[Schiphol]

In this case the view in question (the B-theory of time) is supposed to be backed up by science: e.g., the Gödelian models in the OP, but, much more than that, the relativity of simultaneity. The RoS is really non-negotiable, and still entails that the actual world does not have a Newtonian absolute present.

[CuriouslyC]

While the RoS indicates that observers won't agree on the order of distant events, I don't think that it eliminates the possibility of an absolute present moment. You could simulate a system with relativistic physics just fine with a single global clock, just by adjusting the local simulation refresh rate to account for time dilation. Players might disagree on the order of events and the amount of time that had passed, but they would still update based on the progress of the global simulation clock, modulo the local refresh rate.

[Schiphol]

Right, that's interesting. Thanks. This is analogous to saying that we live in an Einsteinian simulation run from a Newtonian world, right?

[CuriouslyC]

I prefer to imagine we exist in a roughly newtonian program, but the computer executing it is a distributed system with finite local resources, so it doesn't all run in sync.

[Schiphol]

Do you know of anywhere where a model representing this is construed explicitly? It seems like the kind of thing that is harder than it seems, if you know what I mean :)

[mcguire]

What is the benefit of the global clock, in that case?

[CuriouslyC]

It gives you a single "correct" order of events, and a single present state.

[gowld]

It gives to whom a single correct order of events and present state? Not to me. Only to "God", an entity external to the system.

Which is fine if you are a God (or programmer) building a simulation, but has no objective meaning to anyone inside.