Time and Eternity: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Analysis
1. Introduction: Situating Time and Eternity
The concepts of time and eternity have captivated human thought for millennia, representing fundamental dimensions of existence that challenge the limits of our understanding. From the earliest philosophical inquiries to the frontiers of modern physics and the depths of theological reflection, the nature of time – its essence, its perceived flow, its function in ordering reality – remains a subject of intense debate.
Equally profound are the questions surrounding eternity: Is it merely endless time, or something altogether different, existing outside the temporal stream? How does the finite, changing realm of temporal experience relate to the possibility of an unchanging, eternal reality? This report aims to provide a comprehensive, multidisciplinary analysis of time and eternity, synthesizing perspectives from philosophy, physics, and theology to illuminate the complex relationship between these foundational concepts.
The core of the inquiry lies in confronting fundamental questions about reality. What constitutes the "essence" of time? Is it a dynamic unfolding, where only the present moment holds reality, or is it a static dimension where past, present, and future coexist? Does time truly "flow," or is this perception an illusion? What functions does time serve in structuring the physical world and our experience of it – enabling causality, ordering events, measuring duration, facilitating change? Parallel questions arise regarding eternity. How is it defined – as timelessness (atemporality) or as infinite temporal duration (sempiternity)? What characteristics define an eternal state – immutability, indivisibility, simultaneity, transcendence? Crucially, how do these two concepts – the temporal and the eternal – compare and contrast? A significant tension emerges between our intuitive, common-sense understanding of time, often termed the "manifest image," and the descriptions offered by contemporary science and rigorous philosophical analysis, the "scientific image".1 Navigating this tension is central to understanding the ongoing debates.
This report will proceed by first examining the major philosophical theories concerning the ontological status of time: Presentism, Eternalism, and the Growing Block Universe theory. It will then delve into scientific perspectives, focusing on insights from Einstein's theories of relativity and the physical basis for the "arrow of time" as explored in thermodynamics. Subsequently, the report will analyze the perceived functions of time, particularly its roles in ordering events, facilitating causality, measuring duration, and enabling change.
Following this exploration of time, the focus will shift to defining and interpreting the concept of eternity, distinguishing between timelessness and sempiternity as found in philosophical and theological traditions. Key historical and contemporary thinkers who have shaped these discussions will be identified throughout. The analysis will culminate in a systematic comparison and contrast of the characteristics attributed to time and eternity, synthesizing the findings across different disciplines to elucidate their relationship, similarities, and fundamental differences.
2. The Ontological Status of Time: Philosophical Debates
A central debate in the metaphysics of time concerns the ontological status of past, present, and future events. Do all times exist equally, or is there a fundamental distinction in reality between what is, what was, and what will be? This debate is often framed using the terminology of A-theory and B-theory, although these labels do not perfectly map onto every specific ontological position.3 Broadly, A-theories posit a dynamic view of time involving objective temporal becoming and tensed facts (e.g., it is now raining), while B-theories advocate a static view where temporal relations are tenseless (e.g., the rain occurs at time t) and becoming is subjective. The primary ontological theories – Presentism, Eternalism, and the Growing Block Universe – offer distinct answers to the question of what parts of time are real.
2.1. Presentism: The Doctrine of Fleeting Reality
Presentism is the philosophical position asserting that, necessarily, only present objects, events, and moments exist.1 From this perspective, the past is no longer real, and the future is not yet real.4 Dinosaurs, having existed in the past, have ceased to be part of reality, though our present ideas or memories of them persist.2 Similarly, future events, like our own deaths, do not exist yet. The present moment is unique and ontologically privileged.
The appeal of presentism often stems from its alignment with the "manifest image" or common-sense intuition about time.1 Our direct experience seems confined to the present, which possesses a unique vividness compared to the dimmer qualities of memory (regarding the past) and anticipation (regarding the future).2 This experiential difference is sometimes taken as evidence for the exclusive reality of the present. Furthermore, presentism offers a potentially simpler ontology, restricting existence only to what is currently present.2 It also naturally accommodates certain views of freedom, particularly libertarian free will, by positing an "open" future that is not yet fixed or real, avoiding the deterministic implications some see in theories where the future already exists.3
Despite its intuitive appeal, presentism faces significant challenges. One major difficulty lies in accounting for the truth of statements about the past (the truthmaker problem).2 If the past does not exist, what makes a statement like "Dinosaurs roamed the Earth" true? Presentists typically attempt to ground such truths in present facts, such as existing records, memories, or perhaps abstract past-tensed properties, but these solutions are often complex and debated. Similarly, explaining causal relationships across time proves problematic: how can a past event, which is unreal according to presentism, cause a present event?.2
However, the most formidable challenge to presentism arises from modern physics, specifically Einstein's theory of relativity.1 Special relativity demonstrates that simultaneity is not absolute but relative to an observer's frame of reference.1 Two events considered simultaneous by one observer may be sequential for another observer in relative motion. This implies there is no single, objective, universe-wide "now".1 If what counts as "present" depends on the observer, the presentist claim that only the present is real becomes deeply problematic, suggesting that reality itself is observer-dependent.1 Presentism seems committed to the existence of absolute simultaneity, a concept relativity rejects.1 As philosopher Christian Wüthrich argues, reconciling presentism with relativity appears to require rejecting either empiricism or relativity itself.6 Some interpretations of General Relativity, particularly involving phenomena like black holes whose existence seems ontologically dependent on future times, also pose difficulties for presentism.1
2.2. Eternalism: The Block Universe Hypothesis
In direct contrast to presentism, eternalism posits the equal ontological reality of all times: past, present, and future.1 Every event, from the Big Bang to the potential heat death of the universe, exists tenselessly.1 Under this view, temporal locations are analogous to spatial locations; just as all places exist, all times exist.6 The term "now" is considered an indexical, similar to "here," referring merely to the temporal location of the speaker or thinker, rather than denoting an objectively privileged moment.1
Eternalism is often referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory.5 This metaphor depicts spacetime as a static, unchanging four-dimensional block, containing all events laid out within it.1 The universe is not seen as a three-dimensional world evolving through time, but as a four-dimensional entity where time is a dimension akin to the three spatial dimensions.6
