Introduction

Hardly anyone knows about the block universe idea from modern physics. In the block universe, the past, present and future are all equally real. So the future is already "out there" and the past never went away. And we are moving through the block universe in a way that is similar to being moved through the Haunted Mansion ride. This is easy to understand but it is also hard to accept because virtually everyone believes in presentism. Below is a collection of quotes and links to sources that support the block universe idea. Most of these physicists and philosophers do not take the next step and use the idea as a proof for God or proof for a human soul, however, some do. Doing so, is, of course, politically incorrect, only materialism is allowed.

If you're new to the block universe idea you need some definitions that are used in this essay. In physics, the block universe can also appear as the blockworld. You mainly find the term blockworld used in the context of the relational blockworld interpretation of quantum mechanics. The block universe idea originated in 1908 with Hermann Minkowski, one of Einstein's teachers who looked at what Einstein did with special relativity and realized the consequences. (See, for instance, chapter 2 of MinkowskiFreemiumMIP2012.pdf. But you should probably read chapter 1 first.) There would no longer be space and time, instead there would be four-dimensional spacetime, three dimensions of space and one of time fused together. In physics, the time dimension is almost exactly like a space dimension, but there is a slight difference. In philosophy, the block universe idea is called eternalism and it can be traced back to the Greek philosopher, Parmenides of Elea. In philosophy, it is also the B-theory of time.

In modern physics there is also the subject of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics deals with the movement of atomic-size and sub-atomic size particles. They behave very strangely but physicists have the equations that describe how they behave. In quantum mechanics, there is the term, superdeterminism, that I believe is equivalent to, or almost equivalent to, the block universe, although I've seen at least one person say they are different.

The block universe idea is much different than the understanding of the universe almost everyone has. In philosophy, the alternative to eternalism is called presentism or the A-theory of time. In presentism, only the present exists, the past is gone and the future is not out there yet. In presentism you have a Big Bang that creates particles and they go flying through space. In the presentism idea, there are three dimensions of space and something called time.

I've discovered that when you present people with the block universe idea they often reject it in favor of the Big Bang idea. The Big Bang idea is enormously popular because everyone else believes it. An awful lot of what we believe, we believe because lots of other people believe it too. The Big Bang idea came from general relativity. But general relativity and special relativity both support the block universe idea. With the Big Bang a whole lot of particles formed in the Big Bang and they are moving around. And the Big Bang is long gone. In the block universe, everything across all of space AND TIME appeared and everything is frozen in place - forever. Nothing is moving around. Instead, our consciousness is moving through the block universe and this gives us the appearance that things are moving around. The Big Bang is still back there at the beginning of our time. It was fairly easy for people to accept the Big Bang because it fit in nicely with the 19th century idea that there are all these particles flying around, the past is gone, only the present exists and the future is not ``out there" yet. The block universe has been more difficult for people to accept because it radically alters our understanding of the universe. But both ideas came from the same scientific theory, they both came from general relativity.

Quotes, Links and Comments

Physicist Sean Carroll talks about eternalism and presentism at the beginning of this Great Courses video: What Is Time? | Professor Sean Carroll explains the theories of Presentism and Eternalism. The first half is relevant, the rest not so much, because it discusses how to measure time.

The nicest explanation of the block universe I have found so far comes from the book, From Illusions to Reality: Time, Spacetime and the Nature of Reality (Understanding Reality Series Book 1) by physicist Vesselin Petkov. He does a thorough explanation of why the block universe makes sense and why our normal view of the world is not consistent with physics.

Early on in his book, on pages 26 and 27, he writes about how, when he first encountered the idea, he could not accept it. In the quote, below Petkov talks about it as Minkowski's view of the world:

Let me assure you that I am perfectly aware of how difficult it is to accept and especially to adopt Minkowski's totally counter-intuitive view of the world. When I first realized its huge implications for virtually all areas of our life ... my reaction was perhaps similar to the reaction of a lot of you - the world could not be that idiotic ... . However, instead of throwing out all my books on relativity and hoping that my refusal to accept that view would make it wrong, I chose to follow the path of the scientific method. As like anyone else in the scientific field, I also recognize the experimental evidence as the ultimate judge and the only authority in science, I started to analyze the experiments which confirmed the relativistic effects with the firm intention to disprove Minkowski's view (i.e., the spacetime view of the world). But the analysis did not produce the results I was sure they would produce. Quite the opposite - it turned out that those experiments would be impossible if Minkowski's view were wrong, i.e., if the world were three-dimensional. After repeating those analyses, finally I asked myself - If the world is indeed a four-dimensional block ('frozen') universe, what should I do? Deny Minkowski's view (which is proved by the experimental evidence) simply because I do not like it?

