Eternalism Presentism and Growing Block Theory - Essay Example

Philosophy of Time: Eternalism, Presentism and Growing Block Theory Name: Course: Institution: Date: Philosophy of Time: Eternalism, Presentism and Growing Block Theory Introduction Metaphysics is a philosophical approach to reality that deals with issues related to existence. Time and change are some of the aspects that have been considered to be relatively contentious with regard to existence. The relationship between the past, present and the future forms an essential part of understanding the philosophical approach to time. Presentism, eternalism and the growing block theory comprise some of the philosophical approaches to the understanding of time with regarded to the past present and the future (Adams 1986, p. 315). The main objective of this paper is to conduct a comparative analysis on the three metaphysical theories of time. In addition, the paper will also engage in a critical discussion on the most outstanding theoretical approach to the understanding of time. Metaphysical theories of time Presentism Presentism is a philosophical approach which holds the assumption that only real time objects exist. According to this philosophical approach is a list of things that exist was to be made then there would be no single non-present object on the list. Thus President Obama and the Taj Mahal would qualify to be on the list, but neither Plato nor any future grandchildren of any person would be listed (Bourne 2006, p. 30). The things missing from the list would not only be Plato and the grandchildren, it will also include all the putative objects that lack the capacity of being present. According Presentism, all such objects fail to exist because they are unreal. The approach provided by Presentism has been criticized by other theoretical approaches such as non-Presentism which holds the assumption that all unreal objects such as Plato and the grand children are in the list of the things that exists even though they are not present in real time. This approach argues that it may not be possible to see them at the moment and they may not be on the same time-space vicinity as other objects in real time but they must be listed as things that exist (Bourne 2006, p. 32). The assumptions by non-Presentism seen to present the notion that Presentism only alludes existence to things that can be seen of felt in real time. This means that Presentism provides a common sense approach to the understanding of reality. This is an approach that an average person has the ability to understand (Adams 1986, p. 317). Despite the ease attributed to the ability of an individual to understand Presentism, this theoretical approach is faced with an obvious objection to its philosophical assumption. These objections are the singular proposition and non-present objects. The existence of a singular propositions is dependent on the existence of an individual objects which it is about (Bourne 2006, p. 34). From this assumption it is possible to argue that Presentism assumes that there are singular propositions about non-present objects. This has been considered as a counterintuitive significance considering that there is a plethora of propositions concerning specific non-present objects. The objection arises from the understanding that the presence of a proposition which is provides specific details on a non-present object would be counted as a singular proposition about that object (Prior 1967, p. 88). It is therefore natural to hold the thought that the sentence, Plato was an ancient philosopher, expresses a singular proposition about Plato. Presentism argues that for objects that once existed of those that are about to exist, it is possible for them to have singular proposition about their existence. However, these propositions do not provide ground for their essence in real time (Bourne 2006, p. 38). Plato was a philosopher and any reference made to his existence falls in the category of the past. In the present realm of time is not possible to develop an argument that Plato exists. This is because according to this philosophical approach it relatively impossible for one to claim that Plato exists. Eternalism Eternalism is a philosophical approach to time which holds the understanding that all elements that define time such as the past, present and the future are real in actual and equal measures (mctaggart 1908, p. 24). According to this philosophical approach, the understanding that the past, present and the future are real objects must always be used in understanding that Plato, an ancient philosopher, and the events that are to happen tomorrow must be perceived as existing even though they cannot be seen and it is not possible to engage them in an interactive process (Adams 1986, p. 318). The philosophers who are aligned to this theory of time hold the assumption that Presentism cannot be used in understanding the operations of time since it excludes the past and the future but only concentrates on what is present. Eternalists hold the assumption that it is by Presentism had been falsified by Einstein’s theory of relativity while eternalism is on agreement with this theoretical approach (mctaggart 1908, p. 26). Einstein’s theory of relativity holds the assumption that it is not possible to use present time as an absolute measure of reality. This is because according to the tenets of physics, the distinction between the past, present and the future can only be understood as an illusionary aspect (mctaggart 1908, p. 28). The aspects of time must therefore be included in the understanding of different aspects that form reality. While agreeing with Einstein’s theory, eternalism holds the assumption that the past and the future are part of some form of illusion which acts as points of reference to different aspects of reality (Yourgrau 1999, p. 56). Time according to eternalists is a dimension that is intertwined with three other elements in space. This form of association makes time a constituent of the physical structure of the universe where things of the past and the future exist eternally on condition that other elements that form the structure of the universe also exist eternally. While agreeing with the assumptions provided by Einstein’s theory of relativity, eternalism argues that the past, present and the future are illusionary. This makes it possible for all objects and events to exist eternally (mctaggart 1908, p. 28). According to eternalism, the existence of objects in unrestricted quantifiers makes it possible to develop the argument that the time that is experienced is just an illusion of consciousness. In addition, the every aspect that forms the society already exists it is just that human beings are yet to interact with them (Adams 1986, p. 318). The illusionary approach by eternalists can be used in understanding the unchanging aspects of the universe. From this assumption it is possible to argue that changes in the universe are not subject to time since these perceived changes have been in existence prior to the knowledge of man. When man interacts with different objects and events in the universe, he does so with different demarcations of time that has been used to differentiate different aspects within the universe (Bradley, 1896, p. 