A Critical Examination of the Block Universe Theory

The nature of time has been a subject of ongoing debate in both philosophy and science. One model that addresses this is the block universe theory, derived from relativity, which posits that past, present, and future coexist in a four-dimensional spacetime. This view renders the flow of time and the dynamism we experience as illusions. While the block universe offers an intriguing perspective, it faces several significant challenges. Its epistemological issues, inability to explain emergent phenomena, and problematic assumptions suggest that the theory falls short in capturing the fundamental nature of reality.

A major flaw in the block universe theory is its explanation of dynamism. The claim that the perception of change is an illusion rests on the idea that dynamic processes like neural activity, which give rise to this perception, are also illusions. This leads to circular reasoning, as an illusion is explained by another illusion. Furthermore, this creates an infinite regress. If the illusion of time is attributed to neural activity, but neural activity is itself an illusion, another process must explain that, leading to an endless chain of illusions explaining illusions. This lack of a foundational reality makes it impossible for the theory to coherently explain subjective experiences like the so called “passage of time” and the dynamic nature of change.

Static models like the block universe struggle to account for emergent phenomena — those properties that arise from complex interactions within systems. Emergence depends on continuous, dynamic processes, such as the interactions between organisms in ecosystems or between consumers and producers in economic markets. These phenomena cannot be reduced to the sum of their parts and require non-linear interactions and feedback loops that unfold over time. Static models, which treat all events as predetermined and unchanging, fail to represent the adaptive, evolving nature of such interactions. Proponents may argue that these dynamics are pre-encoded within spacetime, but this overlooks the unpredictability and adaptation inherent in emergent processes, which require of the existence of change to be understood.

Albert Einstein, whose theory of relativity is said to underpin the block universe, held nuanced views about the relationship between scientific theories and reality. He acknowledged the limitations of models, noting that while mathematical propositions can be certain, they do not necessarily reflect the full complexity of reality. Although his remark about the illusion of past, present, and future is often cited in support of the block universe, it is not definitive proof of his endorsement of such a static model. Einstein’s work, which accommodates time dilation and the differing experiences of observers, suggests a more dynamic understanding of time that contradicts the rigid spacetime continuum proposed by the block universe theory.

If our perception of change arises from our movement through spacetime, the universe cannot truly be static, as movement implies dynamism. This exposes a major flaw in the block universe model, which posits that past, present, and future all coexist in a fixed four-dimensional spacetime. Proponents claim that the flow of time and change are illusions caused by our movement through this block. However, movement itself implies change, and the notion of moving through a spacetime that is supposedly unchanging leads to a fundamental contradiction: how can movement, which inherently requires dynamism, exist in a framework that insists everything is static? This paradox highlights a central weakness of the block universe, as it cannot reconcile its static framework with the observable dynamism in physical processes.

In contrast, presentism offers a more coherent model, one grounded in both our experiences and modern physics. Presentism holds that only the present exists and that time is simply a way to measure the rate of change. This model fits well with relativity, once the semantic confusion between time and change is clarified. Time is not an independent entity but a tool to gauge how quickly or slowly changes occur. This aligns with time dilation in relativity, where different observers experience varying rates of change based on their motion or gravitational context. Presentism, by emphasizing change as fundamental and time as a measure of that change, avoids the contradictions inherent in the block universe model.

The block universe also faces challenges from empirical evidence. The second law of thermodynamics highlights the irreversibility of entropy’s increase, a concept that fits naturally with presentism but not with a universe where past, present, and future are all fixed.

The confusion around the block universe often stems from treating time as an independent entity rather than as a measure of change. By correcting this semantic error, presentism can accommodate the relativistic effects seen in Einstein’s theory. Time dilation can be understood as a slowing of the rate of change for an observer in a specific context, preserving the dynamic nature of reality without the need for a static spacetime model.

In conclusion, the block universe theory presents a provocative view of time and existence, but it faces substantial challenges. Its reliance on circular reasoning and infinite regress weakens its explanation of subjective experiences. Moreover, static models are inadequate for explaining emergent phenomena that depend on dynamic, adaptive interactions. Philosophical critiques, including those from Einstein and Escohotado, emphasize the limitations of static frameworks in capturing the complexity of reality. Our experience of time, change, and causality cannot be dismissed as mere illusions. Any model that seeks to explain the universe must embrace the inherent dynamism that shapes existence, a quality the block universe theory fails to fully account for.

The contradictions in the block universe model, particularly its reliance on movement in a static framework, undermine its validity. Presentism, with its understanding of time as a measure of change, offers a more consistent and empirically grounded model that aligns with both our everyday experiences and modern physics. By recognizing that change is fundamental and time is merely how we measure it, presentism avoids the pitfalls of static models, providing a more coherent explanation of the nature of time and reality.

The Semantic Shift: “Change” as a Fundamental Dimension

If we replace “time” with “change” as a fundamental dimension of reality, we resolve the contradictions seen in the block universe model. By adopting this view, we move away from thinking of time as a linear entity we “travel” through, and instead focus on change as the core process driving reality. This approach not only aligns with empirical observations but also provides a coherent metaphysical framework that integrates smoothly with the laws of physics.

