Most physicists don't draw a distinction between past, present and future.. this is called the arrow of time. Physicists such as Sean caroll, Paul Davies e.t.c But if all events exist in some sense then the future is <not> open. If the future is not open then determinism is true.. thus copenhagen interpretation must be wrong on that account. yet it's the most popular interpretation and is indeterministic. Do the advocates of the copenhagen variation revert back to the idea of an objective time in the universe?? It makes no sense.. if it's indeterminism ontologically.. then that simply must mean that the future is open-- and thus that time really does exist. Even if there are uncauses events-- they still have to appear(they were never uncertain to ever occur) since everything is already "finished" in universe without an objective time and thus determinism is correct after all. Are these sloppy terminologies with "indeterminism" labels or what's going on here?-- Thus to support the thesis of the copenhagen interpretation we have to incorporate time in the universe independentent of the observer.. that is an objective "Now" -otherwise determinism follows logically- nothing would be uncertain in a block-universe with no objective time.