Evidence record
Does the past still exist?
Every sentence on the exploration belongs to at least one claim below. Each says what kind of statement it is, what it rests on, what the evidence does not establish, and how far it was checked. Nothing here is a score, and none of it is a verdict on a belief or a theory.
Last checked 24 September 2026.
- Source checked: 38
- A judgement, not a fact: 7
If something here is wrong, misquoted, out of date or unfair, write to support@unknownoceans.com and give the claim number, which does not change.
What the question takes for granted
A philosophical question with physics inside it. The relativity of simultaneity is settled physics; whether it makes past and future as real as the present depends on what "real" means, and that is argued.
Special relativity is right that simultaneity depends on motion
Established
Relativity is borne out by more than a century of experiment; the relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of it rather than a separate measurement.
What exists cannot depend on who is asking
Contested
The premise the argument rests on. Fine rejects it for existence tied to a frame; Gödel held that existence cannot be relativised without losing its meaning.
Whether the past is real is a question with a single answer
Contested
Several philosophers, and Putnam by 2008, suspect the dispute between presentism and eternalism is verbal.
How the question is labelled
Claim: Now, for whom
- Kind
- Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.
Claim: The past
- Kind
- Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.
The question
Claim: Relativity says two observers moving differently disagree about which distant events are happening now, and the disagreement is not about measurement error.
- Kind
- What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies§ 2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Primary text
The source reads: So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.
Supports
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies§ 1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Primary text
The source reads: We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: The special theory of relativity tells us that there is an infinity of planes of simultaneity passing through any given spacetime point and that no physical test can distinguish one from amongst the lot.
Qualifies
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3, quoting Prior
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: all that physics has shown to be true or likely is that in some cases we can never know, we can never physically find out, whether something is actually happening or merely has happened or will happen.
Qualifies
The Fate of Presentism in Modern Physicssection 2, footnote 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: One might be tempted to think that the problem only arises because simultaneity is conventional ... But this would be missing the point
What this does not establish
What the theory says, not a measurement of simultaneity as such. The standard definition of simultaneity is a convention (Einstein sets it "by definition"); Wüthrich argues other conventions do not remove the relativity.
Other readings
Arthur Prior held that relativity shows only that we can never find out whether a distant thing is happening now, which reads the disagreement as a limit on knowledge; the Stanford Encyclopedia reports this as a minority view.
Later work looked for
How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.
Claim 3 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: In special relativity, simultaneity depends on motion.
- Kind
- What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies§ 2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Primary text
The source reads: So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: each inertial frame defined by an “observer” passing through the chosen origin ... picks out a distinct set of points as simultaneous with the origin. This feature of special relativity is called the relativity of simultaneity.
What this does not establish
A consequence of the theory, not an observation reported here.
Later work looked for
How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.
Claim 4 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: An argument made in 1966 and 1967 turns that into a claim that past and future events are as real as present ones
- Kind
- Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Versions of the argument are endorsed in papers by the physicist Wim Rietdijk (1966, 1976) and the philosopher Hilary Putnam (1967)
Supports
Minkowski Spacetime and the Dimensions of the Presentsection 2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: events in the past and future have to be every bit as real as events in the present ... More elaborate arguments along the same lines as Davies’ had previously been given (in papers written independently at nearly the same time) by Putnam (1967) and Rietdijk (1966).
Supports
Minkowski Spacetime and the Dimensions of the Presentsection 2, quoting Putnam 1967, p. 242
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: We are forced to conclude, reasons Putnam, “that future things (events) are already real” (Putnam 1967, 242)
Context
Time and Physical GeometryCrossref record: Journal of Philosophy 64 (8), 240-247
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Catalogue record only, 24 September 2026
Record only; the paper was not read. Its premises are taken from the passages Arthur and Saunders quote.
What this does not establish
Putnam’s paper was not read; his conclusion is taken from Arthur’s quotation of it.
Corrected
24 September 2026. Previously: “An argument from 1967 turns that into” Rietdijk published a version of the argument in 1966, independently of Putnam’s of 1967; the Stanford Encyclopedia and Arthur credit both.
24 September 2026. Previously: “An argument first made in 1966 and 1967 turns that into a claim that past and future events are as real as present ones” The sources date Rietdijk's and Putnam's versions to 1966 and 1967 but do not say the argument was first made then; Arthur discusses an earlier argument from the relativity of simultaneity by Gödel (1949).
Claim 5 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: which is widely discussed and not settled, because what follows from the physics depends on what reality is taken to mean.
