John C,
Think how the brain processes information, by taking very small snapshots of perception, much like a movie camera taking a series of still shots, then projecting them by shining a strobe light through each in turn. So the brain has to do something similar, in order to extract information from the flood of sensory input. Otherwise it would quickly melt into white noise. Then it reconstructs a narrative sequence of motion and action from this. The result is the flood of input is turned/filtered into a stream of consciousness. That is why time is so important to our conception of reality.
Now consider how the Copenhagen Interpretation defines reality; As a sequence of measurements of an otherwise statistical fog. Yes, we can only perceive the reality our brain records, but the actual filtering process of the brain does set some of the biases. For one thing, the whole notion that reality is fundamentally information has to be considered in light of the fact the brain is designed to process information. As opposed to the respiratory, digestive and circulatory systems, that process energy. Fact is, energy is what manifests information and information is what defines energy.
As I point out, while we experience time as a series of events, past to future, the underlaying reality is the changing configuration of the energy means it is actually future becoming past, as these events come into being and then fade.
Now consider how Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity treat time; Both as the sequence from past to future. The problem with this is it really does require a Newtonian view. That of time as this universal flow from past into the future. GR essentially pulls this reality out from that single thread of time into a four dimensional geometry, that might best be thought of as a tapestry of relationships, in which duration becomes another vector connecting events according to the speed of light. As it is light which is the actual energy exchange. This is quite a brilliant feat, but when taken literally, rather than just a very effective model of energy relationships, it results in this very bizarre notion that there exists this fourth dimensional "blocktime," in which all of history is suspended out there in the geometry made real. This leads to ideas like time traveling through wormholes and that the present is only an illusion of action. It also provides the conceptual foundation for the idea of an expanding universe and that is a whole story unto itself. One of the points I make against it is; If space is what you measure with a ruler and the expanding universe model still assumes a constant speed of light against which to judge this expansion, how is that that space expands, but the ruler doesn't? The best I get in response is some feeble argument that the light is just being carried along by the expansion, but that completely overlooks the fact you use the constant as the denominator and the variable as the numerator, so trying to say the variable is really the denominator is truly horrible math.
QM does use that external, Newtonian timeline, but then it ends up with superpositions, multiworlds and cats in purgatory. That is because it is trying to model how to go from a decidedly determined past into an inconveniently probabilistic future. Which is the direction that Newtonian flow takes.
On the other hand, if you are not trying to lay all these actions out in some historical narrative and actually just sit back and watch; What happens? Stuff happens. Then it recedes into the "past," as other stuff happens. Probabilities collapse into actualities. Before the race, there are ten potential winners, but after it runs, there is only one actual winner. The multiworlds and the superpostions are always one step in the future, then something happens. The atom decays, the cat dies. Its life energy radiates out into cat heaven.
As for GR and how all those clocks can run at different rates and still be in the same reality? They are simply recording particular actions, not some general "flow." You would think that if time were a flow from past to future, the faster clock would move into the future more rapidly, but the opposite is true. It ages/burns quicker and so falls into the past more rapidly.
Regards,
John M
Ps, As for issues with tech, send a note to the moderators. Sometimes they respond to the comments. Or use the forums email, sidebar on the left.
Otherwise just cut and paste. There doesn't seem to be much concern over posting length.