Who first studied "logical (ir)reversibility" philosophically?
By "logical (ir)reversibility" I mean questions like:
Why is it easier to
- multiply large numbers than to factorize them?
- understand a syllogism than to construct one?
- explain something (via resolutionis) than to discover it (via inventionis)?
- encipher something than to decipher something?
- destroy something than to build it?
- argue from effects to causes (quia reasoning) than to argue from causes to effects (propter quid reasoning)?
- learn logic before physics or metaphysics? (Why ∃ proper order of learning?)
What is the reason for all these asymmetries?
Perhaps one could answer "because of order". But what about order necessitates irreversibility/directionality?