Or we spatialize some great distance when there really isn't any. — PoeticUniverse

Could be. Distance is very malleable in SR for example.

The 'IS' would be the one and only permanent thing, it necessarily being in a continuous transition, and thus never existing as anything particular, even for an instant, as befitting its necessary nature as eternal in that there is thence no point for it to have been designed, leaving it to be not anything in particular, as if it were everything, even. — PoeticUniverse

That's a point that is hard to tie down. It seems we need at least one permanent thing else there would be logically nothing in the universe. Ruling out more than one permanent thing would be quite a trick, although I think one permanent thing is the natural/likely option - if there is some form of cause effect going on then it leads to a pyramid shape - with a unitary 'IS' at the tip.

The fine tuning argument also appears breaks down: our environment appears fine tuned implies a fine tuner. The fine tuner's environment must be fine tuned, implies another fine tuner. An infinite regress pursues until we get to the 'IS' (first cause) - who cannot have a fine tuned environment because there is nothing to do the fine tuning. Yet the 'IS' is... I hate to have to appeal to the anthropic argument but that seems the only explanation in the end. However, it is remarkable that there is something rather than nothing at all so perhaps that remarkable question has to have a remarkable answer.

Its transitions are the 'happenings' and they are all temporary. It may be such that we can say that the 'IS', being permanent, cannot be co-substantial with the temporary happenings, but would be more like co-terminal with them. — PoeticUniverse

I guess I'm still torn between the 'timeless' environment being something like growing block universe or being more like eternalism (or maybe something completely different). Focusing on the first option:

Maybe the 'IS' creates something time-like with its first action? So it has existed permanently in a static, timeless state and then another dimension is added to it's universe with its first action? In this model, it seems that there must have been a first, uncaused action - actions/happenings cannot stretch back 'forever' (forgive the tense) - that leads to an impossible infinite regress. Likewise, there must have been a first thought. Both an uncaused first action and uncaused first thought seem like strange ideas but there do not seem to be any alternatives (for a non-eternalist model) - no first though/action leads to no universe.

Returning to eternalist option, it is not the case that there would be a first thought / action - all actions would be in some sense concurrent for the 'IS' - it would exist in the 'eternal now'. It would presumably be the case that all the following hold true simultaneously (in some weird non-temporal sense):

1. The 'IS' is existing on its own
2. The 'IS' is creating the universe
3. The 'IS' is finished creating the universe

Maybe it's like a stack of cards - there is an eternal 'card' that represents [1], then an action is performed that leads to another card [2]. So like an eternal stack (from computing). The first eternal stack frame is [1], an action leads to the addition of another stack frame [2]. The stack would not ever be 'popped' though.

Does this maybe suggest that eternal is not a boolean state? Somethings can be 'more' eternal that others?

How do we square eternalism with the Big Bang - what looks like a creative, dynamic process and all the other creative, seemingly dynamic processes in the universe (evolution for example)? If eternalism holds then something has to be eternal and it could be argued that the most natural/optimal thing to be eternal is what we have (Big Bang / evolution).

Something must stitch together all continuous transitions to account for the 'IS' as a unitary existent. The 'IS' must somehow remain the same even as it transitions. — PoeticUniverse

But then performing an action (in our experience) changes that which performs the action. Maybe performing an action causes 'IS' to grow rather than change somehow, that might fit better with eternalism. Or maybe it leaves an old version of it behind and change results in a new version.

This condition of the 'IS' would roughly be analogous to a topological space that allows for an infinite number of forms as subject to the limitation that any form must be returnable to some original form. — PoeticUniverse

The 'IS' may well be something very alien to us. I've mentioned non-material - that might be seen as a get out of jail card and also as something of a cop out - its hardly scientific.

And, I guess, no. I don't necessarily see why everything that exists has to start sometime. Everything could always have just been here. — T Clark

The OP on the other thread specifically addresses why things cannot have existed 'forever' in time. That leads to a model where something(s) have permanent existence outside of time.

In terms of the PSR and macro causality, I believe that causality always forms a pyramid shape in time, which is suggestive of a start of time. Also, as Leibniz, Aquinas and others have said, infinite regresses are impossible - they must terminate in something concrete, permanent and uncaused - in my view that is only possible if the terminator to the regress is outside of time.

For those relations to be concrete without resorting to non-locality, it could show that things are connected in some sort of hidden substrate to reality. So in our reality the particles are a light year apart, in another reality, they are colocated. If such alternative realities exist, maybe a being could exist there too. It sounds far fetched but it reflects my feeling that materialism is making the massive assumption that all humans are familiar with is equal to the totality of existence - that is probably a false assumption IMO.