The primary motivation for eternalism comes from orthodox interpretations of Einstein's theory of relativity.1 The relativity of simultaneity, as demonstrated by the classic Rietdijk-Putnam argument (developed in the 1960s), is central.1 This argument shows how, due to relative motion, one observer's "present" slice of spacetime can contain events that are in another observer's past or future.1 If the reality of an event depended on whether it was in someone's present, then its reality would be observer-dependent. Eternalists argue that the most coherent way to resolve this is to accept that all events – past, present, and future – are equally real, existing independently of any observer's frame of reference.1
The formulation of physics within the four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime framework further supports this view, treating time as an integrated dimension.1 Semantic arguments also bolster eternalism; for statements about the past or future (e.g., "Caesar crossed the Rubicon," "There will be a sea battle tomorrow") to have definite truth values, the events they refer to must exist in some sense, regardless of their temporal location relative to the present.1 Truthmaker theory suggests that true statements require existing entities (truthmakers) that make them true; for temporal statements, the events themselves are the most natural truthmakers.1
Despite its strong grounding in physics, eternalism faces objections. Its most significant challenge is its counter-intuitive nature; it seems to contradict our deeply ingrained experience of time's passage, the special status of the present, and the apparent openness of the future.1 If the future is already real, concerns arise about fatalism and the possibility of genuine free will, although many eternalists argue their view is compatible with various conceptions of free will, including compatibilism or even certain forms of libertarianism where possibilities exist even if only one path is actualized within the block.3
Some critics argue that eternalism renders change and motion illusory, reducing them to mere variation across the static temporal dimension, akin to the arguments of Parmenides.3 Further challenges involve reconciling the fixed block universe with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, although deterministic interpretations like the Many-Worlds interpretation might align with eternalism.1 Objections concerning the conventionality of simultaneity argue that if simultaneity is merely a convention, the Rietdijk-Putnam argument loses some force, though eternalists counter that presentism faces even greater problems with conventionality.1
2.3. The Growing Block Universe: An Expanding Reality
The Growing Block Universe theory (also known as possibilism or no-futurism) offers a middle ground between presentism and eternalism.1 It agrees with eternalism that the past is real and exists alongside the present. However, it aligns with presentism in denying the reality of the future.1 In this view, spacetime is conceptualized as a block that is continuously growing; the present moment represents the "leading edge" of this block, where new moments of reality are constantly coming into being and being added to the fixed past.2 Once an event becomes present, it becomes part of the eternally existing block.
The motivation for the growing block view is to capture elements of both opposing theories that resonate with intuition. It accommodates the sense that the past is fixed and settled (unlike in presentism, where it's unreal) and that the future is open and undetermined (unlike in eternalism, where it's fixed and real).2 By positing the reality of the past, it avoids presentism's difficulty with truthmakers for past-tensed statements.2 It also attempts to preserve a sense of temporal becoming or dynamism, as reality actively grows or unfolds at the present edge.5 Like presentism, it is considered an A-theory of time, affirming objective becoming.3
However, the growing block theory inherits a major challenge from presentism: its incompatibility with the theory of relativity.1 The theory relies on a metaphysically privileged present moment – the "edge" of the growing block – which serves as the boundary between the real (past and present) and the unreal (future). Relativity's denial of absolute simultaneity makes it impossible to define such a single, objective, universe-wide edge.1
If the "present" is frame-dependent, then the boundary of the block, and thus the extent of reality itself, would differ for different observers, undermining the theory's core concept. Furthermore, the growing block view faces the "When am I?" problem, articulated by Craig Bourne: even if such a privileged present edge exists, how could any conscious observer know that their experienced present is that edge, rather than a moment in the already solidified past part of the block? Our subjective claim to be at the "real" present seems no different from Aristotle's claim to be at the present in his time.3
2.4. Comparative Analysis and Variants
The three main theories – Presentism, Eternalism, and the Growing Block – represent distinct ontological commitments regarding which parts of time exist. Presentism and the Growing Block are typically classified as A-theories because they affirm objective temporal becoming and a privileged present. Eternalism is the archetypal B-theory, denying objective becoming and treating all times symmetrically.3
Several variants and related theories exist. The Moving Spotlight theory is a modification of eternalism.1 It agrees that all times exist (like eternalism) but posits that a property of "presentness" or "actuality" moves along the timeline, highlighting one moment as uniquely present.1 While technically eternalist in its ontology (all times exist), it retains a non-perspectival, privileged 'now', sharing some characteristics with presentism.1 Less common are views like the Shrinking Block theory (only the present and future exist, the past disappears) 4 or Storrs McCall's Diminishing Tree theory (past, present, and branching future possibilities are real, but future branches vanish as they approach the present).3
The debate between these views highlights a fundamental tension in our understanding of time. A significant factor pushing philosophers towards eternalism is the strong evidence supporting Einstein's theory of relativity, particularly the relativity of simultaneity.1 Arguments like the Rietdijk-Putnam argument leverage this feature of relativity to contend that if observers in relative motion can have different sets of events constituting their "present," and these presents can include events that are past or future for others, then the only way to maintain an objective reality is to concede that all events—past, present, and future—must exist equally.1
This places theories like presentism and the growing block, which rely heavily on the notion of a single, objective, universal present moment, in direct conflict with the scientific picture.1 The lack of a "knife-edge present moment stretched throughout the entire universe" fundamentally challenges their core premise.1 Consequently, non-eternalists are often forced into positions that either challenge the standard interpretation of relativity (e.g., adopting Neo-Lorentzian views that posit a hidden privileged frame 1) or argue that our common-sense, manifest image of time should take precedence over the scientific image, despite the empirical success of relativity.1 This conflict underscores how interpretations of fundamental physics, especially relativity, have become a central battleground in the metaphysics of time, often appearing as the decisive factor compelling many towards an eternalist ontology.
