What would you call my new beliefs?

[SteveII]

In a universe that consist of one object, there would be no time because causality (relative movement, changes in states) creates "time". If you disagree, tell me why.

That is exactly the opposite of how this works.

You assert that causality "creates time". This idea is incoherent and unsupported by any evidence, because time is not "changes in states". Changes in states happen within time. They are not equivalent to time. Time is a dimension, not a collection of events.

Causality is an operation within time. A system that contains no causal relationships - that is, an entirely static one, wherein no parts interact with any others - would still possess the dimension of time. If you disagree, then it is your job to establish that this is not the case.

Simply saying time is a dimension over and over in slightly different words is not working for me.  If you can't explain why a static universe would still experience time, than you lost (in the sense of a discussion/debate) for the simple fact you can't articulate what you believe--let along convince others of it's truthfulness. 

My position remains that causality (successive changes in states of matter) is all that is necessary for a measurement of time and you have done absolutely nothing to indicate why that position is wrong.

---

Try thinking of it like this, Steve:  In your universe with one object - let's call it a cube, for ease of reference - the object exists in four dimensions.  It has height, breadth, depth and duration - three spatial dimensions and a time dimension (up to these four, there's really no difference in the quality of dimensions).  Nothing ever, ever, EVER happens to our cube.  It doesn't spin, it isn't acted upon by radiation, there's nothing to bang into it, etc.  But that nothing happens to our cube doesn't alter the spatial dimensions - it maintains the same height, breadth and depth.  Because of Special Relativity, any object - me, you, an elephant, the cube in question - that has spatial dimensions must have a time dimension (this is what is - in this case - meant by 'spacetime').  To talk of something existing - even if is the sole object in a given universe - without a time dimension is nonsensical.

Suppose now that a quantum particle pops into existence (I'm given to understand that they do this) and bangs into our cube. The collision hasn't created time, any more than it created the spatial dimensions of the cube - it has impinged on a dimension that was already there.  In your argument, the bridge abutment I drive my car into didn't exist - that is to say, it was non-dimensional - until I hit it.

I hope this helps.

Boru

Buro, I appreciate the effort. Can you point me to something I can read? Because what I am finding in my research is things like below:

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. Since 300 BCE, the spacetime of our universe has historically been interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the "fourth dimension". By combining space and time into a single manifold called Minkowski space in 1908, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

This is describing spacetime as a mathematical model for the purposes of theories to understand better relative motion. (which you would not have in a universe with a static cube). And further in the same article:

In non-relativistic classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, because time is treated as universal with a constant rate of passage that is independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time for an object as seen by an observer outside the field.

In physical cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe. Mathematically it is a manifold whose points correspond to physical events. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Explanation

So I am not getting that resembles time as being a necessary component of matter. I don't think it is nonsensical to think that an object can exist timeless (I don't think that it really happens, I just can't understand why it couldn't).