Brandon PM'd me to clarify my previous statement in this thread, and after reviewing my answer, I thought it best to regurgitate it here for ya'll, and I wanted our Bean to know that my intent of "thanking her for making my point" was with tongue firmly planted in cheek (the first time, anyway).
In a recent thread called "Defining the Beatles", Bean offered a number of (pardon the pun) "examples" of how music may be interpreted by mathematics (and I'm not sure why since she was really "proving" my point, not the one she intended), and that music is not an application of mathematics but a reflection.
The idea is about the same... that mathematics reflects that which exists... a way for us to understand... a definition for us to exist in... time is how we understand it. Of course, time actually is defined by the relativity of the planets within our solar system, the relationship of Earth to Moon orbits (with some minor mathematical adjustments every four years) blah, blah...
BTW - as a performer there is little point to reflecting music as mathematics, but as a teacher or student it is invaluable to do so. However, it is always definitive of a humans concept of time.
Time is a context is this case, one of many. There are "times" (all puns intended) when the value of this reflection is stronger, requires more concentration, communicates more intensely... as a performer fighting it or losing it is more obvious (to me) than a wrong note (not that there are any... but that is a whole other thing
).
I thought it was possible that I was not clear in the formation of that little word construct, especially the "(amongst others) which was referring to: there are more functions than only perspective that effect its definition, not that the being amongst other (things/peoples) perspectives is part of the function of time (even so much as it actually is).
I love this line of thought and would be happy to hear about it more.... 
