I think you misunderstand the paper. And, in fact, I think the main point of the paper should be completely uncontroversial to anyone with even a lay understand

I think you misunderstand the paper. And, in fact, I think the main point of the paper should be completely uncontroversial to anyone with even a lay understanding of GR. The point of the paper is that apparently the yout's of today are being taught that the universe started at the beginning of time with an initial state of S0, and then the state of the universe evolved (and continues to evolve) from that point point in time towards the future. There is one special point in time, which is now, and the past states of the universe no longer exist and the future state of the universe do not yet exist. In GR, however, this is not the way things work. Instead, all states of the universe always exist, the past states are still there and the future states are already there, and the present is not a special point in time; it just happens to be where we are. The fact that we don't currently experience the past or the future is no different from the fact that we are also not in Idaho. The universe, instead of evolving from the past to the future is the ever-exising solution to some equations. The distinction becomes more apparent when you think about the existence of closed timeline loops in GR and how those could exist without paradox. It's easy! Pardoxical situations are not a solution the equations. Is this view right? Who can say? What's dangerous about only presenting the "computational" view is that it limits the imagination of what is possible. Both models should be presented so that young minds evolve in a more flexible manner.