Does it make sense to say that change is just what is changing? If so, which philosopher or philosophers have claimed it?
If no-one goes as far as to say so, then what could change be in addition to what is changing, and how could those alternatives be ruled out?
I'm asking because if "now" is a changing indivisible instant then its changes would also be indivisible, which would surely complicate Zeno's paradoxes of movement.
The concept of an indivisible is closely allied to, but to be distinguished from, that of an infinitesimal. An indivisible is, by definition, something that cannot be divided, which is usually understood to mean that it has no proper parts.