Question: I'm looking to find some resources to read about the following:  

When we talk about a general concept (the word pencil in "a pencil is made of wood"), we actually have a mental image of a **particular** object in our mind (a particular pencil with a particular color in the example).

I'm looking to read about this and similar issues. I don't even know what topic to look into. I've looked a bit on Frege's work but I didn't find what I was looking for. I'd appreciate suggestions.

Answer: 
There's no contradiction between "time is something fundamental," a physics/metaphysics thesis, and "time is a concept invented to describe how we experience events," an epistemic/conceptual thesis. I would combine a "don't know" answer to time (or rather, spacetime) being fundamental, with a "yes" to your second option. 

There's a respectable hypothesis in physics wherein the far future of our universe might be an extremely boring place, where *almost* nothing happens. Sean Carroll describes it at <http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/05/05/squelching-boltzmann-brains-and-maybe-eternal-inflation/> The boring empty universe still continues expanding, however, so maybe that's something.
The interval of a second is currently defined as exactly 9 192 631 770 cycles of a Caesium atomic clock. Furthermore the definition has changed several times.

> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second>
> 
> 
> 

From this we see that: 1. The interval of a second is completely arbitrarily chosen. 2. Scientists take great care to construct high precision *relative* time scales. This brings us to how Science sees the *time dimension*: 

> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime>
> 
> 
> 

Relativity theory tells us that time is integral to the fabric of "Reality". That is, any measurements an *Observer* makes must be done in *four dimensions*. 
Now we can say that: 1. Scientifically speaking a time interval can only be said to be real when observed, with an appropriate *external* time scale. But, 2. An Observer independant Spacetime interval underlies Special relativity.

From 1. we would say that indeed there are no time elapsed between A and B. However from 2. there is a mathematical abstraction that could correlate to and independent spacetime.

But wait there is more: 

> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality>  
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement>
> 
> 
> 

Taking Quantum and Relativity together we also find, 1. not only an isolated system for A and B, but the whole universe must be without events in order to have a truly Timeless interval. However it is unclear whether the previous sentence is *even valid* because of a) the large areas of discord between Quantum and Relativity theories and b) the different interpretations of Relativity, and especially Quantum, theory.

**Philosophic implications**

There are no consensus among philosophers-of-science about the true nature of time. But from a Physics standpoint Time does not exist independently of Space, and some would add Observers.