Besides his fine explanation of the block universe, he agrees with me on a number of important issues. If you don't think I am credible by proposing these ideas then listen to him and the people he quotes! First up is the existence of a Creator. Petkov says this on page 129:

The presentist view of the world pictures it as an evolving universe which, according to science, does not need a creator. On the spacetime view, however, the world is a block universe - the entire history of the world is given at once (as a whole - en bloc) since all moments of time exist as the "points" of the fourth dimension of the world (exactly as all points of any of the three spatial dimensions exist at once). It may not be seen immediately, but a block universe implies that it was created.

Petkov goes on to explain why the block universe must have a Creator and the reasoning is obvious: the universe is just too complicated for it to have happened by chance. Here is what he had to say:

To see the challenge more clearly, consider the life of a single person, e.g. a very creative and productive movie script writer. Her entire life, with the smallest and even insignificant details, is given at once in the block universe. I doubt that anyone would be able to argue seriously that the 'script' of her life - her four-dimensional worldtube containing all events in her life (coordinated with the events of other people's lives), including the elaborated ideas of her fantastic movie scripts - occurred spontaneously. First, nothing can occur or happen in a block universe since time is entirely given there. Second, it looks utterly inexplicable how the enormous complexity captured even in a single person's worldtube can come into existence spontaneously. I think just one element of the movie script writer's life is sufficient to rule out the idea that her entire life occurred spontaneously - the very existence of intentions in her actions (although not all intentions are realized) revealed at later events of her worldtube. That is, how can a worldtube occur spontaneously given the fact that each part of the worldtube (corresponding to a given moment of time) contains intentions about its parts corresponding to later moments? It appears logical to assume that the gigantic 'world script' (the entire history of the universe) must be created. Perhaps taking seriously this assumption fully reveals what a challenge the spacetime view of the world is. I think it is sufficient to mention only two questions - who created it and how can a block universe be created given the fact that all moments of time are given at once. It is true that, formally, a block universe can be created in a second time. As the existing experimental evidence does not provide even the slightest hint of another time, I prefer to stop here.

Then, notice something else Petkov said in that quote:

Perhaps taking seriously this assumption fully reveals what a challenge the spacetime view of the world is. I think it is sufficient to mention only two questions - who created it and how can the block universe be created given the fact that all moments of time are given at once. It is true that formally, a block universe can be created in a second time. As the existing experimental evidence does not provide even the slightest hint of another time, I prefer to stop here.

In my analysis of Genesis chapter 1 I showed how the text could be interpreted to mean that each "day" of creation took place in a second dimension of time. I asked Petkov in an email where the idea that the block universe could have been created along a second dimension of time came from. This is what he said:

The idea that a block universe can be created in a second time came about more than ten years ago in some of the classes on the foundations of spacetime physics - students always asked whether there is a way out of the fatalism of a block universe.

By fatalism, he means that there is no free will. You can't change your fate any more than a character in a book of fiction can change their fate. Because the entire block universe (with the future) has been fixed in advance, Petkov and others have concluded that we have no free will. Instead, we are simply passive observers of what is going on in the world. I have to disagree with this. Consciousness is from our soul and while the block universe of matter is fixed, it does not mean that our soul is not free. Of course, in order for God to build the block universe with free will, God would have to know what we were deciding out there in the future. Of course, basic Christian thinking is that God does know everything, including what we will be thinking and deciding (have decided) in the future.

There are two other Petkov essays that argue for the 4D block universe, they are: Relativity, Dimensionality, and Existence and Is There an Alternative to the Block Universe View?

