The Existence of Past & Future

Beyond the Block Universe

Caption: A shuttle of pure light representing the conference of difference perceived as 'now' weaves the fabric of reality on a cosmic loom as imagined by Nano Banana.

Introduction

We feel time. We feel time as a flow: the past as memory, the present as urgency, the future as anticipation. This flow is the very fabric of our conscious lives. Yet, modern physics delivers a chilling verdict: this feeling is a grand illusion. This was not just an abstract conclusion for Albert Einstein. Upon the death of his close friend Michele Besso, he wrote to the grieving family:

Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That signifies nothing. For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. ^[1]

This statement is the personal, philosophical expression of the block universe. According to Einstein's own theory of relativity, there is no universal 'now'. With simultaneity revealed as relative, the most coherent model is Eternalism—the 'block universe' where past, present, and future exist eternally in a static four-dimensional loaf. This poses an intolerable paradox, the stark clash between the phenomenological reality of our lived experience and the physical description of a timeless cosmos.^[2]

The entrenched debate between Presentism (only the now is real) and Eternalism (all times are real) seems intractable. This article will argue that this deadlock is a quintessential 'map vs. terrain' error. By applying the Conference of Difference (CoD) model, we can resolve the paradox not by choosing a side, but by showing that both sides misidentify the fundamental nature of existence. We will demonstrate that 'time' is not an existent dimension but an abstract value we use to navigate existence, and that 'past' and 'future' are not locations but functional constructs generated by the only thing that truly exists: the sensed present moment that is the conference of difference—the 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'. ^[3]

The Classical Battlefield: Presentism vs. Eternalism

The intuitive position is Presentism. It asserts that only the present moment is real. The past is gone, existing only as memory or record; the future is not yet real, existing only as potential. This view aligns perfectly with our direct perception. However, its simplicity shatters against the rocks of 20th-century physics.

The demolition came with Einstein's theory of relativity, which demonstrated that simultaneity is not absolute. Whether two events occur 'at the same time' depends on the observer's state of motion. There is no single, universal 'present' for the entire cosmos. This relativistic revolution directly undermines Presentism's core tenet. If there is no privileged 'now,' then the Presentist claim that only the 'now' is real loses its objective footing.^[4]

From the ashes of a universal present arises Eternalism, or the block universe theory. If there is no unique present, the argument goes, then all moments in time must be equally real. Time is simply a dimension like space. The universe is a static, four-dimensional block where the past, present and future all 'exist' eternally. From this God's-eye view, the birth of Caesar, your reading of this sentence, and the heat death of the universe are all equally real points. The flow of time, in this model, is a subjective, psychological illusion generated by our consciousness moving through the block.

A compromise theory, the Growing Block Universe, attempts to have it both ways. It proposes that the past and present are real—the block exists—but the future is not. The 'block' of reality is continually growing as the present moment adds new events to the fixed past. This aims to preserve the reality of the past (which feels solid to us) while allowing for an open future (which feels uncertain). Yet, it struggles to define what 'growing' means without presupposing a temporal meta-framework in which the growth occurs, leading to logical circularity.

Current Philosophical Flashpoints

This classical debate has spawned several persistent problems. The Hard Problem of Time asks how we reconcile the obvious, irreversible flow of time evident in thermodynamics (the relentless increase of entropy) and quantum mechanics (the irreversible collapse of the wave function) with the seemingly timeless, reversible equations of general relativity. Why does time have a direction in our experience when the fundamental laws appear indifferent to it?

This leads to the Phenomenological vs. Physical Divide. Is the 'flow' of time merely an epiphenomenon—a trick of a conscious brain processing memory and anticipation within a static block universe? Or does consciousness itself tap into a fundamental aspect of temporal reality that our physical descriptions have yet to capture? Furthermore, the Ontological Status of the Future remains deeply controversial. Is the future truly 'fixed' as Eternalism suggests, which raises profound questions about free will? Or is it genuinely open and indeterminate, as the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics might imply? This is the core tension between determinism and possibility.

The CoD model, by redefining the nature of the present, offers a path to resolving this divide, not by choosing sides, but by showing how the phenomenological 'flow' emerges directly from the physical process that is the conference of difference.

The Conference of Difference (CoD) Model

A Process Ontology of the Present

The CoD model offers a way through this impasse by making a fundamental ontological claim: existence is not a static thing but a continuous, dynamic process—a Conference of Difference (CoD). This ongoing negotiation is what we perceive as the 'present.' The present is not a infinitesimal point on a timeline; it is the rich, thick process of the CoD itself. ^[5]

Within this framework, both 'past' and 'future' are revealed as constructs interpreted in the present.

