The Basics of Changism

Bringing Time Down To Earth

Introduction: Changism — A Universe in Flux

Part I: Foundations of Changism

1. Concepts of Time

2. The Changist Model: Time as a Measure of Change

3. Change as Ontological Necessity

4. Philosophical Underpinnings

Part II: Physics Through the Changist Lens

5. Classical Mechanics and Thermodynamics

6. Relativity Revisited

7. Quantum Mechanics and Change

8. Emergent Time in Cosmology

Part III: Language, Metaphor, and Myth

9. Linguistic Bewitchment in Physics

Part IV. Implications for Philosophy and Science

10. Freedom within Causality in a Changist Universe

11. Changism’s Advantages

Part V: Appendices

Appendix A: Refuting Objections

Appendix B: Immanent vs. Transcendental Views of Time and Their Socio-Psychological Implications

Appendix C: The Goddesses of Change

Appendix D: Navigating Lawful Structure and Contingency: Changism’s Middle Path

Appendix E: Changism in Dialogue with Process Philosophy

Appendix F: Why The Cosmos Must Necessarily Be Unbounded In Duration And Extent And Endlessly Open And Divisible.

Appendix G: Timeless Eternal Change

Introduction: Changism — A Universe in Flux

Our deepest intuitions about time often depict it as a flowing river, carrying us from a fixed past towards an uncertain future. Yet, modern physics, particularly Einstein’s relativity, challenges this intuitive picture, suggesting a “block universe” where past, present, and future coexist statically. This static view, while mathematically elegant, struggles to account for our lived experience of a dynamic, unfolding present. Changism offers a radical alternative, not by proposing new physics, but by reinterpreting existing theories through a different ontological lens. It asserts that change, not time, is fundamental. Time, in the Changist view, is merely a human construct — a tool for measuring the ever-present flux of the cosmos.

This seemingly simple shift has profound implications. By prioritizing change, Changism dissolves several persistent paradoxes associated with time, including McTaggart’s paradox and the puzzle of time’s flow. It reconciles the static picture of the block universe with our dynamic experience of the present by recognizing spacetime diagrams as records of change, not ontological realities. Furthermore, it aligns with the timelessness of certain quantum gravity models like the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, where time emerges from relational change within the universe itself.

A common critique of such ontological reinterpretations is their alleged unfalsifiability. However, this critique often overlooks the foundational role of logic in scientific inquiry. Just as the laws of logic — identity and non-contradiction — are not themselves empirically testable, yet underpin all scientific theories, Changism’s core principle — the ontological primacy of change — serves as a foundational axiom. It is not a claim about the universe but a claim about the preconditions for intelligibility within the universe. A static, unchanging universe, devoid of differentiation or interaction, would be logically incoherent. Therefore, Changism argues, change is not merely a feature of the universe but a necessary condition for its existence.

Furthermore, apparent contradictions between Changism and established physics dissolve upon closer examination. Just as perceived paradoxes within quantum mechanics (wave-particle duality, superposition, entanglement) and relativity (time dilation) are resolved within higher-order mathematical frameworks (Hilbert spaces, differential geometry), Changism proposes a reinterpretation of existing equations, not a rejection of them. The mathematics of relativity remains intact, with the time variable ‘t’ reinterpreted as a measure of cumulative change (χ). This reinterpretation, while not altering the predictive power of the equations, removes the ontological baggage of a “time dimension,” aligning more closely with our lived experience and the timelessness suggested by certain quantum gravity approaches.

Even emergent phenomena like thermodynamic irreversibility and chaotic behavior, which seem to contradict underlying microscopic laws, are ultimately reconciled within a logically consistent framework. Similarly, Changism explains that the human perception of the so-called “flow of time” arises from the continuous processing of change within our consciousness, and should therefore be better named “flow of change”.

Changism, therefore, is not an attempt to overturn established physics but to offer a more parsimonious and coherent interpretation of it. By grounding reality in the eternal present and recognizing time as an emergent measure of change, it offers a framework that is not only logically consistent but also more aligned with our experience of a dynamic, unfolding universe.

Part I: Foundations of Changism

1. Concepts of Time: A Changist Perspective

Our intuitive understanding of time often resembles a flowing river, carrying events from a nebulous future into a solidified past. This evocative metaphor, while poetically resonant, implies that time flows independently of the events it seemingly carries — a notion challenged by both modern physics and philosophy. Einstein’s relativity, formalized through Minkowski’s spacetime geometry, presents the block universe model: time is not a flowing entity but a dimension within a static four-dimensional continuum. Past, present, and future coexist, and our sense of temporal dynamism is relegated to a psychological artifact, akin to experiencing the narrative flow of a pre-written novel (Einstein 1916; Minkowski 1908).

This eternalist perspective, while mathematically elegant, faces significant philosophical challenges. If all moments of time exist equally, the dynamic quality of our experience — what McTaggart (1908) analyzed through the seemingly contradictory A-series (past/present/future) and B-series (earlier/later) — becomes difficult to explain. How can a static block universe account for the very processes that generate our perception of change, including our own neural activity? A static universe, where all events are fixed, seems to preclude the possibility of genuine change, leaving the perceived “flow” of time unexplained — or, worse, misexplained by claiming that the perception of change is an illusion caused by dynamic processes like neural activity.

Such “explanation” leads to circular reasoning and 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 illusion, leading to an endless chain of illusions explaining illusions. This lack of a foundational reality makes it impossible for the block universe theory to coherently explain subjective experiences like the so-called “passage of time” and the dynamic nature of change. Without a grounding in genuine change, the block universe reduces reality to a static, predetermined structure, stripping it of the dynamism that defines our lived experience.

Presentism offers an alternative, asserting that only the present moment is real. The past has ceased to be, and the future is yet to come. This aligns more closely with our immediate experience of a world in constant flux. However, critics argue that presentism clashes with relativity’s concept of the relativity of simultaneity (Einstein 1905). Events considered simultaneous in one frame of reference may not be so in another. Does this imply multiple, equally valid “presents,” contradicting presentism’s core tenet?

Changism argues that these objections arise from conflating measurable differences in the rates of change between observers (as explored by Rovelli 2018 and others) with fundamental ontological claims about the nature of time itself. The relativity of simultaneity, in a Changist interpretation, doesn’t necessitate multiple “nows” but highlights the observer-dependent measurement of change within a single, unified present. Two observers might disagree on which events are simultaneous because their local processes, which define their respective frames of reference, unfold at different rates. This perspective echoes Putnam’s (1967) argument for a “moderate realism,” where the structure of spacetime is relational and depends on the chosen coordinate system, without implying a multiplicity of ontologically distinct “presents.”

Changism inverts conventional assumptions by placing change at the ontological foundation. While eternalist models treat time as the immutable stage upon which change unfolds, rendering change illusory within a fixed continuum, Changism posits that change is ontologically fundamental. Time, then, is a derivative construct — a human abstraction developed to organize, measure, and synchronize the ceaseless dynamism of the cosmos. Instead of serving as the unyielding ground of Being, time emerges from the very flux of change itself, crystallizing in the regular rhythms of natural cycles — from the Earth’s rotation and the alternation of day and night to the oscillations of atoms and the expansion of the universe. Similar to Stein’s (1968) analysis of the “tenseless” nature of the present, Changism argues that our experience of time’s passage is not a feature of reality itself but a consequence of how we perceive and organize the continuous unfolding of change.

This aligns with the Rietdijk-Putnam argument (Rietdijk 1966, Putnam 1967), which, while often used to support the block universe view, can be reinterpreted within a Changist framework. The argument demonstrates that the relativity of simultaneity implies a “block-like” structure of spacetime from a given observer’s perspective. However, this doesn’t necessitate an ontologically real block universe. Instead, it highlights the limitations of any single observer’s perspective in capturing the totality of change unfolding in the universe. Each observer measures change relative to their local processes, creating a “personal block,” but these personal perspectives are ultimately reconciled within the single, dynamic present of the universe.

In this view, our conception of time is not that of a container within which events unfold but a pragmatic interpretive tool. It quantifies and gives meaning to the universe’s continuous, creative transformation. While the block universe treats time as an absolute, static dimension, Changism reveals a cosmos where change is primary, and time is simply the measure by which we quantify and coordinate its incessant flow. This foundational shift allows us to address the perceived conflict between presentism and relativity, offering a coherent account of a dynamic universe experienced within an ever-present now.

Thesis: Time as a Measure of Change
Time is not a dimension but a human-constructed tool to quantify change. Consider how a second is defined: 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a cesium-133 atom’s radiation (BIPM 2019). This definition reveals time’s operational essence — a count of cyclical processes. Similarly, a day is determined by one complete rotation of the Earth on its axis. In essence, these units are derived from counting cycles of recurring events. When physicists incorporate time into their equations, they are comparing rates of change in processes to these standard cycles, effectively measuring how one process unfolds relative to another.

For example, in Newtonian mechanics, equations like F=ma describe how forces alter motion, with t serving as a parameter to track rates of displacement. Thermodynamics’ so-called “arrow of time” is not evidence of temporal flow but of systems’ statistical drive toward disorder, a.k.a. entropy (Boltzmann 1877). Even relativity’s “time dilation” reflects not warped time but slowed processes — clocks ticking slower under velocity or gravity (Hafele & Keating 1972).

By divorcing time from dimensionality, Changism liberates physics from eternalism’s static cage. The universe is not a frozen tapestry but a ceaseless dance of change, measured by rhythms we call “time.” This reorientation resolves paradoxes, restores agency, and grounds physics in the palpable reality of the present.

Thesis Statement:
Time is not a fundamental dimension but a human-invented system to measure change. The universe exists in an eternal present, where all transformation occurs, and time emerges from the rhythms of cyclical processes.

• BIPM. (2019). The International System of Units (SI). 9th edn.
• Boltzmann, L. (1877). “Über die Beziehung zwischen dem zweiten Hauptsatze der mechanischen Wärmetheorie und der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung.” Wiener Berichte.
• Einstein, A. (1905). “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” Annalen der Physik.
• Einstein, A. (1916). “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.” Annalen der Physik.
• Hafele, J. C. & Keating, R. E. (1972). “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks.” Science.
• McTaggart, J. M. E. (1908). “The Unreality of Time.” Mind.
• Minkowski, H. (1908). “Space and Time.” The Principle of Relativity.
• Price, H. (1996). Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point. Oxford.
• Rovelli, C. (2018). The Order of Time. Riverhead Books.

2. The Changist Model

Key Concepts

2.1 The Eternal Present (A Label for Constant Change)

Changism maintains that the universe exists in a state of constant change, which is often labeled the “eternal present” for convenience. However, this label should not be misunderstood as implying a temporal dimension or a “present moment” in the conventional sense. Instead, it signifies that existence is fundamentally atemporal — there is no past, present, or future as independent realities. What we call the “past” consists of recorded changes, and the “future” represents unactualized potentialities. The “eternal present” is not a static instant but a dynamic continuum where all change occurs.

For example, a plant’s growth — each cellular division, each unfurling leaf — happens in this ever-changing state. The fossilized rings of a tree mark changes that have occurred, but they are not “in the past” as if stored in a temporal dimension. Similarly, a seed’s potential to sprout represents possible changes, not a predetermined future waiting in time.

2.2 Change as Fundamental

Drawing on Heraclitus’s vision of perpetual flux, Changism asserts that change is the bedrock of reality. Existence itself is an unceasing process of transformation: stars fuse elements, ecosystems evolve, and quantum states collapse — all within this dynamic, atemporal framework. Crucially, change is not an event happening “in time”; rather, it is the substance of existence. Time emerges only as a conceptual framework for measuring and comparing rates of change.

The notion that time “passes” confuses what is fundamentally a dynamic reconfiguration of reality at every moment. Change is not something that occurs within time; it is the very fabric of existence.

2.3 Time as a Measurement Tool

In Changism, time is a human invention — a system devised to compare and quantify rates of change. Just as meters measure spatial extension, seconds measure intervals defined by cyclical processes. For instance, the rotation of the Earth (a continuous change) delineates days; the oscillations of cesium-133 atoms define the second (BIPM 2019). When a pendulum swings, we track its motion in discrete counts to mark “time,” but the pendulum itself remains an object in flux, existing solely in the ever-changing state of reality.

Even the relativistic phenomenon called “time dilation” does not imply time being “warped”; rather, it indicates that processes slow down — such as atomic vibrations — when subjected to high velocity or strong gravity (Hafele & Keating 1972).

2.4 Critique of McTaggart’s “Unreality of Time”

In his classic essay, McTaggart (1908) argued that time is unreal, citing two series by which we describe events:

• A-Series (Past/Present/Future): Events shift from future to present to past.
• B-Series (Earlier/Later): Events maintain fixed positions relative to one another (e.g., 1900 is earlier than 2020, regardless of perspective).

McTaggart held that the A-series is contradictory because an event changes from future to present to past, whereas the B-series fails to capture the dynamic essence of temporal passage. He concluded that time must be illusory, given these apparent contradictions.

Changism resolves McTaggart’s paradox by endorsing a presentist stance, but with a crucial clarification: the “present” is not a temporal moment but a label for the ever-changing state of existence. If only the now exists, events do not literally change from future to past; they come into being as part of the continuous flux of reality. The sensation of a “flow of time” arises not from an actual temporal dimension but from cognitive processes that integrate memory (retention) and anticipation (protention) into our immediate awareness (Husserl 1905).

For example, when watching a sunset, the continuous arrival of photons onto the retina is experienced as an unfolding spectacle, but each photon’s impact is a “present-moment” event within the dynamic, atemporal framework of an existence that is eternally becoming.

2.5 Changism’s Ontological Economy

By rejecting time as an independent dimension and grounding reality in constant change, Changism offers a parsimonious ontology:

• Resolves McTaggart’s Paradox: Since only the ever-changing state exists, there is no contradictory shift from future to past.
• Reconciles Relativity with Experience: Variations in simultaneity reflect differences in the measurement of change, not ontological multiplicities of time.
• Restores Dynamism and Agency: Free will and creativity are genuinely operative in a reality that is continuously actualizing possibilities.

In Changism, time reverts to its original function: a tool for measuring the universe’s ongoing transformation rather than a cosmic dimension dictating the fates of all events. Stripped of its reified status, time becomes what it always was — an ingenious human system for navigating the endless dance of becoming.

• BIPM. (2019). The International System of Units (SI). 9th edn.
• Hafele, J. C., & Keating, R. E. (1972). “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks.” Science.
• Husserl, E. (1905). The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness.
• McTaggart, J. M. E. (1908). “The Unreality of Time.” Mind.

3. Change as Ontological Necessity

Changism affirms that time is not simply a byword for change but that change itself is the foundational substance of reality. This stance diverges from theories that view motion or temporal flow as mere properties occurring within a static framework. Instead, Changism holds that all forms of existence — ranging from the motion of galaxies to quantum fluctuations — arise from an underlying continuum of transformation. Motion, though often the most visible sign of change, is only one of its many expressions; energy transfer, wavefunction collapse, and entropy-driven reorganization also exemplify the ceaseless metamorphosis undergirding the cosmos.

Crucially, this model regards change as the very essence of being, rejecting the notion of absolute stillness. Just as non-existence is incoherent — there can be no literal “nothingness” — a cosmos devoid of change would lack the differentiation and interaction required to sustain any form of identity. Support for this view emerges from modern physics: relativity shows there is no universal rest frame (Einstein 1905), quantum mechanics demonstrates that zero-point energy prevents perfect quiescence (Heisenberg 1930), and thermodynamics reveals an irreversible dispersal of energy through entropy (Boltzmann 1877). From a Changist perspective, these findings attest to the impossibility of a static universe, affirming that change is not an abstract imposition but the ontological heartbeat of existence.

3.1 What Is the Origin of Change?

A common objection to this view is that it leaves unanswered the question of how change arises in the first place, seemingly necessitating an external trigger. Yet this criticism misconstrues Changism’s position, which maintains that change is eternal and self-sustaining. If the cosmos is uncreated, it follows that it has no initial state of perfect stillness; such a condition would never evolve into motion without violating the very principle of non-existence that absolute stasis represents. For Changism, existence and dynamism are synonymous: to be is to be in flux.

Nor does this imply chaos or randomness. The universe operates within an immanent logos, an intrinsic rational order manifest in consistent laws and predictable patterns. Stellar fusion, for example, arises from the interplay of gravitation and quantum forces; ecosystems self-organize through evolutionary feedback loops; and quantum particles actualize specific states upon interaction. Each phenomenon reflects the fact that change proceeds according to coherent principles rather than an external, commanding force. Indeed, at the quantum level, what may seem like “indeterminacy” is still the normal condition of reality — no event “waits for time” to bring it forth; rather, each event is a change in the present.

