Organized by the TUM Institute for Advanced Study and the TUM Senior Excellence Faculty
TUM-IAS, November 17, 2025
Events that lie in our past or future may occur simultaneously for an observer moving in a different reference frame. Does this principle of Special Relativity imply that past and future events are just as real as present ones – that they are, in a sense, all present at the same time? This is what the block universe thesis claims, according to which dinosaurs still exist and our future is already fixed. From the perspectives of physics, mathematics, philosophy, and theology, this short symposium discussed the block universe thesis against the background of the notions of time and eternity.
At the outset, Prof. Klaus Mainzer (TUM Emeritus of Excellence, President of the European Academy of Sciences & Arts) presented the physics of space and time based on Newton and Einstein. Whereas Newton assumed an absolute time, according to Special Relativity each observer has their own time. According to General Relativity, time is additionally dilated in gravitational fields. From the perspective of modern cosmology, Mainzer concluded by discussing the plausibility of time travel and the possibility of an infinite universe without beginning or end.
In his contribution, Prof. Martin Faessler (LMU Emeritus, ORIGINS Cluster of Excellence Emeritus) distinguished between objective and subjective conceptions of time and indicated how objective world time is determined by averaging roughly 600 atomic clocks. Faessler illustrated how physics operates with an objective understanding of space and time by referring to the detection of neutrinos from Supernova SN1987A. With reference to Kant, however, he then emphasized that the subjective perception of temporal becoming cannot be reconstructed based on the objective concept of time used in physics.
PD Dr. Rico Gutschmidt (University of Konstanz and ETH Zurich, alumnus of the TUM-IAS Fellow / Philosopher in Residence program) took up this point in his contribution. He argued that the block universe thesis does not necessarily follow from Special Relativity and that it is unclear whether the objective conception of time underlying the block universe thesis is more fundamental than the subjective conception of time, according to which time is experienced as open-ended change. Starting from the question of whether time would pass if the course of the world were to come to a standstill and nothing changed, he distinguished between two conceptions of eternity: eternity as endless duration (sempernitas) and eternity as a timeless instant (aeternitas).
Eternity was also the focus of the contribution by Prof. Gunther Wenz (LMU Emeritus, Director of the Wolfhart Pannenberg Research Center at the Munich School of Philosophy). Referring to Augustine, he argued that God’s eternity is to be understood neither as endless duration nor as a timeless instant, since it transcends the distinction between time and timelessness. According to Wenz, for Augustine time is also not primarily determined by objective processes such as the movements of the heavens, but rather by the perceiving soul. Such a priority of the subjective conception of time over the objective conception ultimately speaks against the block universe thesis.
In addition to questions about the block universe in light of time and eternity, the discussion also addressed the fundamental relationship between the natural sciences and philosophy and theology. While the natural sciences may enjoy greater social acceptance than, for example, theology, they ultimately cannot answer all questions of life. Physics, for instance, operates with an objective understanding of time and is therefore unable to capture subjective temporal experience. Moreover, physics does not seek to be metaphysics and thus does not answer questions such as what lies beyond space and time. Yet this fails to meet existential human needs, as illustrated by a comment from the audience expressing the inability to imagine eternity.
Questions that point beyond the limits of the natural sciences are not answered by philosophy and theology either. However, these questions do have a space for reflection in philosophy and theology that the natural sciences cannot provide. In this regard, there were expressions of interest in further events in which, as in this symposium, the natural sciences enter into dialogue with philosophy and theology.