Changism: Change and Time in a Presentist Universe

1. Time
2. Cyclic change
3. Change
4. Experience of change
5. Causality
6. Logos
7. Aristotle’s Form
8. Relativity
9. Quantum Mechanics
10. David Bohm’s and the Infinite Potential of the Timeless Present

Chapter 1: Rethinking Time

The past existed, but that does not mean it still exists.¹ There is a difference between having existed and existing now; otherwise, one could use money already spent in the past to pay for something else now.² While we have memories, records, and other evidence of the past, these are all present-day manifestations of past events and experiences; evidence of the past is a part of the present.³ Therefore, although the past existed, the past does not exist.

Similarly, although the future will exist, it is not true to say it exists now. The future is a potentiality or a range of possibilities that have not yet been realized.⁴ Therefore, because neither the past nor the future exist, only the present moment exists.⁵

We can remember past events or anticipate future events, but these are all mental constructions that take place in the present moment.⁶ Evidence of past events, such as photographs or historical records, exists in the present moment as physical or digital objects.⁷ Technology and science work not because the future exists, but because the present moment is constantly changing in predictable manners, according to logos (the laws of physics).⁸

Therefore, only the present moment exists. This present moment is eternal and constantly changing, and what we call time is a method to measure the rate of the present moment’s change.⁹ This is why we say that,

“according to the most accurate cesium atomic clock in the world, one second is equivalent to 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two energy levels of the cesium-133 atom.”¹⁰

Time exists, but it is not something mysterious. Rather, time is a method we humans have invented — and agreed to use — to rhythmically measure the pace of space’s change with discrete units in a way that is useful to us.¹¹ Time is to change what the metric system is to space: a tool that we have invented to organize our experiences, make sense of the world around us, and measure its rate of change.¹²

Therefore, the so-called “arrow of time” is just a misnomer.¹³ In reality, what happens is that the way the present moment changes follows an order; this order, or internal law, is known as the logos or laws of physics.¹⁴ Logos is the way changes unfold.¹⁵ It is not that “time only goes forward”; that’s meaningless.¹⁶ Time does not “flow” or go anywhere; time is a measuring system we have created to measure the rate of change and not a thing that moves — neither backward, nor forward, nor sideways.¹⁷ Time is to change what the metric system is to space, something we use to get an idea of the relative change of something with regard to us.

1. McTaggart, J.M.E., ‘The Unreality of Time’, Mind, vol. 17, no. 68, 1908, pp. 457–474.
2. Mellor, D.H., Real Time II, Routledge, 1998, pp. 4–6.
3. Augustine, Confessions, Book XI, trans. H. Chadwick, Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 230–235.
4. Prior, A.N., Past, Present and Future, Oxford University Press, 1967, pp. 12–15.
5. Craig, W.L., The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination, Springer, 2000, pp. 1–3.
6. Husserl, E., The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness, trans. J.S. Churchill, Indiana University Press, 1964, pp. 47–50.
7. Heidegger, M., Being and Time, trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson, Harper & Row, 1962, pp. 374–377.
8. Barbour, J., The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 180–185.
9. Bergson, H., Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness, trans. F.L. Pogson, George Allen & Unwin, 1910, pp. 98–102.
10. BIPM, The International System of Units (SI), 9th edn, 2019, pp. 130–131.
11. Whitrow, G.J., Time in History: Views of Time from Prehistory to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 17–22.
12. Alder, K., The Measure of All Things: The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error That Transformed the World, Free Press, 2002, pp. 50–55.
13. Eddington, A.S., The Nature of the Physical World, Macmillan, 1928, pp. 66–70.
14. Heraclitus, as referenced in Kahn, C.H., The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 45–50.
15. Stoeger, W.R., ‘Contemporary Physics and the Ontological Status of the Laws of Nature’, in Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature, eds. R.J. Russell et al., University of Notre Dame Press, 1993, pp. 209–234.
16. Rovelli, C., ‘The Order of Time’, Penguin Books, 2018, pp. 50–55.
17. Callender, C., ‘Is Time an Illusion?’, Scientific American, vol. 302, no. 6, 2010, pp. 58–65.

Chapter 2: Cyclical Change

Change in the universe is predominantly cyclical, and perhaps entirely so.¹ We have been able to devise measurement systems like “time” precisely because of the cyclical nature of change.² For instance, one second is defined as 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of a cesium-133 atom.³ These regular, repetitive cycles of radiation serve as a reliable and consistent reference for measuring the rate of change. By observing these repetitive events, we have established various units and standards to quantify and comprehend the ever-changing world around us.⁴

Many living organisms exhibit daily cycles known as circadian rhythms.⁵ These internal clocks regulate sleep-wake patterns, hormone secretion, and other physiological processes.⁶ From birth to growth, reproduction, and death, the life cycles of plants and animals follow orderly patterns that contribute to the overall balance of ecosystems.⁷

The concept of a day is derived from Earth’s rotation on its axis.⁸ One day represents the time it takes for Earth to complete one full rotation, resulting in the cycle of day and night.⁹ The changing seasons, driven by Earth’s axial tilt and orbit around the Sun, bring about variations in temperature, weather conditions, and the behavior of flora and fauna.¹⁰ Plants follow specific flowering and fruiting cycles influenced by factors such as day length and temperature, allowing us to cultivate and harvest crops and vintages.¹¹ The grape harvest season, for example, signals the beginning of wine production, which itself follows cyclical processes.¹²

The gravitational pull of the Moon and the Sun causes ocean tides, with predictable high and low cycles occurring throughout the day.¹³ The Sun undergoes various cyclical changes, such as the 11-year solar cycle, during which solar activity, sunspots, and solar flares follow a recurring pattern.¹⁴ Astronomical phenomena like pulsars and binary stars exhibit incredibly precise and regular cycles, akin to the ticking of a cosmic clock.¹⁵

Just as the metric system provides a framework to organize and comprehend measurements in space, our time measurement system serves as a tool to understand and navigate the cyclical nature of the ever-changing present moment.¹⁶ Units of time — seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, and years — allow us to quantify and make sense of the rhythms and patterns in nature, including the changing of seasons, lunar phases, solar cycles, and the life cycles of organisms.¹⁷

By inventing the concept of time, we can synchronize our actions with the cyclic behavior of the universe, optimize our lives, and predict celestial events.¹⁸ Tracking the motion of planets, anticipating the rising and setting of the Sun and Moon, and planning our activities accordingly are all made possible through time measurement.¹⁹ This system enables precise and accurate observations and experiments, granting us the power of prediction.²⁰ By informing ourselves of the precise ways in which the present moment changes, we have advanced in fields like technology, astronomy, physics, biology, and climatology.²¹

This regularity showcases the beauty and elegance of the cosmos, enabling us to study and understand it with scientific rigor and predictability, which we harness for technological advancement.²³ Our ability to measure change using the time system, and to predict celestial, planetary, and biological changes, is founded on the consistency of these natural cycles.²⁴

1. Barbour, J., The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 1–5.
2. Whitrow, G.J., Time in History: Views of Time from Prehistory to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, 1989, pp. 17–22.
3. BIPM, The International System of Units (SI), 9th edn, 2019, pp. 130–131.
4. Alder, K., The Measure of All Things: The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error That Transformed the World, Free Press, 2002, pp. 50–55.
5. Moore-Ede, M.C., Sulzman, F.M., and Fuller, C.A., The Clocks That Time Us: Physiology of the Circadian Timing System, Harvard University Press, 1982, pp. 3–10.
6. Kumar, V., ‘Biological Rhythms’, Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, vol. 68, no. 17, 2011, pp. 2711–2725.
7. Levinton, J.S., Marine Biology: Function, Biodiversity, Ecology, 4th edn, Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 550–555.
8. Seeds, M.A., and Backman, D., Foundations of Astronomy, 12th edn, Cengage Learning, 2013, pp. 24–26.
9. Ridpath, I., Astronomy, 3rd edn, Dorling Kindersley, 2018, pp. 42–43.
10. Ahrens, C.D., Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, and the Environment, 11th edn, Cengage Learning, 2016, pp. 42–45.
11. Taiz, L., Zeiger, E., Møller, I.M., and Murphy, A., Plant Physiology and Development, 6th edn, Sinauer Associates, 2015, pp. 647–650.
12. Jackson, R.S., Wine Science: Principles and Applications, 4th edn, Academic Press, 2014, pp. 29–32.
13. Pugh, D.T., Tides, Surges and Mean Sea-Level, John Wiley & Sons, 1987, pp. 1–5.
14. Hathaway, D.H., ‘The Solar Cycle’, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, vol. 12, no. 4, 2015, pp. 1–87.
15. Lorimer, D.R., and Kramer, M., Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 1–3.
16. Alder, K., op. cit., pp. 60–65.
17. Duncan, D.E., Calendar: Humanity’s Epic Struggle to Determine a True and Accurate Year, Avon Books, 1998, pp. 10–15.
18. Whitrow, G.J., op. cit., pp. 100–105.
19. Kelley, D.H., Milone, E.F., and Aveni, A.F., Exploring Ancient Skies: A Survey of Ancient and Cultural Astronomy, 2nd edn, Springer, 2011, pp. 1–5.
20. Hawking, S.W., A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, 1988, pp. 15–20.
21. Greene, B., The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, Alfred A. Knopf, 2004, pp. 49–55.
22. Sagan, C., Cosmos, Random House, 1980, pp. 190–195.
23. Kuhn, T.S., ‘The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science’, Isis, vol. 52, no. 2, 1961, pp. 161–193.
24. Eddington, A.S., The Nature of the Physical World, Macmillan, 1928, pp. 200–205.