- Kind
- What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: That chronogeometric fatalism (or, the block universe) is refuted is, of course, controversial.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: This difficult and fundamental question has by no means been resolved.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 2.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: What many philosophers take to be a profound dispute in the metaphysics of time may well turn out to be a mere verbal tangle. (Putnam (2008), by the way, has recently joined these critics: “[T]he question whether the past and future are ‘real’ is a pseudo-question.”)
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Claim 6 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: The present feels like a thin moving edge, with the past gone and the future not yet made.
- Kind
- This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
- Review
- A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.
A description of how time seems, which the Stanford Encyclopedia says presentism and the growing block try to capture.
Context
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 2.1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: the ontologically austere view called presentism, the view that only the present exists. The past has been but is no longer, while the future will come to be but is not yet.
Context
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 1, quoting Carnap
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics.
Claim 7 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Relativity does not contain that edge.
- Kind
- What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: The special theory of relativity tells us that there is an infinity of planes of simultaneity passing through any given spacetime point and that no physical test can distinguish one from amongst the lot.
Context
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 1, quoting Carnap
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics.
What this does not establish
What relativity lacks is a single global present. Stein, Dieks and Arthur find local notions of becoming in its geometry, which the page discusses further down.
Later work looked for
How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.
Claim 8 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: It contains a four-dimensional geometry in which which events count as now depends on how you are moving.
- Kind
- What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: The Special Theory of Relativity (Einstein, 1905) was presented as a geometric theory of spacetime in Minkowski (1908).
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: each inertial frame defined by an “observer” passing through the chosen origin ... picks out a distinct set of points as simultaneous with the origin. This feature of special relativity is called the relativity of simultaneity.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3, the Andromeda example
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Each is walking at a comfortable pace, say 4 km/hour. One can calculate that their planes (or spaces) of simultaneity at the instant at which they pass each other on Earth ... intersect the history or world line of Andromeda about 5 ¾ days apart.
What this does not establish
What special relativity says, not a separate measurement: the theory is tested as a whole.
Later work looked for
How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.
Corrected
24 September 2026. Previously: “It contains a four-dimensional geometry in which which events count as now depends on how fast you are going.” Direction matters as well as speed: in the Stanford Encyclopedia’s example two people walking at the same pace in opposite directions have different presents.
Claim 9 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
What relativity says
Claim: What relativity says
- Kind
- Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.
Simultaneity is not absolute
Claim: Simultaneity is not absolute
- Kind
- What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies§ 2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Primary text
The source reads: So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.
What this does not establish
What special relativity says, not a separate measurement: the theory is tested as a whole.
Later work looked for
How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.
Claim 11 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Two observers in relative motion slice spacetime into moments differently.
- Kind
- What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: each inertial frame defined by an “observer” passing through the chosen origin ... picks out a distinct set of points as simultaneous with the origin. This feature of special relativity is called the relativity of simultaneity.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: The special theory of relativity tells us that there is an infinity of planes of simultaneity passing through any given spacetime point and that no physical test can distinguish one from amongst the lot.
What this does not establish
What special relativity says, not a separate measurement: the theory is tested as a whole.
Later work looked for
How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.
Claim 12 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Events that one calls simultaneous, the other calls separated in time
- Kind
- What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies§ 2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Primary text
The source reads: So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.
What this does not establish
What special relativity says, not a separate measurement: the theory is tested as a whole.
Later work looked for
How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.
Claim 13 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: and at great distances the gap is large even at walking pace: for two people walking past each other, the moments they would call now on the Andromeda galaxy can be days apart.
- Kind
- What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3, the Andromeda example
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Each is walking at a comfortable pace, say 4 km/hour. One can calculate that their planes (or spaces) of simultaneity at the instant at which they pass each other on Earth ... intersect the history or world line of Andromeda about 5 ¾ days apart.
What this does not establish
A calculation from the theory for an idealised case: Andromeda treated as a point at rest relative to Earth, two walkers at 4 km/hour along the line to it. Nothing can be sent or seen across the gap.
Later work looked for
How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.
Corrected
24 September 2026. Previously: “Events that one calls simultaneous, the other calls separated in time, and the disagreement grows with distance and with relative speed.” None of the sources that could be read states the general dependence in words; the Stanford Encyclopedia’s worked example carries the point, so the page gives it.
Claim 14 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: This is not an artefact of signal delays, which can be corrected for.
- Kind
- What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies§ 1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Primary text
The source reads: But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock
Supports
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies§ 1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Primary text
The source reads: We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.