3.2 Integration with Existing Arguments

Several key insights further reinforce the ontological primacy of change in Changism. First, motion itself is a necessity for differentiation. Without movement or transformation, nothing could be distinguished from anything else, erasing the very concept of existence. Second, change pervades every scale of the universe, from subatomic processes that unfold in attoseconds to galactic cycles spanning billions of years. No smallest interval truncates the continuum of change, which proves inexhaustibly divisible. Lastly, the cosmos’s rational flow arises from fundamental principles like conservation laws and symmetry, ensuring that changes remain coherent and measurable rather than arbitrary. By grounding change in these structural constants, Changism illustrates how the universe’s dynamism is guided by an internal logic — one that makes phenomena intelligible to observers.

Ultimately, Changism dispels the assumption that time must exist as an independent dimension or that a prime mover is needed to initiate cosmic motion. Instead, it asserts:

1. Change is Fundamental — the substrate from which all phenomena emerge.
2. Logos Provides Structure — an immanent rationality that governs and makes change measurable.
3. Eternality Negates a Prime Mover — the universe’s self-transformation unfolds continuously, needing no external cause.

By treating time as a measure of ongoing transformation rather than a grand container or dimension, Changism reconciles insights from physics and philosophy. In this paradigm, the dynamic quality of the cosmos is not an afterthought but its deepest truth — the essence and the explanation of all that exists.

As Blake saw eternity in an hour, Changism sees infinite change in every instant — a cosmos where logos weaves motion into meaning, and stillness is but a myth. The universe, eternal and uncreated, dances not to time’s tune but to its own rational rhythm.

• Einstein, A. (1905). On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.
• Heisenberg, W. (1930). The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory.
• Boltzmann, L. (1877). Über die Beziehung zwischen dem zweiten Hauptsatze der mechanischen Wärmetheorie.

4. Philosophical Underpinnings

The Changist model is not born in a vacuum. Its roots stretch deep into the soil of Western philosophy, where thinkers grappled with the paradox of permanence and flux, order and chaos. By synthesizing ancient insights with modern phenomenology, Changism bridges metaphysics and physics, offering a coherent framework for understanding time as the measure of change.

4.1 Heraclitus: The Primacy of Flux

Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 535–475 BCE) famously declared, “No one steps into the same river twice” (DK22B12). For him, reality was a ceaseless flux — an eternal fire kindling and extinguishing in measures. Change was not an aberration but the essence of existence. His aphorism “All things flow” (πάντα ῥεῖ) prefigures Changism’s core tenet: the universe is not a static collection of objects but a dynamic process of becoming. Heraclitus’s emphasis on logos (λόγος) — the organising force structuring change — resonates with modern physics’ laws, which govern how potentialities actualize (Kahn 1979).

4.2 Stoic Chronos

“χρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ κόσμου διάστασις κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κόσμου κίνησιν,”

“Time is the measure corresponding to the motion of the cosmos.”
— Chrysippus.

In Stoic philosophy, chronos (time) is not an independent entity flowing from past to future but a conceptual framework for measuring and organizing change. It has no causal power of its own and depends on the actual motion and transformation of bodies for its meaning. Put simply, time arises when we track how things alter state — whether through regular cycles (like planetary orbits) or shifting properties (like aging or growth). Much like a clock relies on ticks or oscillations, chronos emerges from counting how corporeal entities evolve, rather than existing as an absolute dimension that drives events forward.

At the core of Stoic metaphysics lies corporalism, the principle that bodies (somata) form the real substrate of existence. Defined by their capacity to act and be acted upon, these physical entities include everything from stones to stars, as well as living beings and even the human soul (conceived as a special kind of material pneuma). Since bodies alone possess causal power, all phenomena — motion, perception, growth — ultimately stem from interactions among corporeal agents.

Although corporeals make up the bedrock of reality, the Stoics also acknowledged incorporeals — items like time, void, and lekta (semantic meanings). These incorporeals do not exert causal influence; instead, they subsist as relational or conceptual frameworks necessary for interpreting the material world. In the case of chronos, it organizes the before and after of physical processes, but has no standalone existence if corporeal entities cease to change. Thus, time remains a valuable measuring tool rooted in material change, reflecting the Stoic belief that even so-called “abstract” concepts derive their reality and usefulness from corporeal foundations.

The Stoics believe the term “time” is not an inexorable, independent flow but rather a human construct devised to quantify the inherent motion and transformation of the universe. Changism inherits this vision: the laws of physics (logos) govern how entities actualize their potential within the eternal present, ensuring coherence amid perpetual change.

4.3 Aristotle’s View on Time: A Relational Measure of Change

Aristotle offers a perspective that aligns closely with the Stoic understanding. In his works, he defines time not as an independent entity but as a measure of change — a tool to count and compare motions. He states:

“οὔτε γὰρ τὸ πρότερον οὔτε τὸ ὕστερον ὄντα χρόνος ἂν εἴη, ἀλλὰ μόνον τὸ νῦν, καὶ τοῦτο μετροῦμεν τῷ χρόνῳ.”

“Neither the past nor the future exist; only the present is, and this we measure with time.”
— Aristotle, Physics IV.10, 218a1

“ἀριθμὸς κινήσεως κατὰ τὸ πρότερον καὶ ὕστερον,”

“Time is the number of motions with respect to the before and after.”
— (Aristotle 1999)

Here, the term “number” (arithmos) signifies that time is essentially a count or measure of the cosmos’ continuous movements. Both Aristotle and the Stoics regarded time (chronos) as a construct born from humanity’s need to comprehend, organize, and predict the ever-present flux of reality .

In exploring these ideas, this article reveals a surprising alignment between ancient Stoic and Aristotelian conceptions and certain strands of modern physics. Both traditions converge on the view that what we call “time” is an emergent parameter — a practical system for quantifying change, not an independent substance traversed by events.

4.4 Bergson’s Duration: Change as Lived Experience

Henri Bergson (1859–1941) challenged the Newtonian “spatialization” of time, arguing against the reduction of time to a mere quantitative measure akin to spatial extension. He distinguished between scientific time — quantifiable and divisible into discrete units — and duration ( durée ), the lived, qualitative experience of time’s passage (Bergson 1910). Duration, for Bergson, is not an abstract dimension but the very essence of lived reality: a continuous, indivisible, and creative unfolding of experience that resists reduction to clock measurements. It’s not a series of static snapshots but an interpenetrating flow of moments, where the past lingers in the present, shaping our perception and anticipation of the future. As Deleuze (1991) elucidates, Bergson’s duration is not simply about the subjective experience of time; it’s about the ontological reality of becoming, where the present is not an instant but a dynamic synthesis of past and future tendencies.

Changism resonates deeply with Bergson’s insights. While physics quantifies change through cyclical processes, like the oscillations of atomic clocks, human consciousness, attuned to Bergsonian duration, perceives an unbroken continuum of change. This continuum is not a mysterious “flow of time” but the tangible flow of experience — a dynamic interplay of memory (retention of the past), sensation (immediacy of the present), and anticipation (projection into the future). Changism refines Bergson’s perspective by explicitly grounding this continuous unfolding in the ontologically primary flow of change, rather than attributing it to a separate temporal dimension.

4.5 Husserl’s Phenomenology of Change-Consciousness

Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), in his phenomenological analysis of time-consciousness, offered a detailed account of how we experience what is conventionally called “time.” He dissected this experience into three interconnected phases: retention (the immediate past held in consciousness), primal impression (the vivid, ever-renewing experience of the present), and protention (the anticipation of what is about to occur) (Husserl 1905). Husserl argued that these three elements, working in concert, create the impression of a flowing time.

While Husserl described this impression as a “flow,” it’s crucial to note that his primary focus was on how consciousness organizes successive moments of experience. His analysis meticulously charts how our minds process continuous change, integrating retention and protention to synthesize a unified, dynamic present. Whether this constitutes an “illusion” of temporal flow is a matter of ongoing debate within phenomenology. Alternative views, such as those presented by Zahavi (2005), argue for the reality of temporal experience as a fundamental aspect of consciousness, not a mere epiphenomenon of underlying processes.

Changism adopts Husserl’s tripartite structure (retention, primal impression, protention) but reinterprets its ontological implications. Rather than perceiving a flow of time, we experience a flow of change. Our minds integrate what has been retained (past changes) with what is anticipated (potential future changes) to create a coherent experience of the present. When we say “time passes,” we are actually describing the continuous flow of change as experienced in the present moment. This interpretation dissolves McTaggart’s paradox, not by denying the reality of temporal experience, but by grounding it in the dynamic flow of change, rather than in a separate, independent temporal entity. It aligns with Changism’s core principle that the universe exists in an eternal present, where change is the fundamental reality, and time is the measure by which we navigate this ceaseless transformation.

4.6 Process Philosophy: Becoming Instead Of Being

Closely related to the thought of Alfred North Whitehead and other process thinkers, process philosophy views the universe as composed fundamentally of events or becomings rather than static substances. Whitehead’s classic work, Process and Reality, rejects the notion of time as a neutral stage upon which entities play out fixed roles. Instead, every “actual occasion” (his term for the basic unit of reality) is a pulse of becoming that inherits features from previous occasions, integrates them in a unique manner, and bequeaths its transformed essence to subsequent occasions. Under this vision, permanence is a useful abstraction, but the real truth of existence lies in its ongoing flux.

From a process-philosophical viewpoint, time itself emerges from a tapestry of interwoven events, each one “taking account” of the past while providing novel potentialities for the future. This stance parallels Changism’s insistence that what we often call “the flow of time” is not an independent dimension but a conceptual tool that measures the unfolding of change. Much like process thinkers who see becoming as ontologically primary, Changism places change at the very bedrock of reality, arguing that everything in existence undergoes continuous transformation.

What unites process philosophy and Changism is the conviction that change is not merely a side-effect of a cosmic mechanism that runs on pre-set causes, but is instead the core dynamic that constitutes reality. Both approaches resist a domino-style determinism in favor of lawful yet open-ended processes that respect physical principles without funneling all change into a strict linear chain. In Whitehead’s language, each occasion is relational — defined by its internal constitution (how it feels and integrates past data) and by how it innovates upon that data, breathing fresh potential into the ongoing “creative advance.” In Changism, similarly, entities evolve according to their nature and environment while adhering to natural laws, but they do not do so in a single forced trajectory. Rather, they unfold in a rich, self-renewing dance of becoming.

In short, process philosophy and Changism share deep affinities in centering flux over static structures, treating time as a conceptual measure of transformation rather than an ontological dimension, and recognizing the continual emergence of novelty within lawful constraints. They both carve out philosophical space where the cosmos is not a frozen four-dimensional block but an unceasing production of change, a tapestry of events weaving themselves into ever-new patterns.

Taken together, Heraclitus, Aristotle, the Stoics, Bergson, Husserl, and process philosophers like Whitehead, each push us toward a common realization: change is the irreducible reality that underlies what we conventionally label as “time.” From the Stoics’ logos to Whitehead’s creative advance, from Bergson’s duration to Husserl’s time-consciousness, these philosophical currents converge on the idea that “time” is not the container of becoming, but a concept derived from it.

In this respect, Changism stands as a integrative reinterpretation of these diverse yet resonant viewpoints. It upholds change — the ceaseless, lawfully guided flux of reality — as the primary ontology, while acknowledging that humans experience and measure that flux under labels like “past,” “present,” and “future.” In aligning with process philosophy, Changism rejects the notion of a rigidly determined universe governed by an invisible timeline, instead offering a cosmos ever in the midst of self-renewal, governed by rational principles yet open to adaptive evolution.

By bridging the insights of ancient thinkers and modern process philosophers, Changism situates itself in a venerable tradition that sees movement, transformation, and becoming as the real substance of existence — and “time” as the conceptual scaffolding that helps us navigate, share, and examine the eternal transformation of the cosmos.

• Aristotle. (1999). Physics. Trans. R. Waterfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bergson, H. (1910). Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate Data of Consciousness. London: Allen & Unwin.
• BIPM. (2019). The International System of Units (SI). 9th edn.
• Kahn, C. H. (1979). The Art and Thought of Heraclitus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Husserl, E. (1964). The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness. Trans. J. S. Churchill. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Marcus Aurelius. (2003). Meditations. Trans. G. Hays. New York: Modern Library.
• Long, A. A., & Sedley, D. (1987). The Hellenistic Philosophers, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Whitehead (2025). Process and Reality, Restored Editions.

Part II: Physics Through the Changist Lens

5. Classical Mechanics and Thermodynamics

5.1 Newtonian Equations: Time as a Rate Parameter

Newtonian mechanics, often cited as the birthplace of “absolute time,” in fact contains no inherent requirement for time to be a fundamental dimension. Consider Newton’s Second Law:

Here, t is not a backdrop through which objects move; rather, it is a parameter that tracks how velocity (v) changes — which itself tracks how position (x) changes. Acceleration (a) is thus a second-order change, describing how velocity evolves as forces act in the present. For instance, when an apple falls, the force of gravity continuously alters its velocity right now, not because the apple is traveling through a temporal dimension.

Likewise, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation,

only explicitly invokes t when we measure motion (e.g., calculating orbital periods). The gravitational interaction itself is understood (in Newton’s original formulation) as acting instantaneously in relational space — not as a force transmitted through “time.” Newton’s idea of “absolute time” was largely a pragmatic abstraction, akin to using grid lines on a map to coordinate position. It measures motion but does not itself constitute the landscape.

5.2 Thermodynamics: Entropy as Directional Change

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy (S) in an isolated system never decreases:

Commonly called the “arrow of time,” this rule is often misread as proof that time flows. Under Changism, however, entropy increase is better understood as a directional process of change occurring entirely within the eternal present. Suppose we watch an ice cube melt: its molecules move from relatively ordered (solid) to more disordered (liquid) states through countless collisions happening now. The notions of a “past state” (ice) or a “future state” (water) are conceptual records and projections of these present-moment changes, not real temporal endpoints.

5.3 Self-Organization: The Complementary Face of Change

Biological systems like growing organisms or entire ecosystems appear to defy entropy by building localized order. Yet this is not a temporal paradox, but rather a different mode of change:

1. Self-Organization as Feedback Loops
   Living cells maintain structure by importing nutrients and exporting waste in the present. Hurricanes, similarly, emerge as dissipative structures when energy flows through far-from-equilibrium conditions.
2. Dissipative Structures
   As Prigogine (1980) showed, systems like hurricanes or living organisms export entropy to their surroundings while creating order locally. It’s not that time “flows backward”; change simply manifests in two complementary ways — entropy disperses energy globally, while self-organization channels energy into locally coherent forms.
3. Virtuous Cycles
   Photosynthesis harnesses solar energy to form ordered biomass, whereas respiration releases this energy as heat. Both processes happen now, powered by energy gradients, not by some one-way flow of time.

Changism thus treats the “arrow of time” as a statistical bias of change within closed systems, rather than literal evidence that “time” itself moves. Energy gradients enable self-organization in open systems — again, not reversing time, but revealing how change can manifest both as entropy increase and as the emergence of structure.

5.4 Operationalizing “Time” in Classical Physics

1. Pendulum Clocks
   We count swings — physical changes in a pendulum’s position — to mark intervals.
2. Celestial Motion
   Earth’s rotation (a cyclical change) defines days, while its orbit defines years. We treat these regular changes as yardsticks for “time.”
3. Heat Engines
   Carnot efficiency (η) depends on temperature differences driving energy transfers in the present. Thermodynamic processes occur now, though we often label certain states “initial” or “final.”

In each case, “time” emerges from tallying cyclical or directional changes. The classical equations remain valid, but Changism insists they do not require time as a literal dimension. Instead, Newton’s t, entropy’s ΔS, or Carnot’s efficiency all describe how processes unfold — one change at a time — within the ongoing present.

Conclusion:
By discarding “time” as an absolute background, classical mechanics and thermodynamics become views of a universe in perpetual transformation. Newton’s t, thermodynamic entropy, and engine efficiencies do not hinge on a rigid temporal dimension; rather, they capture the steady pulse of change shaping the cosmos from moment to moment.

• Boltzmann, L. (1877). “Über die Beziehung zwischen dem zweiten Hauptsatze der mechanischen Wärmetheorie und der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung.” Wiener Berichte.
• Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

6. Relativity Revisited: The Space-Change Continuum

6.1 From Spacetime to the Space-Change Continuum

Einstein’s theory of relativity merges space and time into a four-dimensional entity called spacetime. Changism accepts all the mathematical results of relativity but recasts the ontological meaning behind them. Instead of treating time as a separate dimension, it introduces the Space-Change Continuum (SCC):

• 3D Space: The arena of existence, where all entities reside and interact.
• Change Parameter (χ): A scalar that tracks how processes evolve (e.g., the oscillations of atomic clocks, the rotational cycles of planets).

