Several years earlier, I planted a evergreen in the lower manse. Now I have better things to do than to sit before it and watch it change from minute to minute (assuming I could actually detect the very slight changes). I can, however, walk down months or years later and see "THE" tree, and it is the SAME tree I planted.
We assume both the useful fiction of there being "THE" tree despite its growth, and we assume just as importantly and as an explanation for the change, that trees grow very gradually, as trees should (we have seen, for example, time-lapse movies of plants growing; we have studied biology and paid attention to our lectures), and that the growth follows a known pattern of this string of events.

Once a year, I visit an old friend from college. Over the years, he has changed in appearance as well as interests and personality. What makes me know he is the same person as the one I knew last year, or the one I knew in college? Well, this might be explained by minute (and unseen) changes over time, and that once a year, I see the result.
I go to a high school 20th reunion. Why do I recognise some people I knew and not others, even though I have not seen any of them for 20 years?

In this case, we have a thing called "tree". Intuition tells us the tree changes from minute to minute, but we would still think there is a "tree" that is changing. The causal line model reject the notion of a thing. That there are only strings of events. What are events? Occurence in space-time. I would say, you have an illusion of a thing that is changing. What you really see is a string of events in space-time that gives you the illusion of a changing thng.

But what is illusory about the tree?

Why cannot the same thing persist over time, even if it changes?

What is paradoxical about that?

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are discriptions of patterns that exist, all at once, in the whole Tapestry... The four-dimensional space-time manifold displays all eternity at once." - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman

The notion of 'causality' (like 'time') is no more than that, a 'notion', a relic of some particular linear Perspectives, not an inherent Universal 'law'. There can be no 'causation', no 'why', no 'reason' in a non-linear context.

The matter is not simply resolved by a quote.

The issue is still talk about in contemporary philosophy. There are big fat beautiful books on. These issue are not dead, or definitive in any sense at all.

Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of Laws of Nature. On one account, the Regularity Theory, Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is. On the other account, the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the "principles" which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world "obeys" the Laws of Nature. This seemingly innocuous difference marks one of the most profound gulfs within contemporary philosophy, and has quite unexpected, and wide-ranging, implications.

Of course not...
Validation contnues to grow in leaps and bounds..

Philosophy without the critical updates of science (and vice versa) is 'sterile'. Science is regularly discovering validation of the synchronicity of all moments/percepts.
Not so for 'linearity', which is falling falling from grace. It is 'reality', though, to and for those who see things that way. Completely Perspectival.
Odd that philosophers are so often 'afraid' of science, and how scientists are so often 'afraid' of philosophy, much to their mutual disadvantage.

I disagree with the assertion that there are only two theories. That is a false dichotomy. And it begins..
I also disagree with the first as horrendously vague and not really saying anything but according to "Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is." taking a crap is a law of nature!
And the Necessitarian Theory is simply foolish. Or a religious belief. And or both.

validations on what?

This is very general. What is this got to do with feymans remark?

Ok, so you disagree. Give me a reason since this is a philosophy forum.

The synchronicity of moments/percepts.

For which disagreement would you need my reasoning? I will not argue. I can present evidence and my reasoning, and you can examine it as you will. All Perspectives are correct in context.

Yields this;
Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.
There are lots of philosophies of time. Science is refuting them. Time is a local mirage, a relic imagined from a linear Perspective.