Genady

If a mutation occurs in a cell of tissue A during early development, soon after it differentiated from cells of other tissues, wouldn't most or all of its daughter cells, which could be most or all of the tissue A cells, carry this mutation and thus have DNA different from DNA in other tissues?

Exactly! +1 So, what is the difference that makes "curious minds" so unhappy with time, and not with space, that they feel a need to do something about it, up to and including, to eliminate it completely from the picture? It doesn't seem to be in our visual sensations, per @iNow's explanation above. BTW there is a good answer to Carl Sagan's question, It flows past events. Anyway. I think that the difference is numerical, namely in the speed of light which is a very big number, and which separates our perception of time from that of space. As we turn or walk, we observe spatial changes in the environment. On the other hand, it seems that whatever we do, time keeps flowing all by itself. But in fact, it is an optical illusion caused by the speed of light being so different from our everyday speeds. If speed of light were, say, 5mi/h, as soon as we started walking, we would observe temporal changes in the environment. And then, I think, the mystery of time would be no more. Or, at least, it would be no more mysterious than space.

We set up experiments in classical physics as well. And the outcomes of those experiments depend on our setup. This is not special for QM. The detector does not need to have a mind to affect the outcome.

It will happen the same way if an observer is nowhere. For example, you can videotape the experiment and throw the tape away. The results will be the same. It is the fact of measurement rather than that of observing that makes the difference.

It does not. This is misunderstanding. In QM, mind does not change an expected outcome. Nor any other outcome.

The above quote demonstrates that time is a difficult concept. It does not however describe time as being a more difficult concept than space. More to the point, Carl Sagan emphasizes difficulties of the physics of time, while @swansont emphasizes biology of our senses: If I understand it correctly, it means that the time concept is more difficult because it is not visual. I am curious, if blind persons think that space is more 'mysterious' concept than time?

Thus, this reads, "A collective human recognition of limitations declares that god does not have a gambling problem with dice games." Is it correct?

Do we directly sense with vision the dimensions of space? Do we see space? How does it look? We rather see stuff, particularly a lit stuff. We mentally construct a "stage", where the stuff lives. This stage is space. By the behavior of stuff as we move around, we discover that the stage has three dimensions. I don't see (pardon the pun) that we see space any more than we see time.

But I didn't ask 'who' has authored that oft repeated quotation. I've asked 'who' are 'we' in this statement: The source is the Nature. Our mind is the destination.

Speculations about a nature of time pop up quite often in one form or another. But I've never seen those on a nature of space. I wonder, why? What makes time so much more ... mysterious?

This question refers to the rotation of a galaxy, right? Why would a gravitational interaction between DM halo and the galactic matter make DM halo to follow the rotation of galactic matter? Why would a gravitational force on DM in the direction of the galaxy rotation be larger than the gravitational force on DM in the opposite direction?

Doesn't particle diffraction demonstrate the uncertainty principle? The narrower the opening, i.e. the uncertainty in position, the wider the range of directions, i.e. the uncertainty in momentum. E.g.: 220: Single-slit Diffraction and the Uncertainty Principle (Mathcad Version) - Chemistry LibreTexts

Here is something (better than nothing, I guess): Researchers demonstrate Heisenberg uncertainty principle at macro level (phys.org)

Yes, it is: (Perceive vs Sense - What's the difference? | WikiDiff)

or, maybe, the same disorder

to sense, not to perceive

I don't think that the very first concept of time needs to be a quantifiable time. That could come later. 'Something' in the 'change of something' is the context. I can't connect a body clock with the concept of time. The concept rises with a perception of change.

Maybe, but why. Any one-step change seems to have all that's needed for giving rise of concept of time.

Are we sure we are not talking with a poorly debugged version of a chatbot?

Modern physics has degraded into the study of Nature's grandeur rather than focusing on one specific type of biological machinery capable to study it, albeit with difficulties. Of course, the latter is important as well. "We" who? We rather test it. "We" who?

The first such perception might be a perception that something has changed.

How about the fact that electron doesn't fall onto a nucleus in spite of their electrical attraction? Electron cannot be localized on the nucleus and stay there because otherwise it would be in a state with very precise position and momentum.

Just a few clarifications: 1. A 'speed' of particle is not well defined. The uncertainty principle relates rather position and momentum. 2. Position is a three-dimensional vector in space, say along x, y, and z axes. Momentum also is a three-dimensional vector. The uncertainty principle relates position and momentum of a particle along the same axis. Its position along axis x, for example, and its momentum along axis y can be measured at the same time. 3. Position and momentum along one axis cannot be measured simultaneously because there is no such state in which a particle would have a definite position and a definite momentum along one axis. This inability is a matter of particle states rather than that of measurements.

This is known in science for hundreds of years. Why do we need examples of it?

I am not sure what means, but I know of only one instance in the history of science pertaining to a change in understanding of time. I.e., from Newtonian time to SR time. Or, more specifically, from Newtonian simultaneity to simultaneity in SR.