Regarding the existence/reality of "objective time" I wrote:
If you insist this to be the case, then please prove it.
to which your reply:
An entity exists objectively if and only if it exists independently of our perception of it.
If time did not exist objectively, it could not exist outside our perception. But perception, being a process, presupposes duration, a time in which the process takes place. Therefore, time necessarily exists before our perception, and is therefore necessarily objective.
Okay, So, you are saying that you can prove objective time exists because perception of it presupposes (take for granted or as a given; suppose beforehand;) its existence in the first place. Which would be a good example of our minds creating time, presupposing its existence and then constructing a reality in which time is an essential element, but not fundamentally true. It would be an illusion because there would be no objective truth of the existence of "objective time" other than that presupposition created by us in the first place. That cannot be proof of the existence of "objective time"
What I am trying to say is (and I'm rewording your first sentence here):
An entity exists objectively if and only if it exists dependently of our perception of it, and/or through our for-knowledge of it due to the perceptions of others.
In other words, your reality lies within your perception plus for-knowledge frame. And what things look like in your frame is different to someone elses frame, depending on how close together or far apart you are from each other, how much motion is involved, what tools of perception you have and whether you have any memory/for-knowledge to help you out. But whatever you perceive, is your reality.
And I'll give you an example:
The medieval view of the universe was a belief in crystal heavenly spheres which was so strong that they denied the existence of meteors, because how could they go through those spheres without breaking them. So even though rocks were falling all around them they simply did not exist.
Their belief in a solid, unchangeable sphere of stars was so strong that new stars just couldn't fit into that picture. So even though observations of a supernova so bright that it could be seen during the day are made in China and other places, for European astronomers it simply didn't exist.
You can say "of course it did", but then you are not a medieval astronomer and have the benefit of for-knowledge and better tools of perception to re-adjust your reality. But to them, this was reality.
Other examples (and there are many) would include flat Earth, The Earth as the centre of the universe, the universe being endless, intelligent design etc. etc. These are all realities for those that perceive or perceived them. That's why you have so much difficulty telling a Christian or a Muslim that God doesn't exist in reality and is one of the reasons why I am having so much trouble telling you that Time doesn't exist in reality.
Our ability to create reality is bound only upon our ability to perceive it. Parallel universes don't exist at present, they truly don't because we have no tool to perceive them, but maybe one day, we will invent that tool and "hey presto" they will exist, purely because we have the tool, not because they existed beforehand.
Anyway, that's a bit off topic.
I was talking about the quantum number, not taste.
Since quantum numbers describe specifically the energies of electrons in atoms, you are talking about a holon (a system (or phenomenon) that is a whole in itself as well as a part of a larger system.) so therefore cannot be used to describe a universe containing one fundamental particle, since it is a collection.
Time doesn't "happen", time is. It is a medium in which events happen.
It can indeed, despite there being no-one to measure it.
Then I still ask you for your proof.
Tolstoy wrote; "men only learn when they're suffering". The question is; how much do you want to learn?