(Al-Kahlili, 2002)
You can also download and read or share a .pdf of the complete text of this essay by scrolling down to the bottom of this post and clicking on the Download tab.
Against the Physicists #3: The Reality of Temporal Passage and the Falsity of Block Universe Eternalism
1. Introduction
Contemporary eternalism, grounded in Minkowski spacetime and Einstein special relativity, claims that temporal passage is a psychological projection rather than an objective feature of reality. This paper argues that eternalism faces insurmountable difficulties: it conflates mathematical models with ontology, cannot account for thermodynamic asymmetry, and leads to a reductio that eliminates all physical reality, and requires self-refuting arguments. By examining the logical structure of eternalist reasoning, its empirical inadequacies, and its phenomenological failures, we demonstrate that temporal passage—the distinction between past, present, and future—represents an irreducible feature of physical reality that any adequate metaphysics must accommodate.
2. The Eternalist Challenge
Adrian Bardon’s formulation of eternalism exemplifies a widespread position in contemporary philosophy of physics: the passage of time is a cognitive projection that humans impose on a fundamentally tenseless reality (Bardon, 2013; Barbour, 2001). Drawing on Einstein’s special relativity and the Minkowski spacetime formalism, eternalists argue that all events—past, present, and future—exist equally in a four-dimensional “block universe.” On this view, the felt distinction between what was, what is, and what will be, reflects nothing more than perspectival features of consciousness, analogous to spatial indexicals like “here” and “there” (Putnam, 1967; Smart, 1949).
This eternalist picture has achieved near-hegemonic status in philosophy of physics, treated as the inevitable consequence of accepting relativity theory’s empirical success. Yet this consensus rests on questionable inferences from physics to metaphysics, ignores crucial empirical phenomena like thermodynamic asymmetry, and, when examined carefully, leads to a reductio ad absurdum that eliminates not merely temporal passage, but all physical reality.
In this essay, we present and defend a systematic defense of temporal realism—the view that temporal passage, becoming, and the ontological distinction between past, present, and future are objective features of the physical world. The argument proceeds in five stages. First, we demonstrate that eternalism conflates mathematical representations with ontology, treating coordinate systems as metaphysical revelations. Second, we argue that thermodynamic asymmetry provides empirical evidence for objective temporal direction incompatible with block universe metaphysics. Third, we develop a reductio showing that eternalist reasoning, applied consistently, eliminates space, matter, and all physical reality. Fourth, we address presentist alternatives showing compatibility with relativity. Fifth and finally, we examine phenomenological and evolutionary considerations demonstrating that conscious experience of temporal passage tracks objective features of reality rather than projecting illusions.
3. The Map-Territory Confusion: Mathematical Models versus Ontology
3.1 Minkowski Spacetime as Coordinate System
The foundational move in eternalist argumentation involves citing Minkowski spacetime as though it provided direct ontological insight into reality’s temporal structure. Minkowski demonstrated that special relativity could be elegantly formulated using four-dimensional geometric objects where spatial and temporal coordinates enter symmetrically in interval calculations (Minkowski, 1908). This mathematical representation proved enormously fruitful for physics, enabling clear formulation of relativistic mechanics and field theory.
However, mathematical elegance does not entail ontological truth. Minkowski spacetime represents a coordinate system—a human artifact designed for making predictions and calculations. It is not a “God’s-eye view” revealing that past, present, and future possess equal ontological status. As Savitt emphasizes, the four-dimensional formalism is precisely designed to be neutral on questions of temporal ontology, treating all temporal locations symmetrically for purposes of calculation (Savitt, 2006).
The confusion between representation and reality exemplifies what Cartwright calls the “vending machine” view of scientific theories—the assumption that theories simply “vend” truths about unobservable reality when we insert empirical data (Cartwright, 1983). Yet theories systematically underdetermine ontology. Newtonian mechanics can be formulated either with absolute space and time (Newton’s substantivalism) or with only relative motions and durations (Leibnizian relationalism). The mathematical formalism does not decide between these metaphysical pictures.
Similarly, Minkowski spacetime’s symmetrical treatment of temporal and spatial coordinates reflects methodological choices about how to represent relativistic phenomena, not discoveries about time’s fundamental nature. The formalism deliberately abstracts from indexical notions like “now” because no coordinate system can privilege one observer’s present without violating Lorentz covariance. But this methodological agnosticism about indexicals does not constitute a metaphysical discovery that indexical temporal facts do not exist.
