Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Actualization, Records, and the Emergence of Entropic Time

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that internal, record-based time in quantum mechanics is uniquely fixed to be the surprisal −σ ln p of each actualized outcome, so a history's internal time equals −σ times the logarithm of its Born likelihood.

desk verdict A transparent, logically sound conditional derivation of a logarithmic internal clock, but the physical weight sits entirely on the stipulated axiom M1; worth serious review, not yet a physical explanation. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25307 v1 pith:UD23RL3A submitted 2026-07-28 quant-ph

Lionel Martellini This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords emergenttimerecordssurprisalShannonentropyRényiBornrulequantummeasurementgrowingblock
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that if time is carried by stable records of quantum outcomes, and if each record's duration depends only on the conditional Born probability of the actualized outcome and composes additively under sequential conditioning, then the only possible duration function is the surprisal −σ ln p. Thus a history's internal time is −σ ln P(h_n), the negative logarithm of its Born likelihood. Averaging this pathwise clock over all histories gives σ times the Shannon entropy; its fluctuations are governed by the Rényi entropy spectrum, and the clock splits via a Doob decomposition into a predictable entropic part plus a martingale of fluctuations. The paper also proves that two surprisal clocks are additive in every local context exactly when the underlying pure bipartite state factorizes. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns entropic time from a chosen parametrization into a forced consequence of three simple requirements, and it connects clock additivity to quantum entanglement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the surprisal function d(p) = −σ ln p, forced by the requirement that durations add under multiplication of conditional probabilities. It is carried through by the record-history probability P(h_n) via the chain rule, and by three structural tools: nested record algebras Σ_n giving ordinal order under record persistence; the Born measure on histories, whose Shannon entropy is the ensemble mean, Rényi entropies the exponential moments, and varentropy the variance; and the Doob decomposition separating predictable entropic growth from martingale clock fluctuations. For the multiple-clock result, the central object is the amplitude matrix of a pure bipartite state and

What would settle it

Construct or observe a physical clock whose registered tick length changes while the conditional Born probability p of the recorded outcome is held fixed but the recording interaction is varied; that would directly violate M1. Alternatively, find a sequential measurement where two conditionings with probabilities p and q yield a total duration different from d(p) + d(q), refuting M2. Or demonstrate within the claimed domain of description that a record can be erased or revised, collapsing the nested algebra assumption and the ordinal structure built on it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a representation theorem: if a quantum record clock's per-step duration d(p) depends only on the conditional Born probability p of the outcome actually recorded (M1), composes additively under sequential conditioning (M2), and is continuous and calibrated (M3), then d(p) = −σ ln p, and a history's internal time is τ(h_n) = −σ ln P(h_n). The paper reads this as physical chronology carried by persistent records, with surprisal as the natural information metric. It then derives the ensemble consequences: the mean clock is σ times Shannon entropy, the exponential moments are encoded by the Rényi entropy spectrum, and the realized clock admits a Doob decomposition into a pred

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Requirement (M1): that the duration contributed by an actualized outcome depends only on its conditional Born probability — not on the interaction Hamiltonian, pulse duration, energy cost, or record stability. If real clocks depend on any of those, the surprisal clock has no physical grip; record persistence (Assumption 2.3) is a second unproved premise on which the entire ordinal structure depends.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A perfectly predictable outcome (p = 1) advances no internal time; time passes only when actualization resolves genuine uncertainty.
  • In the Zeno limit of frequent projective monitoring, ordinal structure gains infinitely many events while metric duration vanishes as σ a T δt ln(1/δt); continuous diffusive monitoring produces a divergent apparatus-noise clock while the system-attributable time stays bounded by σ ln 2 per binary branch.
  • Additivity of two surprisal clocks in one context is equivalent to factorization of that Born distribution; additivity in all local contexts is equivalent to rank-one factorization of the pure state and vanishing of all 2×2 amplitude minors.
  • Record histories form a nested growing block: valuations on accumulated record algebras are mutually compatible and never revised, and this locally Boolean growth cannot be extended to a global noncontextual valuation of all quantum propositions.
  • Under standard symmetry assumptions, the entropic record parameter can serve as the time parameter of an ordinary unitary Schrödinger evolution, and stationary global states fit a constraint-type picture compatible with relational dynamics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If real clocks violate M1 — for example, if registered duration tracks the interaction Hamiltonian, pulse duration, or energy cost — the logarithmic clock is a mathematical possibility rather than a physical law. A direct laboratory test would compare registered durations for fixed conditional probability p while varying the recording interaction strength.
  • The context-universal additivity equivalence suggests a practical entanglement test for pure bipartite states: check whether two surprisal clocks remain additive under several local unitary changes; a violation of additivity in any local context signals non-productness without needing full phase tomography.
  • The Zeno scaling ν(δt) ∼ σ a δt ln(1/δt) is a quantitative prediction that could be sought in cold-atom monitoring experiments: the entropic clock rate should vanish linearly in δt times a logarithm, distinct from both the diffusive 1/δt divergence and Markov anti-Zeno rates.
  • The pathwise/ensemble distinction implies that single-run internal time is a random variable with varentropy-controlled fluctuations; measuring clock variance across many runs would test Eq. (16) independently of the calibration constant σ.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a record-based account of internal time in quantum mechanics. It defines stable records and histories via accumulated record algebras (§2), derives an ordinal chronology from record inclusion under a persistence assumption (§3), and then imposes three requirements on step durations—Born-weight-only dependence (M1), sequential additivity (M2), and continuity/calibration (M3)—to prove Theorem 4.1 that the unique duration is d(p) = −σ ln p, so that a realized history has internal time τ(h_n) = −σ ln P(h_n). It then derives the Shannon-mean ensemble clock, Rényi moment identities, and a Doob decomposition (§4), analyzes multiple clocks and context-universal additivity (§5), discusses relational dynamics and stationary states (§6), and classifies monitoring regimes including a Zeno collapse of metric time (§7). The paper is explicit that the result is conditional: record persistence is assumed, the unit σ is a free calibration constant, and M1 is stipulated.