In his book, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality, physicist Brian Greene, doesn't use the term block universe, instead he compares the block universe to a loaf of bread:

...then reality encompasses all the events in spacetime. The total loaf exists. Just as we envision all of space as really being out there, as really existing, we should envision all of time as really being out there, as really existing too. Past, present, and future certainly appear to be distinct entities. But, as Einstein once said "For we convinced physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion however persistent." ¹

Greene continues on and says this:

In this way of thinking, events, regardless of when they happen from any particular perspective, just are. They all exist. They eternally occupy their point in spacetime. There is no flow. If you were having a great time at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve, 1999, you still are, since that is just one immutable location in spacetime. It is tough to accept this description, since our world view so forcefully distinguishes between past, present, and future. But if we stare intently at this familiar temporal scheme and confront it with the cold, hard facts of modern physics, its only place of refuge seems to lie within the human mind. ²

And of course, the reason it looks like things are moving around is because our consciousness is moving through the block universe. And Greene thinks so too. In the following where he says "our conscious experience seems to sweep through the slices", he could just as well have said "as our consciousness moves through the block universe":

Undeniably, our conscious experience seems to sweep through the slices. It is as though our minds provide the projector light referred to earlier, so that moments of time come to life when they are illuminated by the power of consciousness. ³

Of course I will say that it is our soul that is moving through the block universe. So we have proof for a human soul. This projector light idea is also referred to as the moving spotlight theory.

Also in Greene's book, there is this helpful, if mind-boggling example, that shows that the past, present and future are all out there at once. Greene takes the case of a being named Chewie, in a galaxy far, far away, in fact 10 billion light years away. If Chewie is not moving relative to the Earth, Chewie will see what is happening "now" on the Earth, although it will take 10 billion years for the light to reach him. But if Chewie is moving away from the Earth at 10 miles per hour (Greene says he has a big stride) Chewie will see what happened 150 years ago. If Chewie is moving toward the Earth at 10 miles per hour he will see what will happen 150 years in the future. Notice that if Chewie first moves toward the Earth and then moves away from the Earth, Chewie will see our future and then see our past. For us, that's in the ``wrong" order!

Greene also has done a PBS Nova video on the subject, see: The Fabric of the Cosmos: The Illusion of Time This may not be available outside the US however someone grabbed the first half of the video (really the only relevant part) and put it on Youtube, under the title Brian Greene on the B Theory of Time. And now, a third version, the whole one is at: The Illusion of Time (Fabric of the Cosmos) NOVA HD. Greene also has a different 25 minute video on this web page: According to Einstein Time is an Illusion, and Here is the Proof.

Next, there is a physicist in the UK, Edgar Andrews, who has written a very nice, very entertaining, down-to-earth book called Who Made God?: Searching for a Theory of Everything. In chapter 8 he says this:

This implies, of course, the intriguing concept that all time still exists. In the three dimensions of space, I can travel from London to Manchester and onwards to Glasgow. In terms of my experience, once I reach Manchester, London lies in the past and Glasgow in the future. But this doesn't mean that London has stopped existing or that Glasgow is still a green-field site. So with time. The fact that we are confined to 'now' and can visit neither yesterday nor tomorrow, doesn't mean that yesterday has ceased to exist or tomorrow doesn't yet exist. It is, in fact, one of the inevitable conclusions of relativity theory that the whole of space-time must have a real and continuing existence - regardless of our perception of time as being divided into past, present and future. If you doubt my word, physicist Brian Greene sets out detailed arguments to prove this and concludes: 'Just as we envision all of space as really existing, we should also envision all of time as really being out there, as really existing, too' (his italics). The biblical idea that God surveys all time is therefore predictive of what has only recently become apparent to science. ⁴

I would say, however, that this result has been apparent to science for around 100 years, so it is not really recent. But of course it has only recently started to get the attention that it deserves. Notice that his trip around the UK is the equivalent of my Haunted Mansion ride.

Next up, here is a quote by Professor James Woodward in his online article, "Killing Time" where he quotes a physicist, Hermann Weyl:

... one is led from the absence of absolute simultaneity to the view, that in Weyl's [1949] words, "Reality simply is, it does not happen" That is, the past, present, and future all objectively exist. It is all fixed. ⁵

Woodward is quoting Weyl from Weyl's book: Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science. ⁶

Here are a couple more quotes from Hermann Weyl, first from: Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science (Princeton University Press, Princeton 2009) p. 116:

The objective world simply is , it does not happen. Only to the gaze of my consciousness, crawling upward along the life line of my body, does a section of this world come to life as a fleeting image in space which continuously changes in time.

