What would you call my new beliefs?

[Nonpareil]

Simply saying time is a dimension over and over in slightly different words is not working for me.

Your lack of understanding is not really my problem. I have explained the issue quite clearly: time is not what you assert that it is, and is not "created by causality" in any sense. It is a dimension in which entities can exist and interact. It is not the interaction itself.

If you can't explain why a static universe would still experience time

Because time is a dimension, and is not dependent on things happening within it in order to exist any more than space is dependent on things moving across it.

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.

Save to explain exactly why it is, you mean.

---

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

...And describing time as a dimension.

for the purposes of theories to understand better relative motion. (which you would not have in a universe with a static cube).

And which alters nothing about time being a dimension.

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 other words, it is treated as a dimension through which the rate of movement of all objects is equal and constant.

So I am not getting that resembles time as being a necessary component of matter.

Time is not a component of matter. Time is a dimension in which matter exists.

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).

Whether or not an object could exist without time is irrelevant. The question is whether or not causality can hold without time, with a side order of whether or not causality creates time.

It cannot, because causality is defined as an interaction within the dimension time, and it does not, because dimensions are not created by the interactions that take place within them, respectively.