What I mean is that everything in time seems to need a temporal start. Could a matter particle exist in time if it never started existing? I think not (this is discussed on another thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6218/the-universe-cannot-have-existed-forever/p1). That leads me to think that the universe (at a micro level) must have started existing at the BB / start of time.

So I'm trying to split macro level causation (this thread) and argue about that with the PSR, from micro level causation (other thread).

I'm not sure. I'll have to think about whether or not I think they're the same thing.... Earlier, you discussed the conservation laws as preventing getting something out of nothing. That strikes me as a reason, not a cause. Still, cause and reason are clearly mixed up together somehow. Maybe it doesn't matter, since I've called the existence of both into question. — T Clark

I see the physical laws of the universe (conservation of energy etc...) as being distinct from the causes/reasons for things in the universe.

At a macro level, it seems to me that every event has a cause and the creation of the universe is a macro level event. The PSR argument is all about what happens at macro level.

I'm not sure what you mean. The universe is full of "brute facts." It sure seems like things should have causes. It's kind of a common sense kind of thing. But, then again, much of the last 100 years of science has been about finding out how common sense doesn't work. — T Clark

I believe that everything in spacetime at a micro level can trace its cause back to the Big Bang (coincidental with the start of time) - matter was either created during the BB or entered time during the BB. With the second view, you could, as you say, say the universe is full of 'brute facts' in that matter can trace its origin back to a timeless past. But I don't think raw matter qualifies as causally efficacious macro brute facts - the BB/start of time requires something more than dumb matter to cause it (so does the fine tuning of the universe).

It's maybe easier to express things in terms of the analogy of the prime mover argument: one of the brute facts has to be able to cause macro events - has to be able to move of its own accord. Eternal, timeless, movement leads to an infinite regress which is impossible - something has to start moving for there to be movement at all - leading to some sort of self-driven agent.

I've always been for presentism, and like Lee Smolin's take, but I may have to change, due to the besieging relativity of simultaneity and what we've discussed. — PoeticUniverse

I have sympathy for the presentist viewpoint - it is the natural model that agrees with our senses. But as you say, SR/GR says time does not behave in a natural/intuitive manner. Full on eternalism is hard to swallow whole. Growing block universe is a bit more palatable. My feeling on time is that I am deeply confused...

'Intangible'/"non-material" and the like I throw out, for how could they then talk the talk and walk the walk of the material? — PoeticUniverse

I think that quantum entanglement might suggest something more to the universe than we are familiar with and that something could also be causally efficacious within our more familiar universe.

I agree non-material is a stretch, maybe of a different material to us.

I've started watching your video - looks interesting and thought provoking - I will try and watch the rest of it...

I think spacetime looks a lot like a creation and the fine tuning argument appears to back this up.

So it appears there must be an initial reason (because of PSR) for spacetime and that reason must be self-driven / causally efficacious - to return to the prime mover - something has to move of its own accord.

So there is maybe something like causality in the wider universe but not tied to spacetime - something from outside spacetime caused spacetime.

I can't prove that God exists, but I think he does and thats what I'm arguing for. But I have never talked with God! (as far as I'm aware).

Cantor on the other hand thought he was talking to God. From Wikipedia:

'Cantor's theory of transfinite numbers was originally regarded as so counter-intuitive – even shocking – that it encountered resistance from mathematical contemporaries such as Leopold Kronecker and Henri Poincaré and later from Hermann Weyl and L. E. J. Brouwer, while Ludwig Wittgenstein raised philosophical objections. Cantor, a devout Lutheran, believed the theory had been communicated to him by God.'

I think the terminology can get confusing.

One way to avoid the confusion is to talk about:

- Spacetime. The thing that came about because of the Big Bang
- Universe. The entirety of everything, including spacetime

So this view leads to time being within the universe. As you say, with this model, uncaused 'brute facts' are possible as long as they are without spacetime.

lol--mathematics can't tell us anything like that. The whole idea of that is absurd. Mathematics is a language based on how we think about relations. — Terrapin Station

I think you are laughing at actual infinity then. I agree: it is a laughable concept. As an atheist you should not have a problem with this - Cantor only included in maths because he thought God was infinite (and was talking to him).

I don't think this is true. Actually, I don't think anything has a reason. All the things we know are just descriptions of how things behave, which can then be generalized to understand how typical types of things usually or often behave.

