In his recent publication, ‘A Brief History of the Philosophy of Time,’ Professor Adrian Bardon of Wake Forest University articulates a compelling argument that our subjective perception of temporal progression constitutes a form of psychological projection—a cognitive misinterpretation wherein the nature of one’s experiential reality is fundamentally misunderstood.
Time is construed as an instance of psychological projection, as indicated by Gemini AI. Image credit: Gemini AI.
Commonly expressed sentiments such as ‘time flies,’ ‘time waits for no one,’ and ‘as time goes on’ inherently suggest that the progression of time is an objective phenomenon occurring externally in the world. Our lived experience places us within the present instant, seemingly traversing through time as events transpire and recede into the past.
However, an attempt to precisely define the essence of temporal flow or passage reveals a conceptual challenge. What is it that flows? While rivers flow due to the movement of water, the assertion of time’s flow lacks a tangible equivalent. What does it truly signify to claim that time flows?
Events are better characterized as occurrences rather than discrete entities, yet our discourse treats them as if they possess perpetually shifting positions in the future, present, or past. If future events are perceived as approaching and past events as receding, then their spatial whereabouts become a perplexing question. The future and past appear to lack any concrete locus.
The contemplation of time has been an integral part of human intellectual endeavor for as long as we have documented instances of thought. The very concept of time fundamentally pervades every cognitive process concerning our individual selves and the surrounding environment.
Consequently, as a philosopher, I have consistently found advancements in both philosophical and scientific understandings of time to be of paramount significance.
Historical Perspectives on Time from Antiquity
Ancient philosophical traditions harbored considerable skepticism regarding the notions of time and change. Parmenides of Elea, a Greek thinker active between the 6th and 5th centuries BCE, exemplifies this sentiment.
Parmenides posed a critical question: if the future has not yet come into being and the past no longer exists, how can events transition from a state of futurity, through the present, and into the past?
His logical deduction was that if the future possesses reality, then it must be real in the present moment. However, if only what currently exists is real, then the future cannot inherently be real.
Therefore, if the future lacks actuality, the emergence of any present event implies its spontaneous generation from absolute nothingness, a proposition that presents significant conceptual difficulties.
Parmenides was not alone in his critical examination of time. Similar lines of reasoning, highlighting inherent contradictions in our conceptualization of time, can be observed in the works of Aristotle, within the ancient Indian philosophical school of Advaita Vedanta, and in the writings of Augustine of Hippo, also known as Saint Augustine, among other notable thinkers.
Albert Einstein and the Revolution of Relativity
The early modern physicist Sir Isaac Newton posited the existence of an unobserved yet actual flux of time. For Newton, time was conceived as a continuous physical process operating independently, akin to a universal, ceaseless clock against which all movements and accelerations could be objectively measured.
This established view was profoundly challenged by Albert Einstein.
In 1905 and 1915, respectively, Einstein unveiled his theories of special and general relativity. These groundbreaking theories lent substantial support to the long-held doubts surrounding the fundamental nature of time and change.
Relativity fundamentally departed from Newton’s conception of time as a uniform cosmic phenomenon.
By Einstein’s era, scientific inquiry had demonstrated that the speed of light remains constant irrespective of the motion of its source. To fully embrace this empirical fact, Einstein argued, necessitated accepting that all velocities are inherently relative.
No object or observer is truly at rest or in motion in an absolute sense; these states are contingent upon one’s chosen ‘frame of reference.’
A frame of reference defines the spatial and temporal coordinates that a particular observer will attribute to objects and events, based on the assumption that they are stationary relative to all other entities within that frame.
Consider an individual in outer space observing a spaceship moving in a particular direction. The universe itself remains impartial as to whether the observer is stationary and the ship is moving, or vice versa, with the ship at rest and the observer in motion.
This relativistic perspective significantly alters our understanding of the function of timekeeping devices. Due to the constancy of light speed, observers in relative motion will assign different temporal values to the same events.