Under this interpretation, the “fourth coordinate” is not a literal time axis, but rather a comparative measure of change rates. For example, a pulsar might define “milliseconds” by spinning rapidly, while Earth’s rotation yields a 24-hour day. The standard spacetime interval,

can be read conceptually as

where dχ represents increments of change, not “elapsed time.” Although the mathematical structure remains unchanged, time is no longer treated as a genuine dimension but rather as a convenient tool for quantifying how processes unfold.

6.2 Rate of Change Variations as “Relativistic Effects”

Slowing Processes Rather than Stretching Time
In special relativity, clocks in high-speed motion run more slowly relative to clocks at rest. Traditionally, this phenomenon is called “time dilation.” Changism, however, interprets it as a slowing of processes:

• Lorentz Factor

transitions, biochemical reactions) proceed in a fast-moving frame. They all run more slowly from the perspective of a stationary observer — not because “time” is stretched, but because motion diminishes the pace of change within that moving system.

• Everyday Analogy
  Think of two pendulums: one swings in denser air, the other in thinner air. Both exist simultaneously “now,” yet the one in denser air oscillates more slowly. Similarly, in special relativity, the entire set of processes in a high-velocity frame slows in unison, matching observed data but sidestepping the notion that “time” itself is warping.

Gravitational Slowdown
A gravitational well is often said to “bend time.” Under Changism, mass-energy instead changes how quickly processes run:

• Gravitational Potential
  Near a massive body (e.g., a black hole), atomic oscillations and chemical reactions proceed at a slower rate compared to those further away. This does not mean “time flows differently,” but that local rates of change are reduced, largely due to energy gradients in the gravitational field.
• Practical Example: GPS
  GPS satellites experience different gravitational and velocity conditions compared to observers on Earth. Engineers compensate for these (~38 microseconds per day), but Changism views such corrections as adjustments for mismatched local change-rates, not proof of a separate time dimension.

6.3 Causality, Light-Speed, and the Eternal Now

Relativity imposes a speed limit (c) on any causal influence. Changism reads c as the maximum speed at which changes propagate (e.g., electromagnetic signals), ensuring a coherent causal order:

• Orderly Causal Structure
  Events occur within a single, ever-present “now,” guided by physical laws (logos). There is no actual “time dimension” to traverse. The inability of signals to exceed c simply secures causal consistency.
• Mental Constructs of Past/Future
  “Past” refers to those changes we have recorded as already completed, while “future” marks unactualized possibilities. We exist only in an eternal flux, experiencing a constant transformation of reality and becoming something new while getting old.

6.4 The Critique of Spacetime as an Ontological Entity

Einstein’s unification elegantly predicts relativity’s findings, but it can be read to endorse a “block universe,” where past, present, and future all “exist” equally — undermining free will and novelty. Changism retains Einstein’s equations while denying that “time” is a fundamental dimension:

• Eliminating Redundancy
  If time were genuinely a dimension, why do we only sense change — never physically encountering an already-actual future or a still-real past? Changism obviates this riddle by downplaying time’s dimensional status.
• Restoring Dynamism
  A 4D block suggests events are laid out “all at once” in spacetime. In contrast, Changism sees the universe as pure becoming, with χ measuring the pace of unfolding changes, rather than imposing an abstract timeline.

6.5 Resolving the Tension: Changism and the Relativity of Simultaneity

Einstein’s theory of relativity introduces the challenge of the relativity of simultaneity, whereby events deemed simultaneous in one inertial frame are not necessarily simultaneous in another. This poses a problem for presentist views that insist only the “now” is real. Changism addresses this tension by shifting the focus from an abstract temporal dimension to change itself. In the Changist model, what we call “time” is not an independent flow but a measure of how processes evolve. Each observer, depending on their relative motion or gravitational context, measures change at a different rate — such as a clock ticking more slowly in a fast-moving spacecraft or near a massive object. However, rather than suggesting that multiple “nows” exist, Changism maintains that every observer’s “present” is defined by their local processes of change, reinforcing the idea of a single, dynamic, and ever-evolving existence.

By reinterpreting the fourth coordinate not as “time” but as a parameter χ that quantifies change, Changism renders relativistic effects — like time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity — as variations in the rate at which change occurs. In this framework, the speed of light c becomes the maximum rate at which any process or causal influence can propagate, ensuring a coherent causal order without positing an absolute time. This approach not only preserves the empirical successes of relativity but also aligns more naturally with our lived experience of a so called “eternal now,” where only the present moment is real and observable. By eliminating the metaphysical baggage of time as a dimension, Changism offers a more parsimonious, intuitively satisfying interpretation that resolves traditional paradoxes and bridges the gap between philosophical presentism and the relativistic understanding of the cosmos.

6.6 Untangling Common Tensions

1. Block Universe vs. Presentism
   Standard spacetime diagrams can tempt us toward a block perspective, but Changism treats them as historical records of events. It upholds a presentist stance: only the evolving now is real, while “time” is a way of summarizing prior or anticipated changes.
2. Quantum Gravity and Timeless Equations
   In advanced theories like Wheeler–DeWitt, “time” can vanish at fundamental levels. Changism sees this as natural: if “time” is just an emergent measure of change, deep physical laws may not require a distinct time parameter.
3. Practical Example: GPS
   Relativistic corrections for satellite clocks reflect variations in local change-rates under velocity or gravity. Changism affirms that these differences do not imply an autonomous time dimension — they merely show how clocks (i.e., organized change processes) diverge under different conditions.
4. No Universal Rate of Change: Change Is Relative
   The universe is not a collection of events strung along a temporal dimension but a dynamic web of relative changes. Each observer measures change according to their local processes, such as atomic oscillations or planetary rotations. These measurements are frame-dependent, but the underlying reality — change itself — is universal. Different observers measure different rates of change due to relative motion or gravitational fields. For example, a clock in a high-speed frame ticks slower than a clock at rest, but this is not evidence of “time dilation” in an absolute sense. Instead, it reflects a difference in the rate of change between the two frames. Changism does not posit an absolute present moment that all observers must agree on. Instead, it recognizes that each observer’s “now” is defined by their local processes of change. What is “present” for one observer may be “past” or “future” for another, but this does not imply multiple realities. It simply reflects the relativity of change measurement. The universe as a whole is timeless. It does not “move through time” but exists as a dynamic, ever-changing present. The past and future are not real entities but conceptual extrapolations based on recorded or anticipated changes.

6.7 Changism’s Ontological Shift, Not a New Physics Theory

A frequent objection is that Changism adds no novel math to relativity. But it does not aim to revise Einstein’s equations:

1. Same Framework
   It keeps Minkowski metrics and Einstein’s field equations fully intact.
2. Reinterpretation of tt
   The variable “t” becomes an operational count of change (e.g., tracking atomic clock ticks), rather than a separate axis.
3. Rejecting Time as Fundamental
   Where standard relativity calls it “the time dimension,” Changism speaks of a “rate-of-change continuum” shaped by mass and energy distributions.

Phenomena like gravitational lensing or frame-dragging still occur. They describe how change (e.g., photon trajectories, clock rates) is redirected or decelerated by mass-energy — not that a dimension called “time” is literally bending.

6.8 A Universe Without “Time” as a Dimension

Despite discarding time as an ontological dimension, Changism retains all of relativity’s predictive success — time dilation, gravitational curvature, and causal speed limits remain valid. The difference lies in interpretation:

• Ever-Present Now
  All phenomena happen in the eternal present, modulated by locally varying rates of change.
• Equations Unchanged
  The same relativistic formulas apply, but we see “t” as a parameter that tallies changes, rather than one that references a static timeline.
• Unburdening Metaphysics
  Freed from block-universe determinism, novelty and free will can remain intact, consistent with observed results.

Under this reinterpretation, relativity describes a cosmos of unfolding change — where energy transformations, gravitational influences, and electromagnetic signals operate within one dynamic present. It honors Einstein’s mathematics while sidestepping a rigid “time dimension,” giving us a Changist picture of the universe as forever in flux.

• Einstein, A. (1916). “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.” Annalen der Physik.
• Rovelli, C. (2018). The Order of Time. Riverhead Books.
• Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., & Wheeler, J. A. (1973). Gravitation. W. H. Freeman.
• Boltzmann, L. (1877). “Über die Beziehung zwischen dem zweiten Hauptsatze der mechanischen Wärmetheorie und der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung.” Wiener Berichte.
• Newton, I. (1687). Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

Just as Kali’s dance transcends linear narratives of destruction and Persephone’s cycles defy simple chronology, Changism transcends the block universe’s rigid geometry. Time’s dissolution into change is not a simplification but a liberation — a return to the cosmic dance that physics’ equations have always described.

7. Quantum Mechanics and Change

7.1 Wavefunction Collapse: Actualization in the Eternal Present

Quantum mechanics, with its probabilistic nature, often appears at odds with classical intuitions. Changism addresses this by treating wavefunction collapse — the transition from superposition to a definite outcome — not as an event in time but as a present-moment actualization of potential.

• The Schrödinger Equation

• describes how a wavefunction ψ\psi evolves with respect to the change parameter χ, rather than “time.” During a measurement, the system’s multiple potential states (e.g., an electron spin being up or down) are resolved in the eternal now, driven by interactions with a detector or environment.
• Example: Schrödinger’s Cat
  The cat is neither “alive” nor “dead” until observed — not because some “future point” decides the outcome, but because the observation in the present triggers actualization. Once we eliminate a separate “time axis,” the cat’s fate is a here-and-now event, dissolving the paradox of waiting for “time” to pass.

7.2 Superposition: Coexisting Potentials

Quantum superposition often gets framed as if states exist “across time.” Under Changism, superposition is a set of coexisting possibilities in the present. The particle “chooses” one outcome only upon interaction:

• Double-Slit Experiment
  The interference pattern arises from wave-like potentials existing now, not a particle “traveling through time” in two places at once. A detector’s measurement collapses these simultaneously present potentials to a single actualized outcome — a discrete change unfolding in the present moment.

7.3 Entanglement: Instantaneous Change Without Temporal Mediation

Entangled particles exhibit correlated states across spatial separations, leading to the so-called “spooky action at a distance” (Einstein 1935). Changism interprets entanglement as synchronized change in the eternal now:

• Bell’s Theorem and Non-Locality
  Experimental violations of Bell’s inequalities rule out purely local hidden variables. Changism resolves this by dismissing the need for time-based locality; entangled particles form a unified present-moment network, where measuring one particle’s state instantaneously co-determines its partner’s outcome. There is no need for faster-than-light signaling — only a shared here-and-now structure that underlies both particles.

7.4 The Timeless Wheeler–DeWitt Equation

In quantum gravity, the Wheeler–DeWitt equation,

famously omits a time variable — an alignment with Changism. Here, Ψ represents the quantum state of the entire universe, and the equation’s “timelessness” reflects the eternal present. Time, in this view, emerges only when subsystems (like conscious observers) track internal changes (e.g., cosmic expansion) — akin to how pendulum swings define seconds in everyday life.

7.5 Decoherence and the Illusion of Temporal Flow

Decoherence explains how quantum systems appear to lose their “quantum weirdness” by interacting with the environment, yielding classical behavior. Changism sees decoherence as a sequence of present-moment changes, not a process spread out in time:

• Statistical Bias
  The perceived “arrow of time” in decoherence stems from entropy’s statistical tendencies (see Chapter 5), rather than literal temporal directionality. Once again, change — not “time” — drives the transition from coherent superpositions to classical outcomes.

7.6 Quantum Reality as Pure Becoming

Stripped of a temporal ontology, quantum mechanics reveals a universe of perpetual actualization:

1. Superposition: Multiple potential outcomes exist simultaneously.
2. Entanglement: Spatially separated events remain unified through a shared now.
3. Wavefunction Collapse: A system’s state “collapses” in a single present moment, triggered by interactions or measurements.

Quantum mechanics, stripped of temporal ontology, reveals a universe of perpetual actualization. Superposition, entanglement, and collapse are not puzzles of time but expressions of change’s richness in the eternal present. By interpreting “time” as a measure of ongoing change, the universe is seen as pure becoming, consistent with relativity yet unburdened by metaphysical notions of a separate time dimension.

• Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review.
• Rovelli, C. (1996). “Relational Quantum Mechanics.” International Journal of Theoretical Physics.
• Wheeler, J. A., & DeWitt, B. (1967). “Quantum Theory of Gravity.” Physical Review.

Like Persephone bridging life and death, quantum systems straddle potential and actuality — a dance of creation and destruction within the eternal present. Kali’s entropy and Persephone’s renewal are mirrored in decoherence and entanglement, twin faces of change’s boundless creativity.

8. Emergent Time in Cosmology

8.1 Existence as Necessary and Eternal

Changism begins with a simple yet profound point of logic: non-existence is incoherent. If “non-existence” (Not A) were to exist, it would cease to be non-existence and become part of existence (A), violating the Law of Non-Contradiction. Consequently, existence — the state of being — stands as the only logically consistent reality, requiring no external cause or precursor. It is by necessity and cannot be bounded by anything “outside” of it.

From this standpoint, the cosmos — as part of this all-encompassing existence — is inherently self-contained and eternal. There is no “beyond” into which it expands, nor any prior state of non-existence from which it emerged. Rather than being finite or created at a single “start,” existence is an ever-present framework housing all phenomena, from energy and matter to space and the laws that govern them.

8.2 The Cosmos as Isolated And Open

A Self-Contained (“Isolated”) Reality
Because no external realm exists to bound or influence the universe, the cosmos is in one crucial sense isolated. It contains all that is — space, time, matter, energy, and governing laws — leaving no outside environment to shape its fate. Energy may transform or relocate among various domains, but it never truly leaves the cosmic stage. In this sense, existence is an “isolated system”:

• No External Causation: Nothing stands “beyond” the cosmos to create or delimit it. Star formation, black hole accretion, and the emergence of life arise from internal interactions rather than external triggers.
• No Absolute Beginning or End: Lacking a “beyond,” the universe has no singular moment of origin. Its eternal and uncaused nature follows directly from having no external frame of reference.
• Universal Interconnectedness: Every phenomenon, however distant, is linked within this single cosmic tapestry. Interactions may be local in practice, but they are not divorced from the whole, which is entirely self-referential.

Boundless Openness
Paradoxically, while the cosmos is isolated in having no external boundary, it is simultaneously open in the sense of being unbounded and inexhaustibly creative:

• Infinite Extent: If space had a finite boundary, we would confront the contradiction of something or nothing existing beyond that boundary. Instead, the universe must extend indefinitely in all directions, consistent with observational evidence for near-flat geometry.
• Infinite Variance: The universe’s open-endedness allows for an inexhaustible spectrum of possible configurations. Over vast distances and epochs, matter and energy can arrange themselves in ways that never precisely repeat, reflecting Changism’s emphasis on ceaseless novelty rather than repetitive cycles.
• Endless Creativity: Quantum and thermodynamic fluctuations happen locally but never cease at the cosmic scale. New astrophysical events, from star births to supernovae, continually emerge, and no singular, final arrangement can be enforced across infinite space.

Thus, the cosmos is both self-contained (no outside) and open (no finite boundary). This duality ensures the universe is self-sustaining, not contingent on anything external, yet perpetually unfolding new structures and interactions within its unbounded expanse.

8.3 Emergent Time: A Measure of Unceasing Change

Classical models often treat time as a dimension through which the universe evolves, giving rise to an “arrow of time” stretching from low to high entropy. Changism inverts this: time is an emergent notion humans use to quantify and compare the rates of transformation. Whether it is the Earth’s rotation, atomic oscillations, or galactic mergers, these cyclical or progressive changes anchor our sense of “time.”

• The Present as Arena: In a cosmos lacking an external boundary or overarching timeline, the present moment is where all motion and transformation genuinely occur.
• Not a Flowing River: The phrase “flow of time” is best viewed as a shorthand for sequential changes. It describes how energy and matter evolve, not a literal substance ferrying events from future to past.
• Statistical Arrow, Not Absolute Coordinate: Entropic processes create a statistical bias for energy dispersion, but they do not imply a universal clock or a rigid temporal dimension. “Time’s arrow” emerges from how we record and compare these ongoing transformations.

In short, time is not an unchanging scaffold that the cosmos “occupies”; it is our systematic way of mapping the universe’s self-propelled, perpetual evolution.

