What would you call my new beliefs?

[SteveII]

1. LOL. You don't even understand your own position. Let's pull apart the word 'dimension' that you are so fond of:

You do realize that everything you just quoted agrees with me, yes? A line has one dimension - that is, it has one area in which two points can be differentiated from one another. Our universe has four. Time is the fourth, the dimension in which changes in the previous three occur in sequence.

To sum it up, a dimension is a mathematical expression of relationship... It does not exist separately from the things you are describing.

This does not follow, even from - again - the Wikipedia articles you are citing to try and prove it. And even if it did, it would not help your argument for causality without time.

If you only had one object in the universe, there would be no space.

Yes, there would. It would be empty, but you would still have space.

You have your work cut out for you if you think you can defend "causality requires time". Since time is a measurement of change, you are really saying, "causality requires a measurement of change". However, that does not make any sense. Wouldn't it be the case of the reverse: "A measurement of change requires causality?"

No.

Even granting your completely mangled definition of "time", this is gibberish.

Still wrong in literally every way possible.

Sorry you don't get it.

---

<video>

I liked your video. However, I am confused on whether you believe spacetime is an actual entity or mathematical coordinates (albeit more complicated that 3+1 dimensions). I see nothing in the video that indicates that we must believe spacetime is a "thing" in which everything happens. I found this link that was interesting:

http://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html