[fdupoo]

First of all I find it bothersome how the journalist referred to the 'scientists' in the articles as 'researchers', when the basis of their thesis is philosophical, with proofs logical and rhetorical. I am aware of the encroaching proximity physics and philosophy. Nonetheless what is displayed here is a set of proofs pulled from many different domains which that lock together nicely, though they are not expressions physics nor are their methodologies research or science. It's a well contextualized and sensible argument, but it is a consideration of the fundamental assumptions of physics-- of which come from a discipline other than physics. If physistiscs philosophize, it's philosophy not physics. One's institutionally verified field of academic study doesn't determine the nature of the academic acts one is conducting at any particular time. Noam Chomsky is a good exampke of what I mean.

Furthermire, the physistics would do well to admit they are philosophizing, so as to open up the debate to those who are fimiliar with the domain and maybe learn a thing or two.

Despite the physicists doing a good job falsifying time, they mantain in their framework and approach various assumptions not unlike time has been for physics.

These assumptions are beliefs so intimate and widely held that they can and often do easily slip through logic filters unnoticed even by scientists and other men of learning. A good example of these types of assumptions and our intellectual blindspot right in the center of our inner vision is. Time.

What are the assumptions? It's hard to put a name to negative space, but perhaps the assumptions I noticed in the article can be best described as materialism and reductionism, which have both proven useful and even necessary, though incomplete.