Chapter 3: The Essence of Change

Change is the fundamental reality upon which the cosmos is built. It is not merely an occurrence within time but the very fabric of existence, the continuous process through which potential becomes actuality. This ever-unfolding transformation happens entirely within the present moment, the eternal “now,” where all possibilities reside and manifest. The cosmos operates as an indivisible whole, an interconnected web where change is the expression of the intrinsic nature of entities guided by the rational order of the universe.

At the core of existence lies the principle that all things are in a constant state of becoming, continuously actualizing their inherent potential within the present moment¹. This perspective rejects the notion of time as a linear progression and instead embraces the present as the only reality where change occurs. The present is not a fleeting instant sandwiched between past and future but an ever-present field where all transformations take place². Change is not driven by external forces or a timeline but emerges organically from the intrinsic properties of entities and their interactions within the cosmos³.

Every entity possesses within itself a set of potentialities — latent possibilities that reflect its inherent nature⁴. These potentials are enfolded within the entity, existing implicitly until conditions allow them to unfold into explicit reality⁵. This process of unfolding is the movement from potentiality to actuality, a continuous transition that occurs entirely within the present⁶.

The universe operates through an underlying order where all potentials are interconnected in an implicit state⁷. This implicit order contains the infinite possibilities of existence, an undivided wholeness where all potentials coexist⁸. When an entity actualizes a potential, it is not creating something new but revealing what was already present in implicit form⁹. Change, therefore, is the manifestation of the implicit becoming explicit, the unfolding of inherent possibilities into observable reality¹⁰.

For example, a seed contains the potential to become a tree. This potential is not a future event but an implicit reality within the seed¹¹. As the seed interacts with its environment — soil, water, sunlight — it unfolds this potential, actualizing it as growth within the present moment¹². The seed does not move through time to become a tree; it simply actualizes its inherent nature through change in the eternal now¹³.

The present moment is the eternal and dynamic field where all change occurs¹⁴. It is an ever-unfolding continuum, not a static point in time¹⁵. Within this field, all potentialities exist implicitly, ready to be actualized when conditions align¹⁶. Change is the actualization of these potentials, a continuous process that requires no passage of time, only the unfolding within the present¹⁷.

A rock falls not because it moves along a temporal axis but because its inherent properties and present conditions — mass, gravity, position — compel it to move towards the Earth¹⁸. This movement is an immediate actualization of potential within the present moment¹⁹. The change is not stretched over time but occurs entirely in the eternal now, reflecting the natural unfolding of the rock’s potential to fall²⁰.

The analogy of the rose captures this essence beautifully:

“The rose is without ‘why’; it blooms because it blooms.”²¹

The rose does not require an external reason or a future moment to bloom; it actualizes its potential to bloom simply because that is its intrinsic nature²². Change, in this sense, is the pure expression of an entity’s essence within the present²³.

Change is not random or chaotic; it is guided by the rational order inherent in the cosmos²⁴. This rational structure ensures that the unfolding of potentialities follows coherent and consistent patterns²⁵. The laws of physics are manifestations of this rational order, providing the framework within which entities interact and change occurs²⁶.

This order is not imposed externally but arises from the intrinsic properties of entities and their relationships²⁷. It governs how potentials are actualized, ensuring that change is harmonious and aligned with the overall coherence of the universe²⁸. The falling rock adheres to gravitational principles not because of an external timeline but because gravity is an inherent aspect of the rational order guiding its change within the present²⁹.

Potentialities are not distant possibilities but are enfolded within entities, existing in an implicit state ready for actualization³⁰. This enfolded nature means that all potentials are present and accessible within the eternal now³¹. Change unfolds these potentials into actuality, transforming the implicit into the explicit without the need for temporal progression³².

When conditions are suitable, what is implicit becomes explicit through change³³. This transformation is immediate and occurs entirely within the present moment³⁴. A match ignites not because it waits for a future moment but because the conditions — friction, oxygen, combustible material — are present, allowing its potential to produce fire to be actualized instantly³⁵.

The universe is an undivided whole where all entities and potentials are interconnected³⁶. Change in one part of the cosmos resonates throughout the whole, reflecting the intrinsic unity of existence³⁷. This interconnectedness means that change is not isolated but part of a continuous and holistic process³⁸.

Entities do not exist in separation but are aspects of the universal wholeness, their changes influencing and being influenced by the whole³⁹. This unity eliminates the need for external causation across space and time; instead, change occurs as a natural expression of the interconnected cosmos within the present⁴⁰.

Reality is a continuous process of becoming, where change is the constant actualization of potentialities within the eternal present⁴¹. There is no static state of being; all entities are in perpetual transformation, unfolding their inherent potentials⁴². This ongoing process reflects the dynamic nature of the cosmos, a harmonious dance of change guided by rational order⁴³.

Time is not a dimension through which entities move but a measurement of the rate at which change occurs⁴⁴. It is a tool created to quantify and organize experiences, not a fundamental aspect of reality⁴⁵. The essence of existence lies in the continuous unfolding of potential within the present moment⁴⁶.

Change is the fundamental essence of existence, the continuous unfolding of potentialities into actuality within the eternal present⁴⁷. Entities evolve and transform not through time but through the inherent drive to actualize their intrinsic nature⁴⁸. The cosmos operates as a unified whole, guided by rational order, where change is the natural expression of being⁴⁹.

This perspective reveals a universe in constant bloom, like the rose that “blooms because it blooms”⁵⁰. There is no need for external reasons or temporal progression; change is the pure manifestation of potentialities realized within the ever-present now⁵¹. The essence of change is the essence of existence itself — a continuous, harmonious unfolding of the infinite possibilities inherent in the cosmos⁵².

1. Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross (Oxford: Clarendon Press), Book IX.
2. Escohotado, A. (1992) Realidad y Substancia. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, pp. 85–87.
3. Ibid., pp. 89–91.
4. Aristotle, Metaphysics, op. cit., Book IX.
5. Bohm, D. (1980) Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 149–150.
6. Aristotle, Physics, trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), Book III.
7. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 172–174.
8. Ibid., pp. 149–150.
9. Escohotado, A., op. cit., pp. 93–95.
10. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 202–204.
11. Aristotle, Physics, op. cit., Book II.
12. Escohotado, A., op. cit., p. 87.
13. Ibid., pp. 85–87.
14. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 200–201.
15. Escohotado, A., op. cit., pp. 85–87.
16. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 149–150.
17. Aristotle, Metaphysics, op. cit., Book IX.
18. Escohotado, A., op. cit., p. 88.
19. Ibid., pp. 89–91.
20. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 202–204.
21. Angelus Silesius, The Cherubinic Wanderer, trans. M. Shrady (New York: Paulist Press, 1986), Poem №289.
22. Escohotado, A., op. cit., pp. 93–95.
23. Ibid.
24. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 200–201.
25. Escohotado, A., op. cit., pp. 89–91.
26. Ibid.
27. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 200–201.
28. Aristotle, Physics, op. cit., Book II.
29. Escohotado, A., op. cit., p. 88.
30. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 202–204.
31. Ibid., pp. 149–150.
32. Escohotado, A., op. cit., pp. 93–95.
33. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 202–204.
34. Escohotado, A., op. cit., pp. 93–95.
35. Ibid.
36. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 220–225.
37. Escohotado, A., op. cit., pp. 93–95.
38. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 220–225.
39. Ibid.
40. Escohotado, A., op. cit., pp. 93–95.
41. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 220–225.
42. Escohotado, A., op. cit., pp. 93–95.
43. Ibid.
44. Aristotle, Physics, op. cit., Book IV.
45. Escohotado, A., op. cit., pp. 93–95.
46. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 200–201.
47. Escohotado, A., op. cit., pp. 93–95.
48. Aristotle, Metaphysics, op. cit., Book IX.
49. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 200–201.
50. Angelus Silesius, op. cit., Poem №289.
51. Escohotado, A., op. cit., pp. 93–95.
52. Bohm, D., op. cit., pp. 220–225.