Supports
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies§ 2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Primary text
The source reads: So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.
Qualifies
The Fate of Presentism in Modern Physicssection 2, footnote 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: One might be tempted to think that the problem only arises because simultaneity is conventional ... But this would be missing the point
What this does not establish
Einstein’s synchronisation already allows for the time light takes, by definition. That the definition is a convention is argued over; Wüthrich argues that no other convention removes the relativity.
Other readings
Arthur Prior held that relativity shows only that we can never find out whether a distant thing is happening now, which reads the disagreement as a limit on knowledge; the Stanford Encyclopedia reports this as a minority view.
Later work looked for
How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.
Claim 15 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: It is a feature of the geometry
- Kind
- What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: The Special Theory of Relativity (Einstein, 1905) was presented as a geometric theory of spacetime in Minkowski (1908).
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: the temporal interval between two points in the spacetime (and hence the simultaneity of two points in the spacetime) is not defined at all until a coordinate system or frame of reference
What this does not establish
What special relativity says, not a separate measurement: the theory is tested as a whole.
Later work looked for
How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.
Claim 16 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: and special relativity, which entails it, has been borne out by more than a century of experiment.
- Kind
- What the field holds. The settled view of a field, as a review, a consensus statement or a reference work gives it. Not one study.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Was Einstein Right? Testing Relativity at the Centenaryabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Physical systems · Review of the field
The source reads: On this 100th anniversary of the introduction of special ... Special relativity has ... so thoroughly integrated into the fabric of modern physics that its
Supports
Was Einstein Right? Testing Relativity at the Centenarysection 2.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Physical systems · Review of the field
The source reads: Special relativity has ... so thoroughly integrated into the fabric of modern physics that its
Supports
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies§ 2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Primary text
The source reads: So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.
What this does not establish
The experiments test Lorentz invariance, time dilation and the constancy of the speed of light. The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the theory they confirm, not something measured on its own.
Later work looked for
Europe PMC and Crossref, 2015 on, "tests of Lorentz invariance": new tests (laser ranging of the LAGEOS satellites, 2026; the highest-energy neutrino, 2025; resonator and gravimeter experiments) set tighter bounds, and none of the abstracts read reports a violation; nothing that changes it.
Corrected
24 September 2026. Previously: “It is a feature of the geometry, and it has been confirmed by every test of special relativity for a century.” The page cited only Putnam’s 1967 philosophy paper for this, which cannot carry a claim about experimental physics. The experiments test the theory rather than simultaneity directly; Will’s centenary review is now cited.
Claim 17 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
The argument that follows
Claim: The argument that follows
- Kind
- Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.
Claim: In 1967 Hilary Putnam argued, as Wim Rietdijk independently had the year before: if all events in my present are real, and reality is not something that depends on who is asking, then events in a passing observer’s present must be real too.
- Kind
- An argument. An argument a named thinker makes. That it is made is checked; whether it succeeds is argued.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Minkowski Spacetime and the Dimensions of the Presentsection 2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: More elaborate arguments along the same lines as Davies’ had previously been given (in papers written independently at nearly the same time) by Putnam (1967) and Rietdijk (1966).
Supports
Minkowski Spacetime and the Dimensions of the Presentsection 2, quoting Putnam 1967, p. 243
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: the assumption that “all things that exist now according to my co-ordinate system are real”, in combination with the principle that “there are no privileged observers”, requires the relation R to be transitive (243).
Supports
How Relativity Contradicts Presentismsection 4, quoting Putnam 1967, p. 240
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: 1. I-now am real.
Supports
How Relativity Contradicts Presentismsection 4, quoting Putnam 1967, p. 240
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: He also assumes what he calls “the principle that There Are No Privileged Observers”
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Versions of the argument are endorsed in papers by the physicist Wim Rietdijk (1966, 1976) and the philosopher Hilary Putnam (1967)
Context
Time and Physical GeometryCrossref record: Journal of Philosophy 64 (8), 240-247
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Catalogue record only, 24 September 2026
Record only; the paper was not read. Its premises are taken from the passages Arthur and Saunders quote.
What this does not establish
Putnam’s own paper was not read; his premises are taken from the passages Arthur and Saunders quote. Rietdijk’s version differs in detail and aimed at determinism.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Corrected
24 September 2026. Previously: “In 1967 Hilary Putnam argued: if all events” Rietdijk’s 1966 paper made a version of the same argument, independently (Arthur; Stanford Encyclopedia).
