-
The past of Physical time can only be recognized through traces (philosophizing about “time”).
- Traces are:
- Evidence of something that happened (causal relationship).
- Memories that remain in the brain.
- Because we can remember that something happened or see the traces of what happened, the existence of the past can be recognized.
- The “past” itself no longer exists (well, obviously).
- Traces are:
-
On the other hand, things might be different for time axes other than physical time (blu3mo).
- In some cases, even without traces, the past can be understood through Spatialization of Time.
- Like the YouTube playback bar.
- Well, you could argue that this is also a type of trace in a broad sense.
- Even in physical time, clocks, for example, allow us to perceive the past through Spatialization of Time.
- But ultimately, this is still a trace of the movement of the clock hands.
- Like the YouTube playback bar.
- In some cases, even without traces, the past can be understood through Spatialization of Time.
-
Ultimately, it’s a matter of the Believability of traces, so it’s okay even if they are false.
-
Is “Memory of experience” similar to other traces, or is it a special type of trace? (blu3mo)
- (Special in the sense that memories have significantly more reality when it comes to recognizing the “past”.)
- In fact, memories of experiences can be easily influenced by other traces (unreliable memory), so they may not be that special after all.
- Similar to something like the Diary of Past Alterations.