Status Updates From Time's Arrow and Archimedes...

Time dosent make a certain rate/direction
and it is hard to determine what is now then and the future

And I think the reason here is simply the old issue of our inability to reason coherently without a causal framework of influence, it may not be the ultimate reality, but it is the only reality we are capable of understanding and comprehending, to use a Kantian/Schopenhauerian style of argumentation.

because of backward and forward in time moving influences on this scale. The problem is that such influences disobey causal principles. We can pay lip service to the reality of such phenomena, but we cannot really conceptually believe it coherently, just like those behaviorists who tried to pretend their own consciousness didn't exist to make the theory work, they are only kidding themselves in the end...

However, the conclusion I would draw from this, is not that we need a better symmetrical account, its just, for me, another example of the unavoidability of smuggling in some asymmetric assumption in any attempt to explain it symmetrically, because the basic principled reality is indeed asymmetric and needs to be acknowledged as such. He is arguing that quantum mechanics works better symmetrically...

Most physicists have taken the view that like the asymmetry of thermodynamics, PI^3 is a product of asymmetric boundary conditions, rather than of the kind of lawlike asymmetry which would
violate T-symmetry..." What he is saying here is that the statistical account of asymmetry is actually presuming an asymmetry already in its account in the form of the PI^3. I think he may be correct on this point..

though not afterwards, of course, since the interaction itself is likely to give rise to correlations. We have encountered this principle earlier in the book, of course: it is what I called PI^3, or the principle of the independence of incoming influences. It is explicitly time-asymmetric, as we saw, and has often been invoked in an attempt to explain other temporal asymmetries, such as that of thermodynamics..."

"it turns out that there is a temporally asymmetric principle,
almost universally taken for granted in contemporary physics, which cannot be accommodated within this orthodox picture. The principle concerned is an extrapolation to microphysics of a familiar feature of the macroscopic world of experience: roughly, it is the principle that the properties of interacting systems are independent before they interact.."

...but I am not convinced there is either a need or any value in a view from nowhen. What we need right now in science is perspectives more in touch with our intuitions about physical reality, not perspectives even less in touch. Much of it seems to come down to just accepting some principle of causality at the basis of all reasoning about reality, akin to many thinkers of the past.

Bizarre back and forth technique of criticising all others who try to address the problem of time asymmetry, who have failed merely by acknowledging the problem exists, committing "double standard" fallacies, while claiming to explain it himself by denying the problem even exists, with the use of his archimedean standpoint, view from nowhen. He is raising some important debates...