Significance. The formal core is sound and transparent. The proofs I checked—Cauchy equation, chain-rule identities, the Schmidt/minor argument in Theorem 5.2, and the Zeno asymptotics in Proposition 7.1—are correct, and the paper does not hide fitted data or ex post facto exclusions. If its axioms are granted, it provides a clean representation theorem connecting actualization, persistent records, and self-information, with useful structural distinctions: ordinal vs metric temporality, fixed-context vs context-universal clock independence, and system-attributable vs apparatus noise in continuous monitoring. The paper also deserves credit for explicitly stating its assumptions and limits. However, the physical emergence claim is much weaker than the title suggests: M1 is a stipulation, and internal duration is never defined independently of Eq. (10). Thus the central result is a conditional characterization of one class of clocks, not an explanation of why physical clocks are logarithmic. The paper would be a solid contribution after the load-bearing assumptions are either justified or explicitly downgraded to definitions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, M1 and Eq. (10)] The load-bearing premise is stated, not derived. M1 excludes dependence on interaction Hamiltonian, pulse duration, record stability, and energy cost—quantities the paper itself calls 'physically important.' Because Eq. (10) defines τ(h_n) directly from P(h_n), there is no independent, operational way to measure the internal duration being characterized; the theorem thus cannot be tested independently of the axiom. All subsequent results (Shannon mean, Rényi spectrum, Doob decomposition, Zeno collapse) inherit this dependence. Please either (a) exhibit a concrete physical regime or recording model in which M1 follows, or (b) give an operational protocol that measures d(p) without recourse to Eq. (10), or (c) explicitly reframe the paper's claims as conditional and remove 'emergence' language.
  2. [§2.3, Assumption 2.3] Record persistence is not a consequence of unitary dynamics (the paper acknowledges this), yet the entire ordinal structure and the Zeno strict-enlargement argument in Proposition 7.1(iv) depend on it. Remark 2.2 gives graded, quantitative criteria for when a record is stable, but those criteria are properties of a model, not a derivation of persistence. If records can be erased or revised (as in many realistic memory models), the inclusion chain Σ0 ⊆ Σ1 ⊆ ... can fail and the ordinal clock collapses. The paper should state more explicitly what dynamical or decoherence conditions guarantee persistence, or what happens to the construction when only finite-time persistence holds.
  3. [§5.3, after Eq. (27)] The text claims that the mutual information I(A:B) 'is independent of calibration and of context.' Calibration independence is clear (σ cancels), but context-independence is not established: I(A:B) is a function of the joint distribution p_{ij}, which changes when the local contexts (U,V) change. Unless 'context' is fixed in advance, I(A:B) is not an invariant. Please prove the claimed invariance or revise the statement to 'independent of calibration for fixed record contexts.' This matters because the paragraph uses I(A:B) as the clock-independent measure of disagreement between incompatible clocks.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Refs. [41] (Putnam) and [42] (Sorkin) are listed but never cited in the body; either cite them in §9 or remove.
  2. [Reference [16]] The page range has a typo: '379–423623656' should be split (likely '379–423, 623–656').
  3. [§7.2, Eqs. (43)–(44)] N = ⌊T/δt⌋; Eq. (43) is pathwise for h_surv while Eq. (44) is an ensemble expectation. Please mark the distinction explicitly, e.g., E[τ_N] versus τ(h_surv).
  4. [§4.7 and §7.1] Propositions 4.7 and 7.1(iv) cite 'the strictness clause of Theorem 9.1' before Theorem 9.1 is stated; consider moving the relevant strictness statement earlier or adding a forward reference.
  5. [§4.3, Eq. (13)] The 'Rényi transform' notation H_{1−s}(P) is fine, but the relationship between s and α (α = 1−s) should be printed near the equation for readability; currently it appears only in the proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 4.1 is a conditional representation theorem with independent mathematical content.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Theorem 4.1 assumes (M1) dependence on the conditional Born probability, (M2) additive sequential composition, and (M3) continuity and calibration; it then proves d(p) = -σ ln p by reducing (M2) to Cauchy's equation. (M1) alone does not contain the logarithmic form, so the conclusion is not loaded into the assumptions by construction. Equation (10) follows from the probability chain rule. No parameter is fitted and no target quantity is reused as an input. The later results (Shannon mean, Rényi moments, Doob decomposition, fixed-context additivity, and the context-universal rank-one characterization) are algebraic identities or standard theorems applied to this clock. The paper explicitly labels the result conditional: 'The theorem below is therefore a representation theorem for a specific class of record clocks, not a derivation of every physically admissible notion of time' (§4.1), and the Conclusion states that whether this metric is selected by concrete physical clocks 'is an empirical and theoretical question for future work.' These are limitations of physical scope, not circularity. The self-citations ([12], [36], [37]) are interpretive or contextual and are declared unnecessary for the formal results. The fragility of (M1) as a physical premise is a correctness or empirical-support concern, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central result is a representation theorem for an axiom set whose physical core is M1 (Born-weight-only duration) plus record persistence. All other mathematical ingredients are standard. The free parameters are the time-unit σ and the graded-record tolerance ε.

