Scott,

If you could refer to some aspect of the argument, other than “flow” and point out where it seems incoherent, possibly I could clear it up a little more.

How about the basic observation of events going potential>actual>residual? Does that simply not make sense, or do you have a specific argument against it?

How about the conservation of energy; How would that allow both cause and effect to physically co-exist, on a time dimension?

As I see it, treating time as the “fourth dimension” is, “completely unintelligible,” but I’m open to arguments otherwise.

Was it simply my comment about “ripples in the flow?” That was a somewhat poetic reference to a further argument about the relationship of energy to information.

Being conserved, energy goes from prior to succeeding events, thus past to future, while these forms/information come and go, future to past. Essentially they go opposite directions of time. For example, in a factory, the product goes start to finish, while the production line points the other direction, consuming material and expelling product. As with life, the individual goes birth to death, while the species moves onto the next generation, shedding the old. Processes and the patterns produced go opposite directions, creating this effect called “time.”

Flow being the process and ripples being the patterns.