I think founding the arrow on the exsistence of a deeper arrow would be relatively more straightforward but there would be some things to show but they might not be philosophically that fundamental. Like a lot of computers are built on a clock cycle model where they transition from state to state in jumps. But the underlying physics is probably smooth. So the computer infrastructure choices effectively screen off times fluidity (builds discrete time out of smooth time). So one can’t rely that all aspects will translate in full force to all emergence below where the conditions to get a psychological arrow could make meaningful borders.
One could a group of functions like F(x)=a+bx . If we think this as one function that is altered and say taht over time a changes value. However for each instanteous state of the function (for a given value of a) the only sense that the function is “growing” is that +x is big and -x is small. Given a fixed value of a it is not possible to know whether a moment before a was bigger or smaller. So flowing physical time can failt to give raise to flowing psychological time. Another version of this would be “we have always been at war with Oceania”. It not a given that a system accurately tracks historic information even if it refers to times other than present.
I couldn’t come up with a direct example that would block that specific property from propagating but I did have a good example of a different property definetely getting blocked.
If smooth physical time doesn’t lead into smooth psychological time why would flowing physical time lead into flowing psychological time?
The default outcome of “I dunno,a complete mystery” is better at an explanation task. We also don’t want a teleological “because” but a “base nature implies” because.
Logic like “Why there would be an appearance of a god, if not because god exists?” and “Why there would be appearance of red surfaces, if not for colors existing in the world?” are misleading. Surfaces being selectively reflective for different electromagnetic radiation is by itself not that reflective which proportion of creatures are blind, monochromats, dichromats, trichromats or tetrachromats. And especially the edge case of there being colored light beams but all creatures being blind breaks the required implications.
The default outcome of “I dunno,a complete mystery” is better at an explanation task
What???? Are you saying that Time is a complicated subject that no one understands?
We also don’t want a teleological “because” but a “base nature implies” because.
What? In general , it’s reasonable that some things are fundamental, and its reasonable that they can explain other, non fundamental things. The particular problem with time is that we don’t have a free choice of fundamental stuff: physics is what it is , and it doesn’t have a fundamental arrow of time, and it only has flow/passingness under the contentious Copenhagen Interpretation.
Edit: Or is it about the “teleological” ? Who is being teleological?
Logic like “Why there would be an appearance of a god, if not because god exists?” and “Why there would be appearance of red surfaces, if not for colors existing in the world?” are misleading
Those two examples are, but they do not generalise to a rule that nothing has a straightforward explanation. Round things look round because they are round, for instance.
I primarily would just benefit from understanding the connection bit by bit. “round things look round” can seem simple because I understand stuff like blocked from sight objects not looking like anything and that a fisheye lense might exactly cancel the roundness of a round to to make it not round. I can calcuate paths that light rays take what kind of pictures form on retinas.
If one has a ontology strong enough to handle paradoxes one can have time flowlyness from non-copenhagen sources by having meta-time and meta-time evolution even if the (“historical”) time would “stay still”.
I might have mischaracterised what I had issues with (I don’t know whether it exactly matches to ask “We have a tree. If we would be tasked on how to make a tree how would we have done it? We would have made an acorn.”). You have knowledge that A->B,B->T,C->T, D->T and T and then you are asked why is T? So one might answer A because it is the “deepest” cause. In this kind of search you get something “more prior” but it is not clear why it didn’t branch into the C or D directions. And if we are asking a question “under which conditions does T obtain?” one would care about all open avenues.
When Newton was writing text introducing newtonian laws he kinda skipped over defining or explaining time. Einstein did a whole of more of defining what he means and those details turn out to be somewhat relevant for the content. I wouldn’t be that surprised if the textbook on Quantum Gravity would require/introduce even finer distinctions. The more fundamental a thing is the more interest it is to know it very thoroughly. Believing in absoluteness of simultaneuity is pretty simple. But in order to appriciate relativity of simultaneity you have to appriciate the complexity and the details.
If one has a ontology strong enough to handle paradoxes one can have time flowlyness from non-copenhagen sources by having meta-time and meta-time evolution even if the (“historical”) time would “stay still”.
J.W.Dunne famously bit that bullet.
But if your side is allowed to embrace paradox, so is everyone else’s...so that there an no lomger any wrong theories of time.
