Philosophical Implication of the Space-Time Continuum

DETERMINISM*

The notion that time has three tenses (the past, present and future) implies that human actions, human existence for this matter, are determined. By the word 'determined', I mean that every single human action is already contained in a tailor-made scheme of events in nature. Every possible event that can happen already has necessary future consequences. For if there exists a fixed receptor of future events (which is the present and the past), this could only be true and valid if there is also exists a fixed source of possible incoming events ( which is the future), of which these incoming events will be carried on and deposited into the past. And this seems to be precisely the case in ways that we observe the things in nature behave; that future events are experienced when they are handed down to the present, and finally stucked within the past. But the more complicated and contending issue for determined human actions is that these three tenses of time suggest that time is linear, that its path can be no other than the past, the present, and the future.

Human actions are said to be determined in this notion of time because there can be no other way or other options in which a certain specific act done in the present be an uprearranged future act. All present actions were not freely done or performed by human agents. For before a certain performed act is to be done, the future had already accomplished a set of possible things that could be done or performed in the present time. The future, as a source of possible present and past events, had already fitted necessary possible consequences of every possible act which is to be performed in the present time. For example, it would not have been possible for me to exist now if in the past my parents had sex 10 minutes later or earlier. To understand this more fully we must assume thinking of this act in its proper place and time – the past. In order to comprehend this further, we need to go back to the past, not on a time machine but by setting our minds (mind set) in it.

Going back to the past, I could have not possibly been me in the future (which is the present in my normal, linear time) if my patents sexually engaged 10 minutes delayed or earlier. For if in this time (the past), my parents delayed or made the event earlier, somebody else could have existed in the future and not me. For my definite existence in the future (present) was the result of this definite event that happened exactly where and when it should happen in the past. To change a small sequence of order of time containing definite past events under the set {Time1 (T1), Time (T2), and so on and so forth} would totally disrupt the definite linear path of events that had happened in the past up to the present, and extending up to the future time. There is no other way for me to exist in the future if this event (in the past) did not occur at its exact time and place. To put this in figure, refer to Table 1.

 
TABLE 1. My Definite Time-Events Sequence

1st linear (T1) path Future (past) → Present (the present in the future which in my time is now considered the past) → Past

2nd linear (T2) path Past → Present (my normal present time) → Future (my incoming future)
  (Me) (Me) (Me)  

Now, going back to my (our) normal present time, if it did so happen, however, that my parents had sex 10 minutes earlier or later in the past, the linear path of my time-events sequence will be disrupted but it would not be totally out of order or control, or that it would stop. This time-sequence events will just change to an already other pre-arranged or tailor-made set of necessary possible time-sequence events. Time1, Time2 or T1 and T2 from the past will no longer follow that definite linear path to arrive in the future (which is my normal present time) but another else's time-sequence event (i.e. F1, Fn, Q1-Qn, etc.). The slight change in the past will cause the present to change and the future to adopt to the change. The definite events that happened in the past, when it is disrupted, will cause indefinite events to happen on the future. It will alter the set of time-sequence events in the future. To show this, please refer to Table 2. 

 
TABLE 2. Another Else's Time-Sequence Events

Past (T1) → Present (T1) → Future/Past (T1/T2) → Present (T2) → Future (T2)
                                         | disruption  
                                                  | F1/F2 → Present (F2) → Future (F2)    (Not Me)
                                                               or | Q1/Q2 → Present (Q2) → Future (Q2)    (Not Me)
                                                                          and so on...  
  

As we can see, this time-sequence events or order presupposed that the future contains countless necessary possible events ready to be outdone in the present course of time by the aid of an agent (a man, animal, nature, etc.). In return, and in contrast, the present and the past contains just but one or single possible act to be performed, actualized or be done – the present being a medium to get the acts into the realm of the past, and the past, a fixed receptor of a definite future events handed down to the present in a single linear manner. The future carries with it numerous tailor-made acts but with just one necessary possible act to be handed down and actualized to the present and into the past. The relation with the case of human agents, man preferably, has many options to choose from in the future but he can only do one thing at a time. That is, man can only choose to act or do a certain definite act at a time.

POINTLESSNESS

But my point is that even if it so happened that changes occur in the future or past time, the arrow of the direction of time will still be fixed on a single definite linear manner. And that the countless various possibilities of events that could possibly occur, carrying with them their own fixed and definite linear time-events sequence (a fixed past, and present coming from a definite future.)

