I have read a number of threads that argue the ontological status of time in physics. One of the most concrete "descriptions" of time in physics is offered by Huw Price. Huw Price suggests time is symmetrical, but the order of events in time are not. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0402040 He uses the analogy of a long cathedral hall representing time where all the chairs in this hall face one way representing the order of events. The common direction of the chairs is the direction of entropy, but not necessarily the "direction" of time. We can imagine all the chairs being turned to face the other direction, but the hall remains unchanged. The symmetry of time void of the order of events is then simply the symmetry of an operational time in the equations of physics. I think this analogy is at the root of many arguments about the nature of time and the "arrow" of time. It allows one to separate the dimension Time from the operational definition of time in physics. Which leaves the order of events (the chairs) separate from any causal relationship with the direction of time (the hall). As an operational definition, time in physics is concerned with the relationships between the chairs, the time (chair events) of light signals between chairs, etc. This "operational" definition of time presents a new problem though: if time is not the order of events then neither is the rate of events the rate of time. Such an operational treatment of the dimension time quite literally removes time as a "fundamental dimension" of physics and requires physics discover some new dynamic responsible for the order and rate of events. On the other hand, it is possible that present physical dynamics are each partial descriptions of a more fundamental dynamic where all are collectively responsible for the order and rate of events. It would then make sense to call such a new or collective dynamic - Time. Please feel free to show me the error/s in this line of reason. It is at the heart of my essay on the nature of time and as no one has commented on it, I don't know if its being read, dismissed, misunderstood or ignored.