While the time travel paradoxes are derived from the logical paradoxes, if you have a theory that unambigiously says what happens it can be contradiction free even if it has grandfather paradoxes. There can be theories wrong about how a game of Achron will go.
I think founding the arrow on the exsistence of a deeper arrow would be relatively more straightforward but there would be some things to show but they might not be philosophically that fundamental. Like a lot of computers are built on a clock cycle model where they transition from state to state in jumps. But the underlying physics is probably smooth. So the computer infrastructure choices effectively screen off times fluidity (builds discrete time out of smooth time). So one can’t rely that all aspects will translate in full force to all emergence below where the conditions to get a psychological arrow could make meaningful borders.
One could a group of functions like F(x)=a+bx . If we think this as one function that is altered and say taht over time a changes value. However for each instanteous state of the function (for a given value of a) the only sense that the function is “growing” is that +x is big and -x is small. Given a fixed value of a it is not possible to know whether a moment before a was bigger or smaller. So flowing physical time can failt to give raise to flowing psychological time. Another version of this would be “we have always been at war with Oceania”. It not a given that a system accurately tracks historic information even if it refers to times other than present.
I haven’t been using “flow” to mean smoothness.
Yes.
I couldn’t come up with a direct example that would block that specific property from propagating but I did have a good example of a different property definetely getting blocked.
If smooth physical time doesn’t lead into smooth psychological time why would flowing physical time lead into flowing psychological time?
The question is more: why would there be flowing psychological time, if not because of flowing physical time?
The default outcome of “I dunno,a complete mystery” is better at an explanation task. We also don’t want a teleological “because” but a “base nature implies” because.
Logic like “Why there would be an appearance of a god, if not because god exists?” and “Why there would be appearance of red surfaces, if not for colors existing in the world?” are misleading. Surfaces being selectively reflective for different electromagnetic radiation is by itself not that reflective which proportion of creatures are blind, monochromats, dichromats, trichromats or tetrachromats. And especially the edge case of there being colored light beams but all creatures being blind breaks the required implications.
What???? Are you saying that Time is a complicated subject that no one understands?
What? In general , it’s reasonable that some things are fundamental, and its reasonable that they can explain other, non fundamental things. The particular problem with time is that we don’t have a free choice of fundamental stuff: physics is what it is , and it doesn’t have a fundamental arrow of time, and it only has flow/passingness under the contentious Copenhagen Interpretation.
Edit: Or is it about the “teleological” ? Who is being teleological?
Those two examples are, but they do not generalise to a rule that nothing has a straightforward explanation. Round things look round because they are round, for instance.
I primarily would just benefit from understanding the connection bit by bit. “round things look round” can seem simple because I understand stuff like blocked from sight objects not looking like anything and that a fisheye lense might exactly cancel the roundness of a round to to make it not round. I can calcuate paths that light rays take what kind of pictures form on retinas.
If one has a ontology strong enough to handle paradoxes one can have time flowlyness from non-copenhagen sources by having meta-time and meta-time evolution even if the (“historical”) time would “stay still”.
I might have mischaracterised what I had issues with (I don’t know whether it exactly matches to ask “We have a tree. If we would be tasked on how to make a tree how would we have done it? We would have made an acorn.”). You have knowledge that A->B,B->T,C->T, D->T and T and then you are asked why is T? So one might answer A because it is the “deepest” cause. In this kind of search you get something “more prior” but it is not clear why it didn’t branch into the C or D directions. And if we are asking a question “under which conditions does T obtain?” one would care about all open avenues.
When Newton was writing text introducing newtonian laws he kinda skipped over defining or explaining time. Einstein did a whole of more of defining what he means and those details turn out to be somewhat relevant for the content. I wouldn’t be that surprised if the textbook on Quantum Gravity would require/introduce even finer distinctions. The more fundamental a thing is the more interest it is to know it very thoroughly. Believing in absoluteness of simultaneuity is pretty simple. But in order to appriciate relativity of simultaneity you have to appriciate the complexity and the details.
J.W.Dunne famously bit that bullet.
But if your side is allowed to embrace paradox, so is everyone else’s...so that there an no lomger any wrong theories of time.
While the time travel paradoxes are derived from the logical paradoxes, if you have a theory that unambigiously says what happens it can be contradiction free even if it has grandfather paradoxes. There can be theories wrong about how a game of Achron will go.