Claim 19 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Their present includes events that are in my future or my past.
- Kind
- What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3, the Andromeda example
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: The launch of the invading fleet is prior to ... and so in some sense in Alice’s past. But since the launch is after ... it is in that same sense in Bob’s future.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3, the Andromeda example
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Each is walking at a comfortable pace, say 4 km/hour. One can calculate that their planes (or spaces) of simultaneity at the instant at which they pass each other on Earth ... intersect the history or world line of Andromeda about 5 ¾ days apart.
What this does not establish
What special relativity says, not a separate measurement: the theory is tested as a whole.
Later work looked for
How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.
Claim 20 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Repeating the step reaches the conclusion that all events, past and future, are equally real
- Kind
- An argument. An argument a named thinker makes. That it is made is checked; whether it succeeds is argued.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: by adjusting the speeds of Alice and Carol, any event to the future of ... can be shown to be fixed or real or inevitable.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3, quoting Penrose
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: “It begins to seem that if anything is definite at all,” we might echo Penrose, “then the entire space-time must indeed be definite!
Supports
Minkowski Spacetime and the Dimensions of the Presentsection 2, quoting Putnam 1967, p. 242
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: We are forced to conclude, reasons Putnam, “that future things (events) are already real” (Putnam 1967, 242)
Supports
The Fate of Presentism in Modern Physicssection 2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: Hence, S is the universal binary relation on the set of events M.
What this does not establish
That the argument reaches this is not in question; whether it is sound is the subject of the next section.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Claim 21 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: which is commonly taken to mean that the passing of time is not a feature of the world.
- Kind
- What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Minkowski Spacetime and the Dimensions of the Presentabstract
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: The two solutions most often advanced are (i) that the four-dimensional structure of events and processes is alone real, and that becoming present is not an objective part of reality
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophypreamble
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Does the special theory of relativity, for example, show that there is no temporal passage or that the future is as real as the present?
Qualifies
Minkowski Spacetime and the Dimensions of the Presentsection 2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: far from undermining the notion of becoming, their argument should be taken rather to undermine their starting premise
Other readings
Arthur argues the opposite inference: the argument undermines its own premise, that distant simultaneous events are already real, rather than becoming.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Corrected
24 September 2026. Previously: “Repeating the step reaches the conclusion that all events, past and future, are equally real, and that the flow of time is not a feature of the world.” Putnam’s conclusion, as quoted, is that future events are already real. That there is no passage is a common reading of it, which Arthur and others dispute, not part of the argument.
Claim 22 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: The argument is short, the physics in it is uncontroversial, and the conclusion is enormous, which is why it has been examined for sixty years.
- Kind
- This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
- Review
- A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.
The page’s own judgement of why the argument has lasted.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Versions of the argument are endorsed in papers by the physicist Wim Rietdijk (1966, 1976) and the philosopher Hilary Putnam (1967)
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: That chronogeometric fatalism (or, the block universe) is refuted is, of course, controversial.
Claim 23 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: The argument in three steps
- Kind
- Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.
Claim: Take your present as real
- Kind
- An argument. An argument a named thinker makes. That it is made is checked; whether it succeeds is argued.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
How Relativity Contradicts Presentismsection 4, quoting Putnam 1967, p. 240
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: 1. I-now am real.
Supports
Minkowski Spacetime and the Dimensions of the Presentsection 2, quoting Putnam 1967, p. 243
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: the assumption that “all things that exist now according to my co-ordinate system are real”, in combination with the principle that “there are no privileged observers”, requires the relation R to be transitive (243).
What this does not establish
Putnam’s paper itself was not read.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Claim 25 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Whatever is happening now, anywhere, counts as existing.
- Kind
- An argument. An argument a named thinker makes. That it is made is checked; whether it succeeds is argued.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Minkowski Spacetime and the Dimensions of the Presentsection 2, quoting Putnam 1967, p. 243
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: the assumption that “all things that exist now according to my co-ordinate system are real”, in combination with the principle that “there are no privileged observers”, requires the relation R to be transitive (243).
What this does not establish
Putnam’s paper itself was not read.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Claim 26 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: This is the assumption that feels least like an assumption.
- Kind
- This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
- Review
- A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.
The page’s judgement; the Stanford Encyclopedia says the Newtonian picture of a single present reflects the way we ordinarily think about time.
Context
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 2.1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: the ontologically austere view called presentism, the view that only the present exists. The past has been but is no longer, while the future will come to be but is not yet.
Claim 27 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Someone walks past
- Kind
- Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.
