@Kub933 cheers for posting about this. @rick and I were talking about cause and effect today.
He was able to spot how I was still putting something between myself and enjoying myself.
I thought I had removed the timeline of what needs to happen for me to progress, (and I had to some degree), but now with these new questions, @Miguel 's post on ending one’s own suffering, and the convo with Rick, a whole new dimension is available.
Not quite. A given concrete state of the universe is in a sense - static.
The universe can be said to move through time, but events are indeed happening in time, as they are the minute movements of the universe as it changes state and are thus by definition - dynamic.
In a sense the universe is always still and time lends it dynamism by providing the arena for change - be it in space or quality.
To say that the universe moves through time would be to separate one from the other, to put them on 2 separate planes which now can somehow interact by moving through each other. The same fundamental error which can lead to theories like time-travel etc.
Time, space and energy/mass are all interwoven together in a way that cannot be separated.
Besides to say that 1 plane (universe) moves through another plane (time) once again requires an absolute benchmark to judge against. What is that benchmark? It would need to exist outside of both the universe and time in order to be used to judge them against - which is of course an impossibility.
The mind creates time and believes things move through it. When too much “time” happens in a dream, we wake up and realize that this time was not “real” – as Andrew said, something is definitely happening.
@jwhooper welcome to the forum btw, I am not sure how familiar you are with actualism but it could be said that there is a difference between ‘real’ time (which is an illusion) and actual time (which does factually exist).
This page does a really good job of summarising this if you are interested - SIMPLE ACTUALISM - This Moment in Time
Yes, that link explains that there is only this very moment. The definition of time is change, implying at least an imaginary past or future to compare to this moment. But if “this very moment” is the definition of “actual time” here, I think we mean the same thing.
Do Cause and Effect Really Exist? (Big Picture Ep. 2/5) - YouTube - I had to do some outside research here haha, this video does a decent job of summarising this though. It seems that at larger scale the idea of causality can be used (more as a convention though), however it does not reflect any actual mechanisms which take place when looking at the smaller scales.
Things happen for sure, and things happen in patterns which can be predicted, but causality seems more a conventional concept than actuality.
The fundamental error that leads to theories of time travel is believing that the past and future exist somewhere.
Of course they are, but inseparable doesn’t mean the same. So they can have interactions?
Otherwise what’s the point of having separate words for time and space?
We think about systems by separating them into parts and looking at relationship between the parts.
You’re mistaking what you need to think about a system with what needs to be present for the system to be possible.
You may need an absolute external benchmark to conceptualize the model of a universe moving through time, but that doesn’t mean the system can’t exist without one.
So you’re trying to think about cause and effect. What’s the model of time and space that you’re using?
I’d say that to have some sort of relationship between them, you need to have a conceptual separation.
I actually really like the suggestion in the video to replace causality with leverage, as in 1 event leverages another this does away with the problems of causality which I was mentioning initially ie a metaphysical ‘causer’
Well the whole purpose of this thread is to contemplate, to arrive at that which is actual and by doing so highlight that which is an illusion. My preference would be to move away from models as much as possible. To proceed towards models, conceptualisations etc is to move solely towards the intellectual where the various illusions infiltrating from the affective faculty can safely hide behind intellectual constructs, there they can have a field day and end up turning contemplation into intellectual-masturbation which is what this back and forth is currently devolving into 
If the universe moves through time then that means that “time” is something that is outside of the “universe” (such that the “universe” can move through it).
But now you’ve violated the term “universe”, which is supposed to refer to “everything in all of existence”.
Time is one aspect of what the universe is, it’s not something outside of it. So it doesn’t make sense to say the universe moves through time.
Parts of the universe (objects as matter) move through time and space. But the universe itself, as its entirety, cannot be.
Indeed the problem come with conceptualizing it all. What’s the issue with the simple description, that time stands still, space stands still, and objects move through space and time?
The more I dig into this causality the more it opens up other areas. I was just now looking at this whole idea of responsibility/obligation vs a clear comprehension of one’s involvement in something.
So let’s say something ‘bad’ happens, the immediate response is to find the one ‘responsible’. The ‘causer’ which is magically responsible for this event happening as if the 1 action happened in a vacuum. Then of course they can be blamed and punished for being behind it all. There is something there that is projected into the situation, the ‘causer’ is seen as a separate ‘thing in itself’, it cannot be deduced to any actual variable and yet it is still behind it all (somehow). So as opposed to understanding ALL the variables which leveraged the situation into existence and there is always many, there is a hunt for the ‘one’ who is responsible, that metaphysical ‘thing in itself’ that caused the situation into existence. Seeing life through that lens is simply not in line with the facts of the situation.
I could say humanity is in the state it is in because all these people are causing these atrocities. But then we step back and realise the programming (both instinctual and societal) that these humans are conditioned with, now the involvement of the person is seen in a clearer light. So now do I focus on the person or the conditioning? Now blame is seen in its proper place. I take it a step back and realise that this conditioning is the best humanity has come up with and the instinctual programming happened to get life this far. So this ‘blame’ and responsibility takes another jump and so on.
Eventually I realise that a clear comprehension of the facts of the situation makes these attempts at finding the villain/the ultimate ‘causer’ a waste of time.
I agree with the distinction between matter and universe (thought I’d overcomplicate it if I state it that way).
Indeed it’s matter moving and not the entire universe.
The issue with simple explanation is that different people may interpret it in different ways or just derive a vague jumble of an understanding. A simple explanation of a complex thing is just a conceptualization in disguise, where you don’t know what the assumptions are.
In my mind, your simple explanation is in agreement with my model, but that may be me just deluding myself.
Hmm agreed with the rest but I might have to take it further 
Is it not that objects move in space and time? Because objects as energy/mass are as intrinsic to what we call the universe as time and space is. A trio and not a duo. There is space, time and energy/mass which comprise what we call the universe, all are interwoven together and cannot be separated where 1 moves through another. Time and space are the arena for objects to move/change in, not through, as that would imply some absolute sense of movement between them. The objects would be separated from infinitude if they were to move through it.
There is only this moment and this place and things are simply happening of their own accord. In definable and predictable patterns however with nothing behind it all, no ‘causer’/puppet master.
I guess it’s useful to bear in mind that objects are as old as the universe, they are just as much an expression of infinitude. They are an intrinsic part of it. They have been changing/moving for eternity and they extend into infinity, they have the same existential status as time and space. I guess this is why Richard can say he is the infinitude experiencing itself.
And now my mind is going 
The difference is I’m reporting the experience of it, not conceptualizing — big difference !!!
If anyone would like the context of the quote @Kub933 was mentioning, it can be found here:
But the universe itself is not intelligent (even in a ‘non-anthropomorphic way’) … this universe, being infinite and eternal, is much, much more than merely intelligent. Intelligence, which is the ability to think, reflect, compare, evaluate and implement considered action for benevolent reasons, cannot comprehend infinity and eternity (as infinitude has no opposite there is none of the cause and effect relationship which is what intelligence needs in order to operate). Only apperceptive awareness can perceive and/or apprehend infinitude (thus I am this universe experiencing its own infinitude apperceptively). And, as a human being, I am this universe experiencing itself intelligently (just as the universe experiences itself as a cat or a dog or whatever: as a cat, this universe experiences itself miaowing and as a dog this universe experiences itself barking and so on).
Neither “blame” or “praise” are applicable.
I’ve been reminding myself of this fact every day since I understood what “blind nature” is, and that it’s obviously happening around me and in me.