The bottomline: whatever we do, the fact that time is definite, linear, fixed and is already containing tailor-made consequences, and sequences or events, implies that our actions (or what we do) are already determined. Ergo, human existence is determined. Just like the fundamental laws of nature, actions existing within a definite space-time dimension are mechanistic – with order, and carry no value at all. For why should it have point? Why should the things we do carry with it value or a point when we can know that they are very much embedded in a tailor-made and determined pattern or sequence of various necessary possible fixed events existing within a continuing space-time dimension? And just as nature and its fundamental laws are nothing but mere systems, all of human actions and human existence, for this matter, can be no more than a pointless set of determined events. To quote the Princeton Astrophysicist Jim Peebles, “I am willing to believe that we are flotsam and jetsam.” And as Steven Weinberg wrote in his book, The First Three Minutes (A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe):

the more the universe seems comprehensible,

the more it seems pointless.

*by Allan Agnol Pasamonte
Published in the journal of the UP Kabataang Pilosopo Tasyo (KAPITAS) in the summer of 1997, pp.6-8.

What Am I Transcended in Time?

Life begins with questions and wonders of the mysteries of the world; a struggle of truth and wisdom to know the most important part of reality. And at the edge of the puzzling existence, there is a wider vision of life. At this point, Philosophy being revolutionary confuses my common sense. The disturbance for the search of meaning can lead to reject my beliefs. But as the major task is to analyze and construct arguments, there is hope coming closer to the truth. What then life is all about? A quest of truth of who, what we are, where we came from and where we are going. I am being imprisoned by my own beliefs of reality. Maybe it is because of my feeling of strangeness. I doubt, let it go! Every claim I win for that includes evidence that underlies investigation itself to its truth.

Ancient civilizations in India, China and Greece were the forerunners of Philosophy. The Indians would ask the theocentrical question “Who am I”. Who created all the things? Who am I to others? Brahman. Who is Brahman in relation to me? We are the one. Atman is Brahman and Brahman is Atman.

That which the finest essence – this whole world has that as its soul. That is reality that Atmas (soul). That art thou.[1]

From the time that there was a shift from mythos (in which work of Hesiod and Iliad were known) to logos, Ionian Greeks began to rationalize their answers to their questions. “Where am I?”, a cosmocentric question asked by the Ionian Greeks accounting to the origin of the universe. The water of Thales is the origin of all things.

They say nothing else comes to be or ceases to be; for there must be entity either one or more than one from which all other things come to be… Thales, the founder of this philosophy says the principle is water.[2]

Apeiron is the origin of all things for Anaximander – the indefinite, boundless, infinite, and indeterminate.

Inexhaustible in quantity and wholly devoid of specific qualities an unlimited mass characterless having unlimited potential for assuming different specific forms.[3]

For Anaximenes it is air:

… companion of Anaximander, affirms together with the latter that the substrate of everything is one and infinite. This substrate, however, is not indeterminate like that of Anaximander’s, but it is a definite nature: it is what we call air.[4]

The three Ionian Greeks have one thing in common: there is unifying principle assuming different forms in matter – water of Thales, the apeiron of Anaximander, and the air of Anaximenes. The Urstuff is what they have in common.

The civilization flourished in Yangtze and Huang Ho rivers is Chinese. They would rather ask the question “What Am I” which touches the nature of man. In short, it is anthropocentric. The focus is on the ideals and interest of humans. It begins in itself reaching to the existence of others. A very oriental perspective.

I always ask myself what I am in this world. What I ought to do in accordance to goodness? What is the way of life I want? Ultimately, these questions will lead into asking “What is the essence of my existence in the world?”

Humans Becoming Humane

“It is the man that can make the way great; not the way that can make man great.”[5]

Humans are the agents of actions in the fulfillment of the way or the path. Of course, who can perform the act other than man? It is the spiritual being? Expect not. The act itself will materialize through an agent that will perform in this present world. (Co, p.123) But all humans will do the act itself which will be performed in this present world.

Kong Zi said: The gentlemen occupies himself with the way and not with hius livelihood… what the gentleman is anxious about is the way and not poverty… the way of gentleman is threefold. I myself have not been able to attain any one of them. Being humane, he has no anxieties; being wise, he has no pwerplexities; being brave, he has no fear. Tzu Kung said: But master that is your own way.[6]

Lin Fang asked about the fundamental principle of Li. Kong Zi replied, “You are asking an apt question, Li at large, it is always better to be simple rather than too arrogant. It is more important to have the real sentiment of sorrow than minute to observance.[7]

I find the philosophy of human simple and comprehensive. It is a way of life of the individuals. Though the existence is obvious, how could I still say that I’m searching what is life? The only solution I can suggest is to bring out the best of the involved humans in the fulfillment of the act. What am I transcended in time? This philosophy is easy because it can be perceived.

Co is asserting that all universal can withstand the test of time. The nature of man is universal. Thus, the nature of man can withstand the test of time.