3.2 Physics as Agnostic, Not Eliminativist
Crucially, Einstein special relativity’s mathematical structure neither affirms nor denies temporal passage. The theory makes predictions about observable quantities—proper times along worldlines, causal structure determined by light cones, relativistic effects like time dilation—without committing to claims about which events are “happening now” in any absolute sense.
This agnosticism reflects an important feature of physical theories: they answer specific empirical questions while remaining deliberately silent on others. Statistical mechanics explains thermodynamic behavior without specifying whether probabilities are epistemic or ontic. Quantum mechanics predicts measurement outcomes without committing to interpretations about wavefunction ontology. Special relativity describes spatiotemporal relations without settling questions about temporal becoming.
Treating this agnosticism as endorsement of eternalism commits what Sklar calls the “equation fallacy”—reading metaphysical conclusions directly from mathematical formalisms designed to be metaphysically neutral (Sklar, 1985). If physics is silent about temporal passage, we cannot cite physics as disproving temporal passage any more than we can cite it as proving temporal passage. The metaphysical question remains open, requiring philosophical arguments beyond the physics itself.
3.3 Thermodynamic Asymmetry and the Reality of Temporal Direction
The Arrow of Entropy
If the block universe picture captured the whole truth about time, the universe should exhibit perfect time-reversal symmetry at macroscopic scales. Every process running forward should have a time-reversed counterpart running backward with equal probability. Yet this prediction manifestly fails. The universe displays pervasive temporal asymmetry captured in the Second Law of Thermodynamics: entropy increases in all closed natural systems.
This thermodynamic arrow manifests throughout physical reality:
- Coffee spontaneously cools but never spontaneously heats.
- Eggs break when dropped, but shattered eggs never spontaneously reassemble.
- Organisms age and eventually die but never “youthen.”
- Stars radiate energy, cooling from billions of degrees to eventual stellar corpses.
- The cosmic microwave background has cooled from 3000K at decoupling to 2.7K today.
These asymmetries are not merely apparent or perspectival. They reflect objective facts about physical possibility and impossibility. While the fundamental laws of physics (classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism) are time-reversal symmetric, their macroscopic realizations are not. This asymmetry requires explanation.
The Low-Entropy Boundary Condition
The standard explanation appeals to special boundary conditions: the universe began in an extraordinarily low-entropy state at the Big Bang (Penrose, 1989; Carroll, 2010). Given this initial condition, the Second Law emerges statistically—systems evolve toward higher-entropy states because such states vastly outnumber low-entropy states in phase space.
However, this explanation fits poorly with block universe eternalism. If all temporal locations exist equally in the block, why should one temporal boundary (the Big Bang) possess special low-entropy conditions while the other boundary does not? Within the block, the distinction between “initial” and “final” conditions is merely conventional—a choice of temporal orientation with no ontological significance.
Price recognizes this tension (Price, 1996), arguing that consistency requires accepting either:
A past-future asymmetric universe (accepting that one temporal boundary genuinely differs from the other),
or
A symmetric universe requiring low-entropy boundary conditions at both temporal boundaries.
The second option leads to what Gold (1962) called “the Gold universe”—a cosmos that expands from a low-entropy Big Bang, reaches maximum entropy at some midpoint, then recontracts toward a low-entropy Big Crunch, with the thermodynamic arrow reversing at the midpoint. Yet this scenario contradicts observation: we see no evidence of entropy decrease in distant regions of the universe, and the cosmos appears to be expanding indefinitely rather than recontracting.
The first option—accepting genuine past-future asymmetry—undermines block universe metaphysics. If the temporal boundaries genuinely differ in their physical properties (one low-entropy, one high-entropy), this marks an objective physical distinction between past-direction and future-direction. The universe itself possesses an intrinsic temporal arrow independent of conscious perspective or indexical reference.
Becoming and Entropy Production
The thermodynamic arrow reflects not merely a gradient in entropy but an ongoing process of entropy production. New entropy is continually generated through irreversible processes: energy dissipation, quantum decoherence, information-theoretic irreversibility. These processes literally create new physical facts—facts about entropy distributions that did not exist at earlier times.
This ongoing creation of new entropy states constitutes objective becoming. At time t₁, certain entropy configurations exist; at time t₂ > t₁, additional entropy configurations exist that did not exist at t₁. The physical content of reality expands temporally through irreversible processes. This expansion represents genuine ontological addition—new facts joining the sum total of what exists.
