An interesting essay, but I found it a bit unfocused. What does it actually mean to base science on the idea of "change," e.g., how might science be different, what different actions would scientists take? The essay raised these questions and seemed to promise answers at the beginning, but ended by just saying science surely should be different, but in an unexplored way.
E.g., at one point, the essay addressed the material issue that it's hard to describe what subatomic particles actually are, but then said it's easy to describe them in terms of change, because "change is what is directly experienced by human beings as perceptions." But change at the level of subatomic particles is no more "directly" experienced by humans than the material realities of particles are; a person seeing a sunset can be said to experience the changing electromagnetic fields or experiencing the arrival of physical photons, but neither explanation is immediately evident to the untrained eye seeing the sunset. If mere experience is not enough for science (and I don't think the essay is claiming that) then how does it actually help to focus on "change" rather than on "things"? At the end of the day, you're making theories that go beyond your individual experience, and it doesn't seem to matter to me if those theories start with this nebulous idea of change or with theorizing microscopic objects.