caused by bad metaphors about time. Its more modest and defensible claim is that hidden conceptual assumptions may sometimes shape how problems are framed, and that clarifying those assumptions may be scientifically fruitful.

8. Programmatic Summary

Changism is a research program in philosophical clarification, ontology, and scientifically informed metaphysics. It begins from the primacy of change, treats order as immanent in becoming, interprets time as the relational ledger of change, and understands energy as the conserved quantitative currency by which change is regulated and balanced.

Its ultimate aim is to develop a more coherent language and ontology for a world described by modern physics: a world in which stability is achieved within process, intelligibility arises from lawful transformation, and reality is better understood as structured becoming than as static substance.

Changism is a realist process-monist research program. It begins from the view that change is fundamental, that order is immanent in change, that time is the relational ledger by which change is counted and compared, and that energy is the conserved quantitative currency through which change is regulated and balanced. On this basis, Changism seeks to correct misleading metaphors in the language of science, develop an alternative to stage-based theories of time, and explore whether greater conceptual clarity about time and change can help illuminate open problems in modern physics and cosmology.