8.4 The (Im)Possibility of Heat Death in an Infinite, Eternal Cosmos

In a conventional thermodynamic framework — applied to a closed, finite system — entropy tends to increase until the system reaches a state of equilibrium, or “heat death.” However, an isolated and open cosmos, infinite in extent and unending in duration, departs significantly from that scenario:

1. No Universal Boundary
   A truly infinite universe has no global enclosure. Local patches may approach equilibrium, but other regions can remain active, forming new stars or collapsing matter into black holes. Without a confining shell, no single “final equilibrium” can dominate all of existence.
2. Unbounded Fluctuations and Local Resets
   Over limitless timescales, quantum and gravitational fluctuations continue to spark new regions of lower entropy, fueling the emergence of novel structures. One domain’s near-equilibrium state does not prevent another region from harboring fresh energy gradients.
3. Self-Organization Without Closure
   In an infinite setting, localized pockets of order (e.g., galaxies, living systems) can persistently export entropy “outward,” never homogenizing the entire cosmos into a single final state. The cosmos is “isolated” in that it is self-contained, yet open enough to enable perpetual rearrangements across boundless scales.
4. No Final Clock Setting
   Since time is an emergent measure of change, a single moment of universal exhaustion loses meaning. Different regions “experience” transformations at varied rates; the cosmos as a whole never “runs out of time,” since its openness precludes a synchronous end.

Consequently, the notion of a cosmic heat death — complete equilibrium engulfing the entire universe — becomes inconsistent with the infinite, eternal reality that Changism posits. Yes, local entropic processes do occur. No, they cannot unify into a singular universal stasis, as new processes continuously reignite dynamic change in a cosmos lacking any confining boundary.

8.5 The Absence of Empirical Evidence for a Transcendental Time Dimension

Changism rejects the notion of time as a transcendental dimension — an independent entity existing apart from the processes it measures — by highlighting the complete lack of empirical support for such a dimension. Despite centuries of scientific inquiry, no experiment or observation has directly detected or measured an autonomous “time axis.” Rather than revealing a hidden continuum, all evidence points to change itself as the measurable, observable reality.

Empirical data serve as the gold standard in physics. Yet no experiment has ever isolated a time dimension independently from changing phenomena — be they atomic oscillations, planetary rotations, or particle decays. These processes are very much physical and occur within what Changism terms the “eternal present.” The clocks we build (e.g., atomic clocks using cesium oscillations) measure these periodic processes, not a literal temporal dimension.

• Atomic Clocks: Counting an atom’s oscillations reveals how often a process repeats, but does not demonstrate the existence of any external “time flow.”
• Relativistic so called “Time Dilation”: Experiments showing slower-ticking clocks at high speeds or in strong gravitational fields measure altered process rates — not a distortion of time itself. Such “dilation” is better understood as frame-dependent variations in change, rather than evidence of a warped temporal dimension.

If time were truly a separate dimension, one might expect the possibility of traveling along it — either to the past or the future. Despite popular science-fiction scenarios and speculative theories, no empirical evidence supports time travel. No experiment or observation indicates that one can literally move through a temporal axis.

Under Changism, this lack of evidence is fully consistent: if time is only a measure of ongoing change, then “past” and “future” do not exist as places one can visit. They are conceptual constructs arising from recorded and anticipated changes, not physical coordinates in which an observer might roam.

Some physicists interpret relativity through a block universe lens, envisioning all events — past, present, and future — as equally real in a four-dimensional spacetime manifold. However:

• No Empirical Confirmation: While mathematically elegant, the block universe relies on a transcendental time dimension for which no direct experimental evidence exists.
• Inadequate Explanation of Flow: The block view struggles to explain why we perceive time as “flowing.” Appeals to neural activity or dynamic processes to explain the illusion ultimately reintroduce genuine change, undermining the idea of a fully static block.

By contrast, Changism maintains that our sense of temporal flow aligns with the actual unfolding of change in the present, not an already-established 4D continuum.

Changism’s position — that “time” is simply a human-devised tool for quantifying the pace of physical changes — is firmly grounded in observable reality:

• Relativistic Phenomena: Interpreted as rate-of-change variations (e.g., clocks slowing at high velocities or in strong gravity), rather than “time” being stretched or compressed.
• Entropy and the Arrow of Time: Explained as statistical tendencies of energy distribution, without invoking a flowing temporal dimension.
• Relativity of Simultaneity: Seen as differing measurements of local change, rather than proof of multiple coexisting “presents” in spacetime.

Focusing on what can be measured — rates of transformation, energy flow, and so on — Changism eliminates any need for hypothetical, unobservable temporal dimensions.

This absence of empirical evidence for a transcendental time dimension strongly supports Changism. Instead of treating time as a discrete axis we move along, Changism treats “time” as an emergent accounting system — allowing us to coordinate and understand the perpetual flux of the universe. In a cosmos where change is fundamental, the past and future are conceptual abstractions, while the ever-changing present is all that genuinely is. By discarding the notion of an unobserved time dimension, Changism remains both faithful to empirical data and more coherent philosophically, grounding our temporal concepts in the very real, measurable processes that define existence.

8.6 A Universe Both Self-Contained and Infinitely Creative

Changism’s cosmology envisions a universe that is simultaneously isolated — encompassing all that is and requiring no external cause — and open — limitless in extension, complexity, and temporal unfolding. The result is an existence that stands as its own explanation, eternally weaving matter and energy into novel configurations.

Time, far from a rigid dimension, emerges from our need to map the universe’s unceasing flux. This dynamic interplay ensures no universal heat death can befall an infinite cosmos: new fluctuations and processes arise inexhaustibly, continually reinvigorating local pockets of change and complexity. In an arena devoid of external reference points and boundaries, existence neither “began” nor faces an ultimate end. Instead, it exhibits a perpetual, self-renewing dance of transformations.

By dissolving the usual confines — of time as a fundamental dimension, of heat death as a cosmic finale, and of space as finite — Changism reveals a cosmos poised in a state of unending becoming. The present moment, immeasurable in its depth and creativity, unfolds across infinite scales, reminding us that reality’s boundlessness is not mere abstraction but the active, irreducible core of existence itself.

• Boltzmann, L. (1877). Über die Beziehung zwischen dem zweiten Hauptsatze der mechanischen Wärmetheorie.
• Carroll, S. (2010). From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time.
• BIPM. (2019). The International System of Units (SI).
• Penrose, R. (2010). Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe. Knopf.

As Kali’s entropy scatters cosmic dust and Persephone’s renewal seeds new stars, the universe dances between dispersion and order. Cyclic cosmologies echo their eternal interplay — destruction and creation not as temporal phases but as coexisting faces of change.

Part III: Language, Metaphor, and Myth

9. Linguistic Bewitchment in Physics

9.1 The Tyranny of Metaphor

Physics is a prisoner of its own poetry. Terms like “time flows,” “fabric of spacetime,” and “arrow of time” are not neutral descriptors but metaphors that shape — and mythify — our understanding of reality. Wittgenstein (1953) warned that language can bewitch our intelligence, and nowhere is this clearer than in temporal discourse. The metaphor of time as a river, for instance, implies a medium through which events travel, embedding the false intuition that time is a substance or dimension. Similarly, “spacetime” conflates measurement tools (space and change-parameters) with ontological entities, reifying time into a physical continuum.

Example: The Block Universe
The term “block universe” evokes a static, four-dimensional sculpture, suggesting that past, present, and future are equally real. This linguistic framing smuggles in eternalism, privileging mathematical convenience (spacetime geometry) over empirical evidence (our lived experiences). In Changism, the “block” dissolves into a dynamic web of changes, where only the now exists, and spacetime is redefined as the Space-Change Framework — a relational arena for processes, not a container.

9.2 Proposed Terminology: From Time to Change

To align language with ontology, Changism advocates replacing temporal metaphors with process-centric terms:

How to Use This Table

• Replace time-focused phrases with the Changist equivalents in explanations, discussions, or teaching materials.
• Highlight that each new term re-centers the conversation on processes, changes, or entropy, rather than presupposing a universal time dimension.
• Emphasize that “time” is an emergent measuring convention — not an ontological dimension — in Changism’s interpretation of physical laws.

Operational Definitions

• Clocks: Devices that count cyclical changes (e.g., 9,192,631,770 cesium oscillations = 1 second).
• Years: Earth’s orbital cycle around the Sun.
• Relativity’s “Time”: A comparison of change-rates between systems (e.g., GPS satellites vs. ground clocks).

By grounding terminology in observable processes, physics escapes the block universe’s linguistic trap and restores change as the core of reality.

9.3 The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in Physics

Language doesn’t merely describe reality — it constrains how we conceive it. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis posits that linguistic structures shape thought, and physics’ temporal lexicon exemplifies this:

• Temporal Nouns (“time,” “past,” “future”) objectify change into a manipulable entity.
• Verbs of Motion (“flow,” “pass,” “travel”) imply time is a medium through which we move.

Changism adopts a processual grammar:

• Replace nouns with gerunds (changing instead of time).
• Use verbs that emphasize transformation (evolve, actualize, disperse).

For example:

• Conventional: “Time flows, carrying events from future to past.”
• Changist: “Processes evolve, actualizing potentials in the present.”

9.4 Case Study: Relativity Without “Time”

Einstein’s equations retain their predictive power when stripped of temporal reification:

• Lorentz Transformation: Compares how motion alters rates of change between observers.
• Gravitational Slowing: Measures how mass-energy gradients dampen process speeds.

GPS Calibration: Engineers adjust satellite clocks not because “time dilates” but because atomic vibrations slow under orbital motion and weaker gravity. The correction is a pragmatic alignment of change-rates, not evidence of time as a dimension.

Revising physics’ lexicon is not semantic pedantry but ontological hygiene. By replacing temporal metaphors with processual language, we dissolve paradoxes (e.g., the “flow” of time), reconcile relativity with lived experience, and refocus science on what is empirically accessible: change, measured in the eternal present.

• Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations.
• Einstein, A. (1916). “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.”
• Rovelli, C. (2018). The Order of Time.

Just as Kali’s dance destroys linguistic illusions of permanence, Changism shatters the metaphor of time. Persephone’s cyclical rebirth mirrors the iterative refinement of language — each season of thought yielding clearer visions of reality.

Part IV: Implications for Philosophy and Science

10. Freedom within Causality in a Changist Universe

In conventional debates about determinism and free will, the assumption often prevails that complete knowledge of initial conditions and universal laws guarantees a single, predictable future. This reductionist outlook, reminiscent of Newton’s billiard-ball universe, ignores the inherent complexity of emergent systems — systems whose behavior cannot be fully anticipated by examining their constituent parts in isolation. Modern insights from complexity science reveal that collective behaviors emerge from non-linear interactions and feedback loops, producing multiple stable states or attractors even under nearly identical conditions.

Drawing inspiration from Aristotle’s early observations and later refined by Stoic thought, emergent systems theory in the Changist context demonstrates that human agency is not an uncaused aberration but a higher-order phenomenon. In this view, individual choices arise from a dynamic web of influences — from neural circuitry and hormonal fluctuations to cultural, ethical, and environmental factors — that interact non-linearly. These interactions give rise to multi-stability, where the same external stimulus may lead different individuals to settle into distinct, yet stable, modes of behavior.

Central to this perspective is the notion that freedom is not the absence of causation, but rather an emergent property within a richly causal network. The Stoics, for example, acknowledged that while all events are caused, the rational faculty (the hegemonikon) allows individuals to integrate various influences and “nudge” the system into one attractor state over another. Rather than assuming that identical initial conditions must produce an identical outcome, we recognize that minor differences in internal states — such as mood, memory activation, or subtle shifts in attention — can steer a person toward different stable equilibria. This is analogous to a complex network where small perturbations trigger a transition from one basin of attraction to another, thereby endowing the system with genuine flexibility.

In a Changist universe, then, freedom within causality emerges as a higher-order property. The human mind, with its approximately 86 billion neurons and vast synaptic networks, exemplifies this phenomenon. Rather than operating as a simple mechanistic chain, cognition is distributed across a network that includes not only internal neural processes but also external scaffolds like language, social norms, and cultural practices. These elements collectively contribute to a non-linear, dynamic interplay where reflective thought — the activity of the hegemonikon — imposes top-down constraints that shape decision-making. In this way, rational deliberation acts as a meta-level regulator, filtering and integrating diverse inputs to produce coherent, ethically informed choices.

This emergent agency does not contravene causality; rather, it enriches it. Although every neural event is ultimately caused, the integration of these events at higher levels of organization enables a plurality of potential outcomes. In effect, the Stoic model reconciles determinism with autonomy by asserting that while our choices are causally embedded, they are also malleable and subject to reflective reinterpretation. The same external conditions may lead to radically different decisions depending on how an individual’s internal state — shaped by past experiences, ethical training, and reflective practices — interacts with those conditions.

Furthermore, the interplay of emergent structures and rational deliberation helps explain why human agency feels free even though it is entirely causal. Rather than invoking an uncaused, metaphysical will, the Stoic approach shows that freedom is realized when individuals consciously harness the inherent multi-stability of their cognitive and emotional systems. By engaging in practices such as self-reflection, premeditatio malorum (anticipation of potential misfortunes), and cognitive reframing, one can effectively reshape one’s “attractor landscape.” This capacity to alter the very pattern of responses within a deterministic framework confirms that freedom, as experienced, is not illusory — it is an emergent feature of a complex, open, and self-organizing universe.

In summary, the emergent view of freedom in a Changist universe is one in which:

• Causality and Freedom Coexist: All events have causes, yet the non-linear, multi-stable nature of complex systems permits multiple, equally lawful outcomes.
• The Hegemonikon as Rational Organizer: The Stoic ruling faculty serves as a top-down integrator that filters and organizes causal inputs, enabling reflective self-determination.
• Agency as Emergent, Not Uncaused: Rather than being an escape from causality, freedom emerges through the dynamic, recursive interactions among countless factors, aligning with the logos that underpins the cosmos.

By situating freedom within the network of causal interactions, Changism provides a compelling account of human agency that honors both our embeddedness in nature and our capacity for moral and rational self-direction. In this view, freedom is not a miraculous exception to the laws of nature but a natural outgrowth of their complex interplay — a testament to the enduring creative potential of the universe.

Consciousness and the Eternal Now

Consciousness, often described as a “stream” of time, is reinterpreted as a real-time integration of change. Husserl’s retention-protention structure (see §2) is not a perception of temporal flow but a cognitive model for navigating the present’s complexity. For instance, remembering a past event (retention) and anticipating a future one (protention) are neural processes occurring now, constructing the illusion of continuity.

Neuroscientific Correlates: Brain regions like the default mode network, which simulates past and future scenarios, are not time travelers but present-moment simulators. Changism predicts that altering these networks (e.g., via meditation or trauma) disrupts the sense of time, not time itself.

Interdisciplinary Reconcilations

Changism bridges divides between physics, philosophy, and cognitive science:

• Physics ↔ Philosophy: Replaces debates about time’s ontology with a focus on how change is measured and modeled.
• Science ↔ Humanities: Offers a framework for analyzing narratives (historical, literary) as records of change rather than timelines.
• Theology ↔ Cosmology: Reinterprets concepts like eternity (e.g., nunc stans — “standing now”) as alignment with the eternal present.

11. Changism’s Advantages

Changism rests on a deceptively simple premise: time is not an independent dimension but an emergent measure of change occurring within an eternal present. While this premise appears straightforward, it carries sweeping implications that clarify longstanding philosophical and scientific debates. In this chapter, we bring together the core strengths of the Changist framework, showing how it stands apart from conventional temporal models — both classical and relativistic — through its logical elegance, freedom from paradoxes, and practical usefulness for interdisciplinary inquiry. By reimagining time as a tool for quantifying transformation rather than a dimension that reality “occupies,” Changism achieves a parsimonious yet robust explanation of the cosmos.

11.1 Parsimony and Ontological Economy

A striking feature of Changism is its ontological simplicity: it dispenses with time as a fundamental entity in its own right. Traditional models — whether eternalist block universes or more conventional “flow-of-time” narratives — tend to reify time into a dimension coequal with space. This approach, while mathematically convenient, introduces metaphysical baggage by implying that the future is somehow “already out there” or that we traverse time as if moving along a spatial corridor.

Changism, conversely, posits that all there is — and can be — is the eternal present in which change unfolds. This view eliminates superfluous ontological layers:

1. No Additional Dimension
   By treating “time” purely as a parameter we define to measure rates of change (e.g., atomic oscillations, orbital cycles), Changism avoids inflating reality with an intangible temporal extension. Reality is grounded in what exists — the cosmos in constant motion — rather than a grand spacetime manifold that is static or fully determined.
2. Avoiding Metaphysical Overreach
   The notion of a block universe, for instance, demands that future events “exist” as concretely as past ones, raising thorny questions about free will and the uniqueness of the present. Changism sidesteps these issues by refusing to treat time as anything more than a relational measure of ongoing transformations.
3. Predictive Power Without Extra Luggage
   This parsimony does not reduce the predictive accuracy of physics. Our equations remain intact — Lorentz transformations, field equations, and quantum formalisms all survive — yet their interpretation is stripped of extraneous metaphysical commitments. In effect, Changism preserves the mathematical success of modern physics while pruning ontological excess.

By aligning itself with Occam’s Razor, Changism offers a minimalistic worldview that retains full explanatory power. It honors complexity where necessary — recognizing a dynamic, boundless cosmos — without multiplying entities like “time as a dimension” when they do not withstand logical scrutiny.

