That...doesn't make any sense — T Clark

No, it doesn't. But it is exactly what would happen.

it is exactly what would happen. — EugeneW

I'm pretty sure the only way that could happen is if fairy dust were involved.

The mind looks to the future in anticipation, and the senses look rearward at the past. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no light coming from the future, only from the past. You say 'looks' but it is not observation but imagination. The trick to anticipation is to make one's imagining realistic and realisable.

... if fairy dust were involved. — T Clark

A stone and some shards of glass leap up from the floor; the shards form into a whole pane of window glass, and the stone leaps from its centre arcing to land in the outstretched hand of a boy who pulls his hand back and lays the stone down on the ground.

How did he know to stretch out his hand just at that moment?

How did he know to stretch out his hand just at that moment? — unenlightened

Is that question intended as rhetorical?

It's a question about how fairy dust works.

So that's a 'no'.

It's a question about how fairy dust works.

So that's a 'no'. — unenlightened

Fairy dust is like dark matter. The only evidence that it exists is that all our theories will be wrong unless it does.

Fairy dust is like dark matter. The only evidence that it exists is that all our theories will be wrong unless it does. — T Clark

Well the theory that all our theories are wrong, must be wrong, because if it were right then not all our theories would be wrong. Therefore fairy dust necessarily exists.

Well the theory that all our theories are wrong, must be wrong, because if it were right then not all our theories would be wrong. Therefore fairy dust necessarily exists. — unenlightened

QED

I'm pretty sure the only way that could happen is if fairy dust were involved — T Clark

Normal matter is fairy dust in a universe where all moves opposite. The laws of TD are asymmetrical in time not because fairy dust is involved but because of initial conditions. Why are they not the reversed end conditions? Why not is the end of our universe a begin in reverse? Why not is the end the begin and aren't we heading back to the begin? What's so special about the begin? That its ordered? But why is that special? Does a reversed universe heading for the singularity needs incredible finetuning? So the stone jumps from the floor, together with broken glass and reversed sound, a window gets healed, and the stone is caught by a boy?

Normal matter is fairy dust in a universe where all moves opposite. The laws of TD are asymmetrical in time not because fairy dust is involved but because of initial conditions. Why are they not the reversed end conditions? Why not is the end of our universe a begin in reverse? Why not is the end the begin and aren't we heading back to the begin? What's so special about the begin? That its ordered? But why is that special? Does a reversed universe heading for the singularity needs incredible finetuning? So the stone jumps from the floor, together with broken glass and reversed sound, a window gets healed, and the stone is caught by a boy? — EugeneW

I wrote "Nuff said" six hours ago, but here I still am. Ok, this time I really mean it. Nuff nuff said.

Nuff but not nuff... Maybe the direction of time is proof of God.

There is no light coming from the future, only from the past. You say 'looks' but it is not observation but imagination. — unenlightened

I agree, "looks" is metaphorical. The usage goes back at least as far as Plato, "the mind's eye". So I think that "to look" in this sense is to direct one's attention in that way. So when we look for something, or look at something, we direct our visual sense in a particular way, also focusing the mental attention on that visual sense. A person can focus the attention of one's mind, in a very similar way, but looking without the senses, at something, or for something, completely mental, without employing the senses. Very often this thing focused on is a goal for the future, which a person might direct one's attention toward.

I agree that this is "imagination", but it's a special type of imagination, just like prediction is a special type of imagination, because unlike more random imagination such as dreaming, and the somewhat less random imagination of fiction writing, we assign some sort of reality to this type of imagined thing.

As you say, this type of imagining, which brings the imaginary into the real, is "the trick to anticipation". As a child I suffered from false anticipation. If I expected something really good, and it didn't pan out, I'd be greatly disappointed. I think that directing one's anticipation towards the real is a very important aspect of dealing with anxiety. The problem though, is that in relation to the past we have very clear principles as to what constitutes "real", we can refer to what has been sensed, "observed". But when I look to the future, how do I determine whether or not I will be disappointed, if I assign "real" to an anticipated event?

Fairy dust is like dark matter. The only evidence that it exists is that all our theories will be wrong unless it does. — T Clark

In this situation, the proper conclusion is that the theories are wrong. What's the point in sprinkling fairy dust to support a bad theory?