I am ambivalent about whether or not all things or some things have causes. I want to say "no," but then I think of simple situations like pushing on an object and seeing it start to move. On the other side, there are lots of situations where very minor differences in initial conditions result in vastly different outcomes. — T Clark

Can we not treat 'reason' and 'cause' as synonyms when it comes to cosmological arguments?

To have no cause is to have nothing logically/temporally preceding which seems only possible if the thing being considered is outside of time... which I admit is a challenging concept... but I cannot see how anything could exist without a minimum of one 'brute fact' and it seems they have to be timeless.

Not quite sure what you mean about initial conditions?

Thus, it transforms, as ever energetic, but 'transforms' is an 'in time' word; so, let me better say that its transformations are in it all at once, as 'everything', the state hinted at by its eternalness being unable to have a design point, forcing it to not be anything in particular (presuming it as 'everything'). — PoeticUniverse

Timelessness + change is a challenge for the argument I'm forwarding - things point to a timeless first cause but how exactly does that work?

I agree: one model that might work is eternalism - it lives in an 'eternal now' with everything happening simultaneously. We as creatures of time see a much more limited now.

The other model I thought of was it somehow 'extends' when it causes change. Or finally, it could be non-material in such a way that it has no need of dimensions like space and time, but can still be causally efficacious.

I add that it doesn't have any information, for the information content of everything would be the same as that for the nonexistent 'Nothing', that is, zero — PoeticUniverse

I'm not sure on this - a being without any information - is such a thing really possible? Without some form of information, it could have no mind.

I don't see why it would have an emotional system. — PoeticUniverse

If it has intelligence, it may equate information with goodness (in the same way we use information to avoid boredom). Hence the creation of the universe - more information to satisfy a huge, idle mind.

It would have to be 'One', as all there is. Deathless (as well as ungenerated), all histories could get traversed again and again. "I'll be back!" says Arnold. — PoeticUniverse

The logic seems to point to the existence of one, timeless brute fact. How do you rule out more than one? That seems an impossible task (disproving the existence of something is tough).

But the maths of infinity says that everything that can happen, will happen, an infinite number of times.

You seem to be arguing for an infinite past with a singular, naturally occurring something from nothing event? Natural events as far as we know, always come in pluralities - they are not singletons like the BB.

So, then, there had to be a causeless eternal basis, as there can be no opposite to being — PoeticUniverse

That's the way the logic seems to point to me - an infinite regress is not possible, infinite existence in time is not possible, but there must be something permanent/necessary else there would be nothing in the universe at all.

What can be inferred about that which can't have any point of specification as to its nature? — PoeticUniverse

There is a fair amount that can be said about what the uncaused cause is not: not infinite, not omnipotent, not omnipresent, not omniscient.

What can be said about what it is:

- It needs to be causally efficacious (in terms of the prime mover argument, it has to be able to move itself - but thats just an analogy).
- It's timeless, so maybe somehow it's timeless environment 'extends' when it causes something to happen.
- The fine tuning argument points to some sort of intelligence
- It should be benevolent
- It has some substantial measure of power to be responsible for the universe

Then there are imponderables: Is it material? Is it unitary?

It's one of the ones I put trust in personally (I also like 'cause and effect', 'everything has a start' 'everything is finite'). What are your axioms? What do you base your understanding of the world on?

If by random, you mean something like quantum fluctuations, an argument against those being the cause of the universe is given here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/306828

Maybe it's worthwhile questioning any or all axioms, to the extent that this is possible? — Pattern-chaser

We base all our physical axioms on common experience (or should do, as you might know, I have a beef with the axiom of infinity). Our common experience (as the human race) is limited when compared to the total size of this (and any other) reality. Causality appears to hold as far as we can see with our telescopes, but that might only be a tiny fraction of the totality of existence.

Causality seems to me to be in the same class as an axiom like 'the whole is greater than the parts' (which incidentally disagrees with the maths of infinity) - it is an axiom that I base my understanding of the world on. But its not necessarily right - here I think we are entering the realm of epistemology - how can we ever be sure of anything? We can say that contradictions are not possible like square circles but even that depends on the law of noncontradiction which is not provable. Epistemology is a big subject which I only have a passing acquaintance with.

The conservation of energy has the same problem as SPR--it's rather arbitrary, and there's really no good reason to believe it as a principle. — Terrapin Station

I think it is a better axiom that creation ex nihilo - more experimental support, but I acknowledge they are both axioms.