11.2 Consistency and Coherence

A key strength of Changism is its internal consistency: it smoothly integrates classical logic, scientific principles, and everyday experience without lapses or tensions.

1. Laws of Non-Contradiction and Identity
   Changism emerges directly from the insight that non-existence is incoherent (contradicting the idea that something could “be” non-existent). By foregrounding this point, the model logically undergirds the eternity and uncaused nature of existence — a self-consistent stance that resonates with both philosophical rigor and physical laws like conservation of energy.
2. Seamless Fit with Physical Insights
   Physics indicates that energy cannot be created or destroyed; thermodynamics, field equations, and quantum mechanics all reflect a cosmos without external input or boundary. Changism’s depiction of an isolated-yet-open universe — free from non-existence beyond its bounds — harmonizes with these insights, avoiding conceptual mismatch between scientific data and ontological assumptions.
3. Common-Sense Realism of the Present
   Unlike the block universe perspective, where time is effectively “frozen” in a four-dimensional continuum, Changism acknowledges that what we directly experience — a world of change and unfolding potential — has ontological primacy. This coherence with lived reality bolsters its credibility, suggesting that the immediate sense of “now” is neither an illusion nor a purely subjective artifact.

In short, Changism’s consistency arises from its refusal to hold contradictory positions: it posits a single, boundless reality in a perpetual present, powered by unceasing transformation but never lapsing into static paradoxes.

11.3 Paradox-Free Explanations

Paradox resolution is among Changism’s most compelling virtues. By radically simplifying the role of time, Changism elegantly addresses — and often dissolves — several longstanding puzzles:

1. McTaggart’s Paradox
   Traditional time theories distinguish between the A-series (past, present, future) and the B-series (earlier-than, later-than). McTaggart argued that time cannot be both dynamic and static without contradiction. Changism short-circuits the paradox by insisting that only the present exists — an eternal now where events simply unfold in change. Past and future are cognitive constructs (records and projections), not ontological entities, thus sidestepping the contradiction entirely.
2. Time’s “Flow”
   If time were truly a river carrying moments from future to past, we would face the issue of what “meta-time” underpins this flow. Changism neutralizes this dilemma by treating time as an emergent measure of processes, not an entity that can itself be said to move.
3. Time Dilation Without “Warped Time”
   Effects like Lorentzian time dilation or gravitational slowing are preserved as rates of change adjustments. Instead of saying “time is warped,” Changism frames these effects as differences in process speeds — clocks tick slower under relative motion or strong gravity, but there is no cosmic substance called “time” being bent.
4. No Heat Death Contradiction
   Traditional thermodynamics sometimes implies a universal heat death in a closed system. Changism’s infinite and eternal cosmos escapes this fate: no boundary, no external reference, and continual local fluctuations prevent a single state of uniform stasis from conquering all reality.

In each instance, Changism dissolves paradoxes not by ignoring data but by redefining time to remove contradictions inherent in older frameworks. This efficiency of resolution underscores Changism’s parsimony and logical clarity.

11.4 Practical Implications

Although Changism stems from a philosophical shift, it has practical significance for how we do physics and conceive interdisciplinary research:

1. Clarity in Operational Definitions
   Viewing time as a counting of cyclical changes (e.g., atomic oscillations) encourages transparent definitions of “seconds,” “days,” and other temporal units. This could help unify various operational measures (e.g., atomic clocks, astronomical observations) under a single conceptual umbrella, enhancing clarity in experimental design and data interpretation.
2. Refined Language and Theory
   Changism clarifies that phrases like “the flow of time” or “time travel” often smuggle in flawed metaphors, possibly leading researchers to misinterpret equations (like Minkowskian geometry) as ontological truths. Shifting language to “rates of change” or “sequence of states” can reduce confusion and keep focus on empirical processes.
3. Interdisciplinary Bridges
   Because it acknowledges “now” and locates change in that immediate arena, Changism resonates with psychology of perception, philosophy of mind, and phenomenological approaches that emphasize lived temporal experience. It invites cross-disciplinary dialogue about how humans intuit and measure change, potentially offering new research angles in cognitive science and the study of consciousness.
4. Experimental Directions
   While the standard frameworks remain mathematically intact, Changism hints that certain conceptual reinterpretations — like rethinking the “lapse of time” in gravitational contexts — might open new lines of inquiry, especially in quantum gravity or cosmology. Viewing the cosmos as an infinite, self-contained system could shape how we model boundary conditions, singularities, and evolution in high-energy physics.

Thus, the real-world upshot of Changism is not merely rhetorical; it can reorient experiments, sharpen conceptual tools, and unify language across scientific and philosophical realms.

11.5 A Foundation for Further Inquiry

Changism not only simplifies existing paradoxes and contradictions but also invites fresh exploration:

1. Ontological Clarity
   By rejecting superfluous dimensions (like an absolute time) and focusing on the eternal present, Changism creates a structurally robust foundation for future theories that might unify relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology without incurring metaphysical confusion.
2. Multi-Disciplinary Engagement
   The framework’s parsimony and grounding in lived experience make it accessible to philosophers, physicists, neuroscientists, and theologians alike. This shared vocabulary of “change” instead of “time” could foster collaboration and innovative theoretical cross-pollination.
3. Empirical Undergirding
   While Changism remains a philosophical stance, every claim — from relativity to quantum phenomena — remains testable by focusing on processes rather than “time flow.” A deeper emphasis on measuring rates of change may yield fresh insights or experimental nuances in contexts like gravitational wave detection, cosmic background measurements, or atomic clock comparisons.
4. No Need for External Justification
   Ultimately, Changism posits that existence is logically necessary, uncaused, and unbounded. This vantage can spark renewed philosophical and scientific debate about origins, cosmological boundary conditions, and the nature of physical law. Freed from the paradoxes of non-existence or the block universe, it becomes plausible to see the cosmos as a self-sustaining dynamism — an eternal present perpetually renewing itself through transformation.

11.6 Changism Advantages Over Process Philosophy

Minimal Ontology
Process philosophy (particularly Whitehead’s) can be ontologically rich — speaking of “actual occasions,” “prehensions,” and elaborate metaphysical categories. In contrast, Changism anchors all discussion in a single, core principle: change itself is fundamental, and time is an emergent measure of that flux.

Fewer Metaphysical Constructs
By centering only on an eternal present and the ceaseless transformation of entities, Changism avoids the additional concepts (e.g., “eternal objects,” “propositions,” and “grades of relevance”) that can make process philosophy appear more complex. This keeps Changism lean and parsimonious.

Direct Reinterpretation of Equations
Process philosophy often addresses general principles of becoming but seldom reworks or reinterprets the standard formalisms of relativity and quantum mechanics. Changism, on the other hand, explicitly shows how “time” variables in physics (special relativity, general relativity, quantum wavefunctions) can be replaced or read as parameters of change without altering the equations.

Preservation of Mathematical Rigor
By retaining standard frameworks (e.g., Minkowski metric, Schrödinger equation) and recasting their temporal variables as emergent counters of change, Changism ensures that no established scientific predictions are lost. This straightforward alignment with empirical success is sometimes less explicit in process philosophy.

Present Over “Events”
Whitehead’s “actual occasions” sometimes give the impression of events strung in a historical line that “perishes” into the past. Changism, however, is emphatic about one eternal present that continuously updates itself, offering a sharp presentist view free from any leftover “past actual occasions” or “transition” problems.

Immediate Experience
Because Changism leans heavily into the notion of “only the now is real,” it provides a user-friendly explanation for everyday temporal experiences — how we perceive flow, memory, and anticipation — without requiring additional process-based metaphysics.

Direct Address of Block Universe
Process philosophy sometimes coexists uneasily with relativity’s block universe depiction, leaving open how the “process” squares with a four-dimensional continuum. Changism deals with this head-on, stripping time from “spacetime” to interpret it as a rate-of-change continuum, thus offering a clean resolution to the block universe vs. presentism debate.

Reinterpretation vs. Novel Theory
While process philosophy can be seen as an alternative metaphysics, Changism is framed as a reinterpretation that does not add new equations or demand new physical theories. It simply removes the time-dimension baggage in favor of ubiquitous change, which can make it more accessible to scientists who wish to keep standard formalism intact.

Linguistic Clarity
Process philosophy can adopt somewhat idiosyncratic terminology (e.g., prehensions, eternal objects, etc.). Changism generally keeps the existing vocabulary of physics (energy, entropy, wavefunction) but recasts “time” itself in simpler “change-based” terms, making the shift more straightforward for practitioners of physics.

Reduction of “Metaphysical Overreach”
By insisting that time is a measure of flux, rather than a dimension or fundamental property, Changism tightly couples philosophical claims to observable processes (like atomic clock oscillations). That circumscribes potential metaphysical sprawl that can sometimes creep into process thought.

Experimental and Theoretical Bridges
Changism’s approach to “time as measurement” encourages re-examining phenomena like “time dilation” or “quantum collapse” in terms of process rates. This can inspire new lines of experiments or conceptual clarifications, reinforcing its utility in contemporary physics discussions.

Interdisciplinary Applicability
Although process philosophers also engage with cosmology, biology, etc., Changism’s simple principle of “change is all” makes it highly portable across disciplines — thermodynamics, quantum computing, neuroscience — wherever “time” is typically introduced as a parameter.

While process philosophy and Changism share the conviction that becoming outruns being, Changism offers:

1. A leaner metaphysical structure that avoids complexity.
2. A direct reinterpretation of standard physics without new equations.
3. A sharp presentist focus that resonates with everyday temporal experience.
4. An unambiguous strategy for removing time from physics while retaining all predictions.

These advantages allow Changism to be especially accessible to physicists and philosophers of science who want a paradox-free picture of reality, grounded in the eternal present where all actual transformations occur.

11.7 To Sum Up

When judged by the criteria of parsimony, internal consistency, and explanatory power, Changism emerges as a compelling alternative to conventional temporal models. It reconciles modern physical insights with classical logic, preserves the efficacy of existing theories, and sidesteps traditional paradoxes about time. By grounding reality in an eternal present and treating “time” as an emergent metric, Changism demonstrates how simplicity of ontology need not compromise sophistication of explanation.

In prioritizing change over a reified “flow of time,” this approach not only clarifies entrenched philosophical puzzles but also guides us toward linguistic precision and potential new frameworks for research — bridging physics, philosophy, cognitive science, and beyond. What Changism offers is not an esoteric departure from established knowledge but a refined lens that ties together logic, lived experience, and scientific inquiry in a unified, paradox-free picture of reality.

Final Thesis:
Time is a measure of change; change is the substance of reality. The universe is not in time — it is in flux, a dynamic present where potential becomes actual, moment by moment.

Scientists, philosophers, and artists are invited to collaborate in refining Changism’s framework. Let us reconceive clocks as change-counters, rewrite textbooks to prioritize process over time, and reimagine our place in a universe where every moment is a genesis. The future is not ahead — it is here, unfolding in the infinite creativity of the present.

• Rovelli, C. (2004). Quantum Gravity. Cambridge University Press.
• Prigogine, I. (1997). The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature.
• Penrose, R. (2020). Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe.

Integration with Mythology (Link to Appendix C):
As Kali’s dance shatters illusions and Persephone’s cycles renew the world, Changism invites humanity to join the cosmic dance — not as passengers on time’s river but as co-creators in the eternal now. Just as Kali’s entropy scatters stardust and Persephone’s renewal seeds galaxies, the universe balances dispersion and order. Their myths, like Changism, teach us that time is not a river but the ripples we name to navigate its depths.

Part V: Appendices

Appendix A: Refuting Objections

A.1 Addressing Circular Reasoning: Change as Ontological Necessity

A.1.1 Logical Necessity of Existence
Non-existence is logically incoherent. If non-existence were to exist, it would cease to be non-existence, violating the Law of Non-Contradiction. Therefore, existence is necessary and eternal. There can be no transition from or to nothingness, as such a transition would require a state of non-existence, which is impossible.

This logical necessity of existence directly implies the necessity of change. A static existence — one devoid of change — would be indistinguishable from non-existence, as it would lack differentiation, interaction, or any observable phenomena. Thus, change is not merely a feature of existence but its fundamental essence.

A.1.2 Impossibility of Absolute Stasis
Modern physics confirms that absolute stasis is impossible. Relativity establishes that no universal rest frame exists, meaning all motion is relational (Einstein, 1905). Quantum mechanics demonstrates that zero-point energy ensures perpetual fluctuations, preventing perfect stillness (Heisenberg, 1930). Thermodynamics dictates that entropy mandates the irreversible dispersal of energy, making static equilibrium impossible (Boltzmann, 1877). These findings collectively confirm that change is essential for identity and coherence within existence.

A.1.3 Change as the Essence of Being
Across all scales of existence, from subatomic fluctuations to galactic cycles, change continuously reshapes reality. Motion, energy transfer, wavefunction collapse, and entropy-driven processes illustrate this universal flux. Changism rejects the notion of time as an independent dimension. Instead, time is merely a human construct for measuring and comparing rates of change. In this view, time does not “pass” on its own but is an abstraction of the continual transformations occurring within existence.

A.1.4 Conclusion: Resolving Circularity
A common critique of Changism is that defining time as a measure of change and then interpreting all phenomena through that lens risks circular reasoning. However, this objection misrepresents Changism’s foundation. Changism does not assume change as a given but derives it from independently justified principles: the incoherence of non-existence and the impossibility of absolute stasis. These premises, grounded in logic and empirical science, demonstrate that change is not a contingent feature of existence but its fundamental essence. Rather than presupposing change, Changism establishes that nothingness and absolute stillness are themselves impossible, making change the irreducible core of reality.

A.2 The Emergence of Change: No External Cause Required

A frequent objection to Changism is that if change is fundamental, there must be an explanation for how change “arises” in the first place. This objection assumes that change requires an external trigger, which misinterprets Changism’s central tenet.

In an uncreated, eternal cosmos, change does not need an external cause. The universe is not a static entity awaiting motion but a self-renewing process with no point of absolute stillness. Change is self-sustaining, with no external prime mover required.

The universe’s dynamism follows an inherent rational structure. The laws of physics, or logos, are not imposed externally but emerge from the intrinsic properties of existence. For instance, stars fuse elements due to gravitational and quantum interactions, ecosystems self-organize through feedback mechanisms, and quantum states fluctuate according to probabilistic principles. These lawful patterns demonstrate that change is structured and intelligible, not arbitrary.

Moreover, an initial moment of absolute stillness would be incoherent, as a motionless existence cannot spontaneously generate motion. If change had to “begin,” then something external to existence would be required to initiate it, which contradicts the necessity of existence as eternal. Change, therefore, is not caused but is the fundamental mode of existence itself.

Conclusion: Because existence is uncreated and dynamic, cosmic change derives from the intrinsic properties of energy, matter, and rational laws rather than an external mover.

A.3 “I Read An Article Claiming Tachyons Can Travel Back In Time”

One of the most persistent myths in popular science is the idea that tachyons — hypothetical particles that travel faster than light — could enable time travel. While this notion has captured the imagination of many, it is a significant over-exaggeration that misrepresents both the theoretical foundations of tachyons and the nature of time itself. Changism provides a clear framework for understanding why such claims are unfounded and why they fail to align with empirical reality.

What Are Tachyons?
Tachyons are hypothetical particles proposed in some extensions of physics, particularly in the context of special relativity. According to these theories, tachyons would have the peculiar property of always traveling faster than the speed of light. This characteristic arises from the mathematical structure of relativity, which allows for solutions where particles have imaginary mass and velocities exceeding the speed of light. However, it is crucial to note that tachyons have never been observed or detected in any experiment, and their existence remains purely speculative.

The Misinterpretation of Time Travel
The claim that tachyons could travel back in time stems from a misinterpretation of the equations of special relativity. In relativity, as an object approaches the speed of light, time dilation effects become more pronounced. If an object were to exceed the speed of light, the equations suggest that its “proper time” would become imaginary, leading to the speculative idea that it could move backward in time.

However, this interpretation is problematic for several reasons:

1. Mathematical Artifact, Not Physical Reality: The idea that tachyons could travel back in time is based on extrapolating the equations of relativity beyond their physical validity. Special relativity is well-tested and confirmed for objects traveling at or below the speed of light, but it does not provide a coherent framework for describing superluminal (faster-than-light) phenomena. The notion of imaginary time or backward time travel is a mathematical curiosity, not a physically meaningful prediction.
2. Causality Violations: If tachyons could travel back in time, they would violate the principle of causality, which states that cause must precede effect. This would lead to paradoxes, such as the famous “grandfather paradox,” where a tachyon could theoretically be used to prevent its own existence. Such paradoxes are not merely philosophical concerns but indicate a fundamental inconsistency with the known laws of physics.
3. No Empirical Evidence: Despite decades of searching, no experiment has ever detected tachyons or any evidence of superluminal particles. The absence of empirical support undermines the credibility of claims that tachyons could enable time travel.