This is saying your consciousness is moving through the block universe. Then from Mind and Nature: Selected Writings on Philosophy, Mathematics, and Physics (Princeton University Press, Princeton 2009) p. 135, there is this:

The objective world merely exists, it does not happen; as a whole it has no history. Only before the eye of the consciousness climbing up in the world line of my body, a section of this world "comes to life" and moves past it as a spatial image engaged in temporal transformation.

Here is a quote from A. S. Eddington, in Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1920), p. 51:

In a perfectly determinate scheme the past and future may be regarded as lying mapped out - as much available to present exploration as the distant parts of space. Events do not happen; they are just there, and we come across them.

Then there is a paper by physicists J. Brian Pitts and W. C. Schieve. Recall that to say that the universe is a block universe is to say that the whole universe, past, present and future simply exists, it simply is. Or you can say that the whole universe is superdetermined. So here is what the authors have to say about superdeterminism:

One also knows that the experiments violating the Bell inequalities are compatible with the orthodox relativity if one is prepared to embrace "superdeterminism" ... .

However, this view's demanding philosophical underpinnings, such as its denial of (libertarian) free will and evident need for an all-determining Agent to correlate the initial conditions of the world, might limit its appeal ... ⁷

That "all-determining Agent" would be God and as they say, this view "might limit its appeal". :-) They also say:

On the other hand, the 3 major monotheistic traditions all have (or had) strands that affirm theological determinism: Pharisaic Judaism [55], Reformed/Calvinist Christianity, and Islam. That there might be a natural affinity here is suggested by the language (e.g., ([47]) about events being "already 'written in a book'." The resemblance to Psalm 139:16 (NASB) cannot be accidental:

2 Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. ⁸

Arvin Ash has done a video on the subject of the block universe that may be helpful: Does past, present and future exist simultaneously? Is Time an Illusion?. The first part is relevant, the second part on entropy is not.

Here is a quote of physicist Robert Geroch on the blockworld taken from the paper "Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the Quantum Liar Paradox", by physicists Stuckey, Silberstein and Cifone:

There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. In particular, one does not think of particles as moving through space-time, or as following along their world-lines. Rather, particles are just in space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once, the complete life history of the particle. ⁹

In that paper, the authors go on to say this:

When Geroch says that "there is no dynamics within space-time itself," he is not denying that the mosaic of the blockworld possesses patterns that can be described with dynamical laws. Nor is he denying the predictive and explanatory value of such laws. Rather, given the reality of all events in a blockworld, dynamics are not "event factories" that bring heretofore non-existent events (such as measurement outcomes) into being. Dynamical laws are not brute unexplained explainers that "produce" events. Geroch is advocating for what philosophers call Humeanism about laws. Namely, the claim is that dynamical laws are descriptions of regularities and not the brute explanation for such regularities. His point is that in a blockworld, Humeanism about laws is an obvious position to take because everything is just "there" from a "God's eye" (Archimedean) point of view. That is, all events past, present and future are equally "real" in a blockworld. ¹⁰

There is another mind-boggling subject in modern physics called quantum mechanics. It appears to be even more crazy than special relativity and physicists have come up with many different ways to interpret what is going on. A very recent one is called the relational blockworld interpretation of quantum mechanics (RBW). It is radical in that it starts with the block universe concept. A description of this interpretation can be found in some rather advanced physics papers. These papers do, however, include "islands" of fairly plain English that ordinary science-minded people can understand. 31. ¹¹

The physicists behind the relational blockworld interpretation of quantum mechanics have a rather expensive book from Oxford University Press, Beyond the Dynamical Universe: Unifying Block Universe Physics and Time as Experienced. Here is a quote from the Amazon page for the book:

Thus, in the dynamical universe, the initial conditions plus the dynamical laws explain everything else going exclusively forward in time. In cosmology, for example, the initial conditions reside in the Big Bang and the dynamical law is supplied by general relativity. Accordingly, the present state of the universe is explained exclusively by its past. This book offers a completely new paradigm (called Relational Blockworld), whereby the past, present and future co-determine each other via "adynamical global constraints," such as the least action principle. Accordingly, the future is just as important for explaining the present as is the past. Most of the book is devoted to showing how Relational Blockworld resolves many of the current conundrums of both theoretical physics and foundations of physics, including the mystery of time as experienced and how that experience relates to the block universe.

Here is a series of 5 parts, starting with Blockworld and Its Foundational Implications: Time Dilation and Length Contraction It is less painful than the original relational blockworld interpretation of quantum mechanics papers but still is basically for physics literate people. But, once again, you will find "islands" of fairly plain English.