Again, the idea of that is completely arbitrary. There could be one spontaneous event. One time. — Terrapin Station

I'd appeal to the maths of infinity:

- A natural event has >0% probability of occurring naturally. Assuming these events produce matter then given infinite time, there would be >0% * ∞ = ∞ matter (IE infinite density) in the universe (I believe the universe is spatially finite - a separate argument).

- A non-natural has a 0% probability of occurring naturally. Non-natural events need causes (else they would be natural events - see above). And from that I'd trace back to a first cause as per the classic argument.

Thanks Mark! Likewise you are coming over as an intelligent new contributor to the forum. We can put aside the past altercation.

Retrocausation would seem quite a disturbing concept for philosophy: many ideas and principles would be effected. Not as disruptive as causeless effects, but still disruptive. Still, QM suggests seemingly unnaturalistic non-local interactions are possible - so I guess we need to keep an open mind as to what is possible.

Spontaneous events that do not produce energy/matter cannot be the cause of the energy/matter in the universe so I will ignore those.

There is the conservation of energy as an argument against energy/matter producing spontaneous events. Also, if spontaneous appearance of energy/matter occurs naturally and time is infinite, then infinite energy/matter would result. So that has not happened, so one of the following being true:

1) Time is not infinite. The start of time needs a cause.
Or
2) Energy/matter came about unnaturally. Unnatural things must have a cause.

Tracing backwards starting at the cause identified in the above two possibilities, the pyramid of causality leads to (ultimately) the existence of an uncaused causally efficacious agent (IE beyond time).

I'd acknowledge that these are not conclusive arguments but they do add to the weight of evidence from arguments like fine tuning, the impossibility (IMO) of the infinite, equilibrium...

That is true - causality is just an axiom - derived from empirically observed behaviour.

- The micro world may truly never be fully understood (due to its micro nature), so we might never get an answer to the OP question.

- Performing an experiment that demonstrates causality holds universally is obviously not possible.

- The performing of an experiment that rules out causality holding universally? I am not sure that is possible either. There is always a get out of saying some non-local cause is responsible for the supposed causeless effect (or appealing to a hidden underlying deterministic reality)

- Retrocausality does not count as causeless effects IMO. But there are possible instances of it like the famous quantum eraser (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality#Physics)

Obviously people have different opinions (see for example the discussion on causeless effects going on).

What are your objections to the (revised) PSR?

The first document is quite an interesting read - thanks. He makes quite a spirited defence of determinism and Bohmian mechanics. I've pulled out a few passages that seem relevant to this discussion:

’On the other hand, the usual form of QM does not say anything about actual deterministic causes that lie behind the probabilistic quantum phenomena. This fact is often used to claim that QM implies that nature is fundamentally random. Of course, if the usual form of QM is really the ultimate truth, then it is true that nature is fundamentally random. But who says that the usual form of QM really is the ultimate truth? (A serious scientist will never claim that for any current theory.) A priori, one cannot exclude the existence of some hidden variables (not described by the usual form of QM) that provide a deterministic cause for all seemingly random quantum phenomena. Indeed, from the experience with classical pseudorandom phenomena, the existence of such deterministic hidden variables seems a very natural hypothesis’

’Most experts familiar with the Bohmian interpretation agree that the observable predictions of this interpretation are consistent with those of the standard interpretation, but they often prefer the standard interpretation because the standard interpretation seems simpler to them.’

’There is only agreement that if hidden variables (that is, objective physical properties existing even when they are not measured) exist, then they must be nonlocal. Some experts consider this a proof that they do not exist, whereas other experts consider this a proof that QM is nonlocal.’

We have never been able find a mechanism in maths that produces truly random behaviour and maths seems to mirror reality rather closely. Lacking randomness, all that is left is causality - we know of no other mechanism that the universe could use to as it goes about its business. So as a determinist, I think I have reason to remain hopeful.

’The calculational tool represented by Feynman diagrams suggests an often abused pic- ture according to which “real particles interact by exchanging virtual particles”. Many physicists, especially nonexperts, take this picture literally, as something that really and objectively happens in nature. In fact, I have never seen a popular text on particle physics in which this picture was not presented as something that really happens. Therefore, this picture of quantum interactions as processes in which virtual particles exchange is one of the most abused myths, not only in quantum physics, but in physics in general. Indeed, there is a consensus among experts for foundations of QFT that such a picture should not be taken literally. The fundamental principles of quantum theory do not even contain a notion of a “virtual” state. The notion of a “virtual particle” originates only from a specific mathematical method of calculation, called perturbative expansion.’

