[ExI] Is there an alternative to the block time view?

[efc at disroot.org]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2025, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote:

> (Splitting off this topic from a previous thread)
>
>       >       Do you think this is true? And since I am not a physicist, I make no claim, but
>       >       just wanted to bring this to your attention.
>       >
>       > It is true they there remains a consistent notion of causality embedded within
>       > the 4D structure of spacetime, but it is wrong when it says relativity remains
>       > consistent with an objective passage of time.
>       >
>       > See this for a more detailed explanation of why relativity is incompatible
>       > with a passage of time: https://philpapers.org/rec/PETITA
>
>       I'm sorry, but I am not skilled enough and do not have time enough to argue this
>       point. When it comes to relativity, causality and the passage of time, I have to
>       let other list members who are way more skilled physicists than I am step in and
>       continue the discussion from here. I can only say that based on what I see, it
>       does not seem like it is settled.
> 
> It has been argued that Einstein's relativity rules out two conceptions of time found in the philosophy of time. Those three
> possibilities are:
>  *  presentism (only a single point in time, the present, is real, past and future states are non-existent and have no reality).
>  *  possibilism (the past and present are real, but the future is undetermined and not set in stone. Once the present catches up to a
>     future time, it then becomes part of the eternal static past).
>  *  eternalism (a.k.a. "block time", all points in time, past, present, and future, are equally real. There is no objective present,
>     nor any objective flow of time. "present" is a word only with local, indexical meaning, like the word "here")
> See diagram: https://cdn.alwaysasking.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Three-Conceptions-of-Time.png
> 
> According to these arguments, relativity (even just special relativity) rules out presentism and possibilism, and establishes
> eternalism as the correct theory in the philosophy of time.

I'm hesitant to get into this. I'm not familiar enough with the topic which
means that in order for me to do you justice, I would probably have to spend
a lot time on it, and that would reduce my replies to a snails pace.

Therefore, I can only conclude, that the question seems far from settled, based
on a quick glance on the wikipedia page.

One fun quote I found:

"Avshalom Elitzur vehemently rejects the block universe interpretation of time.
At the Time in Cosmology conference, held at the Perimeter Institute for
Theoretical Physics in 2016, Elitzur said: "I’m sick and tired of this block
universe, ... I don’t think that next Thursday has the same footing as this
Thursday. The future does not exist. It does not! Ontologically, it’s not
there."[33] Elitzur and Shahar Dolev argue that quantum mechanical experiments
such as the Quantum Liar[34] and the evaporation of black holes[35] challenge
the mainstream block universe model, and support the existence of an objective
passage of time. Elitzur and Dolev believe that an objective passage of time and
relativity can be reconciled, and that it would resolve many of the issues with
the block universe and the conflict between relativity and quantum
mechanics.[36] Additionally, Elitzur and Dolev believe that certain quantum
mechanical experiments provide evidence of apparently inconsistent histories,
and that spacetime itself may therefore be subject to change affecting entire
histories.[37]"

But I am in no position to judge at the moment, so I'm afraid I have to
disappoint you by remaining agnostic on the philosophical issues, while being
firmly oriented towards time as we know it, in my every day life. ;)

Best regards, 
Daniel