Chapter 4: The Perception of Change

Our perception of change is shaped by the continuous flow of consciousness, which is not divided into distinct moments but forms an unbroken stream.¹ This flow is guided by memory, immediate experience, and expectation.² Memory allows us to retain past moments, connecting them to our present awareness — much like hearing a melody as a seamless whole rather than as separate notes.³ The immediate experience, or primal impression, is our direct contact with the present moment; as you read these words, you are immersed in this immediate awareness.⁴ Expectation, or protention, enables us to anticipate future moments, such as when listening to a melody and predicting the next note based on the pattern we’ve already heard.⁵

Together, these aspects — memory, immediate experience, and expectation — form a coherent experience of change, helping us perceive changes as a flowing sequence rather than a series of disconnected instants.⁶ This is complemented by our sense of duration, which refers to the subjective, qualitative experience of change.⁷ Unlike the quantitative rate of change measured by clocks (with our so called “time” measuring system), duration is how changes feels to us as we live them.⁸ When we are deeply engaged in something we love, changes seem to fly; conversely, when we are bored or waiting, appear to happen much more slowly.⁹ This inner experience of change isn’t divided into minutes or seconds but flows in a way that reflects the quality and intensity of our engagement.¹⁰

Our experience of duration is indivisible, just as a melody cannot be broken into separate notes without losing its essence.¹¹ It’s a continuous flow that carries us through life, and this indivisibility is key to understanding how we experience the flow of change.¹² By combining the structured flow of consciousness with the concept of duration, we gain a fuller understanding of how we experience change.¹³

Through this interplay, we connect the past, present, and future, integrating memories, current actions, and expectations into a seamless continuum.¹⁴ This allows us to make sense of the world and navigate it more effectively.¹⁵ Simultaneously, our sense of duration emphasizes the quality of our experience — our subjective experience of change feels richer and more meaningful when we are fully engaged in life.¹⁶ Conversely, when we are disengaged or distracted, our subjective flow of change can feel empty or slow.¹⁷

Recognizing these aspects of our experience of change has practical implications. It helps us better understand human behavior, such as why people might feel anxious about the future or nostalgic about the past.¹⁸ It also shows how being fully present in the moment can enhance our sense of time, making life more fulfilling.¹⁹ By appreciating the flow of consciousness and the qualitative nature of duration, we can balance our relationship with memory, immediate experience, and expectation, leading to a more harmonious way of navigating life.²⁰

In summary, our experience of change is a complex blend of the structured flow of consciousness and the qualitative sense of duration.²¹ This dual perspective helps us grasp how we perceive the ongoing present, creating a fuller, more meaningful understanding of the ever-changing reality we live in.²²

1. James, W., The Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1, Henry Holt and Company, 1890, pp. 233–234.
2. Husserl, E., The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness, trans. J.S. Churchill, Indiana University Press, 1964, pp. 47–50.
3. Husserl, E., op. cit., pp. 51–54.
4. Husserl, E., op. cit., pp. 55–58.
5. Husserl, E., op. cit., pp. 60–62.
6. Merleau-Ponty, M., Phenomenology of Perception, trans. D.A. Landes, Routledge, 2012, pp. 483–485.
7. Bergson, H., Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness, trans. F.L. Pogson, George Allen & Unwin, 1910, pp. 100–105.
8. Bergson, H., op. cit., pp. 110–112.
9. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Harper & Row, 1990, pp. 66–67.
10. James, W., op. cit., pp. 609–611.
11. Bergson, H., op. cit., pp. 125–128.
12. James, W., op. cit., pp. 239–240.
13. Husserl, E., op. cit., pp. 76–80.
14. Heidegger, M., Being and Time, trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson, Harper & Row, 1962, pp. 374–377.
15. Gadamer, H.-G., Truth and Method, 2nd edn, trans. J. Weinsheimer and D.G. Marshall, Continuum, 2004, pp. 269–272.
16. Csikszentmihalyi, M., op. cit., pp. 49–53.
17. Flaherty, M.G., A Watched Pot: How We Experience Time, New York University Press, 1999, pp. 15–20.
18. Zimbardo, P.G., and Boyd, J.N., The Time Paradox: The New Psychology of Time That Will Change Your Life, Free Press, 2008, pp. 77–82.
19. Kabat-Zinn, J., Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life, Hyperion, 1994, pp. 25–30.
20. Bishop, S.R., et al., ‘Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition’, Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, vol. 11, no. 3, 2004, pp. 230–241.
21. Bergson, H., op. cit., pp. 140–145.
22. James, W., op. cit., pp. 628–629.

Chapter 5: Causality in a Changist Universe

In the changist model of the universe, causality is redefined as a process occurring entirely within the present moment, eliminating the need to reference past or future events. This perspective posits that reality is a continuous flow of change, where the present is the only temporal reality. The foundational elements of this model are:

1. Mass/Energy (Matter): The substrate of reality, encompassing all physical entities and their potential for transformation.
2. Logos (Rational Order or Form): The inherent rational structure governing the cosmos, guiding the process of change.
3. Change (Dynamis): The driving force of transformation, actualizing potentialities within matter.

These elements are interconnected and coexist within the present moment. Logos directs how change unfolds, while mass/energy provides the medium through which change manifests.

1. Causality as a Unified Process in the Present

Causality is understood as a structural connection between simultaneous states within the present. Instead of viewing cause and effect as sequential events spread across time, they are seen as coexisting facets of a single, unified process of change¹. For example, the striking of a match and its ignition are simultaneous aspects of one transformation occurring in the present. This approach eliminates the necessity of invoking past events causing future effects, embedding the entire causal process within the dynamics of the present moment.

2. The Present Moment as the Nexus of Potentialities

The present moment contains all the potentialities for transformation. Each entity possesses inherent possibilities (potentiality) and their realization (actuality)². Change is the actualization of these potentials within entities. When a glass falls and shatters, the conditions enabling its breaking — gravitational force, structural fragility, kinetic energy — are all present simultaneously. The shattering is an immediate actualization of present potentials³. Thus, causality becomes the unfolding of potential within the present, without reliance on past or future events.

3. Causality as Intrinsic Tension and Becoming

The driving force of causality is the intrinsic tension within the present between what exists and what can potentially arise. This tension reflects a constant state of becoming, where entities are perpetually actualizing their potentials⁴. Change is fundamental and always aligned with the rational order of the universe. The transition from one state to another is guided by logos, ensuring order and consistency in the process of becoming. Mass/energy, logos, and change interact within this intrinsic tension to bring about transformation.

4. The Role of Logos and Law-like Regularities

Logos represents the rational structure of the cosmos, imposing order on change and resulting in consistent, observable patterns⁵. These law-like regularities allow for the prediction of outcomes based on present conditions. For instance, understanding that fire causes combustion is based on recognizing immediate transformations governed by the structure of the universe, not on metaphysical links between past and future⁶. Logos ensures that all change happens within the framework of the cosmic rational order, maintaining coherence in the continuous flux.

5. Reconceiving Time, Memory, and Anticipation

In this model, time is reconceived as a measure of change rather than a dimension through which events progress. The concepts of past and future are considered mental constructs existing within the present consciousness⁷. Memory allows for the retention of patterns of change, while anticipation enables the projection of potential outcomes based on current conditions⁸. Thus, causality is experienced as the continuous actualization of these patterns within the present, grounded in the immediate “now.”

6. Continuous Becoming in a Changist Universe

The universe is viewed as a process of continuous becoming, where reality is not composed of static entities but is an ever-changing flow⁹. Each present moment contains the seeds of its own transformation, allowing for a seamless flow of existence. The river analogy illustrates this concept: the river’s identity lies not in the individual water molecules but in the flow itself, symbolizing how the universe operates as a constant process of change¹⁰.

7. Causality as the Unity of Process

Causality is understood as a unified process occurring within the present moment. The interplay between mass/energy, logos, and change ensures coherent transformation and maintains the rational order of the cosmos¹¹. This holistic view rejects the fragmentation of events into discrete causes and effects spread across time. Instead, it embraces a perspective where reality is a singular, dynamic process, and causality is the constant becoming of existence itself.

1. Escohotado, A. (1992) Realidad y Substancia. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, pp. 85–87.
2. Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press, Book IX.
3. Heidegger, M. (1962) Being and Time, trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. New York: Harper & Row, pp. 377–379.
4. Whitehead, A.N. (1929) Process and Reality. New York: Macmillan, pp. 23–24.
5. Escohotado, A. (1992) Realidad y Substancia. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, pp. 89–91.
6. Hume, D. (1748) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. London: A. Millar, Section VII.
7. Husserl, E. (1991) On the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time (1893–1917), trans. J.B. Brough. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 76–78.
8. Bergson, H. (1910) Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness, trans. F.L. Pogson. London: George Allen & Unwin, pp. 125–128.
9. Escohotado, A. (1992) Realidad y Substancia. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, pp. 93–95.
10. Heraclitus, Fragments, in Early Greek Philosophy, ed. and trans. J. Barnes. London: Penguin Books, 1987.
11. Aristotle, Physics, trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.