free parameters (2)
  • σ (time-unit calibration constant)
    Positive constant converting information in nats to time units; introduced by calibration axiom (M3) and explicitly not determined by the argument. A free conventional scale.
  • record tolerance ε
    Threshold in Remark 2.2 defining ε-records; chosen by hand, controls when an interaction counts as a record but does not enter the clock formula.
assumptions (9)
  • standard math Born rule: probabilities are squared amplitudes p_C(x)=|ψ_C(x)|² (Eq. 2).
    All history probabilities and the surprisal clock are computed from Born weights; no generalized probability rule is used.
  • domain assumption Actualization is represented by Lüders conditioning (Eq. 3): post-measurement state Π_r|ψ⟩/√p(r).
    Standard projective measurement update is adopted as the operational content of 'actualization.'
  • domain assumption Record persistence: accumulated record algebras are nested, Σ0⊆Σ1⊆⋯ (Assumption 2.3).
    Explicitly stated to be an idealization not derivable from reversible dynamics; supports ordinal time, the stochastic process structure, and the growing-block theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper M1: duration of a realized step depends only on its conditional Born probability p.
    The central physical premise. No mechanism or evidence is given; it excludes Hamiltonian, pulse, stability, and energy-cost dependence.
  • ad hoc to paper M2: durations compose additively under sequential conditioning, d(pq)=d(p)+d(q).
    A chosen composition law for two-stage resolutions; not derived from quantum measurement theory.
  • standard math M3: continuity, nonnegativity, and conventional calibration of d (σ sets the unit).
    Regularity and unit-fixing assumptions needed to make the Cauchy-equation solution unique.
  • standard math Wigner's theorem and Stone's theorem (used in Prop. 6.1).
    Standard results invoked to pass from transition-probability-preserving internal-time maps to a self-adjoint generator.
  • standard math Kochen–Specker theorem (used in Cor. 9.2).
    Standard no-go result used to rule out a single context-independent Boolean valuation of all quantum propositions.
  • domain assumption Records remain available with the same values when later records form (used in Theorem 9.1).
    The compatibility of successive valuations requires that earlier records are not revised; this is record persistence restated for valuations.
invented entities (2)
  • Potentiality distribution ψ_C (from Ref. [12])
    purpose: Ontological substrate: unresolved alternatives conditioned on actualized records.
    Mathematically identical to the ordinary state vector; no new observable predictions are offered; inherited from the author's earlier framework.
  • Actualization event
    purpose: Primitive event that deposits a record and advances the internal clock.
    A new primitive beyond standard quantum measurement language; empirically indistinguishable from ordinary measurement, so no independent falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Actualization, Records, and the Emergence of Entropic Time." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UD23RL3A

