Would you consider this observation as a positive theoretical deduction based on perception of an actual?

Favorite Answer

"Definitive infinite" is not a philosophical term. It is found in internet searches, but not as a term you can use here. What is it, anyway, this "definitive" infinite? Is that an infinite that is definitive of all other infinites?

Because you define time as having no physical property, it is a contradiction to say it "will remain still/without motion/static/". Only a thing with physical properties can do that.

As for your statement that "It can only be defined, in relation to a relative physical measurement of a relative physical movement through it, of one relative measured moment to the next of Now," you might want to consider that this has already been stated more elegantly, as "time perception";

"The apprehension of the protensive or durational character of the data of experience." Dictionary of Philosophy http://www.ditext.com/runes/index.html...Show more

First of all, it's not a deduction unless you have premises. If you don't have premises, it's an 'assumption' or 'statement'.

I could contradict the statement by saying that all real things are physical. Unless you disagree.

You might say, it's bound to be discovered by science eventually. We don't need to believe that. And it doesn't need a particular scale.

That help? That's my perspective....Show more