Chapter 6: Form and the Dynamics of the Cosmos

In Aristotle’s philosophy, form provides structure, shape, and intelligibility to matter.¹ In this presentist model, logos, representing the laws of physics, serves as the form of the cosmos.² Logos, embodied in principles like thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum mechanics, dictates how the universe behaves and evolves, much as form determines the structure and function of natural objects.³

Mass and energy, analogous to Aristotle’s concept of matter, are the substrate that logos shapes.⁴ Einstein’s equation E=mc² illustrates the deep interchangeability of mass and energy, showing that they are two aspects of the same underlying reality.⁵ Mass is a concentrated form of energy, and energy can manifest as motion, light, heat, and other dynamic processes.⁶ In this sense, matter in Aristotelian terms aligns with the mass-energy of the cosmos.⁷ The laws of physics, as logos, guide how this mass-energy transforms into the diverse structures we observe — from subatomic particles to planets, stars, and living organisms.⁸

In Aristotle’s framework, change is the movement from potentiality to actuality.⁹ In this presentist model, change becomes the dynamism that allows mass-energy to transition from one state to another under the direction of logos.¹⁰ The relationship between mass and energy plays a crucial role in determining dynamism, or how readily an object can undergo change.¹¹ For instance, pure light, or pure energy, contains more potential for motion and transformation than an inert rock, which has significant mass but little immediate potential for change.¹² In modern physics, this corresponds to the idea that energy drives change: a photon, with no rest mass and constant motion, exemplifies pure energy in action, while a massive rock, though rich in energy due to its mass, is relatively static unless acted upon by external forces.¹³

This introduces a critical relationship: the more energy with less mass an entity has, the more dynamic it is, and the more mass with less energy it has, the less dynamic.¹⁴ Thus, the balance between mass and energy directly governs the potential for change or dynamism of an object or system.¹⁵ Highly energetic, low-mass entities — like photons — are constantly in motion, exemplifying high dynamism.¹⁶ On the other hand, highly massive, low-energy objects exhibit greater inertia and resist change, embodying lower dynamism.¹⁷

Ultimately, this model of the universe describes a cosmos where logos (form) gives order to mass-energy (matter), and change (dynamis) drives the transition from potential to reality.¹⁸ The universe is in a constant state of becoming, shaped by the continuous interaction of these forces in the eternal present.¹⁹ Through this process, the cosmos evolves according to the laws of physics, which act as the form that shapes the unfolding of change, ensuring that each moment follows logically from the last, all within the dynamic flow of the present moment.²⁰

1. Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes, Princeton University Press, 1984, Book VII.
2. Heraclitus, as referenced in Kahn, C.H., The Art and Thought of Heraclitus, Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 45–50.
3. Stoeger, W.R., ‘Contemporary Physics and the Ontological Status of the Laws of Nature’, in Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature, eds. R.J. Russell et al., University of Notre Dame Press, 1993, pp. 209–234.
4. Aristotle, Physics, trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes, Princeton University Press, 1984, Book II.
5. Einstein, A., ‘Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?’, Annalen der Physik, vol. 18, 1905, pp. 639–641.
6. Feynman, R.P., The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 1, Addison-Wesley, 1964, Ch. 4.
7. Cohen, S.M., ‘Aristotle’s Metaphysics’, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta, 2016.
8. Weinberg, S., The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Basic Books, 1977, pp. 44–50.
9. Aristotle, Metaphysics, op. cit., Book IX.
10. Ross, W.D., Aristotle, Routledge, 1995, Ch. VI.
11. Smolin, L., The Life of the Cosmos, Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 81–85.
12. Hawking, S., A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, 1988, pp. 62–66.
13. Tipler, P.A., and Mosca, G., Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 6th edn, W.H. Freeman, 2008, pp. 1214–1215.
14. Penrose, R., The Road to Reality, Jonathan Cape, 2004, pp. 446–450.
15. Davies, P., The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability to Order the Universe, Simon & Schuster, 1988, pp. 34–36.
16. Griffiths, D.J., Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd edn, Prentice Hall, 1999, pp. 353–355.
17. Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S., and Wheeler, J.A., Gravitation, W.H. Freeman, 1973, pp. 83–86.
18. Whitehead, A.N., Process and Reality, Macmillan, 1929, pp. 77–80.
19. Heraclitus, as interpreted in Wheelwright, P., Heraclitus, Princeton University Press, 1959, pp. 70–75.
20. Greene, B., The Fabric of the Cosmos, Alfred A. Knopf, 2004, pp. 49–55.

Chapter 7: Mathematics as the Language of the Cosmos

Mathematics, in the Stoic framework, can be understood as a profound dialogue between the rational order of the universe, or logos, and human reason.¹ The cosmos operates under an inherent structure, and this logos manifests in natural phenomena, from planetary orbits to the symmetry in crystals.² These patterns exist independently of our perception, embodying the rational order that ensures the universe’s consistency.³ Humans, with their unique capacity for reason, are able to recognize, interpret, and mirror these cosmic patterns through the creation of mathematical concepts.⁴ This ability allows us to model and capture the essence of natural laws, revealing how deeply mathematics is intertwined with the rational structure of the cosmos.⁵

Mathematical truths are not inventions but discoveries that reflect the rational order inherent in the universe.⁶ When we observe natural phenomena, like the motion of planets following precise geometric paths, we uncover relationships that align with the logos.⁷ Systems like algebra and calculus, while human-made frameworks, align with deeper cosmic principles, allowing us to describe, analyze, and predict the behavior of the natural world.⁸ For instance, ancient astronomers observed the predictable paths of planets, leading to Kepler’s laws, and later, Newton’s development of mechanics and calculus to explain these motions.⁹ This shows how human reason, through mathematics, engages with the rational structure of the cosmos, enabling us to move from observation to deeper understanding and prediction.¹⁰

In this sense, mathematics is not solely a human invention nor merely the passive discovery of external truths.¹¹ It represents a continuing interaction between cosmic logos and human intellect.¹² As we uncover the mathematical truths embedded in the universe, we reveal the rationality that governs all things.¹³ Our mathematical systems, while creative expressions of human thought, are grounded in the cosmic order.¹⁴ This ongoing process of mathematical discovery exemplifies the profound connection between human intellect and the structure of the cosmos, showing that we participate in logos whenever we engage with mathematics.¹⁵

Mathematics, as the expression of logos, becomes the means by which we articulate and explore the rational structure of the cosmos.¹⁶ It allows us to describe the order that governs everything from subatomic particles to the movement of galaxies.¹⁷ As rational beings, our capacity for mathematics reflects our participation in this logos-driven order.¹⁸ Every mathematical discovery uncovers deeper aspects of the universe’s structure, advancing our understanding of its rational principles.¹⁹ Each breakthrough in mathematics reveals new layers of logos, showing that our intellectual endeavors are part of the cosmos’s unfolding rationality.²⁰

Through mathematics, we not only discover truths about the cosmos but also contribute to the realization of its logos, aligning ourselves with the ongoing evolution of the universe’s rational order.²¹

1. Long, A.A., Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics, 2nd edn, University of California Press, 1986, pp. 134–135.
2. Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, trans. P.G. Walsh, Oxford University Press, 1998, Book II.
3. Plato, Timaeus, trans. D.J. Zeyl, Hackett Publishing, 2000, pp. 29–47.
4. Russell, B., Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, George Allen & Unwin, 1919, pp. 3–5.
5. Kline, M., Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, Oxford University Press, 1980, pp. 1–10.
6. Wigner, E.P., ‘The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences’, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13, no. 1, 1960, pp. 1–14.
7. Kepler, J., New Astronomy, trans. W.H. Donahue, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
8. Courant, R., and Robbins, H., What Is Mathematics?, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 1–15.
9. Newton, I., Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, 1687; trans. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, University of California Press, 1999.
10. Hawking, S., A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, 1988, pp. 15–25.
11. Kant, I., Critique of Pure Reason, trans. N.K. Smith, Macmillan, 1929, pp. 20–30.
12. Heidegger, M., ‘Modern Science, Metaphysics, and Mathematics’, in Basic Writings, ed. D.F. Krell, HarperCollins, 1993, pp. 267–305.
13. Tegmark, M., ‘The Mathematical Universe’, Foundations of Physics, vol. 38, no. 2, 2008, pp. 101–150.
14. Galileo, G., The Assayer, trans. S. Drake, in Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, Anchor Books, 1957, pp. 237–238.
15. Proclus, A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements, trans. G.R. Morrow, Princeton University Press, 1992, pp. 38–40.
16. Pythagoras, as referenced in Heath, T.L., A History of Greek Mathematics, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press, 1921, pp. 72–73.
17. Einstein, A., Ideas and Opinions, trans. S. Bargmann, Crown Publishers, 1954, pp. 274–275.
18. Penrose, R., The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Jonathan Cape, 2004, pp. 3–5.
19. Dirac, P.A.M., The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 4th edn, Oxford University Press, 1958, pp. 3–4.
20. Chandrasekhar, S., Truth and Beauty: Aesthetics and Motivations in Science, University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 57–60.
21. Davies, P., The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, Simon & Schuster, 1992, pp. 169–172.

