I do agree with you, Clinton Miller, that the question of Time is an unsolved question that is blocking modern science.
This question drives obviously to the scientific method and the physics' tools/language in which the subjectivity introduced by Time plays a great part.
In other words, as Zeno of Elea and Aristotle pointed it, Time is the less objective 'thing' in the Science's field. The many ways to catch the Time through heart's pulse, sun-dial, temperature-scale, light-scale, speed-scale, regular flow of a drop, symmetry with the past, music, pendulum, etc., is betraying the subtlety of the Time 'phenomenon'.
But let me tell you that taking Einstein as an example is very surprising! Because Einstein is one of the most subjective scientists. 'Multiplying entities beyond necessity' is in fact exactly what Einstein is doing. In his special Relativity Theory for instance, one train motion phenomenon is multiplied in two speed rates. On this basis, exactly against Occam's advise, in the 'General Relativity' we have many 'arrows' mixing time and space, that is to say an objective matter with a subtle phenomenon. Here one have an example of the big trouble that a retrospective subjective idea of time is bringing.
Your mistake here in my opinion comes from the fact that you think the 'here and now' as a 'present time', a little bit like the German philosopher Heidegger does in his lessons about antique Greek Science ('sein-dasein'), although the 'here and now' is 'past time': coincidence is always 'a posteriori'. You do insist on 'present time' but you are still in past.
The idea of 'block time' is of course as subjective as Einstein's theory does. Instead of arrows you have cubes but made with time too. The strength of 'block idea' related to space and matter, is here only in our mind.
On this basis -Einstein or Quanta physics- you can multiply dimensions as many times as you will as Superstring theoricians do.
In my own statement I point the difference between two scientific languages or tools: Geometry and Algebra, and I explain why Algebra triumphated during the XVIIth in France. Geometry speaks about the internal structure of Matter although algebraic language is trying to catch outside 'phenomenons'.
For example Helmholtz or Riemann are misunderstanding Euclide when they think he is not precise enough: measurement or localization is not Euclide's goal.
And here is the risk of algebraic tool: although it let think that it is more precise and objective than Geometry, Algebra is the most approximate and subjective scientific tool.
When scientists are splitting the particle in their model in matter and wave, what do they do? They give to matter the value of a subjective 'a posteriori' algebraic idea of matter's motion. Future? Here and now? Dynamics? No: Past and statics!
There is one difficulty more, coming from your sagacious description of the (actual) laws of Physics as 'something akin to a notion of 'God'. This makes everybody going against these laws a 'Blasphemer'. I personally do not believe in the 'free Science' idea. This forum is an exception: scientific debate is usually as closed as a Monastery.