Fairy dust is like dark matter. The only evidence that it exists is that all our theories will be wrong unless it does.
6h — T Clark

Dark matter is not fairy dust. It is a real substance not proving that our theories need mending, a god of the gaps stuff. It is just dark because we don't see it. It could be primordial black holes. Normal matter could constitute a time going backwards. If all matter in our universe had exactly the opposite motion, time would run backwards. It's not a matter of chance that time runs forward. It's a matter of initial configuration.

Fairy dust is like dark matter. The only evidence that it exists is that all our theories will be wrong unless it does. — T Clark

That's all the evidence it needs. But the fact that time doesn't run backwards isn't evidence that it can't run backwards or that angel dust is required. Though our theories would indeed be wrong if it didn't existed.

How did he know to stretch out his hand just at that moment? — unenlightened

The boy would be reverse thinking. The effect would have become the cause.

Nobody took this bait.
I cannot find a difference between B and C. B-theorists define directionality based on entropy levels. If the C-theorist denies this, it seems they are in denial of thermodynamic law.

Most of the literature I saw concerning C-theory mistakenly uses A-references in describing B-theory, which is a straw man.

As for the title of this topic "Why does time move forward?", I can only say that it is a problem only for those that posit that time is something that moves, forward or otherwise — noAxioms

:up:

What are A, B, C theories of time? Be as concise as possible.

Thanks in advance.

reverse thinking — EugeneW

:chin: Does logic have a direction?

Eurt si B neht A fo trap si B dna eurt si A fi

Eurt si B neht A fo trap si B dna eurt si A fi — EugeneW

KO :down:

Eurt si B neht A fo trap si B dna eurt si A fi — EugeneW

On a serious note, that $\uparrow$ is a kinda sorta mirror image of if A is true and B is a part of A then B is truE.

!!!GNIT GNIT GNIT...

What would the reverse of modus ponens look like?

1. If p then q
2. p
Ergo,
3. q

?

I was wondering about that reverse I gave. But in your snenop sudom, what is the reverse ot ergo and if...then? Then...if, and ??

We have q. It traces back to p. So? p and q?

Beats me! I thought you'd have some idea. Signing off...

What would the reverse of modus ponens look like?

1. If p then q
2. p
Ergo,
3. q — Agent Smith

q .3
,ogrE
p .2
q neht p fi .1

What are A, B, C theories of time? Be as concise as possible. — Agent Smith

A, B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_series_and_B_series
C: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreality_of_Time

but the C page seems to have fallacious reasoning

Merci beaucoup!

C theory, which rejects temporal directionality. — Kuro

Nobody took this bait.
I cannot find a difference between B and C. B-theorists define directionality based on entropy levels. If the C-theorist denies this, it seems they are in denial of thermodynamic law. — noAxioms

You can download a copy of Matt Farr's paper that @Kuro mentioned here: https://philpapers.org/rec/FARCOT-2. It might help to clarify the distinction between B and C for you.

The question of the thread may appear to be about time but may actually be about meanings. For example: "Why does the top of a revolving wheel always go in the opposite direction to the bottom?" Well, why? Why can't you make a wheel go round so that top and bottom are both rolling in the same direction at once? What is about the physics of wheels and motion that make it impossible for it to happen in any other way? We think we are thinking about physics and geometry. But we are thinking about something else.

Why does time always move forward? A happened before B. In such circumstances we never find that B happened before A. Also, when I have painted the wall red I never find that I have painted it blue. That is an odd fact about colours. But it is not a fact about colours at all. That is clearly not a fact about colours. It is less clear that the thread question is not a question about time. But it may be so.

The question of the thread may appear to be about time but may actually be about meanings. For example: "Why does the top of a revolving wheel always go in the opposite direction to the bottom?" Well, why? — Cuthbert

Because that's the way a wheel rolls. But it can roll in two directions. So can time. Why isn't the begin situation of the universe situated at the end? With all motion reversed?

Because that's the way a wheel rolls. — EugeneW

Indeed. But knowing this tells us nothing about wheels. It tells us that the question I asked is not a sensible question.

But it can roll in two directions. So can time. Why isn't the begin situation of the universe situated at the end? With all motion reversed? — EugeneW

Why can't the top and bottom of the wheel roll in the same direction simultaneously? You said it, but you said nothing interesting about wheels because the question is not about wheels - despite appearances.

Why doesn't time run backwards? That's the analogy. The wheel question is not sensible and can only be answered with 'Because that's what a wheel is!'. I am raising the possibility that the time question is also not sensible - but less obviously nonsensical.