[analog]

If I understand right, wouldn't this definition you gave inevitably give rise to another absolute, which I feel you might be neglecting.

If percieved motion is entangled with a division of absolute rest into infinite numbers of points, there would be increments between those points as you have said. This brings time into the picture because of how you related it to space, but what of the other time this unwittingly creates.

If the divisions are incremental and they are happening throughout space, something must sink them together, else there would be no proof of action reaction, or what happened when. These divisions could be happening more frequently on one side of the galaxy than they are on the other. Without an ever present pulse rippling through the cosmos keeping all this in sync, the symetry of time would be broken.

Would this not be a representation of absolute time, then?

That was always my problem with answering the riddle of motion by viewing it as particles replicating from one point to the other. This would cause more problems than it solved to me, because then to have a chronological flow to anything, you would have to have a heartbeat across the vastness of space traveling at instantaneous speeds much faster than Einstein's light. Then, you would get into the headache of what we know as present reality riding that wave across space, whereby, in front of the wave was furture, and behind the wave past. I don't know. I never was drawn to this type of thought, not to say that you aren't right.