Changism’s Perspective on Tachyons and Time
From the perspective of Changism, the idea of tachyons traveling back in time is a misunderstanding rooted in the reification of time as a dimension. In Changism, time is not a fundamental entity but an emergent measure of change. The past and future are not physical realities but conceptual constructs based on recorded changes and anticipated possibilities. The notion of traveling through time — whether forward or backward — is a misinterpretation of the dynamic, ever-changing nature of reality.

Moreover, Changism emphasizes that all physical processes occur in the eternal present. Even if tachyons were to exist, their behavior would still be governed by the laws of physics operating in the present. The idea that they could “travel back in time” is a misapplication of temporal concepts to a framework where time is not a dimension but a measure of change.

The Role of Speculation in Science
While speculation plays an important role in scientific inquiry, it must be grounded in empirical evidence and coherent theoretical frameworks. The claims about tachyons and time travel are not supported by either. They are often sensationalized in popular media, leading to misconceptions about the nature of time and the limits of physical possibility.

Changism encourages a more rigorous and empirically grounded approach to understanding time. Rather than indulging in speculative ideas about time travel, it focuses on the observable and measurable processes that define our experience of change. This approach aligns with the principles of scientific parsimony and empirical rigor, offering a clearer and more consistent framework for understanding the nature of time.

The claims that tachyons could enable time travel are an over-exaggeration rooted in a misunderstanding of both relativity and the nature of time. Tachyons remain hypothetical and unsupported by empirical evidence, and the idea that they could travel back in time is a speculative extrapolation with no basis in physical reality. Changism provides a more coherent and empirically grounded perspective, emphasizing that time is not a dimension to be traversed but an emergent measure of change occurring in the eternal present.

By rejecting the reification of time and focusing on the dynamic processes that define reality, Changism offers a clearer and more consistent understanding of time — one that is free from the paradoxes and misconceptions associated with speculative ideas like tachyonic time travel.

A.4 Addressing the Relativity of Simultaneity

One of the most significant challenges to Changism is the relativity of simultaneity in Einstein’s theory of relativity. If different observers disagree on what constitutes the “present,” how can Changism maintain its claim that the universe exists in an eternal now?

Changism resolves this tension by shifting the focus from time to change. Unlike traditional presentism, which emphasizes a temporal “now,” Changism asserts that the cosmos is fundamentally atemporal or timeless. What we perceive as time is merely a measure of change, and change itself is relative to the observer’s frame of reference.

In this framework, the relativity of simultaneity does not imply multiple “presents” but reflects the relativity of change measurement. Each observer’s “now” is defined by their local processes of change, such as atomic oscillations or planetary rotations. These measurements are frame-dependent, but the underlying reality — change itself — is universal.

This reinterpretation aligns seamlessly with relativity. For example:

• Time Dilation: A clock in a high-speed frame ticks slower than a clock at rest, not because time is warping but because the rate of change in the moving frame is slower.
• Gravitational Time Dilation: Clocks in strong gravitational fields tick slower due to energy gradients affecting local processes, not because time itself is bending.
• Relativity of Simultaneity: Different observers may disagree on the ordering of events, but this disagreement arises from their relative measurements of change, not from an absolute temporal dimension.

By reframing relativistic effects in terms of relative change, Changism avoids the metaphysical complexities of the block universe and provides a more parsimonious and logically consistent interpretation of relativity.

A.5 Change and Identity: Resolving Parmenides’ Paradox

One of the most enduring objections to the concept of change comes from Parmenides, who argued that change is impossible because it contradicts the principle of identity — the idea that “A is A.” If something changes, it is no longer the same, and thus its identity is lost. This objection has echoed through the centuries, challenging philosophers and scientists to reconcile the apparent tension between continuity and change. Changism, however, provides a coherent framework for resolving this paradox by redefining identity as dynamic continuity — a sustained pattern that persists amidst change.

The classical law of identity, rooted in Aristotelian logic, asserts that an entity is identical to itself and remains fundamentally unchanged (Aristotle, Metaphysics). This principle emphasizes permanence, suggesting that an entity’s essence is fixed and unalterable. Parmenides took this further, arguing that change is illusory because it implies that something can both be and not be at the same time, violating the law of non-contradiction.

However, this static view of identity fails to account for the dynamic nature of reality. Heraclitus famously countered Parmenides by asserting that “one cannot step into the same river twice,” highlighting change as a fundamental feature of existence (Kahn, 1979). For Heraclitus, everything is in a state of flux, and stability is an illusion. This tension between permanence and change has shaped philosophical debates for millennia.

Parmenides’ premise that identities are static and unchanging is fundamentally at odds with all empirical evidence. From the microscopic to the cosmic scale, the universe is characterized by constant transformation. In biology, organisms grow, adapt, and evolve, maintaining their identity through dynamic processes like metabolism and homeostasis (Cannon, 1932). In physics, particles and systems exhibit probabilistic behavior and relational interactions, challenging the notion of fixed, unchanging entities (Heisenberg, 1927). Even at the cosmological level, galaxies, stars, and planets undergo continuous change, from stellar nucleosynthesis to planetary formation and erosion. Parmenides’ static view of identity is not only unsupported by empirical evidence but also contradicts the observable reality of a universe in perpetual flux. His premise appears to be a philosophical invention — a speculative abstraction disconnected from the dynamic processes that define existence.

Changism resolves this tension by redefining identity as dynamic continuity — a sustained pattern that persists through change. Rather than viewing identity as a fixed essence, Changism sees it as a self-regulating process that maintains coherence over time. This perspective aligns with modern process philosophy, which regards reality as a flow of interconnected events and processes rather than static substances (Rescher, 1996).

An individual retains their identity over time despite continuous physical, psychological, and experiential changes. The continuity lies in persistent patterns such as memory, personality traits, and biological processes. While the body’s cells are constantly replaced, and thoughts and emotions evolve, the underlying patterns that define the individual remain coherent. This demonstrates how identity is maintained through dynamic continuity, even as specific components change.

Identity is not merely a passive state but an active process of self-regulation and adaptation. In biological systems, homeostasis ensures that organisms maintain internal stability despite external fluctuations (Cannon, 1932). Similarly, in complex systems like ecosystems or social networks, identity is preserved through dynamic interactions rather than static elements (Mitchell, 2009). These systems adapt to changes in their environment, maintaining their core identity while evolving in response to new conditions.

The philosophical puzzle of the Ship of Theseus illustrates this principle. If all parts of a ship are replaced over time, is it still the same ship? From a Changist perspective, the ship’s identity is maintained through the continuity of its structure and function, even as its material components change. The ship remains “the same” because the underlying pattern — its design and purpose — persists, despite the replacement of individual parts.

Identity is also shaped by subjective interpretation and contextual judgments. Our perceptions of whether something remains “the same” are influenced by practical criteria that shift with context (Wittgenstein, 1953). For example, a renovated building may be considered the same as the original in a legal context (due to continuity of ownership) but different in a historical context (due to the loss of original materials). This flexibility allows identity to accommodate change without violating the law of identity.

In language, the meaning of words evolves over time, yet they retain their identity through consistent usage and contextual meanings (de Saussure, 1916). Similarly, social identity theory posits that individuals classify themselves based on shared characteristics, roles, and group memberships, adapting their self-concept to different social contexts (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This demonstrates how identity can be both stable and adaptable, depending on the context in which it is judged.

Changism reconciles the views of Parmenides and Heraclitus by shifting from a substance-based to a process-based understanding of identity. Parmenides emphasized a static, unchanging reality, while Heraclitus highlighted the ever-changing nature of existence. Changism bridges these perspectives by viewing identity as a stable pattern within a dynamic process. Change is not a violation of identity but an essential component of its continuity. As long as the defining patterns persist, identity remains intact despite material or functional transformations.

At the quantum level, particles such as electrons challenge classical ideas of fixed identity. Electrons exist as probabilistic wave functions, defined more by relational interactions than by intrinsic attributes (Heisenberg, 1927). This reinforces the view of identity as relational and fluid, aligning with Changism’s emphasis on dynamic continuity.

Change is not a threat to identity but an essential aspect of its resilience. As entities grow and evolve, identity expands to include these transformations, reflecting the dynamic nature of existence. This approach honors the traditional law of identity while offering a flexible and adaptable framework for understanding the complex interplay between permanence and change.

A.6 Additional Objections and Refutations

A.6.1 “Changism is merely a matter of semantics.”
While Changism does involve reinterpreting language (e.g., treating “time” as a measure of change), this is not superficial wordplay. The reinterpretation resolves longstanding paradoxes (such as McTaggart’s) and better aligns our conceptual framework with both empirical findings (in relativity and quantum mechanics) and lived experience. By stripping away the metaphysical baggage of a “time dimension,” Changism provides a more parsimonious and coherent ontology.

A.6.2 “Changism is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.”
Changism does not propose new equations or alter the predictions of established physics. Instead, it offers an ontological reinterpretation that remains fully consistent with empirical data. Just as the laws of logic underpin all scientific theories without being directly testable, the principle that “change is fundamental” is a necessary precondition for intelligibility. Thus, its unfalsifiability is not a flaw but a reflection of its foundational status.

A.6.3 “Denying time as a dimension undermines the explanatory power of relativity.”
Changism retains the complete mathematical framework of relativity. It simply reinterprets the time variable tt as a measure of cumulative change (χ) rather than as an independent dimension. All the predictive successes of relativity — such as time dilation and gravitational effects — remain intact, but the interpretation aligns more closely with our dynamic, lived experience.

A.6.4 “The concept of the ‘eternal present’ is vague or counterintuitive.”
The eternal present is not an abstract fantasy but a description of the operational state in which all physical processes occur. Measurable phenomena like atomic oscillations or planetary cycles provide concrete markers for this “now.” Changism shows that what we commonly label as “time” is simply a convenient way to track these continuous changes, rather than evidence of a flowing, independent temporal dimension.

A.6.5 “Changism offers no new empirical predictions — it only reinterprets existing data.”
While Changism does not alter the mathematical predictions of physics, its strength lies in its conceptual clarity. By resolving paradoxes such as the block universe dilemma and providing a coherent account of free will and emergent phenomena, it opens up new avenues for interdisciplinary research. This framework can guide future experimental designs (for example, in quantum gravity or cosmology) that focus on measuring rates of change rather than an elusive “time flow.”

A.6.6 “How does Changism account for the arrow of time?”
Changism explains the arrow of time not as an inherent flow of a temporal dimension but as a statistical bias in the manifestation of change — primarily due to entropy in closed systems. In open systems, competing processes like self-organization balance entropy, showing that the “arrow” is a description of how change occurs under specific conditions rather than a fixed, directional property of time itself.

A.7 Final Remarks: Upholding Coherence

Changism maintains coherence by integrating logical necessity with empirical observation. Its foundation aligns with modern physics, reinterpreting gravitational slowing, quantum entanglement, and evolutionary self-organization as manifestations of continuous change rather than evidence of a flowing temporal dimension.

This framework resolves paradoxes by synthesizing logic and physics. The impossibility of non-existence, the necessity of dynamism, and the empirical findings of relativity and quantum mechanics all point toward a universe where change is fundamental, not derivative. By removing the need for an external prime mover or reified time dimension, Changism offers a parsimonious and non-contradictory ontology.

Far from depicting reality as a static block or an arbitrary flux, Changism presents the universe as a coherent continuum of transformation. It posits that change is the irreducible essence of existence, governed by an immanent rational structure — logos — that ensures stability amid flux. In doing so, it provides a robust framework for understanding reality as an eternal process of becoming, free from the limitations of traditional metaphysical assumptions.

Existence, forever dynamic, is its own justification — ever-evolving, ever-present, and intrinsically coherent

• Einstein, A. (1905). On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.
• Heisenberg, W. (1930). The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory.
• Boltzmann, L. (1877). Über die Beziehung zwischen dem zweiten Hauptsatze der mechanischen Wärmetheorie.
• Aristotle. (4th century BCE). Metaphysics. Translated by W. D. Ross. In The Complete Works of Aristotle (Vol. 2). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Cannon, W. B. (1932). The Wisdom of the Body. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
• de Saussure, F. (1916/1983). Course in General Linguistics. Translated by R. Harris. London: Duckworth.
• Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43(3–4), 172–198.
• Kahn, C. H. (1979). The Art and Thought of Heraclitus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Rescher, N. (1996). Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

As Blake saw eternity in an hour, Changism sees infinite change in every instant — a cosmos where logos weaves motion into meaning, and stillness is but a myth. The universe, eternal and uncreated, dances not to time’s tune but to its own rational rhythm.

Appendix B: Immanent vs. Transcendental Views of Time and Their Socio-Psychological Implications

In exploring Changism as an immanent approach to time — one that grounds time in change rather than treating it as an external dimension — we encounter deep parallels with theological and philosophical traditions. On one side, transcendental models posit a reality shaped by an external, pre-existing entity or dimension (as in block-universe eternalism). On the other, immanent frameworks (e.g., Stoicism and certain Eastern philosophies) understand reality as self-organizing and eternal in the here and now. This appendix compares these two stances and examines their broader impacts on psychology, social behavior, and the human search for meaning.

B.1 Transcendental Time and the Block Universe Analogy

Transcendental theological models locate the divine — or ultimate causal authority — beyond or above the manifest world. Similarly, block-universe eternalism in physics envisions time as a transcendent dimension through which events are laid out, fixed in past, present, and future. In both cases:

1. Time (or Divinity) as External. Reality is seen as unfolding within a framework separate from ordinary existence — like a timeline in which changes “happen.” Events are arranged along this dimension, much as transcendental theology portrays events governed by a divine realm beyond the cosmos.
2. Diminished Present. If past and future exist as concretely as the present, the immediate “now” loses its unique status. Similarly, in transcendental theology, the Earthly realm can feel derivative or corrupted compared to a perfect heavenly realm — undermining the significance of day-to-day life.
3. Potential Determinism. With time (or God) acting as an overarching dimension or external force, events can appear predetermined. Just as a block universe raises questions about free will, transcendental systems often emphasize strict obedience or submission to higher authority, potentially diluting human agency and spontaneity.

This transcendental stance, while offering grand narratives of cosmic order, can introduce alienation. Believers or observers may feel disconnected from a future already “written” or from a God who imposes rules from above. Metaphysically, it risks reifying something (time) that, upon scrutiny, may be only a measure of change.

B.2 Immanent Time: Changism and Stoic Resonances

Immanent theological frameworks and Changism share a central premise: time arises from change, rather than the other way around. In Stoicism, for example, the cosmos is governed by logos, a rational order wholly within nature itself — there is no “outside” dimension controlling events. By the same token, Changism asserts that “time” is an abstraction to track how states evolve in the present.

1. Time as Conceptual Tool. Changism’s radical move is to see time not as a dimension but as a human invention for comparing rates of change. Likewise, Stoics claim that only the present is real: everything else — past or future — is a conceptual projection.
2. No External Cause of Change. In an immanent worldview, the universe is self-contained, perpetually updating itself from within. Changism similarly holds that the cosmos is an infinite, eternal flux that needs no external “time dimension” to function.
3. Alignment with Experience. Because humans feel change in the now — witnessing seeds sprout or minds learn — this approach resonates with direct experience. We do not intuit a “frozen 4D block” or an external cosmic timeline; we perceive ongoing transformations in a dynamic present.

By upholding change-as-fundamental, Changism avoids certain paradoxes (e.g., how a future can “already be there”). Likewise, Stoic and other immanent spiritualities circumvent the tension of having a remote, transcendent God, instead locating ultimate meaning within the cosmos and within oneself.

B.3 Social and Psychological Consequences

Transcendental Models: External Authority and Alienation

1. Reliance on External Structures. If time or divinity is “above,” people often rely on hierarchical institutions — priesthoods, doctrines, or in science, certain reified frameworks — to mediate truth. This can lead to rigid moral and social norms, sometimes stifling innovation or personal growth.
2. Diminished Human Agency. A cosmos where the future is “already real” or where a transcendent lawgiver demands submission can sap personal responsibility. In social contexts, this might yield unquestioning obedience to authority, seen historically in hierarchical religious states or in authoritarian governments that claim an infallible ideology.
3. Existential Anxiety. If the real essence of time or salvation lies “elsewhere,” individuals can feel alienated, uncertain of their own power to affect change. This fosters psychological fragmentation — fear or guilt before an unreachable ideal.