3. Time in the Fabric of Reality: Scientific Insights
Beyond the philosophical debates about what parts of time are real, physics offers crucial insights into time's properties, its relationship with space and matter, and its apparent directionality. While scientific descriptions may not align perfectly with our subjective experience of time 2, they provide the most rigorous framework for understanding time's role in the physical universe.
3.1. Time According to Relativity: Spacetime and Relative Simultaneity
Isaac Newton conceived of time as absolute, true, and mathematical, flowing uniformly without relation to anything external.10 This absolute time served as a universal backdrop against which motion occurred. However, Albert Einstein's theories of relativity revolutionized this understanding.
Special Relativity (SR), introduced in 1905, fundamentally altered the view of time by unifying it with space. Hermann Minkowski later formalized this union into the concept of a four-dimensional spacetime continuum.1 In this framework, time is not an independent entity but an integral dimension of reality, interwoven with the three spatial dimensions. A cornerstone of SR is the relativity of simultaneity.1 SR demonstrates that observers moving relative to each other will generally disagree on whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time.1 An event that is "now" for one observer might be in the past or future for another.1 This directly contradicts the Newtonian notion of a universal, absolute present moment. SR also predicts time dilation: time passes slower for observers who are moving relative to other observers.1 Consequently, the duration of time intervals between events is not absolute but frame-dependent, varying according to the observer's state of motion.11 While time intervals and spatial distances are relative, SR introduces an invariant quantity: the spacetime interval between two events, which all inertial observers will agree upon.11
General Relativity (GR), Einstein's theory of gravity published in 1915, extended these concepts. GR describes gravity not as a force, but as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy.12 This curvature affects the passage of time, leading to gravitational time dilation: clocks run slower in stronger gravitational fields, meaning time passes more slowly closer to massive objects.1 This effect is measurable even between clocks at slightly different heights in a room.1 GR thus reinforces the idea that time is not a passive background but a dynamic component of the cosmos, intrinsically linked to space, matter, and gravity.12
The implications of relativity for the understanding of time are profound. It definitively replaces Newton's absolute time with a relative, frame-dependent concept.10 Its denial of absolute simultaneity provides strong support for eternalist or block universe views in philosophy, as discussed previously.6 Time is treated mathematically as a dimension, suggesting an ontological parity with space.2
3.2. The Unidirectional Flow: Exploring the Arrow(s) of Time
A striking feature of our experience is that time seems to have a definite direction – it flows from past to future. We remember the past, not the future; causes precede effects; systems tend towards disorder, not order.13 This perceived unidirectionality is often termed the "arrow of time," a concept popularized by astrophysicist Arthur Eddington in 1927.13 The puzzle arises because the fundamental laws of physics that govern microscopic interactions (such as classical mechanics, electromagnetism, relativity, and the basic Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics) are, for the most part, time-symmetric or time-reversal invariant.13 This means the laws work equally well whether time runs forwards or backwards; a filmed microscopic process run in reverse would still depict a physically possible process according to these laws.14 How, then, does the manifest asymmetry of time emerge at the macroscopic level? Several distinct "arrows" have been identified:
Thermodynamic Arrow: This is perhaps the most widely discussed arrow, grounded in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law states that in an isolated system, the total entropy – a measure of disorder, randomness, or unusable energy – tends to increase over time, eventually reaching a maximum state of equilibrium.11 Broken eggs don't spontaneously reassemble; heat flows from hot to cold. This irreversible increase in disorder provides a clear statistical directionality to macroscopic processes. Crucially, this arrow is believed to stem from the universe's initial condition: the fact that the universe began in a state of extraordinarily low entropy shortly after the Big Bang (a premise known as the Past Hypothesis).12
The universe has been evolving towards states of higher entropy ever since. However, the Second Law applies strictly only to closed systems and is statistical in nature; local decreases in entropy are possible (e.g., life), provided there is a greater increase elsewhere.11 Some debate its status as the fundamental explanation, noting it relies on specific initial conditions.9
Cosmological Arrow: This arrow points in the direction of the universe's ongoing expansion since the Big Bang.13 As the universe expands, it allows for more possible states and thus potentially facilitates the overall increase in entropy, linking it to the thermodynamic arrow.13 Some theories, like Richard Muller's, propose that the expansion of space creates new time.18 While currently expanding, it's theoretically possible (though observationally disfavored) that this arrow could reverse if the universe were to recollapse in a "Big Crunch".13
Radiative Arrow: Waves (light, sound, ripples) characteristically expand outwards from their source; coherent, converging waves that focus energy onto a source are rarely observed naturally.13 This asymmetry is likely a consequence of the thermodynamic arrow, as creating the specific initial conditions for converging waves requires a high degree of order (low entropy) compared to the conditions that produce diverging waves.13
Causal Arrow: We observe that causes always precede their effects.13 Dropping a glass causes it to shatter; the shattering does not cause the dropping. This ordering is fundamental to our interaction with the world. Many physicists and philosophers argue that the causal arrow is also ultimately grounded in the thermodynamic arrow. The ability to influence the future but not the past relies on the entropy gradient established by the low-entropy past.13 Establishing correlations between cause and effect is linked to entropy increase.13
Psychological/Memory Arrow: Our subjective experience of time is strongly directional: we have memories of the past but not the future; we feel we can influence the future but not the past.13 This arrow is also commonly explained as a consequence of the thermodynamic arrow. The process of forming memories in the brain involves physical processes that increase local order but contribute to the overall increase of entropy in the universe.9 Our perception of time's flow may be tied to this process of accumulating information (memories) about an increasingly entropic external world.11
