Peter Saulson's discussion of my contention that a growing block conception of the nature of time is compatible with a defensible modification of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is limited to the observation that my acceptance of absolute space is incompatible with Einstein's view that simultaneity is relative to a frame of reference. Saulson, however, says ^{1}

First, I argue that the concept of absolute simultaneity is definable within modified versions of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity that meet two conditions. The first is that space‐time points are

The first question, then, is whether one can construct a theory, very closely related to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, that both satisfies those two conditions, and also entails that events stand in relations of absolute simultaneity.

My answer to this first question involves what is known as an ε‐Lorentz formulation of the Special Theory of Relativity, in which Einstein's assumption that the

The next question is whether, given such a modified theory, there are any reasons for preferring the modified theory to the Special Theory of Relativity, and thus for thinking that our world really is one where events can stand in the relation of absolute simultaneity.

My answer is that the modified theory is superior in at least three ways. First, if a realist view of space‐time is correct, then there are states of affairs for which the Special Theory of Relativity specifies

Second, the modified theory avoids the assumption made by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, but for which there is

Third, experimental results connected with Bell's Theorem in quantum mechanics, and, more generally, an issue posed by the idea of the collapse of wave packets, provide grounds for holding that the Special Theory of Relativity is incomplete, and that, specifically, the world must involve a relation of absolute simultaneity.

Interested readers can then find a detailed account and defense in Tooley (