I agree with Derrick and I doubt that the pejorative term "preoccupied" is deserved. Talking of funny things, PC said:

"This implies that our world is traveling as a unitary object"

Surely it implies that the observer might have some simultaneity within their perception, not that the whole world is unitary.  In fact PC's reflections on Einstein are particularly timely.  In a (3+1)D universe each point has a set of simultaneous events and no two points have the same set.  It is also the case that there are sets of events that have a point outside the set for which they are simultaneous (eg: a 'view' occurs at the point of zero net separation in a 4D pseudo-Riemannian manifold).

Derrick's model would be false if subjective time and space bore no relationship to physical time and space. For instance, a view containing a representation of flowers in our minds might be a delusion and never even happen or the view containing a representation of flowers in our minds might have an entirely different form in the physical reality that creates it. If these possibilities were true then Derrick's model would be false.  However, it would be hugely premature to make this assumption whilst it is possible that ordinary physical effects such as projective geometry in a 4D manifold and events laid out somewhere in the brain could explain perception.  It is probably no joke that many neuroscientists take a Direct Realist stance and are not even looking for a substrate for conscious experience and, if they sit on funding bodies, would withhold funds because they consider the search to be absurd or impossible.