Quantum Arrow: While the fundamental Schrödinger equation is time-reversible, certain aspects of quantum mechanics, particularly the process of measurement (leading to wave function collapse in some interpretations) and quantum decoherence, are often considered irreversible.13 Decoherence, the process by which quantum systems lose their coherence and behave more classically due to interaction with the environment, is typically seen as driving this irreversibility and is linked to the thermodynamic arrow as it involves an effective increase in entropy.13
Particle Physics (Weak) Arrow: A subtle but fundamental time asymmetry exists in the laws governing the weak nuclear force. Certain interactions involving particles like K-mesons violate CP symmetry (Charge-Parity symmetry). According to the CPT theorem, which states that physical laws should be invariant under combined Charge, Parity, and Time reversal, this CP violation implies a violation of T symmetry (Time reversal symmetry) as well.13 This means some fundamental particle interactions are intrinsically time-asymmetric. While these effects are rare and don't directly explain the macroscopic arrow of time 14, they demonstrate that time asymmetry exists at the most fundamental level and may be linked to phenomena like the prevalence of matter over antimatter in the universe (baryogenesis).13
The existence of these various arrows, particularly the thermodynamic arrow's dependence on the universe's specific initial state, points towards a significant conclusion: the observed directionality of time at the macroscopic level appears not to be an inherent property of the fundamental laws themselves, but rather a consequence of the specific, highly ordered state in which our universe began near the Big Bang.13 Without this contingent "Past Hypothesis," the time-symmetric laws would not necessarily produce the asymmetric world we experience. Furthermore, the fact that most other arrows (causal, psychological, radiative, quantum) can be plausibly explained as consequences of the thermodynamic arrow suggests a hierarchy, with the entropy gradient stemming from the Big Bang acting as the primary driver for the diverse temporal asymmetries observed.13
3.3. The Origin of Directionality: Intrinsic Property or Extrinsic Emergence?
This leads to a deeper philosophical question about the foundation of time's arrow: Is it an intrinsic feature of time itself, or does it arise extrinsically from the asymmetric arrangement of events and processes within time?.16
The intrinsic camp argues that time possesses an inherent directionality, a "flow" or "passage," independent of its contents.16 This view often appeals to our subjective experience – the "felt whoosh" of time passing – as evidence for a fundamental temporal dynamic.16 Philosophers holding this view might believe time necessarily has a direction, perhaps grounding the direction of causation 18 or positing an objective "movement" of the present (as in Moving Spotlight theories) or an objective "growth" of reality (as in Growing Block theories).
Tim Maudlin, for instance, argues for an intrinsic, directed causal structure within spacetime itself, even within a block universe framework.18 Critics argue that this view relies too heavily on subjective phenomenology, struggles to reconcile with relativity's treatment of time as a dimension, and often fails to provide a clear mechanism or rate for time's supposed "flow".18
The extrinsic camp, more popular among physicists, contends that time itself, like space, is fundamentally directionless.18 The perceived arrow is not intrinsic to time but emerges from the temporally asymmetric patterns of physical processes occurring within it, primarily the large-scale entropy gradient originating from the Big Bang's low-entropy initial state.15
According to this view, the difference between past and future is defined by these asymmetric processes.18 If, hypothetically, all these processes could be reversed, the arrow of time would point in the opposite direction. Critics argue that this view fails to capture the dynamic quality of temporal experience and that the correlation between entropy and time's direction might be a contingent fact rather than a fundamental explanation.18
Relativity theory plays a complex, dual role in this context. On one hand, by eliminating absolute simultaneity and treating time as a dimension within spacetime, it undermines the intuitive notion of a universal, flowing time, challenging intrinsic views and supporting the static block universe often associated with extrinsic emergence.1 On the other hand, the structure imposed by relativity, particularly the invariant nature of light cones, becomes essential for defining causal order and the causal arrow of time, demonstrating how the framework itself shapes our understanding of temporal directionality, even if that directionality ultimately arises from contingent initial conditions.19
4. The Functional Role of Time
Beyond its fundamental nature and ontological status, time serves crucial functions in structuring both physical reality and conscious experience. It acts as a framework for ordering events, enabling causal processes, measuring change, and allowing for the unfolding of phenomena. Understanding these functions provides another perspective on the "essence" of time.
4.1. Time as an Ordering Principle: Sequence and Duration
One of the most basic functions of time is to provide a structure for ordering events sequentially, distinguishing between 'before' and 'after'.2 This ordering is fundamental to our understanding of processes, narratives, and history.14 Ancient thinkers like Aristotle recognized this connection, defining time as "the number (the measure) of movement according to 'before' and 'then'".21 Even if time doesn't inherently "flow," it provides the dimension along which events are arrayed in a specific sequence.
Time also allows for the measurement of duration, the interval between events.2 Humans have developed increasingly sophisticated methods for measuring time, from observing celestial cycles to constructing precise clocks, establishing standard units like seconds, hours, and years.2 Newton conceptualized this measurable aspect as absolute "duration," distinct from the relative measures we use.10
Relativity theory complicates the measurement of duration, showing that time intervals are relative to the observer's frame of reference (time dilation).1 Simultaneity, the judgment of two events happening 'at the same time', also becomes relative.1 However, relativity does not destroy all temporal order. Crucially, the causal order of events connected by timelike intervals (i.e., events that can influence each other without exceeding the speed of light) is preserved for all observers.6 While observers might disagree on the duration between a cause and its effect, they will always agree on which event happened first. The spacetime interval remains invariant, providing a fixed structure even when temporal measurements vary.11
4.2. The Nexus of Time and Causality: From Philosophy to Physics
Time is intimately linked with causality, the relationship between causes and effects.19 Traditionally, a defining feature of causation is temporal precedence: causes happen before their effects.24 Philosopher David Hume included temporal priority as one of his key conditions for identifying a causal relationship.24 This temporal ordering seems fundamental to how we understand influence and interaction in the world.
