• 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).
  • 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.
  • 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.