It is certainly true that time is pretty elemental.

Though arguing it has more in common with temperature, as an effect and measure of action, rather than analogous to a spatial dimension, isn't a popular concept.

As you've naturally referred to it as a dimension, this analogy is certainly the normal assumption.

Consider one of the problems this concept has, is explaining the asymmetry, why it goes only one direction. Which is usually explained by entropy.

Yet if it is a measure of action, than it is due to inertia. For example, the earth only turns on direction.

Any action, including the regular actions used to measure units of time, are a physical activity, not a geometric abstraction.

Consider as well the argument of block time, that all events exist out on the time dimension and the present is subjective, like a point in space. The argument for which is that different events will appear in different order from different locations, so they all must exist out on the time dimension. Yet this is no more consequential than seeing the moon as it was a moment ago, simultaneous with seeing stars as they were years ago. It is the energy being conserved, not the information. It's that the information changes, is what creates time.

I could go on with this, such as the Eastern view is of the past in front and future behind the observer, while the Western view is of the future in front and the past behind, because the first conceives it contextually, in which we see events after they occur, then the energy transitions, while the second view is of the individual moving toward the future and away from the past. Possibly suggesting that spacetime could only have originated in the Western paradigm, but I guess I better not try to unfold the issue too far. Though it does animate my understanding of reality.