Physics, particularly relativity, imposes strict constraints on causality that reinforce this temporal ordering. The principle of relativistic causality dictates that an effect cannot occur outside the future light cone of its cause, and a cause cannot lie outside the past light cone of its effect.19 This means that any causal influence must propagate through spacetime at or below the speed of light.19
Information cannot travel faster than light, preventing causes from affecting events outside their future light cone and preventing effects from being influenced by events outside their past light cone.19 This structure rigorously enforces the "cause precedes effect" principle for all observers within the relativistic framework and prevents paradoxes associated with faster-than-light signaling or backward time travel (like the grandfather paradox).19
The relationship is so tight that some philosophical and physical theories propose that causality might be even more fundamental than time itself. Some writers hold that causality is metaphysically prior to time and space, suggesting that our understanding of temporal and spatial relations relies on interpreting causal connections in empirical experiments.23 Causal theories of time, like Hans Reichenbach's based on the "mark principle," attempt to define temporal order based on the structure of causal chains.26
More recently, approaches like Causal Set Theory propose that the discrete causal structure of events might be the fundamental reality from which spacetime itself emerges.19 In operational terms, causality establishes a definite partial ordering among events.17 While the notion of retrocausality (effects preceding causes) is sometimes explored conceptually, particularly in interpretations of quantum mechanics or hypothetical time travel scenarios, it remains highly speculative and faces significant theoretical hurdles.19
The robust preservation of causal order by the light cone structure in relativity, even while simultaneity and duration become relative, suggests that defining the sequence of cause-and-effect might be one of time's most crucial and invariant functions within our physical universe.19 Causality acts as an anchor, maintaining a consistent structure despite the fluidity of temporal measurements introduced by relativity.
4.3. Time as the Medium of Change and Experience
Time is inextricably linked to change, motion, and process.2 Aristotle argued that time is dependent on change; without change or motion, time would be imperceptible or perhaps non-existent.10 We experience time through experiencing changes in the world and within ourselves.2 Biological evolution, geological transformations, stellar life cycles – all are processes unfolding within time, generating complexity and information.14
The function of time, in this sense, is to provide the dimension or medium in which these dynamic processes can occur. Eternalism challenges this view by suggesting that change is merely variation across the static temporal dimension of the block universe, rather than a fundamental unfolding.3 From the eternalist perspective, the "process" is already laid out in its entirety within spacetime.
Furthermore, time structures our conscious experience.2 Our perception seems to be a continuous movement from a known past, through the present moment of awareness, towards an unknown future.13 This subjective experience is shaped by the psychological arrow of time – our capacity for memory (accessing the past) and anticipation or volition (projecting into and influencing the future).11 Time allows for learning, growth, and the development of personal histories.
The concepts of time, change, and causality appear deeply interdependent. Time provides the framework for change to occur; change involves a sequence of states that defines temporal intervals and allows time to be measured or perceived 10; and causality describes the regular patterns of change where one event or state reliably leads to another, ordered sequentially in time.23 Attempting to define the function of one often implicitly relies on the others, forming a conceptual cluster at the heart of our understanding of a dynamic world.
However, this functional view of time as the dynamic enabler of change and experience clashes with the static picture suggested by eternalism and the block universe interpretation of relativity.3 If the universe is fundamentally a static four-dimensional block, then the perceived dynamism and the functional roles associated with "unfolding" or "becoming" may need to be reinterpreted as emergent properties of our perspective as temporally limited observers within that block, rather than fundamental features of time itself.
5. Conceptualizing the Eternal
Diametrically opposed to the transient and sequential nature of time is the concept of eternity. Primarily explored within philosophy and theology, eternity signifies a state or mode of existence radically different from temporal experience. Understanding eternity requires careful distinction between two primary interpretations: timelessness (atemporality) and infinite duration (sempiternity).27 While 'eternity' is sometimes used neutrally to refer to God's relationship to time whatever it may be 28, or colloquially to mean endless time 27, classical philosophical and theological discourse often reserves 'eternity' for timelessness, using 'sempiternity' or 'everlastingness' for infinite duration within time.27
5.1. Eternity Beyond Time: The Doctrine of Timelessness (Atemporality)
The doctrine of divine timelessness, or atemporality, posits that God (or an eternal being) exists entirely outside of time.27 Such a being does not exist at any point in time, nor does it experience temporal succession – there is no past, present, or future within its mode of existence.28 This view became the dominant perspective in classical Western theology, particularly Christian thought.29
The roots of this concept can be traced to Greek philosophy. Plato spoke of the eternal Forms as timeless exemplars, with time being merely a "moving image of eternity".28 While Plato connected necessity with timelessness, Aristotle linked necessity with everlastingness.28 Philo of Alexandria, integrating Greek philosophy with Jewish scripture, is thought to be among the first to explicitly ascribe timelessness to God.28 Neoplatonists like Plotinus further developed the idea of eternity as durationless, a life possessed "all at once" without extension or interval, a state of pure actuality.30
It was through figures like Augustine of Hippo and Boethius that the concept became central to Christian theology.29
Augustine argued that God, as the immutable creator of time, must transcend it, preceding time not temporally but "in the sublimity of an eternity which is always in the present".28 He emphasized God's immutable, supreme being as incompatible with temporal change.28 Boethius provided the canonical definition in The Consolation of Philosophy: "Eternity, then, is the complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life" (interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio).27
This influential definition highlights key aspects: possessing life (implying consciousness, not abstract existence), that life being illimitable or boundless (without beginning or end), and crucially, possessing this entire infinite life tota simul – all at once, simultaneously, without any succession.28 Later thinkers like Anselm built on this, envisioning God perceiving all times and places under immediate perception, making past, present, and future relative distinctions for temporal perceivers but not absolute for God.1
