If you want to talk about cognition or time you should study science, not philosophy. You’re not going to learn about the universe in any significant way by studying hegel or aristotle or kant harder.
More provacatively: have you engaged with it? I know that's a big ask, but it's also a bit unfair IMO to write off a field without taking the time to understand it. For example, Aristotle founded multiple scientific fields, including the big two -- Physics and Biology -- and established a theory of mind that still has immense sway in the west to this day. Kant was a reknowned scientist before he started into philosophy (even having a good claim to "first to show the existence of galaxies"), and the quote above is from A Critique of Pure Reason (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm#chap1...) where he establishes cognitive science:
From all that has been said, there results the idea of a particular science, which may be called the Critique of Pure Reason.... Such a science must not be called a doctrine, but only a critique of pure reason; and its use, in regard to speculation, would be only negative, not to enlarge the bounds of, but to purify, our reason, and to shield it against error—which alone is no little gain.
Without the academy, we'd have no Francis Bacon, no Newton or Liebniz, no Einstein or Bohr, and definitely no Popper, Kuhn, Carnap, Wittgenstein, Chomsky, or any of the other amazing modern thinkers on how to improve our scientific endeavors. This one's less verifiable but I imagine it hits home the most: I don't even think we'd have Turing without Boole, Russell, and Whitehead to draw from.
...sorry, clearly I'm a bit sensitive ;) It's frustrating being valued for your puzzle solving abilities (aka SWE) much more highly than your engagement with science, as I'm sure you can relate to or imagine!
Other branches of philosophy study other things, and are good at understanding those things they are about. Moreover, philosophy has progressed and branched out quite a bit since those philosophers you mentioned. I spend a lot of time reading philosophy for fun, and have found many of the ideas practically useful in regular life- but am not a fan of any of the philosophers you mentioned, and find their work mostly useless or outdated.
I can’t help but think of Kant as I write this; he wrote convincingly of the difference between mathematical intuition and philosophical conception, a binary Wolfram would presumably—and mistakenly-identify with solid logic vs meaningless buffoonery. But refusing to acknowledge our limits makes you more vulnerable to mistakes stemming from them, not less.
Worth remembering at this point that Aristotle coined “physics” for the mathematical study of physis (nature), which was then followed up by a qualitatively different set of arguments interpreting and building upon that basis in a work simply titled metaphysics (after physics). We’ve learned infinitely more mathematical facts, but IMO “what is time, really?” will forever remain beyond their reach, a fact determined not by the universe but by the question itself.TL;DR: if you’re gonna try to talk cognition you should at least admit that you’re writing philosophy, and ideally cite some philosophers. We’ve been working on this for a hot minute! Barbour seems to be doing something much less ambitious: inventing the most useful/fundamental mathematical framework he can.