Illustratively, imagine two lightning strikes occurring simultaneously from the viewpoint of an observer positioned at a train station who witnesses both events concurrently.
Conversely, an observer on a moving train, approaching one strike and receding from the other, will perceive these strikes as occurring at distinct moments in time.
This discrepancy arises because the train-bound observer is moving away from the light emitted by one strike and towards the light from the other. The stationary observer, however, experiences the light from both strikes arriving concurrently.
Crucially, neither observer’s assessment is inherently incorrect; it is a matter of their observational frame.
The duration between events, and their temporal ordering, is dependent upon the observer’s frame of reference.
Individuals operating within different frames of reference will, at any given moment, hold divergent views on which events are presently occurring. Events deemed contemporary by one observer’s measurement at a specific instant may belong to the future for another, and so forth.
Within the framework of relativity, all temporal moments possess equal reality. Everything that has occurred or is predicted to occur exists concurrently for a hypothetical, all-encompassing observer. There are no events that are merely prospective or simply recollected. An absolute, singular, universal present moment is nonexistent, and consequently, the concept of time flowing as events sequentially ‘become’ present is rendered invalid.
Change is simply defined as a difference in state between distinct temporal points. At any given juncture, an individual retains certain memories. At subsequent junctures, the repertoire of memories expands. This accumulation represents the entirety of what constitutes the passage of time.
This theoretical framework, widely adopted by both contemporary physicists and philosophers, is termed ‘eternalism.’
This leads to a fundamental inquiry: If the notion of time’s passage is empirically absent, why do individuals universally perceive its existence?
Temporal Progression as Psychological Projection
A prevalent explanation has been to characterize the passage of time as an illusion, an interpretation famously articulated by Einstein at one point.
However, labeling the passage of time as ‘illusory’ risks implying that our conviction in its flow stems from a perceptual error, akin to an optical illusion.
It is arguably more precise to consider this conviction as arising from a conceptual misunderstanding.
As I elaborate in my book ‘A Brief History of the Philosophy of Time,’ our perception of temporal progression is best understood as an instance of psychological projection.
A classic illustration of this concept involves color. A rose is not inherently red in and of itself. Instead, it reflects light of a specific wavelength, and the sensory experience of this wavelength can evoke a perception of redness.
My central point is that the rose itself is neither intrinsically red nor does it present an illusion of redness. The visual experience of red results from our cognitive processing of objective facts pertaining to the rose.
Identifying a rose by its color is not an error; the enthusiast is not making a profound statement about the fundamental nature of color itself.
Analogously, my research indicates that the passage of time is neither a factual reality nor an illusion: it is a projection derived from how individuals interpret and make sense of their surroundings.
I find it impossible to articulate the world without recourse to the passage of time, much like I cannot describe my visual perception of the world without referencing the colors of objects.
I can state that my GPS ‘thinks’ I have missed a turn without necessarily attributing sentience or conscious thought processes to the device. My GPS lacks a mind and, consequently, no internal representation of the world; yet, my understanding of its output as an accurate depiction of my location and intended destination is valid.
Similarly, even though the principles of physics do not accommodate a dynamic temporal flow, time remains functionally dynamic from my experiential perspective of the world.
The phenomenon of temporal progression is intrinsically intertwined with how human beings represent their personal experiences.
Our conceptual model of reality is inseparable from the conditions under which we, as sentient beings capable of perception and cognition, apprehend and comprehend our existence.
Any description of reality that we formulate will inevitably be imbued with our unique perspective.
The fundamental error lies in conflating our subjective viewpoint of reality with reality itself.
_____
Adrian Bardon. 2025. A Brief History of the Philosophy of Time (Second Edition). Oxford University Press, ISBN: 9780197684108
Author: Professor Adrian Bardon, a researcher affiliated with Wake Forest University.
This article was initially featured on The Conversation.