The proponents of the relational blockworld interpretation of quantum mechanics and the book, Beyond the Dynamical Universe have a series of 10 short videos on the subject. Here is the first of them: Beyond the Dynamical Universe. Episode 1: Mermin Over Smolin: Quantum Mechanics is Right. For more at youtube, just type in "Beyond the Dynamical Universe". And they have a website for their book: RBW - Relational Blockworld. BTW, these guys avoid all mention of religion, so you can't accuse them of being religious zealots. But when you understand their stuff, you can figure out the consequences.

One of the physicists behind the relational blockworld interpretation of quantum mechanics is Mark Stuckey and at Oxford University Press, they have this little page, Ascending to the god's-eye view of reality where he urges physicists to adopt the block universe view. (It's there to promote the book, mentioned above, that he co-authored.)

For a discussion of the block universe and time and space generally by philosophers, see the book Time and Space ¹² by Barry Dainton. Here is an interesting quote about the creation of a block universe:

Imagine that I am a God-like being who has decided to design and then create a logically consistent universe with laws of nature similar to those that obtain in our universe...Since the universe will be of the block-variety I will have to create it as a whole: the beginning, middle and end will come into being together...Well, assume that our universe is a static block, even if it never 'came into being', it nonetheless exists (timelessly) as a coherent whole, containing a globally consistent spread of events. ¹³

Physicist Max Tegmark talks about time in this little article from the Express. The article mentions another physicist, Julian Barbour. Barbour has written a book called The End of Time that contains a similar idea.

Here is another article from the Express where a philosopher, Bradford Skow, from MIT supports the idea in a book called Objective Becoming. There is a press releast at MIT for the book.

Here is another scientist who backs the block universe concept. It comes from the book, Hidden in Plain Sight 1 by Andrew Thomas. I picked it up for 99 cents as an ebook at Amazon. Chapter 5 is entitled "The Block Universe". Here's a little quote:

...first it has to be stressed that accepting the reality of the block universe is not an option. To disregard the implications of the block universe is not only to ignore the conclusions of special relativity, it is to ignore basic logic. ¹⁴

Inside the Andrew Thomas book he mentions how he:

first became aware of the full, extraordinary implications of the block universe model in 2006 when I read a superb Scientific American article by Paul Davies entitled That Mysterious Flow. I suspect that for a lot people - not just me - the article was a revelation. ¹⁵

The block universe is mentioned in this strangle little article from Forbes. And here is another one from Forbes: Are The Past And Future Real? The Physics And Philosophy Of Time.

Presentism and eternalism are discussed in the context of Christian theology in this series of three web pages:

Philosopher Huw Price backs the idea that the future influences the present and the past AND you can still have free will. Price has a whole book on the subject, Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time but here is a short article on it: Time to go retro. Don't miss his video.

Here is an article about the block universe idea: Has Next Tuesday Already Happened?". Here is another: Was Einstein Wrong? Both are from Adam Frank at NPR.

In a little kindle ebook called The Time Illusion by astrophysicist John Gribbin, near location 379, Gribbin says:

The Universe does not change, but it exists, as a fixed block of spacetime that contains all the things that have ever happened, and all the things that ever will happen. The flow of time is an illusion.

A paper by Paul Wesson, Time as an Illusion.

A story from the Australian Broadcasting Company discussing time with Dr. Kristie Miller from The Centre for Time at the University of Sydney: The block universe theory, where time travel is possible but time passing is an illusion.

Here is a quirky 11 minute video I found that talks about the block universe (without actually using the words, "block universe"): The Andromeda Paradox - When is "Now"?. The Andromeda Paradox comes from well-known physicist, Roger Penrose.

A video from physicist Sabine Hossenfelder on whether or not the past still exists: Does the Past Still Exist?