My point of conclusion then is that the nature of man can transcend time. However, real and universal are nature of man. Thus, what is real and universal can transcend time.


[1] Robert Ernest Hume. The Thirteen Principal Upanishads. 2nd Ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 248.
[2] Ignatius Yarza. History of Ancient Philosophy.
[3] James Jordan. Western Philosophy: From Antiquity to Middle Ages. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.), p. 8.
[4] Yarza, op. cit., p. 19.
[5] Alfredo P. Co. Philosophy of Ancient China: The Blooming of Hundred Flowers. (Espana, Manila: UST Printing House, 1992, p. 121.
[6] Co, op. cit., p. 123.
[7] Ibid., p. 122.

Existentialism is a Humanism

Sartre tries to defend existentialism from its critiques such as it leads one to inaction, or it allows/fosters anarchy by removing “god” or some other institution that defines and judges mans’ actions. He also mentions anguish, forlornness and despair as emotions attached directly to “existenze”.

The point of the essay is simply that we are free, without god there would be no “looming” standard by which everything must conform, and which everything is subject to it terms of valuation. Integrity, action, and responsibility lies solely on man and not on any particular nature ascribed to him by otherworldly or institutionalized structures.

In relation to freedom, Existentialists generally deny that there is any fixed “human nature” which limits us in what we do and who we are. Whatever happens to us, it is a consequence of our choices and we must take responsibility for that – there is no way we can transfer that responsibility to any other agency, human or otherwise. This constitutes the feeling of anguish wherein man is alone and takes sole responsibility for his/her actions Sartre said that the man can only genuinely assert meaning through his actions, indeed his very existence lies in the extent that man fulfills himself; he is nothing more than the ensemble of his acts. Man has a choice, but in existential terms, when he so chooses, he chooses not only for himself but also for the whole of mankind (“In choosing myself, I choose the world”). It is this feeling, and knowledge that as everyone might see the world in this light, they would act accordingly to chose what is best for him and for all “others”, the critique that existentialism leads people into inaction is thus answered.

Another assertion of existentialism is that god does not exist (applies only to atheistic existentialists), and this implies that there is nothing higher than man that could set the standard as to what man ultimately is. “There is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Man is what he conceives himself to be”. (Froyd 2005) In this respect, forlornness arises for then there would be no standard by which everyone is judged, and in relation to the previous paragraph, man is condemned to be free. The essence of man can no longer be found and defined by pre-existing norms, it has to be created (existence precedes essence). The process of this creation, is only through (as I have mentioned earlier) action and choice. Anarchy cannot ensue if everyone thinks this way, because even if god didn’t exist, no one in their right mind (who also believes that “others” are well capable of the things he/she can do) would resort to brutish acts, rather he/she would do the opposite and act according to a universal maxim applicable to all (to borrow Kant’s terminology). This particular emotion is also related to Sartre’s notion of “authenticity” and “bad faith” on which the choices of man and his/her appraisal of the situation constitutes his “real” existence.

The third emotion despair arises because, though man is free, he is free in a prison. His freedom is limited by the freedom of the “others” – “My freedom ends where your freedom begins”. Despair arises because each moment we choose we are confronted by possibilities. For though we are ultimately free, the probability of enacting the choice is restricted by facts-of-life and of the freedom of others. In this light Marx may be said to be right that “men make their own history, but do not make it as they please, but they do it under circumstances already determined for them by history and their social conditions” (Marx 1845) In this sense, men make their own chooses but they act according to circumstances determined by history and social conditions.

Now, many would contend that Sartre’s defense is self-defeating in that existentialism is precisely against putting reason and rationality at the center, yet clearly in his essay he is using reason and rational arguments to stake his claim and defend the “ideals” of existentialism. My take on this issue would be that, perhaps it is not as self-defeating as one may think, precisely because existence is something that everyone shares so too must it be possible to be articulated. In this sense, reason has become a vehicle towards further understanding of “existenze”; it is not in any way putting it in the center. The things that cannot be adequately articulated (call it the sublimity of life/existence, or whatever term you may think suits this phenomenon) is not entirely defined here (a part may have been articulated such as the three emotions), the purpose of the essay was to answer false accusations (falseness here is not meant as to refer to a predefined notion of truth but rather how we understand a given discourse, in this sense the falsity is defined in terms of how existentialism comes to being in light of definitions or what one might rightly call language interplay in which the meaning of the discourse is seen or evaluated through other overlapping discourses – a need for a certain level of objectivity, so to speak) to this endeavor in that they seek to portray/promote a critical valuation of life but is hindered because other institutions have misconstrued what they sought to convey.