Part 1. Try to think of a reason someone could give to reject premise 1 of Markosian's "Second Rate of Passage Argument." Explain that reason. (Markosian gives a reason in his paper. You may, if you like, use Markosian's reason. If you choose to do this, please explain his reason as fully as you can in your own words.)

Part 2. Look at page 16 of the Maudlin reading, the paragraph from "The objector..." to "...is this correct?"

Let us use "The distinction between the past and the future is basic" to mean "the distinction between the past and the future does not depend on what anyone thinks or believes; or more generally on the way material things in the universe behave." This definition is supposed to make the following claim true: "If the future direction of time just is the direction in which entropy increases, then it is false that the distinction between the past and the future is basic."

Here is one way to understand the main argument of the Maudlin paragraph:

1. If the distinction between the past and the future is basic, then we cannot know which direction is the future direction.
2. We can know which direction is the future direction.
3. Therefore, the distinction between the past and the future is not basic.

Maudlin does not just present this argument; he also presents defenses of the premises. (Of course he himself thinks the argument is bad. He is presenting someone else's argument.) Figure out what his defense of the first premise is. Put that defense in the form of a valid argument, with premise 1 as its conclusion.

Part 3. This argument is about the distinction between the past and the future. It is not explicitly about the moving spotlight theory of time. But there is a connection between the argument's conclusion, and that theory of time. You should be able to write down a valid argument against the moving spotlight theory that has, as one of its premises, the conclusion of the argument Maudlin discusses. Do so.