Eternalism and the problem of hyperplanes

Traditional eternalist arguments apply the relativity of simultaneity together with hyperplanes that connect spacelike separated events. For these arguments to work, one needs to assume both ontological simultaneity and the transitivity of reality. Consider three distant events, A , B and C . A and B are in fact simultaneous. B is in fact simultaneous with C . A and B are co- real, so are B and C . Therefore, A and C are co- real. All events exist tenselessly in spacetime. Whether something is past, present or future is dependent upon the perspective. Someone's ‘now’ can be some other's past or future: the past, the present and the future are equally real. Abstract Eternalism is the view that the past, the present and the future exist simpliciter . A typical argument in favor of this view leans on the relativity of simultaneity. The ‘equally real with’ relation is assumed to be transitive between spacelike separated events connected by hyperplanes of simultaneity. This reasoning is in tension with the conventionality of simultaneity. Conventionality indicates that, even within a specific frame, simultaneity is based on the choice of the synchronization parameter. Hence the argument for eternalism is compromised. This paper lays out alternative eternalist strategies which do not hinge on hyperplanes. While we lack a rigorous proof for eternalism, there are still co-gent reasons