No.

There are so many ways to gainsay your hypothesis here that I don’t know where to begin.

Let’s start with relativity.

Unless you don’t accept the Lorentz transformation , which however is mathematically incontrovertibly established, then time cannot possibly be fundamental, as follows. Under Lorentz, time, distance and speed are inextricably linked, for example: stay put and look to a star light years away (say, Andromeda) : You are simultaneous with something happening right now on that star. Now walk leisurely (say, 3 miles an hour) towards Andromeda : you are now simultaneous with something that happened about 24 hours in the future of what you were simultaneous with when you were standing still. Now walk away from the star : you are now simultaneous with something that happens one day in the past of when you were standing still.

So far, so good.

But now spin around your axis like a dervish : the left half of your brain, receding from the star, is simultaneous with something on Andromeda that is now about 48 hours in the past of what the right half of your brain, moving towards the star, is simultaneous with. So when you spin, the two halves of your brain are separate by 48 hours in terms of their simultaneity with happenings on Andromeda (you can make the time gap greater by choosing objects further away). But between themselves only, the two halves of your brain are separated by mere fractions of nanoseconds only : You have just totally destroyed the nature of time, by simply spinning like a dervish.

Ah, but you’ll say, I don’t accept mathematics.

So let’s look at experimental evidence only, with no math involved : Do a delayed choice experiment à la John Wheeler, and boom : you have thoroughly destroyed time again, and utterly destroyed the boundary between past and future.

Compounding the above : time is the ultimate non-observable : every single attempted definition or apprehension of what time is always ends up being circular : you need time – even if disguised in some indirect way - to be able to define time.

The strong-view consequence of the above is that time does not fundamentally exist and is a mere dimensional artefact.

The weak-view consequence is that time may possibly exist, but cannot be fundamental in any way – as it arises from other phenomena – such as entanglement (another phenomenon that may hurt our cognitively biased instinctual views of reality, but which is impeccably underpinned by mathematics.)

Bottom line : no, no, and no.

Thank you Mr. Ransford for your detailed response! I really appreciate your time in breaking down these objections so thoroughly. I definitely don’t want to dismiss the mathematical foundation of relativity or the experimental evidence behind quantum mechanics—those are well-established pillars of modern physics. That said, I’d love to explore some of your points a little deeper to clarify where my thinking differs and where I might be missing something.

1. Lorentz Transformations and the Relativity of Simultaneity

I completely see how relativity interlinks time, space, and velocity, making simultaneity frame-dependent. However, if we consider time as the fundamental fabric, could the Lorentz transformation be describing changes in local time-density rather than absolute space-time relationships? In other words, is it possible that what we currently call "space-time distortions" are actually variations in the rate at which time flows rather than a fundamental warping of space?

For example, we already observe time dilation in gravitational fields. If we extend that idea, could motion-induced time dilation be an indicator of an underlying time-density field rather than just an effect of relative velocity? If this were the case, would it change how we interpret the simultaneity shifts you described?

2. The Spinning Observer Paradox

The example of spinning and the two halves of the brain having different simultaneity relations is fascinating. If I understand correctly, you’re saying that if time were truly fundamental, then something as simple as spinning should not be able to create such a paradox. However, doesn’t general relativity already accommodate this by showing that rotation leads to frame-dragging and additional relativistic effects?

If time were treated as a field rather than a simple linear parameter, then a spinning motion might be interacting with different densities of time at each point in space. Would this interpretation contradict relativity, or could it offer an alternative way of thinking about relativistic effects?

3. Quantum Mechanics and the Delayed Choice Experiment

I completely agree that Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment challenges classical ideas of time. But what if the experiment doesn't show that time is "destroyed" but rather that quantum interactions occur across a shared time field? Instead of information traveling backward, could entanglement be the result of two particles sharing the same region of temporal density, such that their correlation exists outside of classical spatial constraints?

I realize this is speculative, but would it be possible to test whether entanglement strength varies in extreme gravitational environments where time dilation is significant? If so, could that provide any clues as to whether time is fundamental or emergent?

4. The Circular Nature of Time’s Definition

I see the concern that time is often defined in self-referential ways. But wouldn’t the same issue arise with space? We define distances using other distances (e.g., the meter is defined in terms of the speed of light, which itself depends on space-time). Does that necessarily mean space is non-fundamental? Or does it just mean that some things in physics—whether time, space, or even mass—might be so deeply embedded in the fabric of reality that they cannot be defined in simpler terms?

Final Thoughts

I’m not arguing that current physics is wrong—far from it! My goal is more about seeing whether reframing certain ideas in terms of a time-centric model could offer useful insights. I really appreciate your perspective, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on whether any of these ideas open up interesting questions or if they have been explored and ruled out already.

Looking forward to your thoughts!