Block universe eternalism cannot accommodate this ontological addition. In the block, all facts about entropy distributions at all times exist equally. There is no sense in which facts at later times are “added to” facts at earlier times. Yet this is precisely what thermodynamic processes manifest: the ongoing production of new physical states through irreversible evolution.
3.4 The Reductio: Eliminating Everything
The Parallel Arguments Against Space, Matter, and Change
The logical structure of eternalist reasoning about time can be applied with equal force to eliminate space, matter, energy, and change itself. This reductio ad absurdum reveals that eternalist arguments, pursued consistently, destroy physical realism entirely.
Consider the parallel arguments:
Against Spatial Reality: Modern physics treats spacetime as a unified four-dimensional manifold where spatial and temporal coordinates enter symmetrically. Non-local quantum correlations demonstrate that spatial separation between entangled particles does not prevent instantaneous correlations in measurement outcomes. Quantum field theory describes fields defined over all of space simultaneously, with local particle concepts emerging only in certain limits. If we follow eternalist reasoning—“physics describes reality as it truly is, and physics treats space and time symmetrically, therefore spatial separation is no more fundamental than temporal separation”—we should conclude that spatial distinctions are illusory projections. The difference between “here” and “there” becomes merely indexical, no more real than the distinction between “now” and “then.”
Against Material Reality: Quantum field theory replaces classical particles with field excitations. There are no persistent, localized material objects—only patterns of quantum field activity. The table before you consists of electromagnetic and strong-force field configurations that happen to maintain relative stability. Following eternalist logic: “Physics shows that what we call ‘matter’ is really just field patterns, therefore material objects as commonly conceived are illusions. Tables, chairs, and your body are not really distinct, persistent things but convenient fictions we project onto underlying field dynamics.”
Against Energy: General relativity reveals that energy is not globally well-defined. No covariant energy-momentum tensor exists for gravitational fields. In cosmological spacetimes, energy conservation fails. Quantum gravity approaches suggest energy may not be a fundamental concept at all. Eternalist reasoning: “Physics shows energy is not fundamental, therefore energy is an illusion. Conservation laws are approximations, and the very notion of ‘stuff that does things’ is a projection.”
Against Change and Process: All dynamical laws can be reformulated as timeless constraints on configuration space. The Wheeler-DeWitt equation in quantum gravity is timeless, describing static quantum states on superspace. The Page-Wootters mechanism shows how time evolution can emerge from entanglement in fundamentally timeless quantum states. Eternalist reasoning: “Physics can be formulated timelessly, therefore change itself is illusory. Nothing actually happens—there is only a static mathematical structure that we perspectivally experience as dynamic.”
The Parmenidean Collapse
Applied consistently, eternalist reasoning leads to what might be called “the Parmenidean collapse”: the reduction of all physical reality to a single, unchanging, undifferentiated mathematical object. Time is eliminated, but so are space, matter, energy, locality, causation, and change. We are left with pure Being—Parmenides’s eternal, unchanging One—reinterpreted as a timeless mathematical structure.
At this point, physical realism—the view that physics describes a mind-independent physical world—has been abandoned entirely. What “exists” is just an abstract mathematical object, with all the rich diversity of physical phenomena reduced to mere appearance or projection. This is not physics but instead a particularly austere form of metaphysical idealism dressed up in scientific vocabulary.
Most physicists implicitly reject this conclusion. They treat spatially separated objects as genuinely distinct, material processes as real, energy as something that does things, and change as genuinely occurring. Yet if their arguments against temporal passage are valid, these commitments become incoherent. The same reasoning that eliminates time eliminates everything else.
4. Gisin’s Response: Starting From Manifest Reality
Nicolas Gisin proposes inverting the dialectic (Gisin, 2020). Rather than starting with timeless mathematical physics and concluding that time is illusory, we should start with the manifest reality of change, indeterminism, and becoming, then conclude that our mathematical frameworks require revision.
This methodological reversal has substantial merit. Our certainty that change occurs, that decisions are made, that quantum measurements have definite outcomes—these experiential certainties exceed our certainty about the metaphysical implications of current physical theories. Descartes’s methodological doubt could question the external world’s existence but not the thinking subject’s temporal experience. I might doubt whether physical objects exist, but I cannot coherently doubt that thoughts succeed one another temporally or that deliberation unfolds as a process.
