The infinite regress argument about subjective time requiring itself to change is intriguing, though it leans heavily on a metaphysical notion of the mind as a primary mover. I’d challenge the assumption that time must be a substance at all. Many physicists and philosophers argue that time might emerge from relationships between events rather than existing as an independent entity. — Areeb Salim

I discussed the problem with time being as an emergent thing elsewhere, so I just repeat myself: Three main theories of quantum gravity are widely accepted: 1) String theory, 2) Loop quantum theory, and 3) AdS/CFT, each has its own problems. This article nicely discusses these theories in simple words and explains the problems with the string theory and AdS/CFT theory. This wiki page discusses the problem of loop quantum theory.

Your thought experiment is clever for illustrating our inability to perceive subjective time directly. I think this would be a fascinating topic to expand with perspectives from process philosophy or modern physics. — Areeb Salim

Thank you very much for your understanding. That is not the only argument for our inability to perceive subjective time. We don't have any sensory system for it either.

You seem to have smuggled in the concept of substance here. Does substance describe a thing, something that has objective existence? — Punshhh

Yes.

Or is substance a substance of mind, or intellect, or something immaterial? — Punshhh

I believe in substance pluralism in which the mind is an immaterial substance, whereas the physical is material substance.

Does something exist if it is an invention of thought? — Punshhh

All our experiences are due to existence of a substance that I call object for the sake of discussion. This is discussed in my other thread that you can find it here.

Time cannot be an emergent thing. I discuss this in this post.

You're welcome. I know what you mean about being pressed for time, but I had to share the article.

He says:

"It is of the utmost importance not to confuse time-relations of subject and object with time-relations of object and object; in fact, many of the worst difficulties in the psychology and metaphysics of time have arisen from this confusion. It will be seen that past, present, and future arise from time-relations of subject and object, while earlier and later arise from time-relations of object and object. In a world in which there was no experience there would be no past, present, or future, but there might well be earlier and later".

He then defines his terms and goes into more detail on each of the two.

Yet everyone on the team anticipates the same moment in time.
— frank
Each person in the team has access only to his or her psychological time. As I argued in the OP, we cannot experience subjective time since we don't have any sensory system for it. — MoK

So why do they pull at the same time?

I have an argument for it. Please read it and tell me what you think about it. — MoK

I have read it. I think I will leave you to it.

the unit created for that purpose.

Sure but you are assuming we have a final theory of physics. We don't.

It is of the utmost importance not to confuse time-relations of subject and object with time-relations of object and object; — Down The Rabbit Hole

What does he mean by this? Do you mind elaborating?

It will be seen that past, present, and future arise from time-relations of subject and object, while earlier and later arise from time-relations of object and object. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don't understand what he means by this. Do you mind explaining?

In a world in which there was no experience there would be no past, present, or future, but there might well be earlier and later — Down The Rabbit Hole

I am sorry, but I don't understand how this follows.

So why do they pull at the same time? — frank

Each individual experiences his or her psychological time only. The passage of psychological time is the same for all of them. That is why they can sync and pull at the same time.

The passage of psychological time is the same for all of them. — MoK

They sync because they're listening to the same music. They're experiencing time.

The mental time (subject-object) contains a past, present, and future, due to our experience and memory. The essence of physical time (object-object) is succession; therefore earlier and later.

For example, there is no "now" unless someone is experiencing it, and there is no "past" unless someone is remembering it. It's kind of hard to articulate, but do you get the gist of it?

While it's not mentioned in the article, I think by this point he was aware of Relativity - so succession is not necessarily fixed - and can be relative to the observer.

Your point about there being no “now” without a conscious observer ties into what’s sometimes called the “specious present” in philosophy. And yes, relativity further complicates things, since simultaneity isn’t absolute, the sequence of events can vary between observers.

So even the “succession” of object-object time isn’t as fixed as it seems. It raises fascinating questions about whether time is a fundamental feature of the universe or a mental construct tied to consciousness

There are three types of time, namely subjective time, objective time, and psychological time. — MoK

Useful post. I can agree that there is objective time and psychological time, but I am unsure that there is subjective time.

P1 - Objective time is inferred to exist in the world.
P2 - Psychological time exists in the conscious mind, in that we are conscious that at one time we were driving in the city and at another time we were walking through a forest. As you say, "We, however, experience the passage of psychological time".
P3 - The conscious mind is a physical substance that changes with objective time.

P4 - If there was a subjective time, it would exist in the conscious mind.
P5 - At one moment in objective time, subjective time cannot change.
P6 - Between two different objective times, subjective time would change.
C1 - But as you say "We, however, cannot experience the subjective time since we exist within each instant of it"
C2 - We can experience psychological time and we can infer objective time, but as we cannot experience subjective time, then the concept of subjective time becomes redundant.

Objective time and psychological time are sufficient. Subjective time is a redundant concept. This avoids your problem of infinite regress with subjective time.

So even the “succession” of object-object time isn’t as fixed as it seems. It raises fascinating questions about whether time is a fundamental feature of the universe or a mental construct tied to consciousness — Areeb Salim

Again, how do we sync our actions if time is a product of consciousness? Maybe we're telepathic?

Subjective time is a substance:

P1) Subjective time exists and changes since there is a change in a physical#1 (please see the Argument below)
P2) Any change requires subjective time (please see the Argument below)
C1) Therefore, we are dealing with an infinite regress since subjective time is required to allow a change in subjective time (from P1 and P2)
C2) If so, then there must exist the Mind that is a substance#2 with the ability to experience and cause subjective time
C3) So, subjective time is a substance — MoK

Subjective time is a redundant concept. — RussellA

Kant's transcendental philosophy includes a well-known perspective on subjective time and its mode of existence. Kant argues that time (and space) are not properties of the external world that we can empirically discover. Instead, they are a priori forms of intuition—innate to the very structure of human cognition and perception. It means that time and space are conditions for the possibility of experience, fundamental to how we reason and perceive the world. Through his transcendental inquiry, Kant concluded that we could not have any organized experience without time. He writes: "Time is not something that exists in itself, nor is it a concept derived from experience. Rather, it is an a priori intuition, which serves as the condition for the possibility of experience" (CPR, pg.32). Thus, time is subjective in a sense that it is the mental framework through which we make sense of our involvement in the world. It does not require a substance (the mind) to "experience" or "cause" it. Therefore, subjective time does not exist as though it is a separate, independently existing entity.

Kant's transcendental philosophy includes a well-known perspective on subjective time and its mode of existence. — Number2018

Yes, Kant in the "Transcendental Aesthetic" in his CPR argues that time and space are not properties of the external world, but are a priori forms of intuition that allow for the possibility of experience.

@MoK refers to subjective time, objective time and psychological time.

The question is, is @MoK's subjective time and Kant's time as an a priori form of intuition referring to the same thing. I don't think that they are.

@MoK writes that subjective time exists and changes when there is a change in the physical

P1) Subjective time exists and changes since there is a change in a physical (Consider an electron as an example of a physical)

However, on the one hand, Kant's time is not something that exists, but is something that allows for the possibility of experience, and on the other hand, is not something that changes as the physical changes.
Kant's time as an a priori intuition is neither psychological time not objective time, but is something that allows for the possibility of experiencing psychological time.