Immanent Models: Empowerment and Integration

1. Present-Focused Agency. Stoic or Changist stances place the locus of action in the now — where real transformations occur. In psychology, this aligns with mindfulness techniques, which stress the reality of present-moment choices.
2. Reduced Metaphysical Baggage. Without the notion of an external timeline or supernatural dimension, people engage with problems more empirically and adaptively — mirroring Changism’s principle that we measure change without positing extraneous layers of “time.”
3. Community and Ecological Harmony. Immanent perspectives often treat the world as inherently sacred or rational (logos). This can enhance ecological stewardship (as in many Stoic or Taoist teachings) and encourage cooperative social structures where everyone’s input shapes the evolving present.

By embedding the sense of moral and causal responsibility in the immanent now, societies may adopt more flexible and inclusive practices — parallel to ecological or democratic systems that stress resilience and local adaptation over top-down, absolute control.

B.4 Reinterpretations in Science and Theology

Changism’s re-interpretation of relativity and quantum mechanics from an immanent viewpoint parallels certain theological shifts:

1. Relativistic “Time Dilation” as Rate of Change. Rather than “time warping,” Changism explains that clocks measure local processes. In theology, some immanent traditions likewise reject a distant clockmaker — proposing that all phenomena remain integral to one cosmic order (logos, or the Tao).
2. Quantum Uncertainty. The future is not laid out; it is emergent from interactions in the now. Similarly, Stoics see external events as fluid expressions of rational nature.
3. The Universe as Self-Creative. Modern cosmology’s infinite, evolving cosmos can be read through an immanent lens, reminiscent of Spinoza, Einstein, and Sagan — where the universe’s “divine” is the unity and creativity within itself, rather than a transcendent caretaker.

This synergy between contemporary science and immanent theology challenges older dualisms. What was once seen as “God’s external timeline” becomes, in Changism’s frame, an ongoing present.

B.5 Bridging Theology and Social Sciences: Toward a Changist Society

Rethinking Moral Education

• Autonomy Over Obedience. Instead of moral codes mandated by an external dimension (time or deity), individuals learn to ground ethics in real, present interactions — fostering internalization of values and empathy.
• Focus on Adaptive Growth. Changism-inspired education could highlight how each moment changes the next, empowering students to see themselves as active contributors to an evolving reality.

Governance and Community

• Distributed Decision-Making. If the cosmos does not revolve around a singular blueprint, communities might adopt more democratic or decentralized governance, harnessing the “local now” to solve problems.
• Cultural Pluralism. An immanent approach to existence values diverse perspectives, reducing the impetus for uniform dogma. This can mitigate cultural conflicts over “absolute truths” mandated by external authority.

Psychological Well-Being

• Integration of Self. Viewing one’s life as a continuity of present moments fosters self-consistency and resilience, akin to Stoic or mindfulness-based therapies.
• Reduced Existential Angst. Without a looming external timeline or predestined fate, personal freedom to shape one’s path can replace fatalism or guilt with curiosity and purposeful engagement.

B.6 The Social Value of an Immanent Changist Worldview

By grounding time in change rather than positing a transcendental temporal dimension, Changism offers more than a philosophical or physical reinterpretation — it suggests a social, ethical, and psychological framework that resonates with ancient Stoic or Taoist immanence. Recognizing the eternal now as the real locus of agency:

• Counters alienation, emphasizing the shared, unfolding present over a distant future or remote cosmic caretaker.
• Promotes personal and communal autonomy, as moral and social authority derive from collective reasoning in the present rather than external dictates.
• Strengthens ecological and humanitarian ethics, embedding humans in a larger web of ongoing transformations, thus encouraging care for the environment and each other.

In bridging theology, social science, and Changism, we see how the shift from a transcendental to an immanent concept of time parallels broader cultural shifts — from hierarchy to collaboration, from external compulsion to internal accountability, and from existential dread to creative engagement. The result is a worldview that not only clarifies fundamental physics or metaphysics but also bears tangible impact on how societies organize, how individuals find meaning, and how we all might live more harmoniously in a universe defined by continuous, present-moment change.

Appendix C: The Goddesses of Change

C.1 Kali and Persephone as Embodiments of Entropy and Self-Organization

Mythology, like physics, grapples with the duality of creation and destruction. Across cultures, deities personify these forces, offering narratives that mirror the Changist understanding of change as the universe’s fundamental process. Kali, the Hindu goddess of destruction and renewal, and Persephone, the Greek queen of the underworld and spring’s return, epitomize entropy and self-organization — twin faces of change that shape reality within the eternal present.

C.2 Kali: Entropy’s Chaotic Grace

In Hindu cosmology, Kali is both destroyer and creator. She dances atop the inert body of Shiva, her consort, her necklace of skulls symbolizing the dissolution of ego and order. Yet her fury is not nihilistic; it clears space for rebirth.

• Entropy as Destruction: Kali’s sword severs attachments to stagnant forms, mirroring entropy’s role in dismantling order. A dying star’s collapse, the rusting of iron, or the melting of glaciers — all are expressions of her chaotic dance.
• Entropy as Creation: Kali’s destruction enables new potentials. The heat death of the universe, often seen as an endpoint, is in Changism a reconfiguration — a return to equilibrium where energy gradients vanish, and new cycles may emerge (Penrose 2010).

Modern Parallel: Prigogine’s dissipative structures — self-organizing systems like hurricanes or living cells — export entropy to sustain internal order. Kali’s dance is not an end but a transformation, echoing the Second Law’s demand for dispersion even as it seeds complexity.

C.3 Persephone: Self-Organization’s Cyclic Renewal

Persephone’s myth binds death and rebirth. Abducted by Hades, she rules the underworld for half the year, during which Earth withers (entropy’s reign). Her return each spring restores life (self-organization’s triumph).

• Cycles of Decay and Regeneration: Persephone’s descent mirrors ecosystems transitioning from growth (spring/summer) to decay (autumn/winter). Fallen leaves decompose (entropy), nourishing soil for new growth (self-organization).
• Equilibrium in Flux: Her dual reign reflects nature’s balance — order and disorder coexisting in the present. A forest fire (entropy) clears space for new flora (self-organization), neither “past” nor “future” but a continuous now.

Scientific Resonance: The Lotka-Volterra equations, modeling predator-prey cycles, capture Persephone’s rhythm. Populations rise and fall not through time’s passage but via feedback loops in the eternal present.

C.4 Myth as Metaphor: Beyond Temporal Narratives

Kali and Persephone are often framed as figures in a temporal drama — destruction preceding creation, winter yielding to spring. Changism rejects this chronology. Their stories are not linear but simultaneous:

• Kali’s Eternal Now: Her destruction and creation are concurrent. The collapsing star (entropy) and the forming nebula (self-organization) are one process, observed from different scales.
• Persephone’s Unified Realm: She does not “travel” between underworld and Earth but embodies their interdependence. Decay and growth are facets of the same present, like respiration (entropy) and photosynthesis (self-organization) sustaining Earth’s biosphere.

C.5 Timeless Goddesses of Change

Kali and Persephone are not relics of ancient superstition but archetypes of Changism’s core truth: change is the universe’s essence, and time its measure. Their myths dissolve the illusion of temporal progression, revealing a cosmos where entropy and self-organization dance in the eternal now. To invoke them is to reject the block universe’s staticism and embrace a reality alive with transformation — one where destruction and creation are not sequels but partners in the ceaseless waltz of change.

• Penrose, R. (2010). Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe.
• Prigogine, I. (1980). From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences.
• Kinsley, D. R. (1988). Hindu Goddesses: Visions of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Tradition.

Appendix D: Navigating Lawful Structure and Contingency: Changism’s Middle Path

The ideas of this appendix are a summary from the article Beyond Determinism and Libertarianism: Stoic Freedom in an Infinite Cosmos; Multi-Stability, Causal Holism, and the Emergence of Rational Autonomy

D.1 The Tension: Determinism vs. Indeterminism

A common challenge for any philosophy that embraces universal lawfulness — which Changism calls the logos — is whether that lawfulness implies strict determinism or leaves room for genuine contingency and freedom. One might ask:

• If logos underlies all natural processes, does every event unfold in a single, predetermined chain?
• Or does quantum randomness or chaos theory suffice to introduce “indeterminacy,” and if so, is that the right sort of freedom?

Classical debates often revolve around two poles:

1. Determinism: All states of the universe are fixed by prior conditions, leaving no space for novelty or choice.
2. Libertarian Indeterminism: Certain choices (or outcomes) must be uncaused to be free, defying universal lawfulness.

Changism, in alignment with Stoic insights on emergent rational agency, opts for a middle path: it upholds logos — the coherent, lawful structure of reality — yet recognizes multi-stability at higher levels of organization, allowing multiple valid outcomes to emerge from the same underlying web of causes. In Changism’s present-focused ontology, this tension is resolved not by denying causality but by showing how agents (including human consciousness) can coordinate and “steer” the ongoing flux of change without transcending the causal order.

D.2 Multi-Stability and Emergent Freedom

Multi-stability refers to the phenomenon whereby a complex system can settle into more than one stable “attractor” or outcome, even when governed by lawful dynamics. In non-linear or chaotic frameworks — like the weather, neural networks, or social systems — tiny variations or feedback loops can funnel the system toward qualitatively distinct equilibria.

1. Lawful, Not Random
   Despite appearances, multi-stable systems remain fully lawful. Each attractor obeys the same equations or principles, but the system’s sensitive feedback loops allow multiple potential end-states. The logos is preserved — no event escapes lawfulness — yet contingent branching arises from the complex interplay of factors in the eternal present.
2. Role of Rational Agency
   Drawing on Stoic-like ideas, Changism posits a higher-order faculty — akin to the Stoic hegemonikon — through which a conscious agent evaluates possible pathways. In a human context, this might look like top-down deliberation: memories, ethical norms, and reason-based priorities collectively “nudge” which stable attractor is realized. While thoroughly embedded in the causal tapestry, such reflective oversight introduces freedom as emergent self-regulation rather than uncaused spontaneity.
3. Present Focus
   Because Changism sees all change as unfolding in a singular eternal now, one’s rational deliberation does not magically jump “outside” time or cause-and-effect. Instead, the mind exerts coordinating influence in real time, weaving together biological, cultural, and psychological threads into a coherent choice. The capacity to pick among multiple stable futures — without violating the logos — constitutes the Changist sense of freedom.

D.3 Infinite Causal Web vs. Single-Track Determinism

Infinite Regress, No “Absolute Start”
Changism often portrays the universe as unbounded and eternally present, undermining the classical determinist picture that everything follows linearly from a finite “initial condition.” In an infinite cosmos, no single “chain of events” can be pinned down exhaustively:

• Distributed Causes: Each present moment is shaped by countless overlapping factors — quantum fields, relational networks, cosmic processes — none of which have a final boundary or start.
• Non-Closure: With no compact set of initial conditions, the strict Laplacian idea of “predicting all future states” loses traction, making room for multiple plausible developments, all in harmony with universal lawfulness.

Relational vs. Monolithic Causality
Changism’s emphasis on relational causality implies that no event is fully determined by an isolated chain of micro-causes; instead, events arise from the interplay among many scales. A small internal shift (e.g., a new thought pattern, an emotional insight) can reconfigure how various causal streams converge in the eternal now, opening real but law-governed possibilities.

D.4 Contingency Within Logos: Quantum or Otherwise

Quantum Indeterminacy
At microscopic levels, quantum phenomena (superposition, entanglement) may appear to “inject randomness.” Yet Changism does not rely on pure randomness to secure agency. Instead:

• Changist View: Even if quantum events are statistically lawful, the emergent multi-stability in complex systems ensures that tiny quantum differences can be amplified into macro-level divergences.
• No “Magic” Freedom: Chance alone does not yield meaningful autonomy; freedom in Changism arises from emergent self-regulation in the now, organized by a rational or goal-directed dimension (logos).

Chaos and Classical Unpredictability
Chaotic systems — like weather patterns or ecological networks — exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Changism adopts this insight to illustrate that real novelty can emerge from lawful processes. Apparent unpredictability does not violate the logos; it simply reveals that universal laws do not mandate a single, reductive chain of outcomes.

D.5 Rational Autonomy as Self-Organizing Participation

In the Stoic tradition (and in your detailed article Beyond Determinism and Libertarianism), rational agency emerges when an agent (a) self-reflects, (b) aligns actions with ethical or logical norms, and © integrates the flow of causes into a chosen direction. Changism echoes these ideas by:

1. Embedding Agency in the Eternal Present
   Each decision is a process of real-time integration among memory, immediate surroundings, ethical “filters,” and neurobiological impulses.
2. Harmonizing with Logos
   Changism retains a universal lawfulness (no event is uncaused) yet posits that lawful processes can be “steered” at higher levels through reflection, much like a Stoic hegemonikon orchestrating moral deliberation.
3. Freedom as Co-Creation
   Because multiple attractors may be open to a system — even under the same overarching laws — the “Changist agent” becomes a co-creator, selecting which attractor (out of many lawful possibilities) is realized.

This co-creative stance offers a form of contingent, yet lawful, autonomy: no moment escapes causality, yet the system is not collapsed into a single inevitability.

D.6 Why This Doesn’t Collapse into Simple Compatibilism

Critics might claim this is “just another flavor of compatibilism,” but Changism’s approach, akin to your Stoic perspective, adds emergent multi-stability and infinite relational causality to the mix. Rather than merely saying “we act voluntarily,” it points out that:

• Multiple Equilibria: The cosmos genuinely supports multiple stable outcomes even under the same laws, due to chaos, quantum amplification, and relational feedback.
• Rational Engagement: A higher-level rational faculty can reorganize these lawful processes, not by stepping outside them, but by shaping how they converge in the present.
• Moral/Ethical Dimension: Like the Stoics, Changism places strong emphasis on logos not just as physical law but also as an ethical-rational principle, suggesting that personal choice is not random but aligned with reason.

Hence, Changism proposes more than soft determinism: it envisions an open yet law-governed cosmic web where rational autonomy meaningfully redirects local change, consistent with universal logos but never reducible to a single chain of events.

D.7 A Balanced Vision of Lawful Contingency

In sum, Changism straddles determinism and indeterminism by treating time as emergent and highlighting that change is fundamental under a cosmic logos. The universe’s multi-stable and infinite nature precludes a single, locked-in trajectory, yet upholds robust lawfulness at every scale. When conscious agents — operating in the eternal now — apply reflective criteria, they genuinely shape how lawful processes unfold, thereby achieving a freedom of co-creation rather than an uncaused break.

Thus, Changism preserves both the lawful unity of nature and the reality of open possibilities, showing how rational deliberation can effectively “tune” which branch of lawful transformations is realized. This synergy between logos and emergent contingency offers a third way beyond classical determinism or purely libertarian free will, echoing the Stoic conviction that we achieve genuine autonomy precisely by working within — not against — the cosmos’s rational order.

Universal causality does not imply a single, determined, path. Rather, in an unbounded universe, lawful processes harbor genuine branching potential — allowing rational agents to enact a contingent, yet entirely lawful, freedom within the eternal present.

Appendix E: Changism in Dialogue with Process Philosophy

E.1 Introduction

Process philosophy, often associated with thinkers like Alfred North Whitehead, posits that reality is fundamentally composed of processes rather than static substances. This view resonates with Changism’s emphasis on change as an ontological primitive. While both traditions reject a purely material or static ontology, they also resist simple deterministic frameworks built on linear causal chains. Instead, both Changism and process philosophy see the world as an ever-unfolding flux whose transformations follow orderly patterns grounded in the inherent nature of entities and their environments.

This appendix provides an overview of key ideas in process philosophy — particularly its stance on time, change, and causality — and shows how these parallel and illuminate Changism’s own premises.

E.2 Process Philosophy: Key Tenets

1. Primacy of Becoming over Being
   In Whitehead’s Process and Reality and related process texts, reality is not a collection of static objects but a sequence of events or “actual occasions” continually coming into being. Entities do not simply exist in time; rather, time is an aspect of their ongoing becoming.
2. Relational and Interconnected Universe
   Process philosophers hold that every event is internally related to others, forming a web of interdependence. Whitehead’s “prehensions” describe how each occasion integrates influences from past occasions while shaping its future trajectory. This stands in contrast to a “domino” model of discrete causes.
3. Emergence of Order
   While everything is in flux, process philosophy does not advocate sheer randomness. Instead, it contends that lawful patterns arise from how each event inherits certain features from its predecessors, modifies them, and passes them on, sustaining a coherent but evolving cosmos.
4. Time as Emergent from Process
   Process thinkers frequently view time not as a dimension that exists independently, but as a measure of becoming. The succession of events — the ongoing creative advance — is time. Hence, the sense of “before and after” is a reflection of how processes relationally unfold.

E.3 Changism’s Parallels with Process Philosophy

Change as Ontologically Primary

In Changism:

“Rather than viewing change as merely an effect of prior causes, we see change as a basic and essential aspect of all entities and processes.”

This directly aligns with process philosophy’s central claim that the universe is defined by becoming, not static substance. Changism views every aspect of reality as being in a perpetual state of flux, with time emerging as a tool we use to label transformations.