45). Growing block theory The growing block universe theory is a theoretical approach to time that holds the assumption that the growth of the universe is subject to time. This means that the universe form tis theoretical approach always grows with time. From this theoretical assumption it is possible to argue that the past and present objects and events exist and they form part of the universe (Zwart 1976, p. 148). However, the future is always yet to form part of the universe hence cannot be said to exist. The growing block universe theory therefore hold the assumption that man uses objects and events in the past to understand different elements in the present and to engage in predictive deliberation of a future that is yet to exist (Zwart 1976, p. 151). The future according to this school of thought is an illusion. The past include events and objects that had already existed. Elements of the past are fixed and can only be accessed through remembrance and the use of physical records (Zwart 1976, p. 122). The past according to this theoretical approach is therefore very different from the future, which is a variable that is uncertain and cannot be accessed or consulted for any purpose (Bradley, 1896, p. 70). Reality according to this school of thought grows as new things are added to become part of the universe. According to the growing block universe theory, there are events which exemplify intrinsic past while there are no events that are intrinsic to the future. Other than the existence of the past and non-existence of the future, growing block theory holds the assumption that the present is real (Bradley, 1896, p. 73). Presents events and objects in the universe are those that are leading in the development and growth of the universe. Events that characterize the present form the basis of existence of the universe and their understanding can be derived from their association with the past. As the universe and time evolves, the elements that define the present become the past (Zwart 1976, p. 153). There are major points of criticism on the authentic of the growing block theory to the understanding of time and the universe. It is important for proponents of this theory to avoid claims that events which characterize the universe are both intrinsically present and later these events are also intrinsic when they become the past (Bradley, 1896, p. 76). In addition, it is also important for the proponents of this theoretical assumption to deal with aspects related to the tension on their assumption that the presentness of an event or an object is as objectiveness as the pastenss of the said events or objects. The distinctive nature of these events will provide a technique of understanding different aspects that define the element of time ion the universe (Prior 1967, p. 125). The most plausible philosophical theory of time The growing block universe theory can is the most plausible approach to understanding the philosophy of time compared to Presentism and eternalism. This is because, while eternalism argues that different aspects that define time such as the past, present and future are illusionary and cannot be used in understanding the existence of different objects and events, Presentism alludes that the existence of events and objects is only possible in the present (Bradley, 1896, p. 33). The growing block affirms the existence of the past and the present but denies the possibility of the future existing. The present according to this theoretical approach is important in understanding the growth of the universe. This is because when likened to a moving spotlight, it is possible to determine what falls in the past and that which is part of the represent (Bradley, 1896, p. 73). If man holds the thought of time as existing when changes are experienced in the space, then how else would time be measure? This approach is relatively sensible since it argues that it is not possible to measure changes that will occur in the future because eth future, according to this theoretical assumption does not exists (Prior 1967, p. 123). Despite the perceived authenticity of this theoretical approach to understanding of reality, critics has argues that it does not provide a clear distinction of the past and the present. This is because inasmuch the present is assumed to comprise events and objects that exist in real time (Zwart 1976, p. 76). The distinction between present and past time can be said to be relative to the perceiver. The critics of this theory have been accused of failing to understand the difference between aspect that define the present and those that define the past (Bradley, 1896, p. 78). Growing block universe theory must always be presented as a combination of two theses. The first thesis assumes that this theoretical approach presents a dynamic account of time which is characterized by an objective changing present. This assumption it shares with Presentism which affirms the existence of present events and objects (Zwart 1976, p. 156). The second area of commitments is the ontological aspects of time with regard to the existence of the past and the present time, and the existence of the future. When this is perceived from the growing block view, there are blocks of objective past and present time slices. As present slices change to become past, new present slices are added to the block. Through a combination of the dynamics of the growing block view makes it possible to assert that this theoretical approach is the middle ground between eternalism and Presentism (Zwart 1976, p. 160). Conclusion Philosophical understanding of time is based on the approaches of Presentism, eternalism and growing block universe theory. Presentism holds the assumption that objects and elements that exist are those that are in the present. Eternalism provides the understanding that the past, present and the future illusionary elements of time which are used in demarcating time frames. This means that objects and events exist eternally. The growing block universe theory is the most plausible approach to understanding of time since it assumes that the present and past exist while the future does not exist since it includes past that are yet to interact with other elements on the global platform. References Adams, Robert M., 1986, “Time and Thisness,” in French, P., Uehling, T., and Wettstein, H. (eds.),Midwest Studies in Philosophy (Volume 11: Studies in Essentialism), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 315–329 Bourne, Craig, 2006, A Future for Presentism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bradley, F.H., 1893, Appearance and Reality, London: Swan Sonnenschein; second edition, with an appendix, 1897; ninth impression, corrected, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930. McTaggart, J.M.E., 1908, “The Unreality of Time,” Mind, 17: 457–73; reprinted in Robin Le Poidevin and Murray McBeath (eds.), The Philosophy of Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 23–34. Prior, Arthur N., 1967, Past, Present, and Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yourgrau, Palle, 1999, Gödel Meets Einstein: Time Travel in the Göodel Universe, La Salle: Open Court. Zwart, P.J., 1976, About Time, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co. Read More