Your first point is an argument that you say "conclusively answers the question". I claim this is correct but not interesting. Your second point is: > But the

Your first point is an argument that you say "conclusively answers the question". I claim this is correct but not interesting. Your second point is: > But the other thing to point out is that this question presumes an old idea about the passage of time, which is that things happen in a sequence A, B, C, D, ... and that if you are at C then D "has not happened yet". But if you look at relativity, this appears to be a naïve viewpoint. Again, this is true but irrelevant to the question at hand, due to causality. I claim that both points are irrelevant. How is that agreeing with you?