That sounds wonderful but doesn't mean anything.
An interesting quote from the article:
For many, Bergson’s defeat represented a victory of “rationality” against “intuition.” It marked a moment when intellectuals were no longer able to keep up with revolutions in science due to its increasing complexity.
Why do you think that?
I think you have to really understand a field to say that a given statement in it is meaningless. Or are you simply stating that it doesn't mean anything to you? (Which would, after all, be expected if you weren't an expert).
Let's deconstruct it:
1) Space -- Einstein has shown that it's really Space-Time 2) Mind -- there is no real agreement on what "mind" means. Brain? Consciousness? Brain is well defined, consciousness no so. 3) Time -- the 4th dimension of space-time, right?
So "Time is the Mind of Space" deconstructs to: "the 4th dimension of space-time is <something to do with thought or thinking or consciousness> of the other three dimensions of space-time."