’Having in mind all these foundational problems with the concept of particle in QFT, it is still impossible to clearly and definitely answer the question whether the world is made of particles or fields.’

’To conclude, the claim that the fundamental principles of quantum theory are today
completely understood, so that it only remains to apply these principles to various practical physical problems – is also a myth. Instead, quantum theory is a theory which is not yet completely understood at the most fundamental level and is open to further fundamental research.’

This is very much my understanding - QM is an abstract set of statistical models that gives partial predictions of reality - they do not tell us about the actual nature of reality - and QM is not a finished article. QM does not tell us that reality is particles, waves, fields, strings or anything else. It just puts indistinct boundaries around the nature of reality in the form of statistical predictions and certain experimentally observed behaviours.

So I doubt that the current version of QM proves existence of causeless effects - it seems it is not a precise enough description of reality to make any such claim. And even if such causeless effects are established through further research, their applicability to the macro world and macro questions (like the cause of the universe) would seem questionable.

Haven’t physicists determined that certain virtual particles emerge spontaneously from the quantum background (empty space)? — charles ferraro

- No-one has ever observed directly a virtual particle, they theoretical concepts only indeed the theory says they will be unobservable
- They are better regarded as fluctuations in quantum fields rather than actual particles
- Effects attributed to virtual particles like the Casimir effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) have other plausible effects
- Virtual particles are supposed to pop up out of the void in particle/anti-particle pairs, last for a few fractions of a second, then (neatly and suspiciously) annihilate leaving no trace.
- Conservation of energy is respected. No new net matter/energy is created.

They might be real, but its pretty clear they can have no impact on the real, macro world so would have no impact on macro causality.

The only claim for a macro, causal effect from VPs I'm aware of is that they are sometimes claimed as the source of a 'something from nothing' event that started the universe - VPs popped up out of nothing, formed a critical mass that somehow started cosmic inflation off and then disappeared (respecting conservation of energy) but leaving cosmic inflation behind. If this was a naturally occurring event then with infinite time, we'd have infinite instance cosmic inflation ripping the universe asunder - which is clearly not the case.

Thats a little depressing. I personally see intelligent life inherently good (on average), and given time, as society improves, this should tend from good towards perfectly good (in the limit).

If there is a God:

- Under the theist conception of God, he knows and cares for each of us personally. So we matter.
- Under the deist conception of God, he would have a positive, caring view to all forms of intelligent life, despite knowing nothing about the human race in particular. So we matter in a general sense.

What specifically did you disagree with in my comments - I would like to know if I've made a wrong statement.

I'm not sure I follow. The illusion is what is perceived - so it must be identical to what is perceived?

I'm not claiming anything - I don't understand it well enough to do more than speculate.

I think that the claim is that the illusion of movement exists in our minds. When the image changes, the afterimage of the previous moments remains as an impression in our minds to which the current moment is contrasted, giving an illusion of movement.

We cannot see the future. Would it be an evolutionary advantage to see the future? If it is not predetermined, it would be but then we could not see it (and eternalism would be false).

If the future is predetermined, then there is no evolutionary advantage and it would just be depressing/distracting to see the future. But evolution itself does not make a lot of sense in the context of eternalism.

QM Many Worlds has multiple futures, if that is combined with eternalism, we end up with a dazzling array of predetermined futures, each of which is extant. Maybe we cannot see the futures not because they are not real, it's just we don't know which of the futures to see. Or maybe these real futures are different from the present in some physical way such that we cannot sense them.

Seeing the past has a more marginal evolutionary advantage so that is maybe why we can't see it. Or it could be again that there is something different about the past as opposed to the present and so we cannot sense it.

Eternalism has many problems, probably more that presentism I grant. But IMO, vanilla presentism can't be right. Maybe growing block universe? Or something completely different?

The illusion exists, doesn't it? — Terrapin Station

- At time t0, I see a completely still image
- At time t1, I see a different completely still image
- It is a different version of the brain at t1 to t0, but it remembers the image at t0, processes the image at t1 and incorrectly (according to eternalism) interprets the difference as movement.

