_heretic

Thanks. I guess the issue is really an unknown at this point then (?) It will be interesting to watch all of these hypotheses develop

I had always the thought the Wick rotation was just a mathematical convenience; not actually representing an objective, physical process. Am I mistaken?

Isn't there a time-independent version of the schrodinger equation? Perhaps that would apply...

Indeed!

Since the Wheeler-DeWitt equation supposes a universal wavefunction, then does that wavefunction not evolve according to the Schrödinger equation and therefore...the quantum poincare recurrence theorem....?

Okay so you meant a mental bridge between the two philosophical viewpoints on the ontology of time. But in what way is a Wick Rotation this bridge? Are you saying that the Wick rotation somehow reconciles the two views? And if so, how does the Wick Rotation do this? Surely the only valid definition of existence is whether something is physically "there" in the spacetime. e.g. Nowhere in the spacetime does there exist a flying spaghetti monster therefore the FSM does not physically exist. On the other hand, there does exist, somewhere, in the spacetime Tim Berners-Lee therefore Tim Berners-Lee exists.

So, does this mean that everything (i.e. every particle) has a reference frame?

So what is a reference frame?

The problem with this is, yes Shakespeare may not "exist" in your reference frame, but he does in fact exist in a different reference frame. So does this mean that Shakespeare both exists and does not exist...?

Perhaps it doesn't collapse, a.la. Many Worlds

Some interesting ideas there, thanks

If this really is what the position of Presentism is then it seems like a trivial view to take. Of course an observer will think of objects that are not in their plane of simultaneity as existing, but then another observer could think of them as existing since those very same objects will be present in their plane of simultaneity! So what is the objective criterion for whether something exists or not? Otherwise aren't we pushed into the position where we must concede that every event/object does in fact exist; which is the Eternalist view.

Thanks. I'll give that some thought.

It won't be found on the 2012 plane of course because you've sliced the 4D space-time there. But if you imagine your "outside" (in a 5th dimension perhaps!? ) then all the events would be there. I'll make the argument from the paper in my own words if you want. Later anyway, it's late here and I'm tired (at time of posting) or maybe I should say _heretic is tired while posting this. (Keeping with the 4D of course )

...? Is there an answer to this :< Does the universal wavefunction obey the quantum mechanical Poincaré recurrence theorem?

Yup and the authors of that paper you are quoting make a good argument as to why that view, that there is no difference between Eternalism and Presentism, does not stand up; hence it is meaningful to consider Eternalism and Presentism as opposing and actually trying to describe reality.

Interesting. How would an Eternalist respond to the objection: "Why don't we experience all moments in our life at once?"

If you think it is just a issue of grammar, you should read the paper I linked.

Okay, perhaps this is just an issue of semantics. What constitutes an observer in relativity? That's probably where I'm getting confused.

In what way is it a "bridge"? (And what do you mean by that?)

If I may be so bold as to suggest a paper that is worth a read: http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/RoSandBlockworld.pdf "Relativity of Simultaneity and Eternalism: In Defense of the Block Universe" There's some strong arguments in there as to why presentism is untenable and why presentists have the burden of proof.

Well what about events that won't/aren't/haven't been observed, to what extent are those events extant?

Two questions naturally follow that then: 1. How are "temporal parts" defined? 2. What would the eternalist's explanation be to why we experience only a present moment?

I don't see it as taking away free will after all we are part of the space-time and are still doing the choosing. Perhaps multiple possible histories co-exist? a.la. the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics.

Is the question really that horrible that no one dares face up to it?