Here is my nit and it is a big one. The idea of "change" means that there is change as to the , say the parameters of nature, i.e. say the fundamental constants of nature.
What evidence is there for this ?
That is my nit in a nutshell. The bromide of 'acceptance of change' sounds euphoric and a panacea, but in reality change in physical models comes out from the "irresistable force " meeting the immovable object. I.e. if you want a great example of this, look at the 19th century Ultraviolent catastrophe which eventually frustrated Planck into his black body spectrum. This only after the 19th classical physics laws were shown as worse than useless
Every single advance in physics has come from the WTF mode of, "dear this ain't working" clash between an old model and then DATA which flatly contradicted the old model.
That has been a given for over 180 years and it is going to be the same in the future. I.e. we do not get an idealized "acceptance" of change for its own sake. What we do get is that we find that what we THOUGHT was true, simply blows it as far as what we OBSERVE
The latest WTF moment we have will be eventually say when people GET IT, that ahem SUSY, as romantic as it sounds does not have EXPERIMENTAL data sets supporting it directly. I like GW physics. The issue of if we have massless or massive Gravity remains a hotly contested area (classical versus heavy gravity). How many of you have heard of spin 3/2 Gravitinos directly OBSERVED
Well we DO NOT HAVE DIRECT confirmation'
This is what made the Higgs discovery so welcome and fantastic. It was and is observed directly
Bonus points , do we have HIGGSINOS, or say Susy partners of the Higgs directly oberved?
Ahem, NO
And this is the same banging ones head against the wall datum, in a dance which is how we stubbornly blunder from one insight to the next