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.