Claim: Their surfaces of simultaneity are tilted relative to yours.
- Kind
- What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3, the Andromeda example
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Each is walking at a comfortable pace, say 4 km/hour. One can calculate that their planes (or spaces) of simultaneity at the instant at which they pass each other on Earth ... intersect the history or world line of Andromeda about 5 ¾ days apart.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: The special theory of relativity tells us that there is an infinity of planes of simultaneity passing through any given spacetime point and that no physical test can distinguish one from amongst the lot.
What this does not establish
What special relativity says, not a separate measurement: the theory is tested as a whole.
Later work looked for
How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.
Claim 29 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: A distant event in their now is in your past or future.
- Kind
- What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3, the Andromeda example
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: The launch of the invading fleet is prior to ... and so in some sense in Alice’s past. But since the launch is after ... it is in that same sense in Bob’s future.
What this does not establish
What special relativity says, not a separate measurement: the theory is tested as a whole.
Later work looked for
How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.
Claim 30 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Reality is not observer-dependent
- Kind
- An argument. An argument a named thinker makes. That it is made is checked; whether it succeeds is argued.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
How Relativity Contradicts Presentismsection 4, quoting Putnam 1967, p. 240
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: He also assumes what he calls “the principle that There Are No Privileged Observers”
Supports
Minkowski Spacetime and the Dimensions of the Presentsection 2, quoting Putnam 1967, p. 243
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: the assumption that “all things that exist now according to my co-ordinate system are real”, in combination with the principle that “there are no privileged observers”, requires the relation R to be transitive (243).
What this does not establish
Putnam’s paper itself was not read.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Claim 31 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: If what exists cannot depend on who is asking, and their now is as good as yours, then those events exist too.
- Kind
- An argument. An argument a named thinker makes. That it is made is checked; whether it succeeds is argued.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: the principle of relativity (the second assumption of the special theory introduced above) suggests that we must also extend the same courtesy to Carol
Supports
Minkowski Spacetime and the Dimensions of the Presentsection 2, quoting Putnam 1967, p. 243
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: the assumption that “all things that exist now according to my co-ordinate system are real”, in combination with the principle that “there are no privileged observers”, requires the relation R to be transitive (243).
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Claim 32 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Iterate and the whole of spacetime is in.
- Kind
- An argument. An argument a named thinker makes. That it is made is checked; whether it succeeds is argued.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: by adjusting the speeds of Alice and Carol, any event to the future of ... can be shown to be fixed or real or inevitable.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3, quoting Penrose
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: “It begins to seem that if anything is definite at all,” we might echo Penrose, “then the entire space-time must indeed be definite!
Supports
The Fate of Presentism in Modern Physicssection 2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: Hence, S is the universal binary relation on the set of events M.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Claim 33 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
What it implies
Claim: What it implies
- Kind
- Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.
Claim: Someone walking past you has a different now, and the difference is in the geometry rather than in the signals.
- Kind
- What a model says. What a theory or model predicts or describes, which is not the same as what has been observed.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3, the Andromeda example
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Each is walking at a comfortable pace, say 4 km/hour. One can calculate that their planes (or spaces) of simultaneity at the instant at which they pass each other on Earth ... intersect the history or world line of Andromeda about 5 ¾ days apart.
Supports
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies§ 2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Primary text
The source reads: So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.
Supports
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies§ 1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Theory · Primary text
The source reads: We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.
Other readings
Arthur Prior held that relativity shows only that we can never find out whether a distant thing is happening now, which reads the disagreement as a limit on knowledge; the Stanford Encyclopedia reports this as a minority view.
Later work looked for
How the theory works; not a finding later work revises.
Claim 35 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Where it can be resisted
Claim: Where it can be resisted
- Kind
- Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.
Claim: The step that does the work is the assumption that reality is a single global notion that cannot be relative to a frame.
- Kind
- This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
- Review
- A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.
Follows from the reconstruction: Putnam’s principle that there are no privileged observers carries the conclusion across frames, and Gödel held that existence cannot be relativised.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Since the present is relativized to frames in special relativity, may not existence be relativized to frames as well? This is a difficult notion to understand or accept.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Kurt Gödel (1949, p. 558) said flatly, “The concept of existence … cannot be relativized without destroying its meaning completely.”
Context
The Fate of Presentism in Modern Physicssection 2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: presentism relies, it seems, on an absolute notion of simultaneity in order to make absolute ontological claims.
Other readings
Other objectors locate the fault elsewhere: in transitivity (Lowe), in whether the dispute is verbal, or in the premise that distant simultaneous events are real (Stein, Arthur).