Thomas Aquinas connected timeless eternity to divine simplicity and perfection, viewing it as an instantaneous whole lacking succession, ultimately beyond full human comprehension.27 Stump and Kretzmann's analysis distilled Boethius's definition into four components: being alive, having unlimited life, possessing this life via a special atemporal duration, and possessing it completely and simultaneously, without succession.28
The characteristics typically attributed to timeless eternity are therefore immutability (unchangeableness), indivisibility (often linked to divine simplicity), simultaneity (the possession of all life at once), and transcendence of all temporal limitations like beginning, end, and succession.27 Motivations for this view often stem from concepts of divine perfection: a timeless being is seen as superior to a temporal one, free from the limitations of change, potentiality, and the passage of time.28 Boethius also employed timelessness to resolve the theological problem of divine foreknowledge and human free will: if God sees all time simultaneously from an eternal vantage point, God's knowledge isn't strictly "foreknowledge" and doesn't necessitate future events.28
However, the doctrine of timelessness faces significant conceptual challenges, primarily concerning the relationship between a timeless God and the temporal world.28 How can a being outside time interact with, cause events within, or respond to prayers originating within time? If God is immutable and exists in an eternal now, how can God perform actions like creation, which seem to imply a "before" and "after" relative to the created world?.28 Furthermore, if time involves genuinely tensed facts (as A-theorists hold), how can a timeless God know these changing facts without undergoing change?.28 Some also question whether attributes associated with personhood, such as remembering, anticipating, and acting intentionally, are compatible with a completely timeless existence.28 These difficulties have led many contemporary philosophers and theologians to question the classical view.30
5.2. Eternity Within Time: The Concept of Sempiternity (Infinite Duration)
The alternative conception of eternity is sempiternity, meaning everlastingness or infinite duration within time.27 A sempiternal being exists in time, experiences temporal succession, but has no beginning and no end.28 Its existence stretches infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future.28
This view also has roots in ancient thought. Aristotle conceived of the cosmos and necessary beings (like the Unmoved Mover) as everlasting, existing at all times.27 The etymology of the word 'eternal' (from Latin aevum, age or time) might suggest everlastingness as the original meaning.29 Some interpretations of religious texts describing God's existence "from everlasting to everlasting" or having "years without end" align more naturally with sempiternity than timelessness.28 In modern times, proponents include process theologians like Charles Hartshorne, who emphasize God's engagement with and responsiveness to the unfolding temporal world.28
The primary characteristic of sempiternity is infinite temporal duration.27 Unlike timelessness, it involves succession and existence at every moment of time.28 This view potentially makes it easier to conceptualize God's interaction with the temporal world, as God exists within the same temporal framework as creation.28
However, sempiternity also faces challenges. Some argue it is a less perfect mode of existence than timelessness, as a sempiternal being is still subject to the passage of time, even if infinitely.28 Cosmological considerations arise: if the universe had a beginning (as suggested by Big Bang cosmology), how could a sempiternal God have existed for an infinite duration before creation?.28 This leads to questions about the nature of time itself prior to the universe's existence. Additionally, if God is within time, does this limit God's power over time itself?.28
5.3. Eternity in Philosophical and Theological Thought
The conceptual journey of eternity in Western thought shows a fascinating evolution. Early Greek ideas included Plato's timeless Forms and Aristotle's everlasting cosmos.27 Neoplatonism, particularly through Plotinus, refined the notion of timelessness as durationless pure act.30 Augustine and Boethius then cemented timelessness as the dominant understanding of divine eternity within Christian tradition for centuries.29
Boethius's definition, "the complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life," became particularly foundational, shaping the work of Anselm, Aquinas, and countless others.27 This definition encapsulates the attempt to describe a mode of being utterly transcending temporal limitations – possessing an infinite scope of life ("everlasting life") but in a manner entirely foreign to temporal experience ("complete, simultaneous and perfect possession").
The motivations behind conceptualizing eternity, especially timelessness, are often tied to notions of divine perfection.28 Attributes like immutability, necessity, and supreme being were seen as incompatible with the change, contingency, and succession inherent in temporal existence.28 Eternity represented the ultimate negation of temporal constraints, a state of pure, unchanging actuality. Boethius's use of the concept to address the foreknowledge problem further illustrates its theological utility.28 Analogies, like Boethius's comparison of timeless eternity to the center of a circle, equally related to all points on the circumference (representing moments in time), were employed to grasp this difficult concept.28
In recent decades, however, the classical doctrine of timelessness has faced increasing challenges, primarily due to the perceived difficulty of reconciling a timeless God with an active, interactive role in the temporal world.28 This "interaction problem" – how can the timeless affect or be affected by the temporal? – remains a central point of debate, prompting many contemporary thinkers to explore sempiternity or various modified/intermediate views of God's relationship to time.28 These intermediate views include Alan Padgett's "relative timelessness,"
William Lane Craig's proposal of God being timeless sans creation and temporal with creation, and Richard Swinburne's idea of God existing in metrically amorphous time before creation.28 This ongoing discussion highlights the enduring challenge of conceptualizing a reality beyond the bounds of our temporal experience.
6. Juxtaposing Time and Eternity
Having explored the philosophical and scientific conceptions of time and the philosophical and theological interpretations of eternity, a direct comparison reveals their profound contrasts. While sempiternity shares with time the feature of duration (albeit infinite), the concept of timeless eternity stands in stark opposition to the characteristics typically associated with time.
6.1. A Comparative Framework: Key Characteristics Contrasted
Comparing time (understood through both common sense and scientific/philosophical analysis) with timeless eternity highlights fundamental divergences:
Passage vs. Immutability: Time, particularly in A-theory interpretations and common experience, is characterized by passage, flow, or becoming.1 Even in B-theory (eternalism), there is an ordered succession along the temporal dimension. Timeless eternity, conversely, is defined by absolute immutability and stasis; it is unchanging.27
Sequence vs. Simultaneity: Events in time occur sequentially, ordered as 'before' and 'after'.2 Timeless eternity involves the simultaneous (tota simul) possession of all existence or life, devoid of succession.27 This "simultaneity" is atemporal, not meaning 'at the same time' in a temporal sense, but rather 'all together without sequence'.
