Caledonian, it would improve discussion if you would make an effort to try to understand what I’m saying rather than flatly declaring “you’re wrong”.
I’ve already understood what you’re saying—far better than you do—and you’ve just ignored my explanation of why you’re wrong.
“Properties of the relationship between things” is not a physical concept, so it indeed appears to be “something else”.
Everything we consider ‘physical objects’ are complex sets of relationships between things. Is your body physical? What about the computer keyboard you’re typing on?
They’re collections of components, arranged in particular ways. It is entirely possible to change the components without changing the arrangement in any way relevant to our categorical perceptions. Whether anything has changed depends entirely on what level you look at. Is it the same river when the flowing water has been completely replaced? That depends on what is meant by ‘same’, and that depends on what level you’re talking about.
They’re collections of components, arranged in particular ways. It is entirely possible to change the components without changing the arrangement in any way relevant to our categorical perceptions. Whether anything has changed depends entirely on what level you look at. Is it the same river when the flowing water has been completely replaced? That depends on what is meant by ‘same’, and that depends on what level you’re talking about.
There is no “something else”.