Making Sense of the Growing Block View

Abstract

In this paper, I try to make sense of the growing block view using Kit Fine's three-fold classification of A-theoretic views of time. I begin by motivating the endeavor of making sense of the growing block view by examining John Earman's project in 'Reassessing the prospects for a growing block model of the universe' (section 2). Next, I review Fine's reconstruction of McTaggart's argument and its accompanying three-fold classification of A-theoretic views (section 3). I then consider three interpretations of Earman's growing block model: the hybrid growing block (section 4), the purely tensed growing block (section 5), and Michael Tooley's growing block (section 6). I argue for three claims. First, Finean 'standard' versions of these views are less congenial to the growing blocker than 'non-standard' ones. Second, the hybrid view is problematic on either version. And third, 'non-standard' versions are not fully intelligible. I provide further support for the first and third of these claims and explain why I take them to support a minimal account of passage as succession, which undercuts some of the motivation for Earman's project (section 7). Lastly, I answer three objections (section 8).'[W]hen an event becomes, it comes into existence; and it was not anything at all until it had become … The relation between existence and becoming is very intimate. Whatever is has become, and the sum total of the existent is continually augmented by becoming.' (Broad 1923, 68/9) Roughly then, the view is that both past and present exist, but the future doesn't, and that time's passing consists in the coming into existence of new events. However, going beyond this rough description is surprisingly difficult. In fact, I'll suggest that there is no fully intelligible, more illuminating re-statement of the

Relational Quantum Mechanics, quantum relativism, and the iteration of relativity

“…Each of the different types of perspectivism face their own set of drawbacks, or even charges of incoherence (cf. Deng 2017Deng , 1119. And to safeguard their positions, perspectivists have employed an arsenal of rather fanciful metaphysical notions.…”

Two Roads to Retrocausality

“…Moreoever, even if these dual-direction dynamical production pictures could be made coherent, they don't seem to have much to recommend them. The main argument for 'growth'-type models in the philosophy of time is to preserve the intuition that there is something special about the present -the growing block universe makes the notion of temporal becoming literal [54]. But accommodating retrocausality in a generation model would require us to postulate something like two blocks growing in opposite directions, which undercuts this argument -are there other conscious beings whose present is being carried backwards through time?…”

Can Sinners Really Change? Understanding Personal Salvation in the Block Universe

“…Almost all A‐theories (and all those who have a significant number of proponents) are committed to the nonexistence of the future. The Growing Block, for example, is committed to the existence of the past that grows as ever more present moments are added (Broad 1923; Tooley 1997; Correia and Rosenkranz 2003; Braddon‐Mitchell 2004; Forest 2004; Merricks 2006; Forbes 2015; Deng 2017; Correia and Rosenkranz 2018; Miller 2018; Perović 2019). Presentism, on the other hand, holds that only the present moment exists; the past is gone, and the future is not yet here; only and all existing things are present things (Bigelow 1996; Zimmerman 1998; Hinchliff 2000; Percival 2002; Crisp 2003; Zimmerman, 2004, part 1; Bourne 2006; Fine 2006; Zimmerman 2008; Tamm and Olivier 2019; Emery 2020; Tallant and Ingram 2020).…”