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

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 10:31 AM BillK via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> 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
>

Hi Bill,

Thanks for Sharing.

If you ask an AI to give you all the objections, it will do so.

What does Grok say when you ask it, instead, to give you all the compelling
reasons why physicists, by and large, accept the block-time view (despite
it going against what we all think and perceive)?

Jason


>
>
> 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.
> ----------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20250303/73483169/attachment.htm>