Chapter 8: Relativity and the Ever-Present Now

Conventional interpretations of Einstein’s theory of relativity often treat time as a genuine dimension akin to space. This view underlies the notion of spacetime as a four-dimensional manifold, where time and space form a unified geometric entity (Minkowski 1908; Einstein 1916). However, the changist model of the cosmos challenges this assumption. Instead of viewing time as a fundamental dimension, changism posits that what we call “time” emerges from observing and measuring changes in processes. It reframes effects like time dilation and gravitational “time” shifts not as distortions of an independent temporal dimension, but as variations in the rate at which changes unfold in different circumstances.

This chapter applies the changist model to relativity, demonstrating that the mathematical formalism of Einstein’s theory remains intact without positing time as a literal dimension. By recognizing time as a measure of change rather than an independent entity, we preserve the predictive success of relativity while offering a more philosophically parsimonious interpretation — one that aligns with process- and relation-based interpretations of physics (Barbour 1999; Rovelli 2018). In doing so, we avoid the metaphysical burden of a fourth dimension and focus on the ever-present “now,” where transformations constantly occur.

1. From Spacetime to a Space-Change Continuum

Relativity’s key insights, such as time dilation and length contraction, are well-established and experimentally confirmed (Will 1993; Hafele and Keating 1972). Traditionally, these phenomena are explained by treating time as a dimension within a four-dimensional spacetime. Yet, the changist model proposes a Space-Change Continuum (SCC): a framework where space remains with three dimensions, and what we call “time” is understood as a relational parameter reflecting how different processes change relative to standardized cycles.

Under this view, when a clock aboard a spaceship traveling near the speed of light is observed to “run slow” compared to one on Earth, what we are seeing is a difference in the rate at which certain physical processes (oscillations of atomic clocks, decay of particles, mechanical motions) occur. Rather than “moving through time,” the system’s intrinsic changes unfold at a different pace due to relative motion or gravitational conditions.

This approach neither negates Einstein’s equations nor disputes empirical findings. The invariant interval of relativity, typically written as ds2=−c2dt2+dx2+dy2+dz2ds² = -c² dt² + dx² + dy² + dz², can be reinterpreted: the parameter dtdt tracks differences in change-rates as experienced by observers in distinct states of motion or gravitational fields. Thus, we preserve the geometry and mathematics of relativity while viewing the so-called “time coordinate” as a measure of change rather than a dimension.

2. Gravitational Fields and the Relational Structure of Change

In general relativity, gravitational fields influence how clocks run, leading to “gravitational time dilation” (Will 1993). The changist model interprets these effects as alterations in how processes unfold within varying gravitational potentials. A clock closer to a massive body’s surface experiences conditions that slow down its physical processes, making it “tick” more slowly relative to a clock situated farther away.

Spacetime curvature remains a powerful tool to describe how change rates differ across regions of varying mass-energy. While standard interpretations treat curvature as warping both space and time, changism suggests that what is being curved is the relational structure that governs how changes propagate. Thus, we retain the elegance and predictive power of general relativity while dispensing with the need for a distinct time dimension.

3. Causality Without a Time Dimension

Challenging the time-as-a-dimension assumption also refines our understanding of causality. Rather than viewing causes and effects as separated in time, changism considers them as coexisting facets of an ongoing transformative process. Drawing on Aristotelian ideas, each entity’s potentialities actualize not over time but through continuous change in the eternal “now” (Aristotle, Metaphysics).

For instance, a match doesn’t ignite after a delay; the striking and ignition are unified in one unfolding event of transformation. Without the temporal partitioning, paradoxes like those in block universe interpretations — where past, present, and future are equally real — are avoided. Causality becomes about structured changes occurring in the present, guided by rational laws (logos) and responsive to conditions like motion and gravity.

4. The Changist Interpretation and Its Empirical Alignment

The changist interpretation does not challenge the experimental successes of relativity. It accepts that observers in relative motion or differing gravitational potentials record different rates of processes, as confirmed by a range of experiments (Hafele and Keating 1972; Ashby 2003). However, these differences, called “time dilation,” are recontextualized as differences in how processes unfold rather than evidence that observers are moving differently through a temporal dimension.

GPS satellites, for example, do not experience “time” differently in any ontological sense. Instead, their atomic clocks — just bundles of oscillatory changes — run at different rates due to their orbital velocities and positions in Earth’s gravitational field. The changist model fully accounts for these observations by focusing on change and its variation under differing conditions, leaving Einstein’s equations and predictions intact.

5. Philosophical Advantages: Avoiding the Block Universe and Emphasizing Dynamism

A primary philosophical advantage of the changist view is the avoidance of block universe implications. The block universe treats all events — past, present, and future — as simultaneously existing, raising philosophical puzzles about free will, determinism, and the nature of becoming. By eliminating a separate time dimension, changism presents a universe in which only the present, continuously changing, is real (Barbour 1999).

This dynamism aligns with relational and process metaphysics advocated by some contemporary philosophers of physics. Rather than a rigid four-dimensional manifold, we have a cosmos defined by evolving relationships and transformations. The present is not a fleeting slice between fixed past and future blocks but a dynamic stage where potentialities actualize and rational order (logos) guides the continuous unveiling of reality.

6. Integrating Logos and Rational Structure

Changism’s reinterpretation of relativity resonates with the Stoic notion of logos — the rational order that pervades the cosmos (Long 1996). By embedding rational structure in the patterns of change, rather than postulating a time dimension, changism suggests that what truly underlies the cosmos is a coherent, intelligible framework of transformations.

Aristotle’s metaphysics of potential and actualization (Aristotle, Physics; Metaphysics) fit naturally here. Change is not a movement through time but the ongoing manifestation of potential forms into actuality. Rational laws ensure consistency and predictability, while the absence of a time dimension frees us from metaphysical burdens and unexplained mysteries.

7. Conclusion: An Ever-Present Now without a Time Dimension

In reinterpreting relativity through a changist lens, time ceases to be a fundamental dimension. Instead, it emerges as a conceptual tool derived from observing cycles and measuring differences in rates of change. This shift maintains the empirical and mathematical strengths of relativity, aligns with rational philosophical principles, and offers a more straightforward metaphysical narrative:

• There is no experimental evidence necessitating a dimension of time; observed “dilations” reflect variations in change-rates.
• Spacetime geometry, crucial for general relativity, can be understood as describing relational structures of matter-energy and change, not a separate temporal dimension.
• Philosophically, discarding time as a dimension avoids block universe paradoxes, reinforcing a dynamic, present-centric, and rationally ordered cosmos.

By grounding reality in change and rational structure (logos), we discover a universe that is ever-unfolding, coherent, and elegantly explained without invoking time as an independent dimension. Such a vision not only clarifies relativistic phenomena but resonates with ancient and modern philosophical insights, offering a more unified understanding of existence itself.

• Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Aristotle, Physics, trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Ashby, N. (2003) ‘Relativity in the Global Positioning System.’ Living Reviews in Relativity, 6(1).
• Barbour, J. (1999) The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bohm, D. (1980) Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Einstein, A. (1916) Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. Methuen & Co.
• Hafele, J.C. and Keating, R.E. (1972) ‘Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains.’ Science, 177(4044), pp.166–168.
• Long, A. A. (1996) Stoic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Minkowski, H. (1908) ‘Space and Time.’ In The Principle of Relativity. Dover.
• Rovelli, C. (2018) The Order of Time. Allen Lane.
• Will, C.M. (1993) Was Einstein Right? Putting General Relativity to the Test. Basic Books.

Chapter 9: Expanding the Space-Change Continuum to Quantum Phenomena

In quantum mechanics, the concept of the Space-Change Continuum (SCC) can be extended, where change — rather than time — acts as the fundamental dimension. At the quantum level, we encounter phenomena that seem strange or counterintuitive, but when viewed through the SCC, they become clearer.

For instance, quantum superposition describes how particles can exist in multiple states at once.¹ In this framework, these multiple states are potentialities contained within the present moment. The actualization of one state, or the collapse of the wavefunction, occurs through measurement — a change that happens in the now.² Rather than imagining the evolution of these quantum states over time, the SCC focuses on the present moment, where potentialities become actualities without the need for a past or future. Take the double-slit experiment as an example: before detection, an electron has the potential to pass through both slits, but the moment it’s observed, its position is determined.³ The electron’s transition from possibility to reality happens entirely in the present, reflecting a change in the system without invoking a timeline.