The key issue with the block universe model is that it treats time as a fixed dimension in which past, present, and future coexist simultaneously, creating paradoxes and contradictions — especially when trying to account for dynamism and causality. However, by shifting the focus from “time” to “change” as the primary dimension of reality, these contradictions dissolve.

In the Space-Change Continuum (SCC):

• We don’t “travel” through time; instead, objects and systems change according to the laws of physics.
• The laws of physics describe the form of the universe, outlining how potentialities (the possible states or configurations of matter and energy) become actualized through processes of change.

Using Aristotle’s terminology, the form represents the inherent principles that govern the way entities evolve. Each object or system has a specific nature, which dictates its form of change. For example, the orbit of planets, the decay of radioactive materials, or the evolution of life forms are all instances of change unfolding according to their respective forms.

Space-Change Continuum: A New Framework

In this Space-Change Continuum, the universe consists of:

• 3 Spatial Dimensions: The familiar dimensions of length, width, and height, which define where things are in space.
• 1 Change Dimension: Instead of a “time” dimension, we have change as the primary driver of evolution. Objects and systems don’t move along a temporal axis; they evolve or change according to their nature and the physical laws governing them.

How Change Replaces Time in Relativity

This reinterpretation of time as change fits seamlessly into modern physics, including Einstein’s theory of relativity. In relativity, events are traditionally described in four-dimensional spacetime, where both time and space are treated as part of a continuum. However, by replacing “time” with change, the relativistic effects such as time dilation can be understood as changes occurring at different rates, depending on factors like velocity and gravitational fields.

For example:

• Time dilation in relativity describes how the rate of change slows down for objects moving at high speeds or in strong gravitational fields. By replacing “time” with “rate of change,” this phenomenon is simply understood as slower changes in the internal processes of objects due to their velocity or environment.
• In this framework, when an observer moves at high speeds, the rate at which changes occur — such as the ticking of a clock or biological processes — slows down relative to a stationary observer. This is a change-rate difference, not a shift in some metaphysical “flow” of time.

Causality in the Space-Change Continuum

The causal structure of the universe is also clarified under the Space-Change Continuum. Instead of viewing causality as events ordered in time, causality is framed as the transformation of potential into actuality through structured change.

• Causality in this framework involves the sequential unfolding of changes, where each present state contains the potential for future transformations. The form of these transformations is dictated by physical laws, which describe how entities in the universe change based on their nature.

For example:

• A ball rolling down a hill is not “moving through time” but changing according to the laws of gravity and motion. The ball’s potential energy at the top of the hill is converted into kinetic energy as it rolls, and this conversion is a structured change dictated by the form of the physical system (gravity, friction, mass).

Aristotle’s Concepts: Potential and Actuality

In this context, Aristotle’s ideas of potentiality and actuality become central to understanding the Space-Change Continuum:

• Potentiality refers to the possible ways an entity or system can change, based on its nature and the conditions it experiences.
• Actuality is the realization of these potentials, as they are brought into being through the process of change.

The laws of physics describe how potential becomes actuality through specific forms of change. Each entity, from subatomic particles to galaxies, has a distinct way of evolving, governed by its internal properties and external influences.

The Form of Change and the Nature of Objects

The concept of form in Aristotelian philosophy is reinterpreted in this framework to describe the rules or laws of physics that govern change. Different entities have different forms of change:

• Electrons change according to the rules of quantum mechanics, evolving in discrete ways based on probabilistic interactions.
• Planets change according to the laws of gravitation, following elliptical orbits and evolving through interactions with other celestial bodies.
• Life forms change through biological processes governed by genetics, natural selection, and environmental conditions.

This interpretation ties change directly to the nature of the object undergoing the transformation, meaning that change is not arbitrary but follows the form embedded in the nature of the object or system.

Resolving Block Universe Contradictions

By making this semantic correction, the contradictions in the block universe model are resolved:

1. Dynamic Change vs. Static Time: The block universe claims time is static, yet paradoxically invokes dynamic processes (like movement or neural activity) to explain our experience of change. In the Space-Change Continuum, there is no need for such paradoxes — change is the fundamental reality, and our experience of time is simply the perception of how entities evolve.
2. Causality: In the block universe, causality becomes problematic because past, present, and future coexist, implying a fixed and deterministic sequence of events. However, in the Space-Change Continuum, causality is explained by the rate of change, where the present moment contains the potential for future transformations based on the laws of physics.
3. No Infinite Regress: The block universe creates an infinite regress when trying to explain how dynamic processes emerge from a static framework. By acknowledging change as fundamental, the Space-Change Continuum avoids this issue entirely. There is no need to explain change as an illusion because change is the basis of reality itself.

Conclusion: The Space-Change Continuum (SCC)

In this model, change replaces time as the fundamental dimension alongside space, creating a Space-Change Continuum (SCC) where:

• Change is the process by which entities evolve, unfold, and actualize potential according to their nature.
• The laws of physics describe how these changes occur, representing the form that governs the transformation of potential into actuality.
• Causality is the structured unfolding of changes, not a sequence of events moving through time, but a dynamic process grounded in the nature of each entity and the conditions it encounters.

This shift resolves the paradoxes inherent in the block universe model, providing a coherent and empirically grounded understanding of reality that aligns with modern physics while respecting our lived experience of change.