Szendrei on Bergson, Prigogine and the Rediscovery of Time

What the work establishes

Eric V. Szendrei’s 1989 article in Process Studies examines Ilya Prigogine’s attempt to recover irreversible time in non-equilibrium thermodynamics and compares it directly to Henri Bergson’s concept of duration. Szendrei shows that Prigogine accepts Bergson’s diagnosis of classical science’s neglect of genuine time but rejects Bergson’s conclusion that science is permanently barred from grasping it. The article argues that recent work on dissipative structures supplies the missing objective evidence for time’s arrow.

Core results and load-bearing passages

Szendrei states the shared starting point: “Prigogine recognizes a similarity between his thesis that science has traditionally ignored the significance of time and some of the conclusions of the philosopher Henri Bergson” (Process Studies 18:3, 1989, p. 182). He quotes Prigogine quoting Bergson: “Time is invention, or it is nothing at all” (OOC 92, cited p. 183). Prigogine’s position is summarized as the claim that dissipative structures in far-from-equilibrium systems make time’s direction an objective feature of the physical world rather than a subjective overlay.

Bergson’s counter-position appears in Szendrei’s reconstruction: classical science reduces processes to reversible equations that remain invariant under t → –t. Bergson therefore concludes that science, by method, cannot reach duration. Szendrei notes Prigogine’s reply: “Thus the limitations Bergson criticized are beginning to be overcome, not by abandoning the scientific approach… but by perceiving the limitations of the concepts of classical dynamics” (OOC 93, cited p. 184).

Convergence patterns with the OIP/GRAIN synthesis

The article evidences the pattern “difference to flow to structure.” Prigogine’s dissipative structures arise precisely where energy flows through open systems far from equilibrium, producing ordered patterns that classical reversible mechanics cannot generate. Szendrei shows that this supplies an objective route from raw energetic difference to stable, history-dependent structure. The work therefore supports the claim that the universe’s grain includes irreversible flow networks that memory and life later exploit.

It touches the Mirror Layer indirectly. Szendrei ends by suggesting that Bergson’s emphasis on the knower’s position inside the known remains relevant even after Prigogine’s advance: any scientific description of time still occurs within the temporal flow it describes.

Distance from the full synthesis

Szendrei stays within the philosophy-of-science frame. He does not extend the argument to biological memory, mind, or the reader-inside-the-system thesis. The article stops at the physical level; the Ladder from structure to life to mind is left for later work.

Honest limits and disconfirming edges

The piece is textual and interpretive; it contains no new empirical data. Szendrei acknowledges that Prigogine’s claim of “disinterested knowledge” from science rests on the success of the dissipative-structures program, which remains open to further experimental test. A reductionist objection in the style of Weinberg would note that the arrow of time still emerges from underlying reversible micro-dynamics plus boundary conditions; Szendrei does not refute this possibility but only records that Prigogine treats the macroscopic irreversibility as fundamental.

Exact primary works and passages

Primary source: Eric V. Szendrei, “Bergson, Prigogine and the Rediscovery of Time,” Process Studies 18:3 (Fall 1989): 181–193. All page numbers above refer to the Religion Online reprint. Quoted works by Prigogine and Stengers are from Order Out of Chaos (OOC), 1984.

Claims

• Claim c1: Prigogine accepts Bergson’s critique of classical science’s neglect of irreversible time but holds that non-equilibrium thermodynamics overcomes it. Tier: anecdotal. Source: Szendrei 1989, pp. 182–184.
• Claim c2: Dissipative structures provide objective evidence for time’s direction through energy flow in open systems. Tier: mechanistic. Source: Szendrei’s summary of Prigogine, p. 183.
• Claim c3: Bergson’s duration and Prigogine’s irreversibility both reject homogeneous reversible time. Tier: anecdotal. Source: Szendrei, p. 183.

Sources

• s1: Szendrei, Eric V. “Bergson, Prigogine and the Rediscovery of Time.” Process Studies 18:3 (1989): 181–193. https://www.religion-online.org/article/bergson-prigogine-and-the-rediscovery-of-time/ Quote: “Prigogine recognizes a similarity between his thesis that science has traditionally ignored the significance of time and some of the conclusions of the philosopher Henri Bergson.” Summary: Direct comparison of the two thinkers on the status of time in physics.