Modern physics seems to agree that both time and space are not really fundamental - they are emergent properties. This is articulated well in the IEP article on time.
However, it seems that much of modern philosophical work still depends on the classical view of these things - as fundamental. As an example, I recently asked a question generally related to this. As the user Conifold says, "Accounts of resurrection typically assume classical view of time." Why are, even modern, ideas in fields like these still "stuck" on the idea of a fundamental time and space? While this is just one specific example, it seems that much of the philosophical literature presupposes the classical view of time (as well as the classical view of space), except of course work in the philosophy of time.
So, why have advancements in physics, which show that much of our intuitions about reality are often wrong, not had much of an effect on philosophy in general?