If our most certain knowledge concerns temporal becoming, and our theoretical frameworks seem to eliminate it, then the frameworks likely need adjustment rather than our most basic experiential certainties being dismissed as illusions. Gisin proposes that physics should be reformulated using intuitionistic mathematics—mathematical structures that themselves incorporate temporal unfolding and becoming rather than treating completed infinities timelessly (Gisin, 2020).
Whether or not Gisin’s specific program succeeds, his methodological point stands: when theoretical frameworks conflict with manifest phenomena, we should question the frameworks rather than declaring phenomena illusory. The reductio demonstrates that eternalist reasoning, pursued to its conclusion, eliminates everything physical. Since most physicists reject this conclusion, they should reject the reasoning that leads to it.
5. Presentism and Relativity: Compatibility After All
5.1 The Standard Objection
The standard objection to presentism—the view that only present events exist—appeals to relativity of simultaneity. Since special relativity denies absolute simultaneity, there can be no universal “now” picking out all and only the presently existing events. Different observers in relative motion disagree about which distant events are simultaneous with their present moment. If presentism requires a universal present, and relativity denies universal simultaneity, then relativity refutes presentism.
This objection, articulated influentially by Rietdijk and Putnam, assumes that presentism requires observationally accessible absolute simultaneity (Rietdijk,1966; Putnam, 1967). However, this assumption can be challenged in multiple ways.
5.2 Unobservable Absolute Simultaneity
Presentism can accommodate frame-dependent simultaneity relations while maintaining that one frame (though unidentifiable from within spacetime) represents absolute simultaneity. The philosophical position does not require that we can operationally determine which frame is privileged—only that one exists.
Stein demonstrates that the Rietdijk-Putnam argument fails (Stein, 1991). They argue that if event E is simultaneous with my present in my frame, and event F is simultaneous with E in another frame, then F is simultaneous with my present. But this reasoning commits a fallacy: “simultaneous in frame X” is not a transitive relation across frames. The conclusion requires absolute simultaneity, which is precisely what they aimed to prove, making the argument circular.
Moreover, the existence of unobservable but physically real structures has ample precedent in physics. The gauge potentials in quantum mechanics possess physical effects (Aharonov-Bohm) despite being gauge-dependent. The global topological structure of spacetime manifests in physical phenomena even though it cannot be determined from local measurements. Similarly, an absolute but unobservable foliation of spacetime into spacelike hypersurfaces representing successive “presents” remains logically consistent with relativistic physics.
5.3 Lorentz Ether Interpretation
The Lorentz ether interpretation of special relativity provides an existence proof for this consistency. This interpretation, developed by Lorentz (Bell, 1987), maintains absolute simultaneity determined by a privileged reference frame (the “ether frame”) while producing all the same empirical predictions as Einstein’s interpretation. The ether frame is dynamically inaccessible—no local experiment can determine one’s motion relative to it—but it nonetheless exists, providing an absolute standard of simultaneity.
Einstein’s interpretation became standard because it treats all inertial frames equally, reflecting elegant symmetry principles. But this symmetry reflects methodological choices about which frames to treat as equivalent for purposes of formulating physical laws, not metaphysical discoveries about whether absolute simultaneity exists. The empirical equivalence of Einstein and Lorentz interpretations demonstrates that relativity’s empirical content underdetermines whether absolute simultaneity exists.
5.4 Discrete Quantum Spacetime
Approaches to quantum gravity provide additional resources for presentist metaphysics. Causal set theory (Sorkin, 1991) models spacetime as a discrete set of events with a fundamental causal order. This discrete structure naturally provides a preferred foliation into spacelike hypersurfaces—successive “moments” of the causal set’s growth. Similarly, loop quantum gravity and causal dynamical triangulations suggest that spacetime geometry at Planck scales is fundamentally discrete and possesses preferred temporal structure tied to the evolution of geometry itself (Rovelli, 2004).
These quantum gravity approaches suggest that the continuous, smooth spacetime of general relativity emerges as an approximation at large scales, with fundamental discreteness and preferred temporal structure characterizing the microscopic theory. If these approaches prove correct, presentism gains natural physical grounding in the preferred temporal structure of quantum spacetime.
6. The Growing Block Universe
An alternative to strict presentism accepts that past events exist while future events do not, yielding the “growing block universe” model (Tooley, 1997; Forrest, 2004). On this view, reality consists of all past and present events, with new events being continually added at the “edge” of the block as time passes. The future is genuinely open—it does not yet exist—while the past is fixed.