Entanglement, where two particles remain connected such that a change in one instantly affects the other, fits naturally within this presentist view.⁴ In traditional physics, entanglement raises questions about faster-than-light communication, but in the SCC, entangled particles exist as a unified system within the present. Changes happen across both particles simultaneously, without the need for signals traveling between them.⁵ There’s no paradox because these changes occur within the continuous present, not across time, eliminating any conflicts with causality or the speed of light. If two entangled photons are sent to distant locations, measuring one immediately influences the other’s state — not through the transmission of information, but as an instantaneous change within the unified present system.⁶

This approach aligns well with David Bohm’s interpretation of quantum mechanics, particularly his idea of the quantum potential, a guiding field that influences how particles behave.⁷ In Bohmian mechanics, particles always have definite positions but are influenced by a deeper, underlying order that connects all parts of the system.⁸ This quantum potential can be seen as the form guiding how potentialities are actualized through change, consistent with Aristotle’s notion of form shaping matter.⁹ In the SCC, the quantum potential represents the form that governs the present changes in particles, focusing on how these changes occur without invoking a temporal dimension.

For example, when an electron moves, it does so under the guidance of the quantum potential.¹⁰ The potentialities inherent in the system are actualized in the present moment, meaning that the electron’s movement isn’t a process of evolving over time but a present shift in position, shaped by the quantum potential.

The SCC framework also offers a new way to think about quantum uncertainty. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle tells us that we cannot simultaneously know both the exact position and momentum of a particle.¹¹ In the SCC, these uncertainties are not due to any temporal constraints but reflect the range of potentialities within the present moment. Measurement actualizes one of these possibilities, representing a change in the present.¹² There’s no need for a timeline to explain this uncertainty — it’s simply the present potential of the system being actualized.

When applied to quantum field theory, the SCC takes quantum fields, which describe particles as excitations in underlying fields, and interprets these fields as the forms that govern change.¹³ These fields, much like Aristotelian forms, dictate how particles behave and interact. Changes in these fields occur entirely within the present moment, without requiring the fields to evolve over time. For example, the creation or annihilation of particles through interactions in quantum field theory is a change in the present state of the field, actualizing potentialities in real-time.¹⁴

The SCC provides a unified way of understanding quantum phenomena that also resolves paradoxes. By focusing on change rather than time, we avoid issues related to time travel or retrocausality in quantum mechanics. Causality is preserved because it is understood as the actualization of potentialities in the present, maintaining a logical and coherent structure across both classical and quantum physics.¹⁵

For instance, the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, which raises questions about when and how a quantum system transitions from a superposition to a definite state, is resolved in the SCC.¹⁶ Rather than imagining the wavefunction evolving over time, the measurement is seen as a change happening in the present. There’s no ambiguity about when the wavefunction collapses; it happens now, when the system interacts with the measuring device, actualizing a specific potentiality.

This reinterpretation also tackles the issue of non-locality in quantum mechanics. Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) famously highlighted this puzzle in 1935, dubbing it “spooky action at a distance.”¹⁷ They argued that if quantum mechanics were a complete theory, it would imply non-local interactions that violate the principle of locality in relativity, which insists that nothing can influence something else faster than the speed of light. The SCC resolves this by recognizing that, in a unified present, changes do not need to be transmitted across distances or time. When two entangled particles are observed, the change happens simultaneously in the present, without the need for faster-than-light communication.¹⁸

Quantum entanglement describes a phenomenon where two or more particles become intertwined, so that the state of one instantaneously affects the state of the other(s), regardless of the distance separating them.¹⁹ This means that when a measurement is made on one particle, the outcome influences the measurement on the other, suggesting a deep connection that transcends spatial distance. These non-local correlations between entangled particles defy classical explanations, as they cannot be accounted for by local hidden variables.²⁰ The effect appears to be instantaneous, challenging the notion that physical interactions are limited by spatial separation.

The conflict arises when considering how entanglement appears to allow for instantaneous correlations between distant particles, seemingly defying the principle of locality and causality.²¹ Causality, as understood in relativity, maintains that an effect cannot occur before its cause, and that influences cannot propagate faster than light.²² However, while entanglement suggests immediate effects over any distance, it cannot be used to transmit information faster than light, thus preserving causality in a practical sense.²³

The SCC offers a new way to view this puzzling phenomenon. In the SCC, entangled particles are not distinct entities acting across vast distances, but parts of a single, unified system that exists entirely in the present moment. When a measurement is made on one particle, the state of the entire entangled system changes instantaneously, eliminating the need for information to travel between particles.²⁴ Since the entangled system evolves as a whole in the present, there is no need for superluminal communication, and causality remains intact without violating the speed of light limitations.

This view is supported by Bell’s theorem, which demonstrates that no local hidden variable theory can replicate the predictions of quantum mechanics.²⁵ Bell’s inequalities, tested experimentally, confirm that entangled particles are connected in a way that defies classical explanations of locality.²⁶ Experiments like Alain Aspect’s tests in 1982 and more recent studies that have closed loopholes in the detection process have provided overwhelming evidence for the non-local nature of quantum entanglement.²⁷ These experiments reveal violations of Bell’s inequalities, strengthening the case for quantum non-locality, where entanglement reflects deeper connections across the universe, unaccounted for by traditional local theories.

Quantum field theory also aligns with this non-locality, treating particles as excitations of quantum fields that permeate space.²⁸ Entanglement, in this context, can be seen as correlations within these fields, inherently non-local by nature. Importantly, while entanglement exhibits non-local correlations, it does not violate relativity since no usable information is transmitted faster than light, maintaining compatibility with the theory.²⁹

The SCC introduces a philosophical perspective of relational holism. In this view, the universe is fundamentally interconnected, and the relations between parts are as significant as the parts themselves.³⁰ The properties of entangled systems are not reducible to individual particles but are defined by the relationships within the present moment. Rather than thinking of entangled particles as separate, distant entities, the SCC suggests they are components of a single quantum system, evolving together as part of a unified present reality.

An analogy that helps clarify this concept is to imagine a pair of gloves, one left-handed and one right-handed, placed in separate boxes and sent to different locations.³¹ Upon opening one box and finding the left glove, you immediately know the other box contains the right glove. No information has traveled between the boxes — your knowledge arises from the initial correlation between the gloves. In the case of quantum particles, however, the analogy is more complex: unlike gloves, quantum particles do not have predetermined states. The act of measurement changes the state of the entire system in the present moment, not just the observed particle.³²

Mathematically, this is represented by the quantum state of entangled particles. For instance, in a singlet state, two particles might exist in a superposition where their spins are opposite but undefined until measured.³³ Upon measuring the spin of one particle, the state of the entire system is altered, resulting in a definite state for both particles. This change happens in the present moment, without any conflict with causality, as no information transfer between the particles occurs faster than light.

Experimental evidence continues to support this presentist view. Entanglement swapping experiments, where the entangled state is transferred or swapped between particles, occur without detectable delay, suggesting simultaneous changes in the present.³⁴ Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiments further reinforce this by showing that measurement choices seem to retroactively determine a particle’s state, but from the SCC perspective, these changes happen in the present moment, bypassing any paradoxes about retrocausality.³⁵

Recent satellite-based experiments, where entanglement was tested over distances exceeding 1,200 kilometers, also support the notion of instantaneous change within the present.³⁶ The success of these experiments across such vast distances, without measurable time delays, aligns with the idea that entangled systems change as unified entities within the present continuum.

This view might seem like a reintroduction of non-locality, but within the SCC, non-locality is not problematic. Since space and change are the primary dimensions in the SCC, and the present moment encompasses the entire system, no signal or information is transmitted during these instantaneous changes.³⁷ Quantum mechanics’ no-signaling theorem remains intact because no information is being transmitted faster than light; the change simply reflects the natural evolution of the entangled system in the present.³⁸

Philosophically, this idea resonates with relational quantum mechanics, which holds that the properties of quantum systems are relative to other systems, and there are no absolute states.³⁹ The SCC reinforces this by emphasizing the relational aspect of entangled systems, existing only in the present. This aligns with Bohmian mechanics, where the quantum potential guides particles in a non-local manner, and the SCC provides a framework where this potential acts as the form guiding present change, resulting in instantaneous state updates without violating causality.⁴⁰

The SCC offers a compelling interpretation of quantum entanglement, one that eliminates conflicts with causality and preserves the speed of light limitations. Changes occur within the unified present moment, ensuring that entanglement remains a reflection of the universe’s interconnectedness rather than a challenge to physical laws. This framework not only addresses longstanding paradoxes but also encourages a more holistic view of reality, where quantum mechanics and relativity can be unified under the principle that change in the present is the fundamental process driving the evolution of systems.

In sum, by expanding the Space-Change Continuum to encompass quantum phenomena, we provide a coherent framework that integrates both classical and quantum physics. Whether dealing with superposition, entanglement, or quantum fields, the SCC shows that change in the present moment is the fundamental process driving reality. Quantum mechanics and the SCC align seamlessly, demonstrating that potentialities and their actualization through change govern the behavior of the universe, both at the smallest and largest scales.