Claim 37 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Kit Fine relativises existence to a frame and so blocks the conclusion, at a price Christian Wüthrich calls immense: what exists would depend on how you move.
- Kind
- What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
The Fate of Presentism in Modern Physicssection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: relativize existence to inertial frames, as does Kit Fine ... The price to be paid for this perfectly straightforward resolution, however, is immense: it requires a radically new understanding of physical existence.
Supports
The Fate of Presentism in Modern Physicssection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: On Fine’s view, what co-exists with me depends on how I move.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Since the present is relativized to frames in special relativity, may not existence be relativized to frames as well? This is a difficult notion to understand or accept.
What this does not establish
Fine’s own text (Modality and Tense, 2005) was not read; his position is taken from Wüthrich’s account. Fine, Wüthrich reports, counts the consequence a feature of his view.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Corrected
24 September 2026. Previously: “A philosopher willing to relativise existence to a frame blocks the conclusion at the cost of something most people find worse.” No source says what most people find worse. The position is now attributed to the philosopher who holds it, and the cost to the critic who states it.
Claim 38 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Jonathan Lowe rejects the transitivity of the relation instead.
- Kind
- What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
The Fate of Presentism in Modern Physicssection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: Lowe proposes to violate transitivity, as he believes the demand that co-existence is transitive constitutes a metaphysical assumption
What this does not establish
Lowe’s own paper was not read; his position is taken from Wüthrich, who argues it does not escape the problem.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Corrected
24 September 2026. Previously: “Others reject the transitivity of the relation, or hold that the argument proves only that events are determinate rather than present.” The transitivity objection is attributed to Lowe, who makes it. No source read carried the "determinate rather than present" reply, and it was removed.
Claim 39 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Others, Putnam himself by 2008, have come to think the dispute is verbal, and that whether the past and future are real is a pseudo-question.
- Kind
- What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 2.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: What many philosophers take to be a profound dispute in the metaphysics of time may well turn out to be a mere verbal tangle. (Putnam (2008), by the way, has recently joined these critics: “[T]he question whether the past and future are ‘real’ is a pseudo-question.”)
What this does not establish
Putnam’s 2008 text was not read; it is quoted in the Stanford Encyclopedia. The verbal-dispute critics address the quarrel between presentism and eternalism generally, not only this argument.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Corrected
24 September 2026. Previously: “” Added: the Stanford Encyclopedia reports this as a live objection, and Putnam’s own later view, which the page left out.
Claim 40 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: The literature is substantial and there is no resolution.
- Kind
- What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: This difficult and fundamental question has by no means been resolved.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: That chronogeometric fatalism (or, the block universe) is refuted is, of course, controversial.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Claim 41 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
The reply that has held up longest
Claim: The reply that has held up longest
- Kind
- This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
- Review
- A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.
Saunders reports that, insofar as the Putnam and Stein dispute has a consensus, it is that Stein was right; the Stanford Encyclopedia calls the refutation controversial.
Supports
How Relativity Contradicts Presentismsection 1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: This dispute between Putnam and Stein is in fact well-known in the philosophy of physics literature, but insofar as there is a consensus on it, it is that Stein was in the right.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: the existence of the relation specified and found by Stein is a formal refutation of the Rietdijk-Putnam-Penrose argument for chronogeometric fatalism.
Claim 42 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: In 1968 Howard Stein answered the argument on its own terms.
- Kind
- Historical claim. A statement about the past that historical evidence can test.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Minkowski Spacetime and the Dimensions of the Presentsection 4
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: Robb’s view was taken up by Milic Capek (1966), (1975), and also by Howard Stein (1968) (although here without attribution to Robb) in their critiques of the arguments of Putnam and Rietdijk discussed above.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Stein begins, then, by proposing that one define the relation of ‘having become’ or ‘already definite’ with respect to spacetime points.
Context
On Einstein-Minkowski Space-TimeCrossref record: Journal of Philosophy 65 (1), 5-23
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Catalogue record only, 24 September 2026
Record only; the paper was not read. Its relation and conclusion are taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia and from Arthur, who quote it.
What this does not establish
Stein’s paper was not read. Saunders dates Stein’s fuller response to 1978 and 1991.
Claim 43 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Relativity does provide a notion of what is definite relative to an event: everything in its past light cone, the region from which a signal could have arrived.