The growing block model accommodates special relativity by allowing the “growing edge”to be a thick, frame-dependent boundary rather than a sharp spacelike hypersurface. Different observers disagree about which events currently occupy the boundary, but all agree that some events are in the definite past, others in the definite future, and an intermediate region occupies the boundary. This frame-dependent growing edge preserves the core presentist insight—that past, present, and future are ontologically distinct—while accommodating relativistic relativity of simultaneity.
6.1 Phenomenological and Evolutionary Considerations
The Structure of Conscious Temporality
Conscious experience exhibits fundamental temporal asymmetries that resist eliminativist treatment. Memory, perception, and anticipation differ qualitatively and functionally in ways that track objective past-present-future distinctions.
Memory provides access to past events through traces in the present. Remembering involves reconstructing past experiences from stored information, with memories becoming less detailed and more subject to distortion as time passes. Memory is fundamentally retrospective and fallible.
Perception provides access to present events through current sensory stimulation. Perceptual experience arises from immediate causal interaction with the environment, delivering information about the here-and-now with high fidelity and detail. Perception is fundamentally contemporaneous and (relatively) accurate.
Anticipation provides access to future possibilities through imagination and prediction. Anticipating involves projecting possible scenarios based on current knowledge and expectations, with uncertainty increasing for more distant future events. Anticipation is fundamentally prospective and indeterminate.
These experiential asymmetries are not arbitrary projections but systematically track objective temporal relations. We remember the past because causal influences propagate forward in time, leaving traces in present brain states. We perceive the present because perceptual systems respond to concurrent environmental stimulation. We anticipate the future because causal processes are not deterministic, leaving the future genuinely open to multiple possibilities.
Temporal Binding and the Specious Present
Neuroscientific research reveals that conscious experience of the present involves active temporal binding—the integration of sensory inputs arriving at slightly different times into unified percepts. The brain constructs a “specious present” spanning approximately 80-100 milliseconds, within which events are experienced as simultaneous despite slight temporal separations (Pöppel, 1997; Eagleman, 2008).
This temporal binding reflects neural processing that orders and integrates temporally separated events. The famous Libet experiments show that conscious awareness of voluntary actions lags behind neural activity initiating those actions by several hundred milliseconds (Libet et al., 1983). The flash-lag illusion demonstrates that the visual system predictively compensates for processing delays, positioning moving objects where they will be rather than where they were when the light reached the retina (Nijhawan, 1994).
These phenomena reveal that conscious experience involves sophisticated temporal processing—ordering events, binding them into unified presents, and projecting agency backward in time. If the physical world were genuinely static, this elaborate temporal processing would be gratuitous. Natural selection shapes cognitive systems to detect real features of the environment. The fact that brains evolved sophisticated mechanisms for temporal discrimination, prediction, and sequencing strongly suggests that temporal structure—including the difference between past and future—characterizes objective reality.
The Evolutionary Argument for Temporal Realism
The evolutionary argument can be formulated precisely:
(1) Natural selection favors cognitive systems that accurately represent fitness-relevant features of the environment.
(2) Temporal structure (past-present-future distinction, temporal ordering, change) is fitness-relevant.
(3) Therefore, natural selection favors cognitive systems that accurately represent temporal structure.
(4) Our cognitive systems systematically represent time as involving passage, becoming, and past-present-future distinction.
(5) Therefore, this representation likely tracks objective temporal structure.
The crucial premise is (1): evolution favors accuracy about features that matter for survival and reproduction. This premise admits exceptions—evolved systems sometimes involve useful fictions (like perceiving solidity in mostly-empty atomic structures). However, the exceptions involve trade-offs between accuracy and computational efficiency. Where detection of real features can be achieved with available resources, evolution favors accuracy.
Temporal structure satisfies this condition. Detecting temporal order, distinguishing past from future, responding differently to actual versus potential threats—these capacities require no exotic resources beyond what neural systems already possess. If temporal passage were illusory, evolution would have no reason to build elaborate cognitive machinery that experiences passage so vividly. The parsimony of the evolutionary explanation supports temporal realism: we experience passage because passage is real, and detecting it matters for fitness.
6.2 The Self-Refutation of Eliminativism
The Performative Contradiction
Eternalist arguments against temporal passage contain a subtle but fatal self-refutation. Consider Bardon’s typical formulation: “The passage of time is a psychological projection we impose on tenseless reality.”
