[dschiptsov]

What is the proof of existence of 'universal time' as physical phenomena instead of being a 'derived property' of some or other physical process?

Rotation of Earth around Sun is just a process, there is no time in it apart from the mind of an external observer. Similarly with any so called "atomic clocks" or any other physical process, including so called expansion of the Universe.

Time, of course, could be derived as a concept from an observable change (a process) by mind, but this does not imply its physical existence, like it is with what we call physical forces.

Space is more subtle, but it is also require an observer and at least two particles related via this or that set of forces.

Two random Photons share nothing, and without an observer there is neither space nor time among them.

Mathematics does not imply existence of described abstraction.

[dools]

Mathematics doesn't imply anything. You can make a model using mathematics and then use it to make predictions, then test those predictions experimentally. By doing this a lot you can discover things and give them names like time, and proper time, and space and whatnot.

[dschiptsov]

Is this a proof?

Western philosophy, so far, succeed in separating these concepts as being a priory which is perfectly reasonable, considering that any sensory input which is subsequently used to train and condition our mind is coming serialized by out sense organ, so, for a mind, which is a result of conditioning by the senses, the notion of succession is a priory. Conditioning by shared physical environment gives us cycles, so the notion of a cycle is also a priory. Succession days into nights in the environment and ageing of other people's bodies gives us notion of a continuous change. But change is not time.

Eastern philosophy (and modern cognitive neuroscience) would suggest that this a priory is related to our minds, not to photons or forces. So?

[dools]

Right so there's a thing we call time which is to do with how we experience the world around us. There is also a mathematical object of the same name which is part of a model which provides accurate predictions about how things behave. The more successful predictions a model has, the less likely it is that the model is fundamentally inaccurate. But although our perception of time is undoubtedly related to the thing represented by the mathematical object we also call time, they are not the same thing. One is a mathematical object, the other is a subjective experience.

[Retra]

What would you ask of a proof? If you're reading some text, how do you determine if the text constitutes a proof?

[dschiptsov]

To "see" Universe as it is we have to remove an observer - a mind which creates appearances and conditions itself with them.

It is a hack, so to speak.)