The Critics

In science, we find paradigm shifts. These are major changes about what we believe about the world. One paradigm shift was the idea that the Earth went around the sun. The "old guard" believed the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun moved around the Earth. In time, the facts prevailed and we got a new idea about how the sun and the Earth are related. Then it wasn't too long ago that everyone thought that the continents were frozen in place. They did not move. In time, the facts prevailed. In the beginning, the establishment "old guard" resists. They think they understand something pretty well and they could never be wrong because they are so smart and so knowledgeable (this is pride). In the end, the facts prevail. The "old guard" dies off. The new paradigm takes its place, the old one is discarded. People then regard the new paradigm as obviously true. Someone said, ``Physics advances one funeral at a time". So it is not surprising that there are physicists who don't like the block universe idea. So I have started a collection of articles by the critics. In the following collection of articles, notice they are desperate to cling to the old view of presentism. This is an implicit acknowledgment that the block universe is the leading model of the world.

As far as I can tell, Lee Smolin is a leading critic. I saw a video, A New Theory of Time - Lee Smolin, where he said he is committed to philosophical "naturalism". This means he is only willing to accept the existence of the physical world. No mental world. No spiritual world. That is his starting point, so it is no suprise that he does not like the block universe idea. Instead, he is trying to fix the situation by putting together a new theory of time. I ran into a little article on the net that mentions him and it is kind of nice, see: The Incredible Truth About Time by Robert Matthews. In it, Matthews wrote:

Smolin is under no illusions about what he's taking on. "The scientific case for time being an illusion is formidable," he says.

Note that word, FORMIDABLE. This means he knows that the block universe has strong experimental evidence to support it.

Later on in the article, Matthews writes something about another interesting result from modern physics that supports the idea of time being an illusion:

In the mid-1960s, the American theorist John Wheeler and his collaborator Bryce DeWitt decided to see what insights might emerge from applying the most successful theory in all science - quantum theory - to the cosmos. Most often applied to the sub-atomic world, quantum theory can - in principle at least - be applied to everything, even the large-scale workings of the Universe.

Wheeler and DeWitt succeeded in producing a nightmarishly complex equation that, according to quantum theory, captures the true nature of the Universe. But the equation spawned a shocking insight. Of all the quantities it contained, one that everyone expected it to include had simply vanished: 't' for time. "According to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, the quantum state of the Universe is just frozen," says Smolin. "The quantum Universe is a Universe without change. It just simply is."

Farther on in the article, Matthews says this about physicist Julian Barbour's approach:

Unlike Smolin, Barbour insists the Wheeler-DeWitt equation's implication for time cannot be dismissed. He argues that the Universe is really a vast, static array of 'nows', like frames on some cosmic movie-reel. At any given moment, or 'now', time does not need to be factored in to explanations of how the Universe works. The sense of time passing comes from our minds processing each of these frames - or 'time capsules', as Barbour calls them. Time itself, however, doesn't exist.

Finally, towards the end of the article, Matthews says this about Smolin's argument:

Smolin is thus suggesting that our very existence may be evidence for cosmic evolution. And since evolution can only happen over time, that in turn suggests time is real. It's an astonishing line of argument for the reality of time - and one that doesn't convince everyone. "I find these ideas very speculative - to say the least," says theorist Prof Claus Kiefer of the University of Cologne in Germany. He doubts even the starting point for Smolin's argument for the reality of time: "There is no evidence whatsoever that new universes are born inside black holes."

Here is a report on a conference sponsored by an organization that Smolin belongs to, the Perimeter Institute: A Debate Over the Physics of Time Several alternative models of time were presented but here is a nice little quote from the article:

In the face of these competing models, many thinkers seem to have stopped worrying and learned to love (or at least tolerate) the block universe.

Here is a review of Smolin's idea from a prominent blockworlder, Huw Price: Medium of Expression: Rebirthing Pains.

REFERENCES

1. Brian Greene, Vintage Books, 2004, p139. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality, .

2. Brian Greene, Vintage Books, 2004, p139. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality, .

3. Brian Greene, Vintage Books, 2004, p139. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality, .

4. Andrews, Edgar, Who Made God?: Searching for a Theory of Everything, EP Books, Faverdale North, Darlington, DL30PH, England, 2009. (accessed November 22, 2016). (I don't have a physical book so I can't give you a page number. In a Kindle, look starting around location 1761.)