1. Griffiths, D.J., Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edn, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005, pp. 160–161.
2. Dirac, P.A.M., The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 4th edn, Oxford University Press, 1958, pp. 46–47.
3. Feynman, R.P., Leighton, R.B., and Sands, M., The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3, Addison-Wesley, 1965, Ch. 1.
4. Schrödinger, E., ‘Discussion of Probability Relations between Separated Systems’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 31, 1935, pp. 555–563.
5. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N., ‘Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?’, Physical Review, vol. 47, 1935, pp. 777–780.
6. Aspect, A., Grangier, P., and Roger, G., ‘Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell’s Theorem’, Physical Review Letters, vol. 47, 1981, pp. 460–463.
7. Bohm, D., Quantum Theory, Dover Publications, 1989, pp. 167–177.
8. Bohm, D., and Hiley, B.J., The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory, Routledge, 1993, Ch. 6.
9. Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes, Princeton University Press, 1984.
10. Holland, P.R., The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the de Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 214–216.
11. Heisenberg, W., ‘Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik’, Zeitschrift für Physik, vol. 43, 1927, pp. 172–198.
12. Jammer, M., The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, 1974, pp. 66–70.
13. Peskin, M.E., and Schroeder, D.V., An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Addison-Wesley, 1995, Ch. 2.
14. Weinberg, S., The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pp. 54–58.
15. Maudlin, T., Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, 3rd edn, Wiley-Blackwell, 2011, pp. 21–24.
16. Schlosshauer, M., Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition, Springer, 2007, Ch. 2.
17. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N., op. cit.
18. Bell, J.S., ‘On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox’, Physics Physique Fizika, vol. 1, 1964, pp. 195–200.
19. Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., and Horodecki, K., ‘Quantum entanglement’, Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 81, 2009, pp. 865–942.
20. Bell, J.S., op. cit.
21. Maudlin, T., op. cit., pp. 1–10.
22. Einstein, A., Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, trans. R.W. Lawson, Crown Publishers, 1961.
23. Ghirardi, G., ‘Nonlocality and Locality in the Quantum Theory’, in Compendium of Quantum Physics, eds. F. Weinert et al., Springer, 2009, pp. 404–408.
24. Healey, R., The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation, Cambridge University Press, 1989, Ch. 5.
25. Bell, J.S., op. cit.
26. Clauser, J.F., and Shimony, A., ‘Bell’s theorem: experimental tests and implications’, Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 41, 1978, pp. 1881–1927.
27. Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., and Roger, G., ‘Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers’, Physical Review Letters, vol. 49, 1982, pp. 1804–1807.
28. Zee, A., Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, 2nd edn, Princeton University Press, 2010, Ch. III.
29. Shalm, L.K., et al., ‘Strong Loophole-Free Test of Local Realism’, Physical Review Letters, vol. 115, 2015, 250402.
30. Esfeld, M., ‘Quantum entanglement and a metaphysics of relations’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol. 35, 2004, pp. 601–617.
31. d’Espagnat, B., Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edn, Addison-Wesley, 1976, pp. 160–162.
32. Mermin, N.D., ‘Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory’, Physics Today, vol. 38, 1985, pp. 38–47.
33. Sakurai, J.J., and Napolitano, J., Modern Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edn, Addison-Wesley, 2011, pp. 362–364.
34. Pan, J.-W., et al., ‘Experimental Entanglement Swapping: Entangling Photons That Never Interacted’, Physical Review Letters, vol. 80, 1998, pp. 3891–3894.
35. Wheeler, J.A., ‘The “Past” and the “Delayed-Choice” Double-Slit Experiment’, in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, ed. A.R. Marlow, Academic Press, 1978, pp. 9–48.
36. Yin, J., et al., ‘Satellite-based entanglement distribution over 1200 kilometers’, Science, vol. 356, 2017, pp. 1140–1144.
37. Gisin, N., ‘Non-realism: Deep Thought or a Soft Option?’, Foundations of Physics, vol. 42, 2012, pp. 80–85.
38. Scarani, V., ‘The security of practical quantum key distribution’, Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 81, 2009, pp. 1301–1350.
39. Rovelli, C., ‘Relational Quantum Mechanics’, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 35, 1996, pp. 1637–1678.
40. Bohm, D., and Hiley, B.J., op. cit., Ch. 15.

Chapter 10: David Bohm’s Infinite Potential, Changism, and the Timeless Present

1. Introduction: Bohm’s Vision and the Rational Cosmos

David Bohm (1917–1992) was a pioneering physicist and thinker whose work bridged quantum theory, philosophy, and metaphysics. He introduced the concepts of the Implicate Order and the Holistic Paradigm to describe a universe that is fundamentally unified, dynamic, and continuously unfolding (Bohm 1980). Rather than viewing reality as a collection of isolated parts governed by static laws, Bohm’s vision presents a cosmos of inherent wholeness, where all aspects of existence are interrelated.

This chapter examines Bohm’s framework and shows how it resonates with the changist model, an interpretive standpoint that regards time as an emergent concept derived from change rather than as a fundamental dimension. By integrating Bohm’s notions of infinite potential and non-locality with changism’s emphasis on an immanent rational order (logos), we uncover a coherent, dynamic, and meaningful interpretation of reality — one that finds common ground with ancient Stoic philosophy and modern relational views of time (Long and Sedley 1987; Rovelli 2018).

2. Bohm’s Implicate and Explicate Orders

Bohm’s approach to understanding the universe rests on the distinction between two interwoven aspects of reality:

• Implicate Order:
  This underlying, enfolded order contains the universe’s infinite potential. It is a non-local realm in which all possibilities and states of matter-energy coexist in a dynamic interplay (Bohm 1980). The Implicate Order is not directly observable but can be inferred from the patterns that emerge into the visible world.
• Explicate Order:
  This manifest, unfolded realm corresponds to the everyday world of distinct objects and events arranged in space and time. The Explicate Order arises from the Implicate Order, continuously actualizing selected potentials into tangible form. This process is neither static nor final; the Explicate Order constantly re-enfolds back into the Implicate Order, maintaining a ceaseless dynamism.

Bohm’s model challenges mechanistic and reductionist approaches, suggesting instead a universe where quantum phenomena — such as the non-local correlations first hinted at by the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and experimentally tested by Aspect et al. (Aspect, Dalibard, and Roger 1982) — are natural consequences of an underlying holistic reality.

3. Infinite Potential, Non-Locality, and Rational Order

Central to Bohm’s framework is the notion that infinite potential resides in the Implicate Order. This means that reality is not limited to what we currently observe; it harbors an inexhaustible reservoir of possibilities waiting to unfold. This perspective aligns with philosophical traditions that highlight rational structures or principles (logos) underlying the cosmos — an idea present in Stoicism, where the universe is pervaded by a rational order governing change and growth (Long and Sedley 1987).

Non-locality, as understood in quantum physics, becomes less mysterious within Bohm’s interpretation. Instead of invoking paradoxical “spooky actions,” Bohm suggests that non-local correlations reflect the deeper unity of the Implicate Order. Matter and energy are not isolated nodes but expressions of a seamless whole, guided by rational principles that maintain coherence and intelligibility (Bohm and Hiley 1993).

4. Changism’s Immanent Interpretation: Rejecting Time as a Dimension

The changist model reinterprets the role of time in physics and philosophy by emphasizing change as the fundamental reality from which time is derived. Instead of treating time as an independent dimension — an assumption that leads to metaphysical complexities akin to transcendental theological concepts — changism posits that time emerges as a relational measure of how processes unfold relative to each other (Barbour 1999; Rovelli 2018).

This resonates with Bohm’s vision. If the Implicate Order contains infinite potential, and the Explicate Order represents the ongoing actualization of possibilities, then focusing on change rather than an abstract time dimension better captures the nature of reality. Rather than positing a “block universe” that reduces becoming to an illusion, both Bohm’s non-local, process-oriented cosmos and changism’s change-centric interpretation highlight genuine creativity and evolution at the core of existence.

5. Occam’s Razor and Immanent Models

Occam’s razor advocates for minimal assumptions when explaining phenomena. Introducing a never-empirically-demonstrated “time dimension” is an additional complexity that changism suggests is unnecessary. Empirical data — ranging from relativity’s time dilation experiments (Hafele and Keating 1972; Ashby 2003) to the definition of the second via atomic oscillations (BIPM 2019) — can be equally explained by differing rates of change rather than by positing a temporal axis. By treating time as a measurement system derived from periodic processes and relational change, we adopt an immanent model that remains consistent with all observed phenomena, without the metaphysical weight of an unobservable dimension.

This parsimonious approach aligns with Bohm’s non-local, rational order. If the Implicate Order inherently organizes and rationalizes the unfolding of the Explicate Order, there is no need to add an extra ontological layer called “time.” Instead, the universe’s rational structure (logos) and the continuous manifestation of potential suffice to explain all temporal phenomena without resorting to transcendental entities.

6. Unified Vision: Bohm and Changism

Integrating Bohm’s ideas with changism yields a comprehensive picture:

• Dynamic Reality:
  Both frameworks see the universe as a living process. Bohm’s enfolding and unfolding mirror changism’s emphasis on constant becoming. The cosmos is not a static collection of facts but a dance of continuous revelation.
• Rational Interconnectedness:
  Bohm’s infinite potential and holistic order resonate with changism’s rational logos. In both views, rationality pervades existence, ensuring coherence and adaptability rather than chaos and fragmentation.
• Human Engagement and Meaning:
  Without a transcendental time dimension, and with potential and rational order always immanently present, human existence occurs within a cosmos that encourages creativity, growth, and alignment with universal rationality. Far from inducing nihilism, this stance supports a life of purpose and coherent ethical engagement.