- Kind
- An argument. An argument a named thinker makes. That it is made is checked; whether it succeeds is argued.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Stein begins, then, by proposing that one define the relation of ‘having become’ or ‘already definite’ with respect to spacetime points.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: The answer is yes. The relation is that between a point ... and each point in or on its past light cone.
Supports
The Fate of Presentism in Modern Physicssection 3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: all those events co-exist with the here-now which can be causally connected to (but not from) the here-now, e.g. by a light signal
What this does not establish
Strictly, the relation takes in each point in or on the past light cone. Whether it is a notion of becoming is the dispute.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Claim 44 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: That relation is not the one the argument uses.
- Kind
- An argument. An argument a named thinker makes. That it is made is checked; whether it succeeds is argued.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Putnam considered the past light cone relation and rejected it for privileging one observer, Saunders reports.
Supports
How Relativity Contradicts Presentismsection 4
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: Although reflexive and transitive, it is not symmetric. This too is of no use to the presentist.
Supports
How Relativity Contradicts Presentismsection 4, quoting Putnam 1967, p. 246
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: This last move, however, flagrantly violates the idea that there are no Privileged Observers.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Claim 45 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Stein requires it to be reflexive and transitive, and it is not symmetric, which is what stops it sweeping the whole of spacetime into the present.
- Kind
- An argument. An argument a named thinker makes. That it is made is checked; whether it succeeds is argued.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: It should be transitive ... It should also be reflexive
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: if its true for his relation R that there is even one point or event x such that there is another point or event y such that both Rxy and Ryx are true, then R must be the universal relation.
Supports
How Relativity Contradicts Presentismsection 4
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: Although reflexive and transitive, it is not symmetric. This too is of no use to the presentist.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Claim 46 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: The cost is steep.
- Kind
- This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
- Review
- A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.
The page’s judgement, following Callender’s objection that the Stanford Encyclopedia reports.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Callender (2000, S592) remarks that requiring that an event‘s present must contain at least one event distinct from it ... “seems the thinnest requirement one might put on becoming.”
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2, quoting Stein 1968, p. 15
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: “in Einstein-Minkowski space-time an event’s present is constituted by itself alone.” (Stein, 1968, p. 15)
Corrected
24 September 2026. Previously: “The cost is steep and Stein says so: on his relation an event’s present is constituted by itself alone, which some philosophers take to be too thin to count as becoming at all.” No source read has Stein calling the result a cost; he states it. His words are now quoted as his, and the objection is attributed to Callender, who makes it.
Claim 47 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: On his relation, in Stein’s words, “an event’s present is constituted by itself alone”
- Kind
- Quotes a source. The words of a named text, checked against the source.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2, quoting Stein 1968, p. 15
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: “in Einstein-Minkowski space-time an event’s present is constituted by itself alone.” (Stein, 1968, p. 15)
Supports
Minkowski Spacetime and the Dimensions of the Presentsection 4
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: Stein objected that “in Einstein-Minkowski space-time an event’s present is constituted by itself alone.” (1968, 15).
Context
On Einstein-Minkowski Space-TimeCrossref record: Journal of Philosophy 65 (1), 5-23
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Catalogue record only, 24 September 2026
Record only; the paper was not read. Its relation and conclusion are taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia and from Arthur, who quote it.
What this does not establish
Quoted from the two secondary sources that give it; Stein’s paper was not read.
Claim 48 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: which some philosophers, Callender among them, take to be too thin to count as becoming at all.
- Kind
- What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Callender (2000, S592) remarks that requiring that an event‘s present must contain at least one event distinct from it ... “seems the thinnest requirement one might put on becoming.”
What this does not establish
Callender (2000) was not read; his remark is quoted in the Stanford Encyclopedia.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Claim 49 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: So relativity can be read as offering a well-defined and local notion of what has happened, without a global now and without the block.
- Kind
- What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: the existence of the relation specified and found by Stein is a formal refutation of the Rietdijk-Putnam-Penrose argument for chronogeometric fatalism.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: becoming in Minkowski spacetime may be thought of locally, as the advance of proper time along a timelike worldline or, even more basically, as the successive happening of events along such a world line.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Claim 50 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: Which reading is correct is still argued
- Kind
- What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Saunders, writing in 2002, reports that the literature leans towards Stein; the Stanford Encyclopedia, revised in 2021, still calls the refutation controversial.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: That chronogeometric fatalism (or, the block universe) is refuted is, of course, controversial.
Supports
How Relativity Contradicts Presentismsection 1
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · The cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Argument
The source reads: This dispute between Putnam and Stein is in fact well-known in the philosophy of physics literature, but insofar as there is a consensus on it, it is that Stein was in the right.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Claim 51 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: and this is the reason the question sits in the uncertain section rather than the known one.
