I think the question is though, do those rates of change happen universally at the same time? Within one reference frame there is change and that applies to other local observers as well - But what about say 100 Million Light Years away?

Would their 'now' be the same as ours? For the a theory to be true, there needs to be a universal 'now'.

To me, the only practical meaning must be that there is something in the comment that the upvoter likes.

I think an upvote can be used and interpreted in a number of different ways, so I think it is good for you to go on record as to what your upvote means, especially since you are basically running the show here. I seldom use the upvote, and when I do, I use it to mean something like, "This comment hits the nail on the head. Wish I had written it myself." Far be it from me to tell you how to use your vote, but it seems to me if you upvote a comment merely because there is something in it you like, it is left to readers to figure out what that something may be, and their conclusion may be wrong.

I am still trying to figure out the meaning of, "It's [sic] reminds me of how people with Autism think." It initially struck me as being misguided and offensive. It is good to know your upvote wasn't an endorsement of this part of the comment.

Aristotle's definition of time in the Physics is "the measure of motion in reference to before and after."

So, by definition, if you have motion, you have time -- since motion and change are the same in physical things.

Another commentator yesterday said that Carroll is a first class clown, a mutt, etc. If you have expertise so as to reply to that poster, it would be great to hear your reply.

https://strangenotions.com/why-does-the-universe-exist-atheist-sean-carroll-answers/#comment-4412576576

Brandon hardly understands Sean Carroll, to put it politely.

Since you seem intent to parse my upvote, note that there is a lot of material in his comment -- and the parts I liked had nothing to do with the autism. It had more to do with the overall violation of common sense and basic philosophical experience that eternalism entails -- especially as depicted in the first three paragraphs. And even there, it does not mean I endorse every word, for example, the atheism comment. I don't intend to explain my every upvote, though.

If you insist that an upvote requires approval of every aspect and word of every comment, then don't expect many upvotes -- at least not from me. To me, the only practical meaning must be that there is something in the comment that the upvoter likes.

Do you think that every believer in the Bible must agree with every literal reading of every word in it? Yes, I know there is a difference, but if I upvoted the Bible, how would you know what I was approving and disapproving?

Some googling turns up a reported connection between atheism and autism, but it seems to me to be problematic for believers in classical theism. Too many implications to go into this late at night.

It's reminds me of how people with Autism think.

This gets an upvote from Dennis Bonnette.

What the &%$%^ has autism got to do with it?

Like multiverse, it reminds me of kicking the can down the street. It's a bold proclamation at first but when you have to actually go down the street and see what the multiverse or B Universe is actually like it cannot fit into reality

I'm convinced these thinkers are so shallow in their actual talent to encompass all the factors involved that they literally cannot comprehend how incoherent these ideas are in relation to the actual world.

But when you consider their bias... Atheism. It becomes clear. The BU is static where nothing ever happened and that's a fact no matter how they try and wiggle out of it . It an Eternal picture of the Mona Lisa that no one ever painted even though you can see the layers, texture, and effort applied.

It's reminds me of how people with Autism think. Believing an eternal *Exploded view of the complete universe and claiming its 13.6 billion years old only begins to highlight the sheer cognitive dissonance involved and just talking past the obvious objections that it's devoid of Causality events consciousness freewill motion and evolution doesn't seem to bother those who are too lazy to actually take the time to honestly conceptualize precisely what a static universe entails.
Instead they just blurt out assertions that we're all supposed to buy because this time they're *Right.... as opposed to all the other assertions they boldly proclaimed, you know, right before they spoke the running joke of empirical study---"we Now know".

Even some Theists as well are not able to grasp the fact that they are not fully appreciating that the idea is incoherent. Oh maybe not on paper.. but we don't live on paper any more than I'm carrying around New York city in my Google map app.

If the fact that at the big bang the arrow of time pointed only in one direction is only "emergently," not "fundamentally" real, how can it possibly be a truth of physics? Does not physics deal with fundamental reality only?