“The process goes past to future, while the patterns being generated go future to past.”
I think the second part of this assumes a deterministic model according to which the future is fixed so that we who are in the present can speak of something already being “in” the future. If the future’s more open-ended, because of quantum probabilities, I’m not sure how much it clarifies things to say established patterns go backwards in time. Again, I’d say that’s a subjective matter of how things go from being unexperienced to being registered in our memory where they’re explicitly categorized as being in the past.
Still, I see that there are different processes at work, as in the example of reading the book: there’s the reader and there’s the flipping of pages. There’s the building and the collapsing of the house and there’s the living in the house which includes the building and fading of memories. You’re saying these two things go in opposite directions. Consciousness is tied to memories, so we seem to proceed from past to future, and you’re saying objective events flow backwards through consciousness, from the future to the past.
But how do things get to be fully-formed in the future? Clearly, they have to be physically developed, which takes time, so we explain the formation of objective patterns by saying they’re produced from past states. The finished house comes after the construction process and the breakdown comes after the standing house.