〈 Berger | Dillon 〉

I think of the Past Hypothesis as "entropy was low at the beginning of our observable universe.” It's definitely true, but it would be great if we could *derive* it without explicitly violating time symmetry, rather than simply postulating it.https://twitter.com/PhilSciArchive/status/1083832934618951680 …

I understand that Lorentz invariance => CPT invariance, so we should impose our lagrangians be CPT invar.. But what I don't see as obvious is why we should impose T-invaraince on our fundamental theories if we know T-invariance doesn't seem to be a symmetry of nature

Different notions of time symmetry. I’m talking about statistical symmetry of early and late conditions, not T invariance of the Lagrangian.

so the trouble of all this lies in the fact that our QFTs don’t know about the arrow of time, and you’re saying (I think) it’d be preferred construct a model that explains how/when these fundamental particles “know” in which direction their entropy should increase, or something

Time has always existed the present moment of reality is the preset cursor of the space time continuum dark energy is forward quantum momentum and dark matter is suspended quantum momentum gravity is reverse quantum momentum the mechanics of time