It looks as if you have some familiarity with the relativistic concept of space-like vs time-like intervals. At least, the terms in which you posed your original question are those of the Minkowski space in which special relativity is formulated, where the concept is meaningful. The problem is that it looks very much like the entire formalism of relativity - general even more that special - has no connection to reality beyond generating equations that are _very_ good approximations of the correct description. It has been proven both that relativity isn't consistent with any quantum theory and that Einstein's proposed deterministic 'hidden variables' theory is _not_ the underlying structure of quantum theory. OTOH, there is compelling evidence, beginning with Planck's treatment of black-body radiation, that the universe cannot be described by non-discrete classical theories [which is a major pain, because the approximations of General Relativity are _so_ good that not only has it not been possible to build a quantum theory of gravity that clearly supersedes it, it isn't even possible to eliminate any of the several candidates for the role, because they predict exactly the same observables. There's no way to tell them apart on any level we've been able to look at.]

What that means is that the very terms in which you are trying to couch the discussion may or may not have a valid connection to reality. If they do, the answer, like the answer to the question "Is light a wave or a particle?", is not unlikely to be "Both!". If they don't, you're asking the wrong question in the first place.

Michael Everett wrote:MAD-4A wrote:My question is regarding the actual nature of time, what do we know about the actual nature of time, is it linear or multi-dimensional?

Yes.

And no.

At the same time.

(Probably)

MAD-4A wrote:Sorry - It's either 1 dimensional or multi-dimensional - it can't be both - you can't have exactly 1 donut and multiple donuts at the same time, and it is time so it can't be "at the same time" either.