The forward conditional (§[§2.4.5](<2.4.5 Forward Conditional.md>)–2.4.9) established the left-to-right direction: if change is possible, T∧S∧Φ are instantiated. The converse also holds: **(T∧S∧Φ) → ◇C**. If T∧S∧Φ are instantiated, change is possible. The two together form the biconditional reading: **◇C ↔ (T∧S∧Φ)**, not two facts that happen to coincide, but one fact described from two sides.

Temporality is instantiated if and only if causally structured succession among states obtains. But causally structured succession among states is exactly what change requires: one state following another through directed causal influence. To say Temporality is instantiated is to say the succession-condition for change is met. The same applies to Spatiality (traversable relational extension = the distinction-condition) and Physicality (causal persistence = the exchange-condition). The Conditions do not accompany change's possibility. They spell it out.

The contrast here is with a weaker claim: that structure permits change. *Permits* treats T, S, and Φ as a neutral scaffold compatible with either change or no-change, leaving open a fully-instantiated-but-static structure. *Enables*, as meant here, is stronger: the instantiation of T, S, and Φ just is the availability of transitions. Change is not a further fact to be added, nor a dormant possibility the structure passively accommodates. It is what the instantiation of the Conditions amounts to. The circularity worry (that this makes the result definitional) is taken up below.

The ground for this identity is the account established in [§2.4.1](<2.4.1 Constituting Modal Structure.md>). Modal facts are structural facts about Reality within which possible worlds are defined. The possibility of change is a structural fact: whether Reality permits causally structured succession. The instantiation of Temporality is a structural fact: whether causally structured succession obtains in Reality. These are not two independently obtained facts that happen to coincide; they are two descriptions of the same structural ground.

The point is not merely that instantiation is compatible with change-possibility but that the causal character of the Conditions is constitutive rather than dormant: their instantiation is their activity. A structure with genuine causal directedness is one in which directed influence is its own structural character, not a further possibility layered onto inert geometry.

The strongest challenge to the converse asks whether structure could be fully present yet change still foreclosed. Four objections raise this question: at the level of frozen worlds, dispositional masking, definitional guarantees, and the attempt to specify a foreclosing constraint without contradiction. Each fails in a different way.

*The frozen-world objection* ([§2.4.11](<2.4.11 The Frozen-World Test.md>)) and *the masking objection* ([§2.4.12](<2.4.12 The Masking Test.md>)) press the strongest forms of this concern at the level of dedicated subsections. Both fail in the same way: the Conditions as defined require causal structure, and a *world* stripped of that structure does not instantiate T, S, and Φ in a paralyzed mode; it fails to instantiate them at all.

*The trivialization concern.* If the Conditions are defined causally, of course their instantiation entails causal possibility. But the causal dimensions were not inserted to guarantee the result. They were established in [§1.4](<1.4 Three Conditions.md>) because without them the Conditions fail to do what they are supposed to do.

A *Temporality* without causal directionality does not host succession. A *Spatiality* without traversability does not host distinction. A *Physicality* without causal persistence does not host exchange. The definitions track what the Conditions structurally require. That their instantiation generates change-possibility is a consequence of what they are, not of how they were defined.

*Can a foreclosing constraint be specified without contradiction?* The circularity charge can be made precise, and precisely answered. Suppose T, S, and Φ are genuinely instantiated (causally structured succession obtains, relational extension obtains, causal persistence obtains) but ◇C is false: no change is possible. What structural feature of such a world forecloses change?

The options are exhaustive. Either the foreclosure removes a causal dimension from one of the Conditions (directedness from succession, traversability from extension, causal connection from persistence) in which case the Condition is no longer instantiated as defined and the antecedent is false.