Divisibility vs. Indivisibility: Time is inherently divisible into smaller units: moments, seconds, years, intervals.2 Timeless eternity is often conceived as a simple, indivisible whole, particularly when linked to the theological concept of divine simplicity.27
Relation to Change: Time is the dimension or framework within which change occurs and is measured.2 Timeless eternity, being immutable, necessarily excludes change.30
Measurement: Time is measurable using clocks and defined units.2 Timeless eternity is fundamentally unmeasurable in temporal terms; concepts like duration do not apply in the same way.28
6.2. Fundamental Differences: Dynamism vs. Stasis, Finitude vs. Infinity/Timelessness
The core differences can be summarized through several key dichotomies:
Dynamism vs. Stasis: Time, especially as experienced or conceived in A-theories, involves dynamism, becoming, and unfolding.3 Timeless eternity represents complete stasis, a state of pure actuality with no potentiality or movement.30
Finitude vs. Infinity/Transcendence: Human experience of time is finite. Physical time, according to cosmology, likely had a beginning with the Big Bang. Sempiternity posits infinite temporal duration. Timelessness represents a complete transcendence of temporality itself, existing beyond finitude and infinity within time.27 It is unbounded in a way fundamentally different from mere endlessness.28
Experiential vs. Abstract/Transcendent: Time is something we directly, albeit puzzlingly, experience.2 Timeless eternity is primarily an abstract or transcendent concept, grasped intellectually or theologically, and often considered ultimately incomprehensible to temporal minds.27
6.3. Proposed Table: Comparative Attributes of Time and Eternity
The following table summarizes the key distinctions between time and timeless eternity:
Attribute | Time | Eternity (Timelessness) |
Fundamental Nature | Dynamic (A-theory) or Static Succession (B-theory) | Static, Unchanging |
Reality of Past/Present/Future | Varies (Presentism: Present only; Growing Block: Past/Present; Eternalism: All) | All of "life" possessed simultaneously (atemporal present) |
Succession | Yes (Events ordered sequentially) | No (Absence of 'before' and 'after') |
Change | Possible; Time is the medium for change | Impossible; Characterized by immutability |
Duration | Measurable intervals | Not applicable in a temporal sense; Atemporal "duration" |
Divisibility | Yes (Into moments, intervals) | No (Often conceived as simple, indivisible) |
Relation to Causality | Provides framework for causal order (cause precedes effect) | Transcends temporal causality |
Mode of Being/Access | Experiential (directly perceived, though puzzling) | Abstract / Transcendent (Intellectual/theological concept) |
Boundaries | Potentially finite (e.g., Big Bang) or infinite (if universe is) | Unbounded; Transcends temporal limits |
Note: Sempiternity (infinite duration) differs from Timelessness primarily in its temporal nature. It shares with Time the characteristics of Succession, potential for Change (within the eternal being), measurable Duration (infinite), and Divisibility, while sharing with Timelessness the lack of temporal Boundaries (beginningless and endless).
This comparison highlights the profound conceptual gulf between time and timeless eternity. They are not merely different quantities of the same thing but represent fundamentally distinct modes of existence. Applying temporal categories like 'duration' or 'simultaneity' to timelessness inevitably involves analogy and risks misrepresenting its core nature, which is defined precisely by the absence of temporal properties.28 This inherent difficulty in using our temporal language and concepts to grasp an atemporal reality constitutes a significant challenge in philosophical and theological discussions of eternity, suggesting an incommensurability between the two concepts.
Furthermore, our understanding of both concepts appears conditioned by our own temporal existence. We analyze time from within its flow (or structure), leading to the persistent tension between subjective experience and objective physical descriptions. Conversely, we attempt to conceptualize eternity from outside, relying on negation (timelessness is not temporal succession, not change) and analogy (Boethius's circle 28), which leads to problems of coherence and interaction.28 This suggests that our perspective as temporal beings inherently shapes, and perhaps limits, our capacity to fully comprehend the fundamental nature of either time or timeless eternity.
7. Synthesis and Concluding Reflections
This exploration has traversed diverse terrains – from the metaphysical debates on the reality of time's passage in philosophy, through the descriptions of spacetime and temporal asymmetry in physics, to the theological and philosophical conceptualizations of eternity. Synthesizing these perspectives reveals a complex and often contested landscape.
Philosophical inquiry presents competing ontologies of time: Presentism, asserting the sole reality of the present; Eternalism, viewing all time as equally real within a block universe; and the Growing Block theory, positing a reality comprising the past and present but excluding the future.1 The choice between these often hinges on the weight given to common-sense intuition versus the implications of modern physics, particularly relativity's challenge to absolute simultaneity, which strongly motivates eternalism.1
Scientific investigation, especially through relativity, portrays time as a dimension interwoven with space, relative rather than absolute, and influenced by gravity.1 Physics also grapples with the "arrow of time" – the manifest unidirectionality of macroscopic processes despite the time-symmetry of most fundamental laws.13 The thermodynamic arrow, linked to increasing entropy since the low-entropy state of the early universe (the Past Hypothesis), appears central to explaining other arrows like the causal and psychological ones.13 Whether this directionality is intrinsic to time or emerges extrinsically from physical processes remains debated.18 Functionally, time serves to order events, measure duration, provide the framework for causality (constrained by light cones in relativity), and act as the medium for change and experience.2
The concept of eternity stands in contrast, primarily understood either as sempiternity (infinite duration within time) or, more radically, as timelessness (atemporality – existence entirely outside of time).27 Classical theology, heavily influenced by figures like Augustine and Boethius, favored timelessness, associating it with divine perfection, immutability, and transcendence.27 This view defines eternity by the negation of temporal characteristics: no succession, no change, no beginning or end, a complete and simultaneous possession of life.28
Integrating these perspectives reveals significant points of interaction and tension. Philosophical eternalism finds strong support in the relativistic picture of spacetime.6 Conversely, presentism and growing block theories struggle to reconcile with relativity but align more closely with the intuitive sense of passage that informs the intrinsic view of time's arrow.1 Theological concepts of timeless eternity arise partly as a response to the perceived limitations and imperfections of temporal existence – change, decay, finitude.28
Yet, this very transcendence creates the persistent problem of explaining interaction between the timeless and the temporal.28 Different traditions clearly prioritize different forms of evidence or intuition: physics relies on empirical data and mathematical consistency, some philosophy prioritizes logical coherence or phenomenological experience, and theology incorporates revelation and doctrines of divine nature.