Why This Matters:

• Both Changism and process philosophy dethrone a block-universe model of spacetime.
• Becoming stands at the heart of both accounts, meaning the fundamental “stuff” of reality is dynamic.

Lawful and Non-Random

In Changism:

“The patterns of change are determined by the intrinsic properties of systems (their ‘nature’) and by how they interact with their surroundings, following scientific principles.”

Process philosophers like Whitehead similarly emphasize lawful patterns in the cosmic process: each “actual occasion” inherits data from its predecessors and integrates it according to its subjective form, giving rise to regularities that can be described by physical laws. This ensures the world is not a random patchwork but a structured flow of events.

Why This Matters:

• It contrasts with purely random or chaotic universes.
• It preserves a sense of rationality or logos operating in the cosmos.

The Dynamic Interplay of Nature and Environment

In Changism:

“Instead of a simple chain of causes, change emerges from an ongoing interplay between internal characteristics and external conditions, ensuring continuity and predictability via natural laws.”

Process philosophy speaks of each event’s internal constitution (its “subjective aim” or essential nature) and its reception of influences from the environment (other events). Rather than a linear “A causes B” chain, events continually co-create each other in a dynamic field of relationships.

Why This Matters:

• This perspective undercuts domino-style determinism in favor of holistic causal networks.
• It asserts that while the cosmos is lawful, the lawfulness emerges from continuous mutual adjustment of events/entities.

E.4 Reframing Causality: From Domino Chains to Continuous Process

Classical determinism often posits a tight chain of antecedent causes leading to a single forced outcome — akin to dominoes toppling one after another. Changism (like process philosophy) proposes:

“There isn’t a finite list of antecedent causes; rather, there is an ongoing, self-renewing process where ‘cause’ is embedded in the continuous, inherent nature of change itself.”

In Whitehead’s framework, causality is not a single unidirectional chain but a multidimensional process of inheritance, transformation, and creation of new forms of order. Changism similarly sees each “moment” or “event” as part of a flow shaped by inherent properties and contextual relations, rather than a linear link in a rigid sequence.

Outcome:

• Domino-style determinism loses traction; no single chain can be enumerated in a cosmos of continuous interactivity.
• Both Changism and Whitehead’s process view uphold lawful continuity, but not mechanical inevitability.

E.5 Time as Emergent vs. Ontological Dimension

1. Process Philosophy:
   Whitehead sees time as an abstraction from the succession of occasions. While we often treat time as a container, process thought shows that “earlier” and “later” reflect how events succeed each other in the continuum of becoming.
2. Changism:
   Changism similarly asserts that time is a measure of change, not a fundamental dimension. The “eternal present” is where all real transformations occur, and “past” or “future” are conceptual extrapolations.

Thus, both minimize or reject the idea of time as a fourth dimension akin to space, emphasizing that our notion of “time passing” is an interpretive tool for tracking continuous flux.

E.6 Implications and Shared Contributions

• Resisting Mechanistic Determinism:
  By making process fundamental, both Changism and process philosophy repudiate simplistic linear determinism. Neither denies lawfulness, but they deny that lawfulness must be linear or reduce to antecedent-push causation.
• Emphasis on Novelty:
  Process thought often highlights novel emergence — the idea that new forms genuinely come into being as the process unfolds. Changism, too, allows novelty by positing that each transformation can exhibit fresh outcomes consistent with natural laws but not fixed by a finite set of causes.
• Rationality or Logos:
  In Whitehead’s system, the cosmic process is not chaotic; there is an underlying rationality or creativity. Changism likewise speaks of a “foundational rationality of the cosmos,” ensuring changes are lawful yet self-renewing.
• Integration of Science and Metaphysics:
  Both approaches welcome empirical descriptions of how processes unfold (in quantum physics, biology, ecology, etc.) while insisting that reality’s deeper character is fundamentally processual — an integration of scientific laws with a philosophical emphasis on becoming.

E.7 Concluding Synthesis

Changism and process philosophy converge on the principle that change (or becoming) is the bedrock of reality — not merely a byproduct of static objects existing in a separate container called time. By rejecting domino-style determinism and focusing on how every entity evolves according to its nature and environmental relationships, both accounts provide a cohesive vision where process is primary, time is emergent, and causality unfolds dynamically rather than linearly.

In short, Changism can be viewed as a contemporary restatement (or complement) to process philosophy’s longstanding insights, sharing the conviction that change is fundamental, universal, and orderly without collapsing into determinism or indeterminism. By celebrating the intrinsic rationality of ongoing flux, both paradigms recast the cosmos as a perpetual act of becoming — lawful, non-random, and rich in creative potential.

Appendix F: Why The Cosmos Must Necessarily Be Unbounded In Duration And Extent And Endlessly Open And Divisible.

Below is a concise overview of the arguments set forth in a companion piece, Existence is Necessarily Eternal and Uncreated: Why Something Instead of Nothing. These points complement Changism by showing why the universe (or “existence”) must necessarily be unbounded in duration and extent, cannot have an external cause, and is endlessly open and divisible.

F.1 The Conceptual Impossibility of Non-Existence

A core thesis is that non-existence (i.e., “nothingness”) cannot exist without contradicting itself.

• Logical Principle: Under the law of non-contradiction, “non-existence” cannot “be,” since that would make it a form of existence.
• Implication: Because “non-existence” is a logical impossibility, existence must always have been and will always be. There was never a moment or condition where “nothing” preceded existence.

Why it Matters for Changism
Changism views change (not “nothingness”) as primary. By dismissing the possibility of “non-existence,” we reinforce the idea that an eternal present — where all phenomena arise — is the only logically coherent state. No external emptiness can “create” existence, mirroring Changism’s insistence on self-sustaining flux rather than a cosmic beginning ex nihilo.

F.2 The Self-Contained Nature of Existence

If existence is all-encompassing, it has no external boundary or “outside.”

• No External Cause: Any supposed cause of the universe would itself have to exist, thus being part of existence. Therefore, it can’t be something “outside” or “beyond” existence.
• Self-Sufficiency: Existence cannot be “caused” from without, so it is uncaused and uncreated — it simply is.

Why it Matters for Changism
Changism’s view of the cosmos as an eternal present aligns well with a self-contained reality that needs no external trigger or prime mover. It underscores that change emerges within the universe itself, rather than being imposed from outside.

F.3 The Perpetual Nature of Energy

Drawing on the first law of thermodynamics — that energy is neither created nor destroyed — this argument shows why existence is necessarily eternal.

• Energy in an Isolated System: If the cosmos is all that exists, it forms an isolated system.
• Conservation of Energy: Energy, a cornerstone of physics, cannot be created or destroyed; it simply transforms.
• Conclusion: The cosmic reservoir of energy has always existed, strengthening the claim that existence is uncreated and perpetual.

Why it Matters for Changism
Changism emphasizes lawful but unceasing change. The conservation of energy fits seamlessly into a universe where transformation is constant — forms of energy shift, but existence itself remains.

F.4 Why the Cosmos Must Be Infinite in Extension

Moving beyond the notion of a finite, bounded universe, this section argues for infinite spatial extent (and potentially infinite complexity):

• Avoiding Contradictions: A “boundary” in space implies an “outside,” effectively reintroducing “non-existence” or external existence — a logical impossibility.
• Cosmological Observations: Modern cosmological data (e.g., near-flat geometry) support the plausibility of an unbounded, possibly infinite, universe.
• Philosophical Coherence: If existence is self-contained, it cannot end at a finite boundary; it is instead open-ended and infinite.

Why it Matters for Changism
Changism posits that all change occurs in a limitless arena — no edges or external constraints. An infinite environment provides the maximal scope for ceaseless, law-abiding change.

F.5 Infinite Divisibility: No Smallest Scale

In addition to being spatially unbounded, existence likely has no indivisible smallest “pixel.”

• Logical Argument: Any discrete grid or minimum step size soon runs into contradictions (e.g., diagonal motions, isotropy of space).
• Planck Scale: Often interpreted as a limit of current theories, not a literal minimum distance. Quantum gravity proposals see it more as an emergent or operational scale.
• Conclusion: The cosmos is infinitely divisible — no final micro-building block nor ultimate macro-bound.

Why it Matters for Changism
An infinitely divisible cosmos underscores that change has no ultimate “resolution limit.” Processes occur at every conceivable scale — just as Changism claims that all is flux, from cosmic expansions to quantum fluctuations.

F.6 Reconciling Isolation and Openness

An eternal, infinite cosmos can be labeled “isolated” (there’s no outside) yet “open” (it is unbounded and inexhaustible).

• Isolated: Since there is nothing external to existence, it cannot exchange matter, energy, or causes with any outside realm.
• Open: Unbounded in size, complexity, and divisibility, the cosmos forever invites new configurations and transformations.

Why it Matters for Changism
This perspective dissolves domino-style determinism: with no final boundary or sealed chain of finite causes, the universe remains open to ongoing evolutionary processes that never conclusively repeat or terminate.

F.7 The Eternal Necessity of Change

An infinite and uncreated universe cannot be static — absolute stillness reintroduces the paradox of non-existence or an eternal freeze that defies observed cosmic laws.

• Impossibility of Absolute Stasis: Perfect immobility would be indistinguishable from non-existence.
• Perpetual Transformation: Existence is dynamic in nature, ensuring ceaseless unfolding akin to Heraclitus’s “ever-living fire.”

Why it Matters for Changism
At the heart of Changism is change as ontologically primary. An infinite cosmos that never came from nothing nor halts in timeless stasis beautifully reflects the principle that change is both universal and unending.

F.8 The Infinite Rationality of the Cosmos

These arguments also highlight a foundational logic or rationality in the cosmos:

• Non-Contradiction: Existence cannot be both absent and present, ensuring consistency.
• Energy Conservation: Patterns are law-based, not arbitrary.
• No Boundaries: Rational structure extends across all scales, guiding transformations with coherence.

Why it Matters for Changism
In Changism, the universe’s “logos” or rational order underpins how transformations happen lawfully. An uncaused and infinite cosmos resonates with the idea that rational principles direct the flux at every level, from cosmic inflation to quantum processes.

F.9 Practical and Existential Implications

• Death as Metamorphosis: In an unbounded, uncreated cosmos, “death” for living beings is not an absolute end but a shift of matter and energy into new forms — an ongoing transformation rather than extinction into “nothing.”
• Infinite Nested Processes: If all scales are open-ended, every “system” is made of smaller subsystems in flux, and each “macro-structure” can be part of a still larger domain — mirroring Changism’s continuous dance of smaller and larger cycles of change.
• Infinite Agency and Responsibility: A truly boundless cosmos invites reflections on how conscious agents co-participate in shaping (locally) an eternal tapestry of becoming.

F.10 Summary and Relevance to Changism

These ontological arguments reinforce the Changist premise that “time” is not an absolute dimension but a way of tracking eternal, uncreated, boundless change. Logic dictates that “nothingness” cannot spawn existence, and modern scientific insights suggest an unbounded, self-contained, ever-transforming universe. The result is a cosmos that is isolated yet open, infinitely extended yet infinitely divisible, and driven by a fundamental rationality — never reaching an absolute beginning or end.

By integrating these points, Changism gains further depth:

1. No external cause: The eternal cosmos is self-existent, so change is inherent, not imposed.
2. Infinite scope: The field of change is unending in space, time, and possible configurations.
3. Eternal present: Change never halts nor had a “start.” Past and future are abstractions, not destinations.

In sum, an uncreated, infinite, self-contained cosmos aligns naturally with Changism’s assertion that change is primary and time is the conceptual measure we apply to that ceaseless flux. The synergy of these arguments cements the view of a universe that has always been — and will always be — an unfolding tapestry of lawful transformation, free from the specter of external constraints or a primordial void.

Appendix G: Timeless Eternal Change

Reality unfolds not as a static series of events along a timeline but as an eternal, ever-shifting present. Time is not a river in which we are carried along; rather, it is the instrument — a clock on the wall of the now — that measures the pulsations of change. Every beat of the clock, every vibration of cesium atoms, is not an isolated fragment of an elusive dimension but a testament to the ceaseless metamorphosis that we call existence. Past and future, then, are but the echoes and anticipations of this dynamic present.

Imagine the universe as a boundless river where nothing remains fixed. As Heraclitus reminds us, “all is flux; nothing stays still.” In this ceaseless flow, permanence is an illusion; instead, change is the fundamental substance that defines reality. Each moment is an unfolding — a petal’s kiss of the sun — that marks both a culmination of what has been and a promise of what is to come. The present is not a narrow point between past and future, but the living canvas upon which all transformation is painted.

In aligning with the natural order, one discovers that true wisdom lies in embracing the abundance of the now. The universe, governed by a rational logos, flows in rhythmic cycles — the turning of the Earth, the oscillation of stars, and the pulse of atomic vibrations. When we attune ourselves to these rhythms, we realize that our struggles against change only hinder our ability to live in harmony with nature. Instead of clinging to what is transient, we find solace in the ceaseless, creative unfolding of each moment.

Eastern wisdom teaches that life is to be experienced fully in the present. The teachings of the Buddha, Lao Tzu, and other mystics invite us to relinquish our attachments to past regrets and future anxieties. In silence and mindful stillness, the mind discovers its true nature — a state of openness where every breath is sacred and every moment holds infinite potential. Here, the self dissolves into the vast interconnectedness of all things, revealing that time is a construct that fragments a deeper, unified reality.

Medieval mystics, too, recognized that time is but a fleeting illusion. For them, the eternal present was a gateway to the divine — a timeless now in which the soul finds its true home. The writings of Augustine and Meister Eckhart emphasize that the past and future are mental constructs; it is only in the immediacy of the present that one can encounter the infinite. In this sacred instant, the soul meets the eternal, and the divine becomes immanent in every act of being.

A profound shift emerged with modern philosophy, as thinkers like Kierkegaard, Sartre, and Bergson turned inward to seek the essence of being. They revealed that existence is not predetermined but is a canvas of possibilities defined by our choices in the now. Consciousness is not a passive receptor but an active participant in the creation of reality. In this view, freedom is discovered through the deliberate, reflective engagement with the present moment, which shapes our identity and our destiny.

Today, amid the clamor of technology and relentless modernity, a quiet call beckons us back to the present. Practices such as mindfulness and meditation remind us that the richness of life lies in the now. By observing our breath and anchoring our attention to the immediate, we dissolve the distractions of past and future. In this deep presence, compassion and inner peace flourish. Each moment, when embraced with full awareness, becomes a portal to a deeper, more authentic way of living — a practice that not only calms the mind but also heals the heart.

Across cultures and eras, a unifying insight emerges: reality is not a disjointed sequence of moments but a seamless tapestry woven from eternal change. Changism encapsulates this truth by asserting that time is merely a tool for measuring change — a pragmatic abstraction arising from the necessity to organize the continuous flow of life. In the present moment, all of existence converges; the past is a fading echo, and the future a quiet promise. This understanding resonates with the teachings of Marcus Aurelius, Augustine, and countless mystics, affirming that the eternal now is the stage upon which the cosmic dance unfolds.

Beneath the stars and within every grain of sand, the cosmos whispers its eternal secret: there is no beginning or end, only an endless, rhythmic unfolding. As Li Bai mused in his Butterfly Dream, all beings transform effortlessly, each a transient note in the symphony of existence. The universe does not flow through time; rather, it vibrates with the pulse of change. In every instant, from the smallest quiver of a quantum particle to the grand cycles of galactic evolution, the cosmos sings a hymn of eternal transformation — a melody of order and beauty, guided by rational laws that nurture and liberate.

In this timeless appendix, we have journeyed from the poetic reflections on change to the rich tapestry of philosophical and spiritual insights that undergird Changism. We learn that the present moment is the sole reality — a vibrant, living testament to the universe’s ceaseless becoming. By recognizing that time is not an independent force but a measure of change, we free ourselves from the illusions of past and future, and step fully into the boundless potential of now. In doing so, we become co-creators of our destiny, actively participating in the grand, unfolding dance of the cosmos.

As we tread gently on this boundless ground, we honor the ancient wisdom that whispers in every moment: that in the eternal now, we find the essence of life, the truth of our being, and the freedom to shape our destiny.

Further Reading:

• Changism: Change and Time in a Presentist Universe — Sergio Montes Navarro
  https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/change-and-time-in-a-presentist-universe-3aec919829ae
• Changism 2: The Bewitchment of Language in Physics — Sergio Montes Navarro
  https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/changism-2-the-bewitchment-of-language-in-physics-79acaf69757f
• Logos — Sergio Montes Navarro
  https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/logos-0717f9fb6cde
• Existence is Necessarily Eternal and Uncreated — Why Something Instead of Nothing — Sergio Montes Navarro
  https://sergio-montes-navarro.medium.com/existence-is-necessarily-eternal-and-uncreated-5fe57626a60b