This claim asserts that at some earlier time, people believed in temporal passage, but now, having learned physics, we understand that this belief was mistaken. The argument essentially states: “I used to believe X, but I came to believe not-X; this change in belief states demonstrates that my new belief (not-X) is correct.”
But this argument presupposes the very temporal becoming it denies. The transition from believing X to believing not-X is itself a temporal process—an example of real change occurring over time. If there were genuinely no temporal passage, there could be no such thing as “coming to realize” anything, because realizations are processes extended in time, involving earlier states of ignorance and later states of knowledge.
More fundamentally, any argument unfolds temporally. Premises are grasped, inferences are drawn, conclusions are reached—these cognitive acts possess irreducible temporal structure. One cannot simultaneously grasp all parts of an argument; reasoning proceeds step-by-step, premise-by-premise, through time. The very possibility of rational thought requires temporal becoming.
7. The Priority of Temporal Experience
Eternalism treats temporal experience as derivative and potentially illusory while treating theoretical physics as foundational and revealing. But this epistemic ordering is backwards. Our certainty about temporal experience exceeds our certainty about any physical theory.
Descartes’s method of doubt established that conscious experience itself cannot be doubted without performative contradiction. “I think, therefore I am” remains certain even if all beliefs about external reality are false. But thinking is an irreducibly temporal process. Thoughts succeed one another; deliberation unfolds; doubts arise and are resolved. Temporal becoming characterizes the structure of consciousness itself.
Physical theories, by contrast, are fallible constructions subject to revision. Newtonian mechanics seemed certain for two centuries before being superseded. Classical field theory appeared foundational before quantum mechanics. Our current theories will likely be superseded by future developments. Given this history, treating contemporary physics as metaphysically dispositive about temporal reality while dismissing universal temporal experience as illusion inverts proper epistemic priorities.
The correct ordering recognizes temporal experience as foundational and physical theories as requiring consistency with it. If theories seem to eliminate temporal passage, we should question whether we have correctly interpreted the theories’ ontological implications rather than dismissing experience as illusory.
7.1 The Cartesian Certainty of Temporal Process
The phenomenological structure of temporal experience possesses a kind of Cartesian certainty that physical theories lack. We may doubt whether physical objects exist external to my mind. We may doubt whether other minds exist. We may even doubt whether my memories accurately represent past events. But we cannot coherently doubt that deliberation is occurring, that this thought follows that thought, that decision-making unfolds as a process.
This certainty establishes temporal becoming as a datum that adequate metaphysics must accommodate rather than explain away. Any theory denying temporal passage contradicts the most certain knowledge we possess—direct awareness of process and change in our own consciousness.
7.2 Addressing Objections and Alternative Positions
Objection 1: Degrees of Reality.
Some eternalists might concede the reductio but embrace a layered ontology where fundamental reality (the timeless mathematical structure) differs from emergent reality (the temporal, spatial, material world of experience). On this view, time is “real” at the emergent level though not fundamental—analogous to how temperature is real but emergent from underlying molecular motion.
Response.
This move faces several problems.
First, it requires an account of emergence explaining how temporal properties arise from fundamentally atemporal structures. But emergence typically involves temporal processes—lower-level entities giving rise to higher-level patterns over time. If the fundamental level is atemporal, standard emergence relations cannot apply.
Second, the analogy to thermodynamic properties fails. Temperature reduces to mean molecular kinetic energy; we understand precisely how molecular motion gives rise to temperature. No comparable reduction exists for temporal passage. We have no account of how atemporal structures generate genuine temporal becoming rather than merely the illusion of becoming.
Third, this response concedes that our lived experience involves genuine temporal passage while denying that passage characterizes fundamental reality. But this makes the relationship between our experience and reality deeply mysterious. Why would consciousness experience time passing if this experience systematically misrepresents reality’s fundamental nature? Evolution shapes sensory systems to detect real features, not to systematically generate misrepresentations of fundamental structure.
Objection 2: Operationalist Deflation.
An operationalist might argue that questions about what is “really real” versus “merely emergent” are metaphysically confused. All that matters is whether time serves as a useful framework for organizing observations and making predictions. From this perspective, both time and space are equally “real” insofar as they feature in our best empirical theories, and questions about their fundamental ontological status are misguided.
Response.
While operationalism avoids metaphysical disputes, it does so by abandoning the realist commitments that motivate scientific inquiry. Scientists seek not merely predictive frameworks but understanding of how nature actually works. The discovery that Earth orbits the Sun mattered not merely because it improved astronomical predictions but because it revealed something true about cosmic structure.
Moreover, operationalism cannot explain why some frameworks prove predictively successful while others fail. The success of scientific theories cries out for explanation, and realism provides it: theories succeed when they approximately capture real structures. Antirealism about temporal structure leaves the predictive success of temporal concepts unexplained.
Finally, the original problem returns: if operationalism treats both time and space as merely useful frameworks without ontological commitments, then it cannot justify treating spatial but not temporal structures as real. Either both are merely instrumental, or both track real structures. The selective skepticism about temporal but not spatial reality remains unjustified.
Objection 3: Many-Worlds Determinism.
Advocates of Everettian quantum mechanics might argue that the apparent indeterminism of quantum measurement is illusory. All possible measurement outcomes occur in different branches of the universal wavefunction, with the illusion of indeterminism arising from observer ignorance about which branch they occupy. This preserves determinism while accounting for measurement phenomenology.
Response.
Many-worlds interpretations face their own temporal puzzles. If all branches exist equally in a timeless superposition, why does measurement appear as a temporal process? Why do observers experience one outcome and then another in temporal sequence rather than experiencing all branches simultaneously?
More fundamentally, many-worlds interpretations do not eliminate becoming—they multiply it. Instead of one temporal sequence of definite outcomes, we have branching temporal sequences, with each branch exhibiting genuine temporal succession. The theory replaces a single timeline with a branching tree, but each branch still involves temporal becoming as observers experience successive events.
What is more, many-worlds interpretations face their own explanatory burden: accounting for the appearance of wavefunction collapse and definite outcomes when the theory denies that collapse occurs. This problem, called “the problem of outcomes,” remains unresolved. If the theory struggles to explain our most basic quantum mechanical experiences, appealing to it as justification for denying temporal passage begs the question.
Objection 4: Embracing Idealism.
Some philosophers might respond to the reductio not by rejecting eternalism but by embracing its idealist implications. On this view, the eliminativist reasoning is correct: space, time, matter, and change are indeed projections of consciousness onto a fundamentally mathematical or mental reality. This position, resembling Berkeley’s idealism, treats the physical world as phenomenal appearance rather than ultimate reality.
Response.
While logically consistent, this position abandons scientific realism—the view that science reveals mind-independent physical reality. Most working scientists presuppose realism; they believe their theories describe how nature actually works rather than how it appears to conscious observers.
Moreover, idealism faces classical objections. If physical objects are merely ideas in minds, whose mind contained dinosaurs before conscious observers evolved? If the answer invokes God’s mind (as per, e.g., Berkeley’s solution), we have abandoned naturalism for theology. If the answer invokes mind-independent mental facts, we have merely renamed physical facts as mental facts without genuine explanatory gain.
Most importantly, embracing idealism in order to save eternalism from the reductio reveals how far eternalism has strayed from physics. The original motivation for eternalism appealed to physics’ authority: “physics shows time is unreal, therefore we must accept it.” But if accepting this conclusion requires rejecting physical realism in favor of idealism, the appeal to physics’ authority becomes self-undermining. We cannot simultaneously cite physics as decisive about temporal ontology, while also denying that physics describes mind-independent reality.
8. Conclusion: Temporal Realism Restored
The case for temporal realism rests on converging considerations from physics, philosophy, and phenomenology. Eternalism’s apparent theoretical elegance dissolves under critical examination, revealing fundamental confusions about the relationship between mathematical representations and physical reality, inability to account for thermodynamic asymmetry, and self-refuting implications when pursued consistently.
The block universe picture represents a useful mathematical tool for certain calculational purposes in special relativity, but it is not a metaphysical discovery about time’s nature. Physics formulates laws using coordinate systems that treat temporal and spatial coordinates symmetrically for methodological reasons, not because temporal distinctions are illusory. The agnosticism of physical formalism about temporal becoming should not be confused with eliminativism.
Empirical facts—particularly thermodynamic irreversibility—point toward objective temporal asymmetry incompatible with block universe metaphysics. The universe exhibits genuine temporal direction in entropy increase, suggesting that becoming and temporal passage characterize physical reality rather than merely reflecting observer perspective.
The reductio argument demonstrates that eternalist reasoning, applied consistently, eliminates all physical reality, leaving only abstract mathematical structure. Since most physicists and philosophers reject this Parmenidean conclusion, they should reject the reasoning leading to it. We cannot coherently eliminate temporal passage while preserving spatial separation, material objects, energy, causation, and change. It is all or nothing.
