Relevant suttas: sn35.116, sn12.44, an9.38 and sn35.23.
[Ananda:] This is how I understand the detailed meaning of this passage for recitation. Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the noble one. And through what in the world do you perceive the world and conceive the world? Through the eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. Through the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world.
The other abovementioned suttas also reinforce the EBT idea that ‘the world’ is the world of experience, which makes sense considering that suffering only makes sense in the context of a being’s experience.
The problem IMO is our confusing modern notion of mind vs matter.
“Instead of the framework of the mind existing somewhere in material time and space, we say that time and space exist within the mind.”
On one hand, this could be a way to use the mind-matter terminology to point to the world of experience. I.e. time and space are first and foremost things we engage with through our experience.
Or, it could be interpreted as saying time and space are not fundamental properties of reality (see below).
Or, it could be interpreted as saying that things are actually made of mind-stuff, not matter-stuff.
And probably many other ways as well.
So to conclude, IMO, one needs a lot more context to understand what that saying is supposed to mean.
From a physics perspective, you might be interested in physcisist Nima Arkani-Hamed’s arguments for why spacetime is not a fundamental structure of reality.
From evolutionary theory, it follows from Donald Hoffman’s interface theory of perception that spacetime is not a fundamental property of reality but rather an adaptive part of our species-specific perceptual interface.