The 'Past' is a Present-Moment Recollection. What we call the past is not a location we can visit. It is a narrative constructed from sensory records, memories and physical evidence, all accessed and interpreted in the conference of difference we perceive as the 'present'. The 'past', is the constructed 'snapshot' of some prior expression of the conference of difference. Its 'fixity' is not that of a frozen block but the ontological irreversibility of that which has been expressed which, whilst it may be repeated or mirrored, cannot be reversed. Once an action is expressed from the conference of difference, that action is immutable—not because it exists in a past dimension but because the action itself is irreversable.^[6]

The 'Future' is a Present-Moment Prediction. Similarly, the future is not a destination that awaits. It is a projection of potential generated in the conference of difference perceived as 'now' and informed by recollections of what we conceive as 'past'. It is a field of possibilities that informs the conference of difference of sentient beings. The future is unrealized potential, the focus of what the conference of difference is actively working towards.

This redefinition constitutes the pivotal insight of the CoD model. The apparent 'flow of time' emerges from the dynamic relationship between the present-moment recollection of past conditions ('snapshots') and the active process of the conference of difference we perceive as 'now'. This irreversible sequence of settlements creates the illusion of an arrow. Time, then, is the abstract value we assign to measure the rate of transformation within the conference of difference in order to sequence our recollections and aid predictions. It is a map created by the conference of difference that permits sentient beings to navigate the terrain—not the terrain itself.

Convergence and Divergence: Transcending the False Dichotomy

The CoD model creates fascinating points of convergence and divergence with the classical views.

Apparent Convergence with Eternalism: The CoD model acknowledges, like Eternalism, a form of immutability. Eternalism argues that the past is fixed because it is a permanently existing region in a static, four-dimensional block universe. The CoD model also asserts that the past, understood as that which has been expressed, is immutable. However, the reasoning is fundamentally different. This immutability is not due to existence in a frozen dimension, but because the conference of difference transforms by actions, and each transformative act is ontologically irreversible—it informs the possibility of possible action/s.

Fundamental Divergence from Eternalism: This divergence is total. Eternalism is a static ontology of a frozen block. The CoD model is a dynamic process ontology where reality is a single, continuous activity. For Eternalism, the future is a fixed point. For the CoD model, the future is a domain of unrealized potential actively being negotiated in what is sensed to be the present.

Reframing the Presentist Intuition: The CoD model does not validate Presentism's ontological claim, but it does explain the source of its powerful intuitive appeal. Presentism intuitively senses that existence is happening in a dynamic 'now'. However, it commits a category error by classifying 'now' as a thin, knife-edge moment between a non-existent past and future. The CoD model disolves this category error by correctly centering primacy not in the relative abstraction of 'now' but in the existent conference of difference that transforms existence.

Fundamental Divergence from Presentism: The divergence is absolute. Presentism, noting that the past event itself is non-existent, dismisses the past as unreal. The CoD model reframes the issue: the 'past' is not a non-existent event, but a conference of difference sensed as a present-moment activity—the active retrieval and interpretation of real, existent records (neurological, physical) to construct a functional narrative. The past as meaning is an abstraction, but the process of recalling it is a real and essential part of the conference of difference we perceive as 'now'. Where Presentism tries to narrow existence to a single point, the CoD model shows that this 'point' is in fact the conference of difference itself.

The CoD model also provides a fresh perspective on the foundational crises of modern physics. The so-called 'Hard Problem of Time'—the profound contradiction between the malleable, dynamic time of General Relativity and the fixed, background time of Quantum Mechanics—stems from the same reification error. Both theories mistakenly treat 'time' as as existent, whether as a flexible dimension (GR) or an absolute parameter (QM). The CoD model dissolves this contradiction by proposing that 'time' is neither. It is an abstract value emergent from the only fundamental reality: the conference of difference sensed as now.

Similarly, the tension between determinism and free will is reframed. The future, as unrealized potential, is genuinely open, accommodating the intrinsic indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. What we experience as 'free will' is our active participation in the conference of difference perceived as present, the act of making choices that resolve differences and, in doing so, are expressed into the concept of the 'past'. The future is not fixed but the process that determines it—the conference of difference—is.

Take-away

The centuries-old debate between Eternalism and Presentism is a false dichotomy, stemming from a shared reification error: treating the abstract value of 'time' as an existent dimension. The Conference of Difference (CoD) model transcends this debate. Past, present, and future are not existent locations. The 'past' is a present-moment recollection (snapshot) of some previous condition; the 'future' is a present-moment projection of potential. Both are generated by the only thing that fundamentally exists: the continuous conference of difference we experience as the 'present'.^[7]

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

A rigorous yet readable exploration of how existence functions—and how that relates to you.

Discover the book