Assuming these premises:
The way the world was in the past controls exactly how it is in the present, and how it will be in the future,
We’re part of the world, just like everything around us, and
We can’t control how things were in the past, or the way the past controls the present and the future,
The proposed conclusion is posited:
We don’t control anything that happens in the world, including all of the things we think, say or do.
Let's examine each premise and attempt to determine a rational position on the matter:
(i) The first premise is, at the very least, an oversimplification of our combined, human experience. Indeed, it is tantamount to a tautology in that, on the surface, it appears to be self-evident and without need of argument. However, this belies the fact that events that occurred in the past are subject to varied interpretations, viewpoints, and associated responses that may conspire to alter what would otherwise be a direct cause and effect relationship.
The continuum of events throughout the course of time are subject to manifold structures of belief, bias, agenda, and socio-political mechanisms that seek to alter the gestalt perceptions of humanity in general. Whether through surreptitious means, or through simple human frailties of judgment and passion-based desires, in any case the past is not as simple as cause-effect phenomena, or a determinate mechanism by which the past must conform to some universal edict of conformity to such a notion.
On the other hand, the past, at a most fundamental level, is constituted of fact and truth regarding the actual events, decisions, movements, and processes by which the reality of that time was gestated and brought into existence. The latent effect of human response to such events, it might be posited, is often more potent and prominent in the ultimate effect presented by the past.
Conversely, even the truth at the time of said event may be subject to various interpretations and motivations that conspired to alter the real particulars surrounding the event, resulting in a faulty understanding of that reality at its very inception.
Truth, if considered holistically and universally, is that condition by which all other ostensible potentialities are measured. It would seem, therefore, that there are manifold realities springing forth through the confluence of time – many of which manifesting with the appearance of coherence and epistemic force – all of which having impact upon society in various measures of potential. Therefore, it is both disingenuous, and at times, inescapably rich in mendacious inanities to proffer such an argument in favor of a past of such singularity of effect and proximity to the ultimate reality to which it claims pedigree. To accept such a premise is to ignore a very wide and replete swatch of human reality that is, at its core, often greater in effect than the past realties themselves.
(ii) The second premise seems, again, a gross over-simplification of our place “in the world,” with reference to our impact upon it, and our understanding of it. In general terms, we are of a nature that is so replete with dynamism relevant to the rest of this world’s realities, that we simply cannot be a mere “also is” regarding the materialistic and animalistic status of reality. No animal, whether it be a dog, dolphin, or slug, has the level of intellect, insight, and creative volition as evidenced by our human abilities and experience. To posit that we are merely another object, amongst a diverse collection of other objects – without respect to our ability to effect, essentially, all other objects collectively, or individually, is to argue against our very history and potential to influence any future history. As concerning the argument at hand, the previous comments concerning premise one would seem to obviate this position as it should be patently obvious that our very existence has impact on various realities – impacting a significant strata of “parts of the world” – and therefore we are significantly more than mere objects existing and without consequence.
(iii) With regard to premise three, it must be recognized that though we cannot change the truth of the past – we can, and often do change the interpretation, impact, and passions arising from a determined application of such processes. Therefore, we do, in fact, change the past all of the time as it tends toward serving a myriad series of agendas and passionately-charged motivations.
We can, in fact, change how the past impacts the future merely by changing our interpretation of it, and particularly how the true reality of those events may come to ameliorate false perceptions and motivations tending toward misplaced malevolent attitudes and actions, and how it may effectuate and bolster a more inclusive and rational understanding of our collective realities going forward.
New Conclusion
The conclusion posited, being that we don’t control anything that happens in the world, including all of the things we think, say or do, is based on the falsity of the preceding premises, as argued.
This conclusion would seem to eliminate any possibility of free will, and thereby would render humanity merely an inert mechanism subject to the whim of happenstance, the will of the whisp, and the base objectivity of mere stones.
The very fact that we are able to raise, argue, and either refute or confirm various philosophical, scientific and ontological questions – which have had impact on our quality of life, understanding of ourselves and nature, and indeed lengthened our lifespans – is proof that we do, indeed, have free will and the power to change the future, and more fully and more impactfully understand the past.