Diekemper vs Barbour: The Dance of Time – part 4

Read part 1: Joseph Diekemper argues that the present is only a border between past and future. Read part 2: Julian Barbour replies that arguing over past and future is to miss what really matters. Read part 3: Diekemper underlines the necessity of philosophy to our understanding of time. Read part 4: Barbour disagrees: science will ultimately always take precedence over philosophy.
___In response to Joseph Diekemper, I think science will ultimately always take precedence over philosophy, which, I would say, is at its best when questioning existing concepts and suggesting ideas to science.
Moving on to the specific points, Diekemper says his "definition of the passage of time would be stated in terms of events having occurred". But how do you know an event has occurred? I think the minimum requirement is a difference in the world; I should have emphasized difference rather than change. Moreover, in connection with what we call the passage of time, the nature of the difference is genera...