Principle of identity why It sounds wrong.

Recently I wrote a quote on FB stating that Everything observed is a verb. Not a Noun. Nouns are just man made problems in the world. Here is a detail explanation of the argument and according to some a "Failed attempt at proving the Principle of identity is wrong".

Imagine Your Partner, is a noun. Whenever there is a noun we attribute certain characteristics to it. Its spartial dimentions, of weight, height, length, width, color complexity. In this special case voice, haircolor. There are thousand different nouns which discribe the noun "Your Partner" We can think more. Look at the "Height of your Partner" which is another noun. As you can see over a short period of time Apperent height of your partner is a noun. But, If we meassure it monthnly, I am sure it fluctuates around a median point, and there is a trend as well. I can compare this to a graph of a BTC - crypto price. There are tiny fluctuations each moment which we cannot even see, but only can meassured by height of atoms. So, the Height of your partner, is not actually a noun. But it is a verb, a function, which's output fluctuates moment to moment.

A goat, is a collection of verbs

What is the problem with this? All our lives, our mind looks for nouns. Where things appear stable. Life doesn't have a meaning if things are continously changing. We want to live with a stable partner. We need to look young all the time. We need stable income. We need this and that, which are nouns. But, When you know these so called nouns are a collection of tiny functions which can be described with non other than continous functions, you will realise, expecting a Car, to be a car in 10 years is impossible. Cracks will accumilate in a faster rate than the earth travelling around the sun, in meters per second. So, really speaking, it will not produce the same, happiness and emotions it created in the first place.

If what is true for your partner, is true for yourself. Hence, things are going to change over time. This attitude is great for the mindfulness student as it creates a framework of understanding nature, with another dimention that, when someone talk about a tree, you wouldn't see a fixed thing without change, but a dynamic, verb with constant change. And, the previous expectation of making it a happy experience will nolonger be there, instead there will be a better understanding. Attachments to such objects will loosen creating space for less dissapointment.

Time as a varible

Principle of identity is wrong

Principle of Identity states, that Object A, is similar to Object A itself. But there is an inherent problem in this statement. Let's imagine a hypothetical Object A, Which exist at time T. If everything remains stable with this object A (Its 3D structure and weight etc, which is unlikely) We are travelling through time to time T+t. Even if everything remained same the "Time Object A existed" Is a property which can only be described as a continous variable. Hence Object A which existed at Time T is not similar to Object A existing at Time T+t. It has changed atleast from one property. And that is my simple proof that Principle of identity is wrong and only universal thing about objects is their "Change". I am not sure what are the secondery implications of these observations. But I would not care. Understanding is the only thing which we should seek in life.