In his latest book, A Brief History of the Philosophy of Time, Professor Adrian Verdon from Wake Forest University suggests that our perception of time passing is an instance of psychological projection—an error in cognition that leads to misinterpreting our experiences.
Phrases like “Time flies,” “Time waits for no one,” and “As time passes” suggest that the movement of time is a real phenomenon influencing our lives. We navigate the present, witnessing events as they transition into memory.
Yet, articulating the concept of time’s flow is challenging. What does it mean for time to ‘pass’? Rivers flow because water moves; how does time move?
While events unfold, we speak of their positions as if they shift continuously through past, present, and future. If some events approach us as future occurrences while others recede into the past, where exactly do they reside? The notions of future and past appear to lack a physical location.
Throughout history, humans have contemplated time, ingraining it into our understanding of ourselves and the surrounding world.
This is why, as a philosopher, I have always deemed advancements in our conceptualization of time—both philosophical and scientific—to be of unique significance.
The Era of Ancient Philosophers
Many ancient philosophers expressed skepticism regarding time and change. Parmenides of Elea, a Greek philosopher from the 6th to 5th centuries BC, questioned how events could transition from future to present to past when neither the future nor the past exists.
He posited that if the future is real, it must also be real at this moment. Thus, if only the present is real, the future cannot be.
This notion implies that present events inexplicably emerge from nothing.
Parmenides wasn’t alone in his doubts; similar ideas regarding the contradictions in our discussions of time can be found in the works of Aristotle, the Advaita Vedanta philosophy of ancient Hinduism, and Augustine of Hippo, known as St. Augustine, among others.
Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity
During the early modern period, physicist Isaac Newton operated under the assumption of an unrecognized, real flow of time—time as a dynamic entity, akin to a cosmic clock that meticulously captures all motion and acceleration.
Then came Einstein.
In 1905 and 1915, Einstein introduced his special and general theories of relativity, respectively, challenging long-held beliefs about time and change.
Einstein’s theory dismisses Newton’s view of time as a universal phenomenon.
By Einstein’s era, it had been established that the speed of light remains constant, independent of the light source’s velocity. To accept this fact necessitated an understanding of object speeds as relative.
Nothing can be categorically labeled as stationary or in motion; it all hinges on your “frame of reference.”
A frame of reference provides the spatial and temporal context an observer assigns to an object or event, assuming it is stationary in relation to everything else.
For instance, an observer drifting through space may see a spaceship pass by, yet the universe remains indifferent to whether the observer is immobile and the spaceship is moving or vice versa.
This understanding alters our perspective on the function of watches. Since light’s speed is constant, two observers in motion relative to one another will record different times for the same events.
In a classic scenario, two lightning strikes occur simultaneously. An observer at a train station sees both at the same moment, while an observer on a moving train assigns differing times to each strike based on their relative motion.
Consequently, one observer approaches light from one strike and recedes from the other, leading to the time discrepancy.
The stationary observer perceives both strikes at identical moments since light reaches him simultaneously. Neither perspective is incorrect.
The duration between occurrences and the timing of events relies on the observer’s frame of reference.
Observers in relative motion will disagree on current events; what seems immediate to one may be future to another.
Einstein’s theory posits that all moments in time are equally real. Every past event and future occurrence is currently ‘happening’ to a hypothetical observer. There is no event merely categorized as a potentiality or a distant memory. No singular, absolute present exists; therefore, time does not flow through which events are ‘becoming.’
Change signifies a difference over intervals. I remember a point, and later, I recall even more moments. That encapsulates the essence of time’s passage.
This notion has gained acceptance among both physicists and philosophers, referred to as “eternalism.”
This leads us to an important inquiry: If time’s passage is nonexistent, why do we perceive it as such?
Time as a Psychological Projection
One prevailing notion posits that the sensation of time’s passage is illusory, echoing Einstein’s famous reflections.
Characterizing it as an “illusion” implies that our conviction in time’s passage results from a deceptive perception, akin to an optical trick.
However, I propose that this belief arises from a misunderstanding.
As I illustrate in my book, A Brief History of the Philosophy of Time, our feeling of time traversing is an example of psychological projection.
A simple analogy involves colors: a red rose isn’t inherently red; it reflects specific light wavelengths that evoke the sensation of redness.
In essence, roses aren’t really red nor do they create an illusion of redness—the experience of color arises from our interpretation of objective truths about roses.
It’s valid to distinguish roses by their color; enthusiasts of roses do not claim profound truths about color itself.
In a similar vein, my findings suggest that the experience of time’s passage is neither entirely real nor an illusion; it reflects how humans interpret their environment.
Just as our visual comprehension of reality cannot be fully understood without reference to colors, our understanding of the world relies on the passage of time.
I can assert that my GPS indicates I’ve strayed off course without attributing consciousness to the GPS.
My GPS is non-sentient. Although we lack a mental map of our surroundings, we can trust that the GPS accurately represents our location and destination.
Likewise, even if physics does not accommodate the concept of a dynamic passage of time, time remains effectively dynamic in the context of my experiential reality.
The sensation of time passing is deeply interconnected with how humans articulate their experiences.
Our representations of reality are inherently colored by our perspective as perceivers and thinkers.
The error lies in conflating our perception of reality with reality itself.
_____
Adrian Verdon. 2025. A Brief History of the Philosophy of Time (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press, ISBN: 9780197684108
Author: Professor Adrian Burdon, a researcher at Wake Forest University.
This article was first published in The Conversation.
Source: www.sci.news
