/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15028568
>>15028600
This argument seems ultimately semantic. There is passage of time within our perception of reality; in the action of the world, there is _observable_ change from moment to moment. We can see the clock hand tick from 1 to 2, and we can recognize that movement. To ask if this is 'physical' or not is ontologically nonsensical, but the scientific relevance is implicit to its inclusion in physical models(not at all a matter of time being 'really physical' or not). As to whether such a 'passage' from 1 to 2 is an 'empirical' observation, would be a subjective observation. They're moving the goalposts, but you're gatekeeping. Since when is radical empiricism _not_ empiricism? The rational of your argument seems to be "keep it simple for me." And I don't mind you doing that, but I'm not a little girl. For me, excluding subjective observation from our models would be neglectful and lazy.

>"Science conceived as resting on mere sense-perception, with no other sources of observation, is bankrupt, so far as concerns its claims to self-sufficiency. In fact, science conceived as restricting itself to the sensationalist methodology can find neither efficient nor final causality. It can find no creativity in Nature; it finds mere rules of succession. The reason for this blindness lies in the fact that such science only deals with half of the evidence provided by human experience.” (Alfred North Whitehead)