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

[BillK]

On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 at 23:30, efc--- via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Best regards, Daniel
> _______________________________________________
>


I asked the new Grok 3 AI to discuss the main objections to Eternalism.
The analysis seemed pretty comprehensive to me.
The block time supporters appear to be rejecting "common sense" and going
down the path of "words mean whatever I want them to mean".
BillK


Grok 3 -
Eternalism is a philosophical theory of time that asserts all moments—past,
present, and future—are equally real, forming a four-dimensional "block
universe" where time does not flow but exists as a static continuum. This
view contrasts with presentism, which claims only the present is real, and
has gained traction due to its alignment with Einstein’s theory of
relativity. However, eternalism faces several significant philosophical
objections, rooted in its implications for human experience, free will,
change, morality, and language. Below, I explore these objections in detail.

---

### 1. Conflict with Our Subjective Experience of Time

One of the most immediate objections to eternalism is that it clashes with
how we perceive time. Humans experience time as a dynamic process, where
the present feels uniquely real, the past is fixed and gone, and the future
remains open.

- **The Specialness of the Present**: In our daily lives, the present
moment stands out as the locus of action and awareness. Eternalism,
however, denies any privileged status to the present, treating all moments
as equally real. This flattening of temporal distinctions feels at odds
with our intuition that "now" is fundamentally different from "then" or
"later."

- **The Illusion of Flow**: Eternalism posits that the apparent flow of
time is an illusion, arising from our limited perspective within the block
universe. Critics argue that this fails to explain why the illusion of
temporal passage is so persistent and universal across human experience. If
time is truly static, why do we consistently perceive it as moving forward?

This objection suggests that eternalism struggles to bridge the gap between
its abstract framework and the lived reality of temporal experience,
lending intuitive support to presentism instead.

---

### 2. Implications for Free Will

Eternalism’s claim that the future is as real as the past raises concerns
about free will, a cornerstone of human agency.

- **A Fixed Future and Determinism**: If the future already exists in the
block universe, it might imply that all events—including our choices—are
predetermined. For example, if your decision tomorrow is already etched
into spacetime, it could seem that you lack the freedom to choose
otherwise, aligning eternalism with a deterministic worldview.

- **Free Will Under Threat**: Philosophers distinguish between
compatibilist free will (where freedom is consistent with determinism) and
libertarian free will (which requires genuine indeterminism). While
compatibilists might argue that we’re free as long as our actions stem from
our own desires, libertarians contend that a fixed future undermines the
ability to do otherwise, a key requirement for true freedom.

Critics assert that eternalism’s fixed timeline challenges our sense of
autonomy, making it difficult to reconcile with the intuitive belief that
we shape our destinies through free choices.

---

### 3. Accounting for Change

Change is a hallmark of reality—objects move, seasons shift, and people
grow older. Eternalism’s static model of time, however, prompts questions
about how it accommodates this phenomenon.

- **Change as Static Variation**: In the block universe, change is
represented as differences between time slices. A tree growing taller, for
instance, is depicted as a series of static states—seedling at one moment,
sapling at another—all coexisting eternally. Critics argue that this
reduces change to a mere juxtaposition of states rather than a dynamic
process of becoming.

- **Intuitive Disconnect**: Our experience of change involves things
happening—events unfolding in a way that feels active and fluid.
Eternalism’s portrayal of change as a fixed pattern across spacetime can
seem artificial, failing to capture the vitality of transformation as we
know it.

This objection highlights a tension between eternalism’s theoretical
elegance and the intuitive richness of change in everyday life.

---

### 4. Moral and Ethical Implications

The fixed nature of time in eternalism also raises ethical concerns,
particularly about responsibility and accountability.

- **Responsibility in a Determined World**: If the future is already real,
it might appear that our actions are inevitable, potentially eroding the
basis for moral responsibility. Why blame someone for a wrong they were
always going to commit? This could weaken concepts like justice, praise,
and blame, which depend on the assumption that people control their
behavior.

- **Fatalism vs. Agency**: Eternalism risks being interpreted as
fatalistic—suggesting that effort is pointless because outcomes are set.
Eternalists might counter that our actions still contribute causally to the
block’s structure, but critics argue this doesn’t fully restore the sense
of agency essential to ethical life.

This objection challenges eternalism to explain how moral frameworks remain
meaningful if time’s entirety is unchangeable.

---

### 5. Issues with the Philosophy of Language

Finally, eternalism complicates how we use language to talk about time,
especially regarding future events.

- **Truth Values of Future Statements**: In presentism, a statement like
"It will rain tomorrow" lacks a truth value until tomorrow arrives,
reflecting the future’s unreality. In eternalism, however, the future
exists now, so such statements could already be true or false. This shift
disrupts our intuitive sense that the future is contingent and open to
influence.

- **Future Contingents**: If tomorrow’s rain is already fixed in the block
universe, the statement "It will rain" might seem less like a prediction
and more like a report of an existing fact. Critics argue this undermines
the openness we associate with future possibilities, clashing with how
language expresses uncertainty and potential.

This linguistic objection questions whether eternalism aligns with the
semantics of temporal discourse, particularly our habit of treating the
future as undecided.

---

### Conclusion

Eternalism offers a compelling, physics-backed vision of time as a unified,
unchanging whole. Yet, it faces robust philosophical objections:

1. It conflicts with our experience of time as flowing and present-centered.
2. It threatens free will by suggesting a predetermined future.
3. It redefines change in a way that feels static and unintuitive.
4. It complicates moral responsibility in a fixed temporal landscape.
5. It challenges the way we use language to describe an open future.

While eternalists can respond—perhaps by reinterpreting experience,
embracing compatibilism, or adjusting linguistic frameworks—these
objections underscore the difficulty of aligning eternalism with human
intuition and practice. The debate over eternalism thus remains a rich
intersection of metaphysics, psychology, and ethics, probing the nature of
time and our place within it.
----------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250303/76d68ee0/attachment.htm>