7. Conclusion: Bohm’s Infinite Potential and Changism’s Ever-Present Cosmos

David Bohm’s model and the changist interpretation of time offer complementary insights into the underlying nature of the universe. By understanding reality as a continuous interplay of Implicate and Explicate Orders, guided by rational principles and infinite potential, Bohm’s ideas dovetail with changism’s view of time as emergent from change. The result is a unified, dynamic, and meaningful vision of the cosmos: a timeless present rich in potential, structured by rationality, and free from the metaphysical burdens of transcendental constructs.

In acknowledging that no extra, never-seen dimension is required, we adopt a more parsimonious, coherent explanation — an immanent understanding that affirms the universe’s intelligibility, creativity, and profound unity.

• Ashby, N. (2003) ‘Relativity in the Global Positioning System’, Living Reviews in Relativity, 6(1).
• Aspect, A., Dalibard, J. and Roger, G. (1982) ‘Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers’, Physical Review Letters, 49(25), pp. 1804–1807.
• Barbour, J. (1999) The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• BIPM (2019) The International System of Units (SI), 9th edn. Sèvres: Bureau International des Poids et Mesures.
• Bohm, D. (1980) Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Bohm, D. and Hiley, B.J. (1993) The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory. London: Routledge.
• Einstein, A. (1916) Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. London: Methuen & Co.
• Hafele, J.C. and Keating, R.E. (1972) ‘Around-the-world atomic clocks: predicted relativistic time gains’, Science, 177(4044), pp. 166–168.
• Long, A.A. and Sedley, D. (1987) The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Minkowski, H. (1908) ‘Space and Time’, in The Principle of Relativity. Dover Publications, pp. 75–91.
• Newton, I. (1687) Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. London: Jussu Societatis Regiae.
• Rovelli, C. (2018) The Order of Time. London: Penguin.

Time in Relativity and the Changist Immanent Model: From Transcendental Conceptions to Immanent Rationality

The nature of time has long posed fundamental questions for both physics and philosophy. Traditional readings of Einstein’s theory of relativity often treat time as a fully-fledged dimension, woven seamlessly into the fabric of spacetime (Einstein 1916; Minkowski 1908). This approach, while mathematically robust and empirically successful, can be seen as introducing a “transcendental” notion of time — one that exists as an independent structure beyond direct sensory or experimental apprehension. Just as transcendental theological concepts posit divinity as external and beyond human reach, this interpretation posits a temporal dimension not directly observed, only inferred.

In contrast, the changist model challenges this transcendental reading by proposing an “immanent” understanding of time. Rather than treating time as a hidden dimension, changism views it as a conceptual system derived from the rates and patterns of change observed in nature. By focusing on observable cycles (e.g., atomic oscillations defining the second) and transformations, changism aligns more closely with rational immanent models found in ancient philosophies, such as the Stoic emphasis on logos, an intrinsic rational order pervading the cosmos (Long & Sedley 1987; Rovelli 2018).

This chapter examines how interpreting time as transcendental or immanent affects our understanding of relativity, rationality, and the broader coherence of our worldview. Applying Occam’s razor, it becomes clear that positing an unobservable time dimension is an unnecessary complexity. Instead, grounding time in observed processes and rational structures provides a simpler, more philosophically and scientifically coherent model that resonates with both modern physics and ancient wisdom traditions.

2. Transcendental Time in Relativity: A Metaphysical Extension

Einstein’s theory of relativity revolutionized our understanding of motion, gravity, and light. The standard geometric interpretation treats time as a fourth dimension, forming a unified spacetime manifold (Einstein 1916; Minkowski 1908). This framework, while empirically accurate in predictions, introduces a “block universe” perspective where all events — past, present, and future — exist equally. The human experience of “now” is seen as subjective, not fundamental, leading to metaphysical puzzles akin to transcendental theological constructs: a dimension assumed real and essential, yet never directly encountered as a tangible entity.

By elevating time to a quasi-spatial dimension, this approach can breed conceptual tensions:

• Ontological Complexity: Time as a dimension demands metaphysical commitments similar to transcendental theological principles, existing independent of direct observation.
• Determinism and Alienation: The block universe model suggests a static, unchanging set of events, undermining notions of agency, novelty, and purpose. Such alienation can mirror the existential void felt when divinity is remote and inscrutable.

3. Changism’s Immanent Interpretation: Time as Emergent from Change

Changism proposes a contrasting viewpoint, dispensing with the idea of time as an autonomous dimension. Instead, time is conceptualized as a tool developed by observers to measure and compare rates of change (Rovelli 2018; Barbour 1999). This perspective resonates with rational immanent philosophies: just as Stoic logos pervades nature, making it rational and intelligible (Long & Sedley 1987), so too does the changist model embed time within the observable patterns of the cosmos.

Central to this immanent view is the notion that:

• Cycle-Based Measurement: Units of time emerge from counting periodic events, such as the defined second from cesium-133 atom oscillations (BIPM 2019) or the day from Earth’s rotation.
• No Unseen Dimensions: Instead of positing a hidden time dimension, changism treats time dilation and relativistic effects as variations in process rates under different conditions (Einstein 1916; Hafele & Keating 1972). Clocks tick differently not because they move along a temporal axis, but because their internal dynamics unfold at different rates relative to other systems.

4. Transcendental vs. Immanent Views: Philosophical and Rational Implications

By reinterpreting relativistic phenomena without invoking an independent time dimension, changism reduces metaphysical burden. Occam’s razor, a core principle advocating minimal assumptions when explaining phenomena, supports the changist model. If empirical data can be equally explained by emergent concepts of time rooted in change, then positing a separate time dimension is superfluous.

From a rational standpoint:

• Transcendental Time: Leads to conceptual puzzles, determinism, and existential alienation. The world becomes static and human experience secondary, complicating rational coherence.
• Immanent Time (Changism): Reinforces rational intelligibility and dynamic engagement. By seeing time as woven into observable processes, coherence and comprehensibility increase, supporting human meaning-making and aligning with Stoic rational order.

5. Consequences for Coherence, Ethics, and Psychology

Embracing an immanent conception of time fosters a worldview where rationality and change are harmonious. Instead of a detached timeline fixed beyond human reach, we live in a cosmos where change is central and time is a convenient parameter. This:

• Enhances Logical Consistency: Without a superfluous dimension, logical coherence improves, providing a stable foundation for scientific inquiry.
• Encourages Ethical Agency: In a fluid, ever-emerging cosmos, personal responsibility and ethical choices gain significance. The absence of a rigid temporal dimension opens space for creativity, virtue, and moral growth aligned with Stoic principles (Long & Sedley 1987).
• Supports Psychological Well-Being: A more integrated view of time as emerging from change can reduce feelings of meaninglessness. Recognizing that human experience directly engages with the rational structure of reality aids psychological resilience, mitigating existential distress.

6. Conclusion: A Parsimonious and Immanent Understanding of Time

The changist model of time as emergent from observable processes provides a coherent, scientifically consistent, and philosophically elegant alternative to viewing time as a transcendental dimension. By applying Occam’s razor and privileging immanent over transcendental explanations, one can align modern physics with a deeply rational worldview that resonates with both ancient philosophical insights and contemporary empirical findings.

In doing so, changism liberates us from metaphysical complexities and paradoxes. Time need not be an elusive, external dimension; it can be understood as the relational metric of change. This reframing bridges the gap between the complexities of relativistic physics, the ethical guidance of Stoicism, and the psychological need for coherence, culminating in a model that integrates logic, well-being, and meaning.

• Barbour, J. (1999) The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics. Oxford University Press.
• BIPM (2019) The International System of Units (SI), 9th edn. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures.
• Einstein, A. (1916) Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. Methuen & Co.
• Hafele, J. C. and Keating, R. E. (1972) ‘Around-the-world atomic clocks: predicted relativistic time gains’, Science, 177(4044), pp. 166–168.
• Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. (1987) The Hellenistic Philosophers. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press.
• Minkowski, H. (1908) ‘Space and time’, Jahresberichte der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, English translation in: The Principle of Relativity, Dover Publications.
• Newton, I. (1687) Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. London.
• Rovelli, C. (2018) The Order of Time. Allen Lane.

Further Reading:

Changism 2: The Bewitchment of Language in Physics: https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/changism-2-the-bewitchment-of-language-in-physics-79acaf69757f

Changism 3: Timeless Eternal Change: https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/changism-3-timeless-eternal-change-b87ef0e2780b

Logos: https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/logos-0717f9fb6cde

Existence is necessarily eternal and uncreated — why something instead of nothing: https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/existence-is-necessarily-eternal-and-uncreated-5fe57626a60b