- Kind
- Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.
What it leaves the passage of time
Claim: What it leaves the passage of time
- Kind
- Framing. Signposting. It asserts nothing a source could check.
Claim: If the block is real, the commonest answer is that the sense of time passing belongs to what it is like to be a system embedded in it, rather than to the world.
- Kind
- What scholars argue. A report of what specialists argue, or where they disagree.
- Review
- Source checked. The cited passage was read, and it says this.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 2.3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: One may agree with Carnap above that “all that occurs objectively can be described in science” and then argue that passage reflects something perspectival or subjective and so is rightly omitted by physics.
Supports
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 2.3
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: The most popular version of this view holds that now is a token-reflexive or indexical term, like here
Qualifies
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 3.2, quoting Shimony
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: Something fleeting does indeed traverse the world line, but that something is not subjective
Other readings
Shimony holds that the transient now is objective, not subjective; Park and Stein leave transience in what the static diagram depicts.
Later work looked for
Crossref, 2015 on, "Rietdijk Putnam argument": Marques (2018, Principia) surveys the versions and says the argument depends on how special relativity is interpreted; nothing that changes the claim.
Corrected
24 September 2026. Previously: “If the block is real, the sense of time passing has to be a feature of what it is like to be a system embedded in it with memory and entropy, rather than a feature of the world.” "Has to be" overstated it: the Stanford Encyclopedia reports the perspectival view as the most popular, with dissenters. No source read tied it to memory and entropy, so those words were removed.
Claim 54 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
Claim: That is a claim about minds inside a physics, and the accounts of it are much less developed than the geometry they lean on.
- Kind
- This page’s reading. A judgement the page makes from the evidence. Others read it differently.
- Review
- A judgement, not a fact. Reviewed for whether it is fairly put and follows from the checked claims. No source can confirm it.
The page’s own judgement, in the spirit of Einstein’s worry, reported by Carnap, that the Now does not occur within physics.
Context
Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophysection 1, quoting Carnap
Cited · Link answered, 19 October 2026 · Read in full, 24 September 2026 · Reference work
The source reads: He explained that the experience of the Now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but that this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics.
Claim 55 · checked 24 September 2026 · AI-assisted audit
What was read
- Time and Physical GeometryPutnam, The Journal of Philosophy · Crossref record for 10.2307/2024493Catalogue record only, 24 September 2026JSTOR answers this environment with a bot check; copies on ResearchGate returned 403. The argument is checked against the passages Arthur and Saunders quote.
- On Einstein-Minkowski Space-TimeStein, The Journal of Philosophy · Crossref record for 10.2307/2024512Catalogue record only, 24 September 2026JSTOR answers with a bot check; the PhilArchive copy returned 403 and its archived copy is a different document. Checked against the Stanford Encyclopedia and Arthur, who quote it.
- Being and Becoming in Modern Physics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophySteven Savitt, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University · Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Being and Becoming in Modern Physics", substantive revision of 6 October 2021; read in fullRead in full, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted briefly
- On the Electrodynamics of Moving BodiesEinstein, Annalen der Physik; English translation by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery (1923), Fourmilab edition · English translation by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery, The Principle of Relativity (Methuen, 1923), Fourmilab electronic edition; sections 1 and 2 read in fullThe cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Public domain (Fourmilab edition dedicated to the public domain)
- Was Einstein Right? Testing Relativity at the CentenaryClifford M. Will, arXiv · arXiv:gr-qc/0504086v1; abstract and section 2 readThe cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted briefly
- Minkowski Spacetime and the Dimensions of the PresentRichard T. W. Arthur, in The Ontology of Spacetime (Elsevier); author’s copy · Author’s final copy from mcmaster.ca; abstract and sections 1 to 4 readThe cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted briefly
- How Relativity Contradicts PresentismSimon Saunders, in Time, Reality and Experience (Cambridge University Press); author’s copy · Author’s copy from ox.ac.uk; sections 1 to 4 readThe cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted brieflyThe PDF sets ligatures and quotation marks in a private encoding; they were decoded to fi, fl and curly quotes in the saved text.
- The Fate of Presentism in Modern PhysicsChristian Wüthrich, in New Papers on the Present (Philosophia); arXiv · arXiv:1207.1490; sections 1 to 3 readThe cited passage was read, 24 September 2026 · Copyright; quoted briefly