And what philosophical considerations compel us to claim that there is time?

It’s not easy to answer that. More importantly: what philosophical considerations compel us to think that there is a cloud in the sky, or that there is a table in front of me? It seems to me that this is mainly the feeling that I am standing before something that exists, and that this is not a subjective sensation (with no basis in reality). If that is also your feeling regarding time, then the philosophical conclusion is that it exists.
After further thought, it seems to me that it is quite hard even to define the claim that time exists. In what sense does it exist? On the one hand it has no mass and takes up no space, and on the other hand the feeling it creates in us certainly exists. One might perhaps ask whether only we are built in such a way that we perceive things in terms of time; that is, is it possible that there could be a creature that would not sense time and would not think in terms of time? I am fairly convinced that the answer is yes. But that does not mean that there is no time or that it is a subjective mode of perception of ours, for there are also blind people who do not see, and regarding that most of us would not say that sight is a subjective matter. There are also different rates to the flow of time (depending on our mood). But that too does not mean it is subjective, for things in reality are also perceived by us differently depending on our mood.
From a halakhic point of view specifically, such a claim has implications: can one attach a vow to time (association applies only to objects)? The Talmud says yes. Beyond that, in the accepted view there are commandments that time itself causes (not circumstances that occurred at a certain time, but time itself). That too means that time is an existing entity, because something that does not exist cannot cause anything.

The feeling that time creates in us does not stem from anything that exists essentially in it, but from the fact that we are surrounded by matter. The totality of changes in it can be divided into spans of time that human beings invented and that have no connection to objective reality. When I “feel” that a year has passed, I am simply influenced by all the physical changes that took place around me.
Let me put it differently: suppose all matter were to disappear from the world—would it still make sense to speak of time? By contrast, if we think about the laws of logic and space, the situation is different. They would exist in some sense even with no matter at all. Time’s dependence on matter is absolute. Matter is a necessary condition for it.
Also regarding commandments caused by time, all commandments relate to matter and therefore to changes in it; those are what dictate the obligation of the commandment, not the “passing” of time, whose objective existence I do not understand in what sense it has.

Correction to the second line: the totality of changes in matter gives a “feeling” of time, and for the sake of convenience human beings wanted to summarize a large quantity of changes in a kind of scale they invented that has no connection to reality.

Hello Yoel.
You’re throwing out several assertions here as though they were unquestionable truths, and they are not. One person says this, another says that. If that is how you feel, then apparently in your opinion time does not exist. In the opinion of others it does exist. Your arguments are nothing but declarations that beg the question. Someone who thinks time exists will not agree with you about them.

All right then….
If someone among the supporters of the existence of time beyond processes in matter can give me his perspective on why it is impossible to reduce “time” to changes in matter, I’d be glad. Instead of claiming that there is both time and changes in matter, one could make do with the latter and, with the help of Ockham’s razor (or the principle that underlies the decision whether a person has lost his sanity in Tractate Chagigah—by the way, is that the Rabbi’s own innovation, connecting those things? I liked it very much), get rid of unnecessary concepts. To my mind this is simply shorthand and a conceptual and ontological fiction.
Thanks to anyone who can enlighten me and share his thoughts.

When you close your eyes and shut off all your other senses, you still feel the passage of time. You don’t need to observe processes in matter in order to experience it.

I understand what it means to sense heat or cold or pain and so on. But what does it mean to sense that time is passing? Maybe that sensation is nothing more than knowledge or an insight implanted in a person that “time” passes while his senses are inactive? Maybe that sensation is mistaken cognitive knowledge that has been implanted.

Maybe… the sensation of heat and cold is also perhaps something subjective. It’s all one big “maybe”…

Just yesterday I saw a video of a little girl sobbing bitterly because Jesus so loves her. Does the fact that that girl feels the crucified one’s love for her make it true? What is the criterion for distinguishing between delusions that come from education or prejudice and real ontological entities?
Can we make do with people’s feelings, or must we turn to scientific and philosophical analysis of those feelings? Is the position of someone who claims that there is time as legitimate as the position of one who denies its existence when all we have are feelings, or does the burden of proof rest on the one who claims that some entity exists?
If we take for example the discussion about the existence of God, there are arguments in favor of God’s existence beyond the feelings of devout believers, as one can learn from the philosophers. Of course the matter is debated, and on both sides of the divide there are those who disagree on the issue, but at least there is something that goes beyond feelings and depends on rational analysis of the topic. What do we have on the analytical level beyond people’s feelings when it comes to the existence of time?

Search online and you will surely see people who saw pools of water in the desert (a fata morgana / mirage). Does that cause you to stop trusting your sense of sight? We have no other tool, and even if it misfires from time to time, that’s what we have. The same applies to our intuition. The fact that people make mistakes and there are illusions does not mean we should give it up. We have nothing else. Even scientific or philosophical examination ultimately rests on intuitive assumptions.

If we put a person into a closed and dark room, after a short time he will completely lose his sense of time. What’s the difference? Rather, our sense of time is a function of the movement around us, chiefly of the heavenly bodies.

I have come to support the view of the questioner, Yoel son of Petuel, who enticed Rabbi Michi with words. And this is my beginning. Regarding the experiment the Rabbi proposes: “When you close your eyes and shut off all your other senses, you still feel the passage of time. You don’t need to observe processes in matter in order to experience it.” There is a refutation of this from what is known to every beginner in meditation practice. There is no such thing as shutting off the senses. In the Buddhist view—which can actually be experienced in practice—every mental state is accompanied by a physical sensation. Consequently, when “you close your eyes,” you are not closing your other senses. Therefore your sense of time may continue to rely on material changes: tingling, a breeze, sounds, smells, and so on. These changes create the sensation of time. Even the unceasing train of thoughts (recent studies: 50 thoughts per minute for the average person) is connected to neurological changes, and thus these too create a sensation of time. We have never seen time, and all our acquaintance with it stems from changes in matter. Do you disagree with the Buddha too?! Thus it is proved, and go do vipassana.

These are just words. At the end of the day, when you close your eyes there is a sensation of the passage of time. The claim that maybe this is an illusion or an effect of biological processes that continue (and are not perceived by the senses, since you do not see or hear or smell them) is always possible, but the burden of proof is on the questioner.