A Defense of the Reality of Time
I think our habit of discussing such arguments as being about the &quot;reality&quot; of time is confusing and silly.<p>For the most parts people (except maybe Julian Barbour) are arguing about whether the the concepts of &quot;now&quot; and &quot;change&quot; come from outside of physics, in such a way that the present is in some sense more real that the future or past.<p>If so we can and must think of physics as how &quot;real things now, change&quot;.<p>The alternative is that time is part of physics, and that every part of the history of universe is equally real, and that &quot;now&quot; and &quot;change&quot; are perceptions of observers within that history.<p>Both views accept the reality of time.  Things don&#x27;t become less real just because they are physical facts rather than metaphysical necessities.