Or the foreclosure adds an external constraint that blocks change despite full instantiation of the Conditions. But any such constraint, fully unpacked, forecloses causally structured succession among states of a persisting subject across a relational interval, which is the negation of T∧S∧Φ under a different description. A constraint that leaves T, S, and Φ intact while blocking what their instantiation structurally generates asserts and denies the same structural fact. It is like asking for a triangle that both has and lacks three sides under the same specification: not a difficult triangle but a contradictory one. No coherent specification of the foreclosing constraint survives: every candidate either removes a causal dimension (falsifying the antecedent) or restates the negation of T∧S∧Φ (contradicting the supposition). The supposition is not merely false. It is incoherent.

*Modality at the primitive level.* The strongest version of the circularity charge presses one level deeper: that to say *causality is what causal relata are* smuggles modality in at a deeper level. Every framework needs primitives. This one's primitive is that causal structure is irreducibly causal, not a modal overlay on something non-causal underneath. And this primitive is uniquely self-supporting: denying it is itself a causal act, performed through the causal structure being denied. Any attempt to contest the claim already relies on the relation it contests.

The critic who calls the proof circular must transition from not-seeing-circularity to claiming it (T), distinguish the premise from the accusation (S), and persist as the same thinker throughout (Φ). The charge is delivered on the structure it contests.

*Result.* ◇C and T∧S∧Φ are two descriptions of the same structural ground. There is no gap between them. The biconditional **◇C ↔ (T∧S∧Φ)** is established, and it carries the scope [§2.4.5](<2.4.5 Forward Conditional.md>) assigns the third Condition: the Φ-conjunct stands conditional on the causal reading of exchange, defended at [§2.4.8](<2.4.8 Exchange Requires Physicality.md>) and secured against the Humean alternative at [§4.1.4](<4.1.4 Humean Contingency.md>).

Three pieces are now in hand and should be kept distinct on the path to the chapter-level conclusion. The Cartesian certainty of change's possibility ([§2.2](<2.2 Cartesian Certainty.md>)) grants ◇C as a proposition. The forward conditional ◇C → (T∧S∧Φ), established at §[§2.4.5](<2.4.5 Forward Conditional.md>)–2.4.9, is the left-to-right direction of the biconditional; modus ponens on that certainty and the forward conditional yields T∧S∧Φ. The converse T∧S∧Φ → ◇C (the right-to-left direction) closes the biconditional reading ◇C ↔ (T∧S∧Φ). Combined with the necessity of the conditional ([§2.4.9](<2.4.9 Forward Conditional Necessity.md>)) and the Necessary Possibility of Change □◇C ([§2.3](<2.3 Necessary Possibility of Change.md>)), the unconditional □(T∧S∧Φ) follows at the chapter level. What remains (the unconditional necessity of Nature) is the final declaration at [§2.8.5](<2.8.5 Necessity of Nature.md>), which combines the biconditional, the chapter's modal-invariance results ([§2.3](<2.3 Necessary Possibility of Change.md>), supplemented by the ∅ Reductio at [§2.7.4](<2.7.4 Preclusion Boundary.md>)), and the structural identity of T∧S∧Φ with Nature ([§2.6.10](<2.6.10 Triconditional Identity.md>)). Establishing the converse direction closes the biconditional; the unconditional theorem itself follows only at [§2.8.5](<2.8.5 Necessity of Nature.md>).[^2-4-10-sufficiency-of-structure-ch4]

[^2-4-10-sufficiency-of-structure-ch4]: The converse (that structure suffices for change-possibility) is engaged in Chapter 4: Sider's structuralism ([§4.4.7](<4.4.7 Sider's Structuralism.md>)), structural realism ([§4.3.9](<4.3.9 Structural Realism.md>)), Tegmark's mathematical universe ([§4.3.7](<4.3.7 Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.md>)), the changeless ground ([§4.2.1](<4.2.1 The Changeless Ground.md>)), and the block universe ([§4.2.6](<4.2.6 Block Universe.md>)).


---

← [2.4.9 Forward Conditional Necessity](<2.4.9 Forward Conditional Necessity.md>) | [2.4.11 The Frozen-World Test](<2.4.11 The Frozen-World Test.md>) →