5. Woodward, James, "Killing Time", Foundations of Physics Letters, VoL 9, No. 1, 1996, See also: KILLING TIME, p3. (accessed September 7, 2018)

6. Weyl, H., Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1949 and 2009, http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Mathematics-Natural-Science-Hermann/dp/0691141207"

7. Pitts, J. Brian, Schieve, W.C., February 5, 2008, "Flat Spacetime Gravitation with a Preferred Foliation", http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0101099v1.pdf (accessed November 6, 2016)

8. Pitts, J. Brian, Schieve, W.C., February 5,2008, "Flat Spacetime Gravitation with a Preferred Foliation", http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0101099v1.pdf (accessed November 6, 2016)

9. Geroch, Robert, General Relativity from A to B, University of Chicago Press, 1978. http://www.amazon.com/General-Relativity-B-Robert-Geroch/dp/0226288641.

10. Stuckey, W.M., Silberstein, Michael, Cifone, Michael, April 2008, "Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the Quantum Liar Paradox", Foundations of Physics, Springer, Volume 38, Number 4, April, 2008, pp348-383, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3776/1/RBW_FoP_Final_Version_07.pdf, p7. (accessed November 6, 2016)

11. "Deflating Quantum Mysteries Via the Relational Blockworld", http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0503065v3.pdf, by Stucky, W.M., Silberstein, Michael, Cifone, Michael, October 28, 2005, (accessed November 6, 2016).

REVERSING THE ARROW OF EXPLANATION IN THE RELATIONAL BLOCKWORLD: WHY TEMPORAL BECOMING, THE DYNAMICAL BRAIN AND THE EXTERNAL WORLD ARE ALL "IN THE MIND" by Stucky, W.M., Silberstein, Michael, Cifone, Michael, 2005, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3249/1/ZiF_05_stu.pdf, (accessed November 6, 2016).

"Quantum to Classical Transition per the Relational Blockworld", http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0605105v2.pdf, by Stuckey, W.M., Silberstein, Michael, Cifone, Michael, 2006, (accessed November 6, 2016).

"Unification per the Relational Blockworld", http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2778v4.pdf, by Stuckey, W.M., Silberstein, Michael, 2007, (accessed November 6, 2016).

"Reconciling Spacetime and the Quantum: Relational Blockworld and the Quantum Liar Paradox", Foundations of Physics, Springer, Volume 38, Number 4, April, 2008, pp348-383, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3776/1/RBW_FoP_Final_Version_07.pdf , by Stuckey, W.M., Silberstein, Michael, Cifone, Michael, April 2008, (accessed November 6, 2016).

"Genuine Fortuitousness, Relational Blockworld, Realism, and Time", http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/Dan.pdf by Peterson, Daniel J., December 13, 2007, (accessed November 6, 2016).

"Relativity of Simultaneity and Eternalism: In Defense of Blockworld", Peterson, Daniel and Silberstein, Michael, 7 October 2010, (accessed September 4, 2018).

"An Argument for 4D Blockworld from a Geometric Interpretation of Nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics", http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3214/1/BW_from_NRQM.pdf and http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0605039.pdf by Silberstein, Michael, Stuckey, W.M., Cifone, Michael, 2006, (accessed November 6, 2016).

"Being, Becoming and the Undivided Universe: A Dialogue between Relational Blockworld and the Implicate Order Concerning the Unification of Relativity and Quantum Theory", http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.2261v3.pdf, by Stuckey, W.M., Silberstein, Michael, McDevitt, Timothy, 2012, (accessed April 18, 2017).

"Relational Blockworld: Providing a Realist Psi-Epistemic Account of Quantum Mechanics" http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Stuckey-et-al-2015-Revised-v2.pdf Stuckey, W.M., Silberstein, Michael, McDevitt, Timothy, 2015, (accessed April 18, 2017).

12. Time and Space Second Edition, Dainton, Barry, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal & Kingston, Ithaca, 2010. https://amazon.com/gp/product/0773537473, (accessed November 21, 2016).

13. Time and Space Second Edition Dainton, Barry, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal & Kingston, Ithaca, 2010, pp. 129-130. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2778v4.pdf, by Stuckey, W.M., Silberstein, Michael, 2007, (accessed November 6, 2016), page 9.

14. Hidden in Plain Sight: The Simple Link Between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, Thomas, Andrew, Aggrieved Chipmunk Productions, 2012, around location 1084 of this ebook, (accessed December 16, 2016).

15. Hidden in Plain Sight: The Simple Link Between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, Thomas, Andrew, Aggrieved Chipmunk Productions, 2012, around location 938 of this ebook, (accessed December 16, 2016).

16. Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science, Weyl, Hermann, Princeton University press, Princeton, 1949, 2009, p. 116.