A growing number of scientists are convinced the future influences the past

The regular arrow of time from the human perspective, "leaks" changes into the future. The future is constantly being changed by the past.

You can measure those changes by many ways, the 2nd. law of thermodynamics is everywhere just to make sure you see this happening across everything.

So, probably there are other non-discovered underlying mechanisms in the reality that are already signaling changes from the future "leaking" into the past, changing the past right infront of us, without us noticing it.

A probably omnipresent mechanism for observing the future changing the past, valid in the whole cone of light visible to us, is the probability law.

If you have 10 millions of possible events in a probability, one of them is the exact thing it will happen in the future, hence the information of what happens in the future is right here, existing in the past.

Yeah, you can say how would the nature could use this information without powerful processors predicting branches trillions of times per second on Earth right now?

Well, the brain is a pattern predictor, quite several parts of the brain are firmly attached to the physics of the universe, biochemically but what if the pattern prediction mechanisms in the brain are actually an adaptation of the evolution, just like wings to fly, but with those mechanisms the brain uses probability to "see" information from the future, and here in the "present", it changes the past (from the perspective of the future created originally from the past), if the brain "chooses now" to do something different that what originally created the future it "saw" by analizing patterns, essentially evaluating probabilities.

So the Probability Law would be a kind of Inverted 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics.

It would work perfectly as law of the universe: from the future to the past, the revered time of arrow, one single event created "a" future, but from the regular arrow of time, there would a range of probable future outcomes which you cannot precisely say it has "1" (100%) probability of ocurring, right to exact moment till the future becomes the present.

And it was right there all the time, something obvious infront of everybody in the world, like electricity (which was suspected by many across thousands of years, but just "discovered" recently).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_total_probability

This context is helpful, thanks.

I didn't advocate anything. I said that it bothers me is that (some) scientists profess not to be philosophers. This is because, in fact, scientists, like all people, actually are philosophers.

> It is because I saw the comment as being part of the genre of people who attempt to raise the status of their field

My field is not philosophy.

> by laying an unwarranted claim to the accomplishments of others.

Neither did I make any claims in my original comment. You seem to have extrapolated quite a lot from a single sentence.

> Philosophy and philosophers do not deserve credit for the accomplishments of science.

The origin of science is obviously philosophical; indeed, Western science is theological in origin (and so is Eastern if you want to broaden your definition of theology a bit). It is equally obvious, if perhaps a bit ironic, that modern science has distanced itself from its earlier foundations.

I commented further in this line of though in another comments, about a probable (ironically), "Inverted 2nd. Law of Thermodynamics" of sorts, which it would be basically just the Law of Probability, interpreted from the point of view of not having an actual arrow of time and the fact that we have - all the time, again ironically - the information of what happens in the future (the one probability in the range which ends being the right one, actually ocurring).

Yeah, I know it would be another Law, and the universe would upside down once again for us the poor meatbags, but we were already in this position several times, discovering the electricity, quantum mechanics, relativiy, you name it.

Sure, the LLM may be able to guess by reasoning (e.g. 'He always eats ham sandwiches for breakfast and he probably wouldn't break his routine'), the same way we could guess at another person's behaviour, but we're talking about reducing the brain into a deterministic input/output machine, which is a far larger ask.

Now if you said 'doable' that may be right in the long term, but 'easy'? Absolutely not. There's no current way to feed 'me' or 'you' into an equivalent LLM. The human brain has more axons then there are stars in the galaxy and we are nowhere close to even mapping these connections.

>The brain could be doing this exactly kind of predictions, even more better than LLMs, with more accuracy/speed using way less energy.

That's definitely an option. The fact that many of the brain's operations could be done by LLMs is a strike against the original thesis.