(a) God created logic, or it's at least part of His nature, and God could make logic however He'd want to make it--He has control over His own nature,

or

(b) Logic is more fundamental than God, and God can't buck it any more than we can. God must conform to it. It supersedes Him in its regard. — Terrapin Station

Interesting point, a few notes:

- The act of the creation (of logic or anything else) requires logic. So God cannot of created logic.
- Logic constrains God just as it does us. God cannot make a square circle - he is limited to non-contradictions only.
- A world without logic (like X and ~X = true) is a world without information so no being could exist without information.
- So logic would appear to preexist God and be an unchangeable part of his nature.

And what would that have to do with the fact that there is something that is moving or changing? — Terrapin Station

The movement is just an illusion if you treat time like a spacial dimension - with that way of thinking about it - there is no movement.

Parmenides' viewpoint has some advantages - Zeno's paradoxes are less of a problem if there is no motion and it agrees with modern physics representation of time. It's also the simplest model barring presentism (which is impossible IMO due to the start of time). But it clashes with the senses - I do not feel like a 4d spacetime worm for example and I only sense the future.

So I'm still befuddled with the nature of time.

He published his 'theory of the primeval atom' in an obscure journal in the 1930's and it was initially ignored. But as the idea became more widely circulated, it was resisted by many scientists, because it sounded uncomfortably close to 'creation ex nihilo' — Wayfarer

The BB does not have to be creation ex nihilo - there are two options that get around that problem:

- The Zero Energy Universe Hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe). Energy/matter was created in the BB in exchange for negative gravitational energy - thus the books are 'balanced' and the conservation of energy is respected.
- Energy/matter entered time during the BB. So conservation of energy is also respected.

There is some debate as to the size of the universe at the time of the BB - anything from a point to infinite has been proposed.

There is a school of thought that basically asks, 'if it can happen once....' that maybe THE Big Bang was really A Big Bang, and that the universe might indeed expand and contract through regular cycles over cosmic time periods. And that sounds very much like the idea of the 'eternal return' that was characteristic of ancient Hindu cosmology. — Wayfarer

I think there is a potential problem with the cycle length between successive 'bangs':

- Static cycle length. Would seem most unnatural. Would imply fine tuning.
- Increasing cycle length. Cycle length would be infinite by now (with eternal past time). The universe cannot contract infinitely. Expanding infinitely contradicts the Big Bang being 14 billion years ago - so both options are impossible.
- Decreasing cycle length: Universe should be all one big black hole by now - equilibrium.

Thesis: There belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, a being that is absolutely necessary.
Anti-thesis: An absolutely necessary being nowhere exists in the world, nor does it exist outside the world as its cause.

- I disagree with the thesis on grounds of vagueness: at least one necessary being seems to be required and it cannot belong to spacetime (as it seems to have created spacetime). It must be part of a wider universe beyond space time.
- I disagree with the anti-thesis: it seems we need at least one necessary being (one brute fact to act as the tip of the pyramid of causality). To be a brute fact is to exist outside of time - uncaused and permanently existing.

In other words, phenomenally, something like a fly, say, moves across my field of vision. We can call that an "illusion." The illusion features movement, doesn't it? — Terrapin Station

If we switch to one spacial dimension only then on a 2D graph, this could be represented by a point (the stationary observer) and a line (the fly moving across space).

But the 2D graph is completely static.

Well reasoned counter arguments would be nice instead of waffle.

I don't have two accounts here. I wish you best of luck with your conditions.

If there's a point "moving through spacetime" (I'm putting that in quotation marks because the "time" part is identical to moving; spacetime isn't some sort of thing or container that other things are in) then there's something not static. Whether things could be static from some perspective is irrelevant. Something exists that isn't static. — Terrapin Station

But movement just becomes an illusion when you regard time as a spacial dimension - imagine a series of photos laid out in front of you that show the same scene photographed at different times - all is static to you - yet anyone in the photographs would have experienced change.

From a 4d spacetime perspective, all 'nows' would seem dynamic - it is always the case that now has just become then - so each now seems dynamic - but nothing is actually changing.

If you plot a 2d graph of space and time, then from the perspective of a point moving through spacetime, its position is always changing - so the point would always think the world is dynamic. But viewed from the perspective of looking at the graph, all is static.

But you always experience what you are experiencing. You always belief now is now. So each version of you in 4d spacetime thinks now is now.

So we can comprehend only now but it is a different version of us comprehending a different now. But all is still static from a 4d spacetime perspective.

I am having difficulties expressing what I mean... does the above make any sense?

In the model I've been talking about (moving spotlight), there is a cursor of time that changes but everything else is static.

That model might not be right - we always think it is 'now' so maybe a cursor of time is not required, then everything would be completely static.