Two interpretations of the ¨time¨ concept

If I consider time, there seem to be two views of the concept.

Concept number one:

This view seems to say that the only kind of time which exists is the instant of now.  In that view, the past
is really only memory. The past does not really exist, it is simply an artifact of biologically stored memory.  Similarly, the future is simply an extrapolation of the mind. Since the mind knows what has happened in the past, the mind can construct a fictional scenario of the future.  This view of time says that it is only the mind which creates anything beyond the present.

Concept number two:

This view of time is that past, present and future all exist at once.  In this view,

The past is persistent. It occurred as an instant and that instant keeps occurring.

The now is persistent. It occurs now and continues to occur it becomes part of the past.

The future (and every instant in it) occurs and continues to occur.

This view of time treats the concept as if it is a loaf of bread. Thus, slices can be considered

like slices of bread

Brian Green commented that the second view should be as understandable as understanding the idea
that the physical universe currently exists, even at great distances. He says time should exist in every
form past, present and future.

I wonder if there is a third concept of time.  I will keep looking. I have not seen one yet.