This sounds like an idea called “eternalism” or “block time”. I tend to suspect it might be the case just because it requires assuming fewer unique properties for the time dimension that aren’t shared by space dimensions, but obviously that’s not really evidence for it as such. It can be an interesting idea to think through the implications of though, whether true or not.
I really tried to understand how people obviously a lot more intelligent than I am actually believe this kind is stuff. It really breaks down for me when claims are made that past, present (debated now), and more specifically future is different based on the observer. Like yeah, it takes time for signals to travel, that in no way means something that hasn’t happened already has. We can observe things in the past, we can’t observe anything in the future. There’s no evidence that anything can be viewed in the future, it doesn’t make any practical sense to me.
This sounds like an idea called “eternalism” or “block time”. I tend to suspect it might be the case just because it requires assuming fewer unique properties for the time dimension that aren’t shared by space dimensions, but obviously that’s not really evidence for it as such. It can be an interesting idea to think through the implications of though, whether true or not.
I really tried to understand how people obviously a lot more intelligent than I am actually believe this kind is stuff. It really breaks down for me when claims are made that past, present (debated now), and more specifically future is different based on the observer. Like yeah, it takes time for signals to travel, that in no way means something that hasn’t happened already has. We can observe things in the past, we can’t observe anything in the future. There’s no evidence that anything can be viewed in the future, it doesn’t make any practical sense to me.