Seeing as how Joe likes to blog about time (see here and here), I should probably include a post about the metaphysics of time. This post is going to forgo discussions about the limits of time, so that means I won't be discussing things like what the stream of time looks like with respect to the whole of time. In other words, expect to not see discussions about: expanding and contracting universes, eternal recurrence (AKA circularity of time), and a single unbendable time stream. This means I will also not be discussing the warping of time; the space-time fans out there will just have to wait. How long will you have to wait? That depends on how fast you're traveling.
So what will I be discussing? This post will be about the nature of how time progresses; I will be talking about how moment #1 becomes moment #2 and the effect(s) that this progression has on these moments.
First, a brief history lesson:
Time is a divisive issue in philosophy. It always has been and (probably) always will be. Different people perceive time in vastly different ways. Frequently, each person's perception of time shapes their own perception of the world. (You'll see why this is true later.)
Fast forward to 1908 when J.M.E. McTaggart releases The Unreality of Time. This was an incredibly important text for a variety of reasons (not that I've read it). In this work, McTaggart attempts to characterize distinct perceptions of time and organize them according to how they treat the progression of events. From there, McTaggart evaluates these theories and comes to his own conclusion about the nature of time (discussed at the end of this post).
McTaggart divides theories about time into A-theories and B-theories (apparently McTaggart didn't feel like getting creative with the names). Please note that there is a linguistics project here, but I'm not going to discuss much linguistics material. Also, please note that ontology is the study of the nature of existence.
A-theories: These theories hold that language is inherently tensed and that whether an event is "past", "present" or "future" will affect the event in an ontological way. This means that whether or not the event exists will be affected by it's location relative to the present.
Let's look at a few examples of A-theories:
Presentism: the belief that only the present exists. This is somewhat intuitive, given the present seems "more real" than the past or future. Each passing moment is real as it passes, but it ceases to exist after it's gone or before it happens.
Growing Block: the belief that only the past and present exist. Again, this is is somewhat intuitive, because the past is a series of events which have already happened. These events contribute to the whole of history. The past exists as much as the present does, no matter how distant. The amount of events which exist is growing with each passing moment, hence the name "growing block".
Shrinking Block: the belief that only the present and future exist. I think this one is less intuitive, but it no less important. The rationale for this one is something along the lines of: the past is gone and cannot be changed. The present and future are therefore real, as there is still a possibility that these could change. The amount of events which exist is shrinking with each passing moment, hence the name "shrinking block".
(The above list is not comprehensive; I just listed a few examples for clarity.)
B-theories: These theories hold that language is inherently tenseless and that all times in the past, present, and future are equally real. In essence, there is a time at which any given event occurs and time itself is nothing but and ordering of these events. In other words, time is defined with respect to other events.
If you're a B-theorist, then you believe that the past is full of events which exist NOW. You cannot experience these events, but they exist now as having occurred at some particular time. In addition, the future is full of events which exist NOW. You will never be able to experience these events, but they exist as much as the present does.
There is a C-theory, but I won't be spending much time discussing it. Essentially, C-theory orders events in terms of two other events, one of which is before the event and one of which is after it. So, event B is between events A and C is an example of C-theory.
McTaggart's own conclusion was that time was an illusion. Although I'm not particularly familiar with the argument, I do know the basics. McTaggart believed that the B-series was dependent on the A-series. Consequently, he focused spent his time evaluating the A-series. However, McTaggart believed that the A-series resulted in a contradiction; the temporal locations "past", "present", and "future" are mutually exclusive, but it seems as though these "properties" can be possessed simultaneously with respect to different present-times. For that reason McTaggart concluded that time is not real; it doesn't exist.
Although I don't agree with McTaggart's argument (and consequently his conclusion), I have a profound respect for the system of organization that he has brought to the world of metaphysics.
For the sake of fairness to the arguments, I'm not going to articulate my own opinion on the subject. However, you should give it some thought, because it greatly affects your view of ontology (that which exists). Now you can see why your perception of time will affect the way your organize your life.
As an example, let's evaluate a common situation: planning for the future. If you are a B-theorist, then your future exists now, so it is something to be planned for. However, your past also exists as much as your future does, so maybe you might consider planning for your past. If you are an A-theorist (growing block), then your future does not exist now. Why should you plan for something which does not exist? Maybe you would also be interested in snipe insurance because of all the snipes that make a mess on your lawn. If you answer "my future will exist later", then you fail to answer why you should plan for it NOW. You should plan for it when it finally exists in the present.
If the above seems absurd, then consider the arguments, think about it, and come up with your own answer.
What kind of temporal theorist are you?
No comments:
Post a Comment