@misc{pith2026260725307,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Actualization, Records, and the Emergence of Entropic Time},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UD23RL3A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25307}
}
abstract

We develop a record-based account of internal time in quantum mechanics, where the formation of a stable record is represented as conditioning on actualized information, and along a history the accumulated record algebras are ordered by inclusion. If the duration of a realized outcome depends only on its conditional Born probability, composes additively under sequential conditioning, and is continuous and calibrated, then the actualization of each outcome contributes an internal duration equal to its surprisal, the negative logarithm of that probability, so that a certain outcome contributes no duration, whereas less likely outcomes contribute larger increments. The ensemble mean of the accumulated clock is the Shannon entropy of the record process, its moment-generating function is fixed by the R\'enyi entropy spectrum, and the realized clock admits a Doob decomposition into a predictable entropic compensator and a martingale of clock fluctuations, so that each increment is the information gain of the corresponding actualization. Records are characterized by graded criteria of distinguishability, decoherence, and stability. We also clarify the multiple-clock problem: in one fixed context, additivity of two surprisal clocks is equivalent to factorization of the Born distribution in that context, whereas for a pure bipartite state, additivity in every pair of local contexts is equivalent to rank-one factorization of the joint state and to the vanishing of all its $2\times2$ minors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Physics of Unresolved Uncertainty: Quantum Mechanics as a Theory of Potentiality

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 3.5 of 10

    Quantum mechanics is reformulated as Kolmogorov-additive complex potentiality measures whose nonlinear Born map produces interference, measurement update, decoherence, and entanglement.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    DeWitt, B.S.: Quantum theory of gravity. i. the canonical theory. Phys. Rev.160, 1113–1148 (1967)

    1967

  2. [2]

    In: Kunstatter, G., Vincent, D., Williams, J

    Kuchaˇ r, K.V.: Time and interpretations of quantum gravity. In: Kunstatter, G., Vincent, D., Williams, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics. World Scientific, Singapore (1992)

    1992

  3. [3]

    In: Ibort, L.A., Rodriguez, M.A

    Isham, C.J.: Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time. In: Ibort, L.A., Rodriguez, M.A. (eds.) Integrable Systems, Quantum Groups, and Quantum Field Theories, pp. 157–287. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1993)

    1993

  4. [4]

    Page, D.N., Wootters, W.K.: Evolution without evolution: dynamics described by stationary observables. Phys. Rev. D27, 2885–2892 (1983)

    1983

  5. [5]

    Wootters, W.K.: ‘time’ replaced by quantum correlations. Int. J. Theor. Phys.23, 701–711 (1984)

    1984

  6. [6]

    Connes, A., Rovelli, C.: Von neumann algebra automorphisms and time– thermodynamics relation in generally covariant quantum theories. Class. Quantum Grav.11, 2899–2918 (1994)

    1994

  7. [7]

    Rovelli, C.: Time in quantum gravity: an hypothesis. Phys. Rev. D43, 442–456 (1991)

    1991

  8. [8]

    Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., Maccone, L.: Quantum time. Phys. Rev. D92, 045033 (2015)

    2015

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    AIP Conf

    Caticha, A.: Entropic time. AIP Conf. Proc.1305, 200–207 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    Weberszpil, J., Sotolongo-Costa, O.: Entropy as a clock: foundations and parametrizations of emergent time. Int. J. Theor. Phys.65, 15 (2026)

    2026

  3. [11]

    Barontini, G.: Testing the problem of time with cold atoms. Phys. Rev. Research 8, 022047 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1103/1h9j-df4k 24

    2026 doi

  4. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.23745 (2026) arXiv:2607.23745 [quant-ph]

    Martellini, L.: The physics of unresolved uncertainty: Quantum mechanics as a theory of potentiality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.23745 (2026) arXiv:2607.23745 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Belavkin, V.P.: Quantum causality, stochastics, trajectories and information. Rep. Prog. Phys.65, 353–420 (2002)

    2002

  6. [14]

    Braginsky, V.B., Khalili, F.Y.: Quantum nondemolition measurements: the route from toys to tools. Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 1–11 (1996)

    1996

  7. [15]

