Advertisement

One Thing After Another: Why the Passage of Time Is Not an Illusion

  • Natalja Deng
Chapter

Abstract

Does time seem to pass, even though it doesn’t, really? Many philosophers think the answer is ‘Yes’—at least when ‘time’s (really) passing’ is understood in a particular way. They take time’s passing to be a process by which each time in turn acquires a special status, such as the status of being the only time that exists, or being the only time that is present (where that means more than just being simultaneous with oneself). This chapter suggests that, on the contrary, all we perceive is temporal succession, one thing after another, a notion to which modern physics is not inhospitable. The contents of perception are best described in terms of ‘before’ and ‘after’, rather than ‘past’, ‘present, and ‘future’.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This chapter was partly written while I was supported by the Yonsei University Future-Leading Research Initiative 2018 (2018-22-0100).

References

  1. Callender, C. (2010). Is time an illusion? Scientific American, 302, 58–65.  https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0610-58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eddington, A. (1920). Space, time, and gravitation: An outline of the general relativity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Einstein, A. (1972). Einstein, A. & Besso, M. correspondance, 1903–1955 (P. Speziali, Trans.). Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  4. Gruber, R., Bach, M., & Block, R. (2015). Perceiving two levels of the flow of time. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 22(5/6), 7–22.Google Scholar
  5. Gruber, R., Smith, R., & Block, R. (2018). The illusory flow and passage of time within consciousness: A multidisciplinary analysis. Timing and Time Perception, 6, 125–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hoerl, C. (2009). Time and tense in perceptual experience. Philosophers’ Imprint, 9(12), 1–18.Google Scholar
  7. Ismael, J. (2010). Temporal experience. In C. Callender (Ed.), Oxford handbook on time (pp. 460–482). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ismael, J. (2012). Decision and the open future. In A. Bardon (Ed.), The future of the philosophy of time (pp. 149–169). Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Miller, K., Holcombe, A., & Latham, A. (forthcoming). Temporal phenomenology: Phenomenological illusion versus cognitive error. Synthese. Published online 23 February 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1730-y
  10. Paul, L. (2010). Temporal experience. Journal of Philosophy, 107(7), 333–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Phillips, I. (2014). The temporal structure of experience. In D. Lloyd & V. Arstila (Eds.), Subjective time: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of temporality. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Skow, B. (2015). Objective becoming. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sorkin, R. (2007). Relativity theory does not imply that the future already exists: A counterexample. In V. Petkov (Ed.), Relativity and the dimensionality of the world. Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Weyl, H. (1949). Philosophy of mathematics and natural science (Based on a translation by Olaf Helmer). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalja Deng
    • 1
  1. 1.Underwood International College, Yonsei UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations