DA, you ask "Can we really ‘describe our experience’?" My response is that we do not even describe the simplest aspects of our experience but we could if we could be bothered to do so.

Perhaps I could begin with something as simple as how we see a view.  Physicists try to describe vision by using diagrams of the path of light rays. This "geometrical optics" results in two, two dimensional images on the retinas.  There is a gaping hole in this description because it misses out the spatial dimension of depth.  Our physical description of vision consists of describing two, flat images.  It does not describe a 'view' at all.  A view is objects arranged around a viewing point, not two, discrepant, two dimensional images.

I can describe a 'view'.   It is objects arranged around a geometrical point but there is, and can be, no flow into a point. There is no flow in a view so it is a purely geometrical phenomenon.  The objects in a view are simultaneous, hence spatially arranged. So the problem of describing a 'view' is the solution to the question: "what geometrical form has events arranged around a point that are both at the point and arranged in space?".  The answer is well known, it is a geometrical form described by the metric:
0 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - Q^2
where Q is a negative dimension that allows events to be both arranged in space and at a point and all displacements are relative to the location of the point. 

This is just a simple mathematical description of the form of our visual experience.  If I see a circle I can offer the mathematical form r^2 = x^2 + y^2 to describe it.  I do not even need to measure it, if something looks pretty well circular then this description will be pretty well correct.  If I see a sphere I can offer the mathematical form r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 to describe it.  If I have a 'view' I can offer 0 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - Q^2  to describe it. 

So I can indeed describe my 'view' and if I inspect the relationships in this description I will find that they are very similar to the relationships in physical equations that describe ordinary, common-or-garden space-time.  I would need to be a die-hard presentist to reject the possibility that this 'view' is just a natural result of the existence of space and time.  Sadly die-hard presentists are the majority of philosophers and even include many physicists. This problem with admitting the existence of dimensional time is due to lumping, change, causality and dimensional time together as a single phenomenon when they are multiple phenomena.