    Zurek, W.H.: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 715–775 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    Bell System Technical Journal27, 379–423623656 (1948)

    Shannon, C.E.: A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal27, 379–423623656 (1948)

    1948

  9. [17]

    Van Nostrand, Princeton (1961)

    Tribus, M.: Thermostatics and Thermodynamics. Van Nostrand, Princeton (1961)

    1961

  10. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability vol

    R´ enyi, A.: On measures of entropy and information. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability vol. 1, pp. 547–561. University of California Press, Berkeley (1961)

    1961

  11. [19]

    Wiley, Hoboken (2006)

    Cover, T.M., Thomas, J.A.: Elements of Information Theory, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Vieweg, Braunschweig (1931)

    Wigner, E.P.: Gruppentheorie und Ihre Anwendung Auf die Quantenmechanik der Atomspektren. Vieweg, Braunschweig (1931)

    1931

  13. [21]

    Stone, M.H.: On one-parameter unitary groups in hilbert space. Ann. Math.33, 643–648 (1932)

    1932

  14. [22]

    Misra, B., Sudarshan, E.C.G.: The zeno’s paradox in quantum theory. J. Math. Phys.18, 756–763 (1977)

    1977

  15. [23]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)

    Wiseman, H.M., Milburn, G.J.: Quantum Measurement and Control. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    Nature405, 546–550 (2000)

    Kofman, A.G., Kurizki, G.: Acceleration of quantum decay processes by frequent observations. Nature405, 546–550 (2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    Moreva, E., Brida, G., Gramegna, M., Giovannetti, V., Maccone, L., Genovese, M.: Time from quantum entanglement: an experimental illustration. Phys. Rev. A 89, 052122 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Gemsheim, S., Rost, J.M.: Emergence of time from quantum interaction with the environment. Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 140202 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Griffiths, R.B.: Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. 25 J. Stat. Phys.36, 219–272 (1984)

    1984

  20. [28]

    Omn` es, R.: Consistent interpretations of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 64, 339–382 (1992)

    1992

  21. [29]

    Gell-Mann, M., Hartle, J.B.: Classical equations for quantum systems. Phys. Rev. D47, 3345–3382 (1993)

    1993

  22. [30]

    In: Geiger, H., Scheel, K

    Pauli, W.: Die allgemeinen Prinzipien der Wellenmechanik. In: Geiger, H., Scheel, K. (eds.) Handbuch der Physik vol. 24, p. 140. Springer, Berlin (1933)

    1933

  23. [31]

    Busch, P., Grabowski, M., Lahti, P.J.: Time observables in quantum theory. Phys. Lett. A191, 357–361 (1994)

    1994

  24. [32]

    Aharonov, Y., Bohm, D.: Time in the quantum theory and the uncertainty relation for time and energy. Phys. Rev.122, 1649–1658 (1961)

    1961

  25. [33]

    Allcock, G.R.: The time of arrival in quantum mechanics. Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)53, 253–348 (1969)

    1969

  26. [34]

    Kijowski, J.: On the time operator in quantum mechanics and the heisenberg uncertainty relation for energy and time. Rep. Math. Phys.6, 361–386 (1974)

    1974

  27. [35]

    Muga, J.G., Leavens, C.R.: Arrival time in quantum mechanics. Phys. Rep.338, 353–438 (2000)

    2000

  28. [36]

    Physical Review A109(1), 012216 (2024)

    Beau, M., Martellini, L.: Quantum delay in the time-of-arrival of free-falling atoms. Physical Review A109(1), 012216 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Physical Review A110(5), 052217 (2024)

    Beau, M., Barbier, M., Martellini, R., Martellini, L.: Time-of-arrival distributions for continuous quantum systems and application to quantum backflow. Physical Review A110(5), 052217 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Kochen, S., Specker, E.P.: The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. J. Math. Mech.17, 59–87 (1967)

    1967

  31. [39]

    Kegan Paul, London (1923)

    Broad, C.D.: Scientific Thought. Kegan Paul, London (1923)

    1923

  32. [40]

    Ellis, G.F.R.: Physics in the real universe: time and spacetime. Gen. Rel. Grav. 38, 1797–1824 (2006)

    2006

  33. [41]

    Putnam, H.: Time and physical geometry. J. Phil.64, 240–247 (1967)

    1967

  34. [42]

    In: Petkov, V

    Sorkin, R.D.: Relativity theory does not imply that the future already exists: a counterexample. In: Petkov, V. (ed.) Relativity and the Dimensionality of the World, pp. 153–161. Springer, Dordrecht (2007) 26

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.