Diekemper vs Barbour: The Dance of Time – part 3

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.___I am grateful to Julian Barbour for his response to my article, The Dance of Time. In this brief counter response, I will make a general observation followed by two specific points.
I think a very clear observation emerges from what Barbour says: given the complexities of the concept of time, and given that current scientific data underdetermine the nature of time, one must rely on philosophical argumentation – at some stage – in deciding how to fill out the details of the concept. It is another matter, of course, whether science could, in principle, ever be complete enough to fully determine the nature o...