Hi TripleGemStudent
Yes, that is what I initially thought as well. However, I found that dosakkhayo’s point makes sense as well: “Anicca signifies the discrepancy between the natural law and our distorted expectation that things will unfold as we desire”
If we take anicca to be “not icca/ not to our liking”, then it implies that we have icca for it in the first place. But do we have icca for everything? Would we ever think of a puddle of water as either nicca or anicca? If we do not cling to the puddle of water, it is neither nicca or anicca to us. Since anicca, dukkha, and anatta are linked (Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ, yaṁ dukkhaṁ tadanattā – whatever is anicca is dukkha, whatever is dukkha is anatta) if the puddle of water does not cause dukkha to us, then it would not be anicca too by the logical statement. The puddle of water will only cause dukkha if we attach to it. Which is why I think it can be helpful to think of anicca with respect to clinging/ panca upadana khanda, on top of how things are conditioned, and not that every single thing is anicca.