Presentist metaphysics remains compatible with relativity theory, despite common claims to the contrary. Whether through unobservable absolute simultaneity, discrete quantum spacetime structure, or growing block models, temporal realism can accommodate relativistic phenomena while preserving objective temporal passage.
Phenomenological and evolutionary considerations support temporal realism. Conscious experience exhibits temporal structure—memory, perception, and anticipation differ qualitatively in ways tracking objective temporal relations. Evolution shaped cognitive systems to detect fitness-relevant environmental features, including temporal structure. The vividness and ubiquity of temporal experience indicates that it tracks objective reality rather than projecting illusions.
Finally, eternalist arguments contain performative contradictions. The very act of arguing that passage is illusory requires the reality of passage to make the argument unfold. Temporal experience possesses Cartesian certainty that physical theories lack, establishing becoming as a datum requiring accommodation rather than elimination.
Time flows. The present is real. The future is open. The past is fixed. And becoming characterizes reality’s fundamental nature. Any adequate metaphysics must incorporate these truths rather than explaining them away as cognitive projections. The burden of proof rests on those who would deny our most certain knowledge in favor of disputable metaphysical interpretations of mathematical formalisms.
REFERENCES
(Al-Khalili, 2002). Al-Khalili, J. “Time Travel: Separating Science Fact From Science Fiction.” Physics Education 38, 1: 14. Available online HERE.
(Bell, 1987). Bell, J.S. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
(Barbour, 2001). Barbour, J. The End of Time. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Bardon, 2013). Bardon, A. A Brief History of the Philosophy of Time. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Carroll, 2010). Carroll, S. From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. New York: Dutton.
(Cartwright, 1983). Cartwright, N. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Eagleman, 2008). Eagleman, D.M. “Human Time Perception and its Illusions.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology 18, 2: 131–136.
(Forrest, 2004). Forrest, P. “The Real but Dead Past: A Reply to Braddon-Mitchell.” Analysis 64, 4: 358–362.
(Gisin, 2020). Gisin, N. “Mathematical Languages Shape Our Understanding of Time in Physics.” Nature Physics 16: 114–116.
(Gold, 1962). Gold, T. “The Arrow of Time.” American Journal of Physics 30, 6: 403–410.
(Libet et al., 1983). Libet, B. et al. “Time of Conscious Intention to Act in Relation to Onset of Cerebral Activity (Readiness-Potential).” Brain 106, 3: 623–642.
(Minkowski,1908/1952). Minkowski, H. “Space and Time.” In H.A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, and H. Weyl, The Principle of Relativity. New York: Dover. Pp. 75-91.
(Nijhawan, 1994). Nijhawan, R. “Motion Extrapolation in Catching.” Nature 370, 6487: 256–257.
(Penrose, 1989). Penrose, R. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Pöppel, 1997). Pöppel, E. “A Hierarchical Model of Temporal Perception.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1, 2: 56–61.
(Price, 1997). Price, H. Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Putnam, 1967). Putnam, H. “Time and Physical Geometry.” Journal of Philosophy 64, 8: 240–247.
(Rietdijk, 1966). Rietdijk, C.W. “A Rigorous Proof of Determinism Derived from the Special Theory of Relativity.” Philosophy of Science 33, 4: 341–344.
(Rovelli, 2004). Rovelli, C. Quantum Gravity. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
(Savitt, 2006). Savitt, S.F. “The Transient Nows.” In D. Dieks (ed.), The Ontology of Spacetime. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 157-168.
(Sklar, 1985). Sklar, L. Philosophy and Spacetime Physics. Los Angeles CA: Univ. of California Press.
(Smart, 1949). Smart, J. J. C. “The River of Time.” Mind 58, 232: 483–494.
(Sorkin, 1991). Sorkin, R.D. “Spacetime and Causal Sets.” In J.C. D’Olivo et al. (eds.), Relativity and Gravitation: Classical and Quantum. Singapore: World Scientific: 150-173.
(Stein, 1991). Stein, H. “On Relativity Theory and Openness of the Future.” Philosophy of Science 58, 2: 147–167.
(Tooley, 1997).Tooley, M. Time, Tense, and Causation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Against Professional Philosophy is a sub-project of the online mega-project Philosophy Without Borders, which is home-based on Patreon here.
Please consider becoming a patron!