The relationship between time and eternity, particularly timelessness, is one of profound contrast rather than continuity. They represent fundamentally different modes of being, as highlighted in the comparative analysis. Attempts to bridge them, such as Anselm's vision of God perceiving all times simultaneously 1 or Boethius's center-and-circumference analogy 28, underscore the conceptual challenge.
Ultimately, despite centuries of rigorous investigation across disciplines, fundamental questions endure. What is the true ontological status of the past and future? Does time genuinely flow, or is the block universe a more accurate representation? What is the ultimate origin of time's arrow – is it merely a consequence of cosmic initial conditions, or is there a deeper asymmetry? How can subjective temporal experience be fully reconciled with objective physical descriptions? Can the concept of a timeless being interacting with a temporal world be rendered fully coherent?
The enduring nature of these questions suggests that time and eternity touch upon the limits of human understanding. As Augustine famously reflected on the nature of time, "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: but if I wish to explain it to one who asketh, I know not".10 While philosophical analysis, scientific modeling, and theological reflection can clarify concepts, refine arguments, and reveal interconnections, the fundamental essence of time and the nature of the eternal may continue to reside at the edge of comprehension, inviting ongoing inquiry and contemplation.
Works cited
Eternalism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 25, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/eternalism/
Time | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 25, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/time/
Is the 'Growing Block Theory of Time' the best or correct one in Philosophy of Time? : r/askphilosophy - Reddit, accessed April 25, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/lwk2v5/is_the_growing_block_theory_of_time_the_best_or/
What is presentism & eternalism & the growing and the shrinking block theories? - Reddit, accessed April 25, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/16oadxz/what_is_presentism_eternalism_the_growing_and_the/
Which theory of time is the most evidence-based? - The Philosophy Forum, accessed April 25, 2025, https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15202/which-theory-of-time-is-the-most-evidence-based
Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia, accessed April 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)
Eternalism - The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed April 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383283544_Eternalism_-_The_Internet_Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy
Matias Slavov, Eternalism - PhilPapers, accessed April 25, 2025, https://philpapers.org/rec/SLAEVX
Does the thermodynamic arrow of time really solve the arrow of time question?, accessed April 25, 2025, https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/9278/does-the-thermodynamic-arrow-of-time-really-solve-the-arrow-of-time-question
A Comparative Analysis of the Phenomenology of Time in the Works of John McTaggart and John Mbiti - Noyam Journals, accessed April 25, 2025, https://noyam.org/?sdm_process_download=1&download_id=11015
Whence the arrow of time? - Physics says what?, accessed April 25, 2025, https://www.physicssayswhat.com/2019/11/24/whence-the-arrow-of-time/
What is the relationship between how time is viewed in thermodynamics and how time is viewed in general relativity? - Physics Stack Exchange, accessed April 25, 2025, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/430073/what-is-the-relationship-between-how-time-is-viewed-in-thermodynamics-and-how-ti
Arrow of time - Wikipedia, accessed April 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
The Arrow of Time - The Information Philosopher, accessed April 25, 2025, https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/layzer/Arrow_of_Time.pdf
The arrow of time - Science News, accessed April 25, 2025, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/arrow-time
The Emergence of Time's Arrow and the Special Science Laws from Physics - Sites@Rutgers, accessed April 25, 2025, https://sites.rutgers.edu/barry-loewer/wp-content/uploads/sites/195/2019/06/Loewer-The-emergence-of-times-arrow-and-the-special-science-laws-from-physics.pdf
Causality re-established | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences - Journals, accessed April 25, 2025, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2017.0313
Arrow of Time | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 25, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/arrow-of-time/
Causality (physics) - Wikipedia, accessed April 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
The relativistic principle of causality - Physics Stack Exchange, accessed April 25, 2025, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/261817/the-relativistic-principle-of-causality
Telling time - Journal of Science Communication, accessed April 25, 2025, https://jcom.sissa.it/article/17/galley/27/download/
Philosophy of space and time - Wikipedia, accessed April 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time
Causality - Wikipedia, accessed April 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
A Brief Introduction to Temporality and Causality - arXiv, accessed April 25, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.2449
Backward Causation - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 25, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/
How is causal order not assuming directionality of time? - Philosophy Stack Exchange, accessed April 25, 2025, https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/99229/how-is-causal-order-not-assuming-directionality-of-time
Eternity - Wikipedia, accessed April 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity
Eternity in Christian Thought (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), accessed April 25, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/
Eternity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Winter 2009 Edition), accessed April 25, 2025, https://plato.stanford.edu/ARCHIVES/WIN2009/entries/eternity/
Divine Eternity - St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology, accessed April 25, 2025, https://www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/DivineEternity
God and Time | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 25, 2025, https://iep.utm.edu/god-time/
Eternity, Time and Tenselessness - ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange, accessed April 25, 2025, https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1189&context=faithandphilosophy
No comments:
Post a Comment