Zak Parsons

Presentism has proven incredibly difficult to define, some have even said that the entre debate between presentism and eternalism is trivial, and the lack of definitions highlights this. There has been significantly less focus on the definition of eternalism, and particularly less on its distinction from the B-series of time. Although different formulations of eternalism have already been proposed, I argue here for three ways that eternalist theories can be defined as such to distinguish them from presentist views. The strongest definition fully incorporates both aspects of the B-series: tenselessness and the arrow of time. I then argue that it would be prudent to adopt a weaker definition, to allow certain C-theorists to identify as eternalists as well as B-theorists. It then up to the reader whether or not moving spotlight theories should be considered eternalist, and the chosen definition will reflect this.