Now that point is important because if something cannot be explained by physical processes even in principle, and we can demonstrate that to be the case, then we don't have to worry about somewhere down the line people discovering something in science that refutes our argument as if it is founded just in the contingencies of scientific discovery. My point is that this has nothing to do with science. I am trying to make the point and prove the point that it doesn't matter how much scientific sophistication we have, we will never be able to do certain kinds of things because they are the kinds of things that do not respond to physical assessment principally because they are not physical things. There is no science that we will ever discover, for example, that will help us to know what is morally right and wrong. Science doesn't measure that kind of thing.
Science measures physical things.
A moral is not a physical thing, therefore science cannot measure morality. Rather, science is the subject of morality. In other words, morality impinges upon science, not the other way around. I'm talking, though, about whether a computer can actually see color. The argument has been, A computer can measure color.