There have been lots of debates about time, but there are no certain logically consistent standpoints. (At least i haven't found one)

The commonly accepted view is that of relativity which states time is a dimension very similar to three spatial dimensions, but there are some significant differences that should be considered:

1. We can't go back in time.

2. Time is a measure of change. There are no changes if we don't have the spatial dimensions, so the existence of time is depended upon the existence of spatial dimensions

meanwhile they don't have such a dependence on time.

I have heard of some saying time might be an emergent phenomenon which seems considerable to me for the above reasons. Haven't found much supporting material other than pure skepticism. Any related resources and comments would help.

Someone in the physics forums, may be a physics expert, posted this article some time back.

 

 

 

 

It gives a good insight into the problem of time in theoretical physics, haven't got my head into it to understand it clearly though. Hope that helps.

That's an educating read. The basic relevant gist is that time is not real for things larger than quanta, while time is real for quanta. So that said, according to the .pdf time is an emergent property.

Thanks immortal for the great article, I finally read it.

According to this article the whole space time is emergent not just time (or the geometric time as is said) and what exists is the fundamental time.

 

But I have no idea what the fundamental time is and why we would presume its existence.

It seems like a metaphysical assumption.

 

 

 

 

 

Well let me disagree with my first post.

Change doesn't necessarily need spatial dimensions, as we can perceive the change in our feelings without a need for meter.