Empiricism is strictly a psychological approach to reality evidenced by the interpretation of the senses through the mind, for sight cannot be seen by the eyes nor touch be touched by the flesh, thus necessitating the senses as merely a matter of interpretation were any evidence of such a statement, such as this, being correct or incorrect is a fabrication of consciousness.
The distinction of the abstract and empirical is purely a limit within awareness that is limited to neither thus resulting in a space that is a transcendental centering of such phenomena implying that space is not limited to either the abstract or empirical as the distinction of both the abstract and empirical is the space by which both occur.
To make a distinction, either abstract or empirical, is an expression of space that is the underlying unity of said dimensions or experience. To speak of the abstract or empirical is to assert an awareness of dimensions that reference themselves and eachother, for the abstract justifies the abstract, the empirical justifies the empirical, and both justify eachother, thus leaving a fourth paradigm where these dimensions point less to themselves and eachother but rather the reality of there being dimensions.
To test anything, through purely empirical means, is to result in a self referencing loop if empiricism is taken as the pure standard by which knowledge arises. A dualistic element of abstraction is necessary for any empirical test to be justified thus leaving a relative hierarchy in knowledge as interpretation, in this case, supersedes the senses by forming the paradigm by which is the dimension itself.
Consciousness, relative to these terms, is merely the occurence of relative dimensions and empirical testing is an expression how how awareness percieves the rhythms of the senses by creating a paradigm, as a test, based upon interpretation of how things behave. Given an empirical test is an expression of how the physical is interpreted, empirical knowledge is merely an act of sensual memory and as such is relegated to mere thought, an image within the mind akin to abstraction.
To cycle upon this argument and claim it is purely abstract would be a falsity as the argument is evidenced as an empirical phenomenon, by nature of being on a digital screen or piece of paper or even soundwaves from vocals, and yet like all empirical phenomena, such as this one, the imbuing of meaning an intention with the act of attention forces a necessary observation that interpretation is not purely physical or limited strictly to the senses as the senses required, to observe something empirical such as this argument, require an interpretation and application of meaning which cannot be physically tested and it if where to be physically tested an interpretative regress would occur that is not purely sensory in the physical sense.
There is no proof for the abstract from a strictly empirical perspective and yet proof is necessary for the empirical to have any inherent meaning or nature thus relegating the purely empirical being a contradiction by nature of it needing proof with proof being interpretation for to prove “x” within an empirical test would require an abstraction as the proof itself for the proof is merely an interpretation that cannot be seen within the senses but rather only through the mental constructs of imagination and memory. If knowledge is purely empirical, and the observers claiming this are subject to this purely empirical paradigm, then physicality under empirical knowledge is a self-referential loop. Dually the abstract often requires the empirical as proof thus necessitating physical changes as fundamentally expression of the mind as further evidenced with the observer effect further relegating scientific knowledge as merely expressions of how reality is seen, not what it is, through the many manifestation of empirical tests through abstract thought and memory.
The paradox of a purely empirical phenomena is evident through meaning apprehension, language games so to speak, as one cannot physically point to the empirical, they cannot physically point to the senses, and in the absence of purely physical applied meaning the empirical becomes an abstraction thus leading to an ambiguity in central usage and terminology evidenced by its self contradicting nature. Sensory phenomena, by default becomes mere objects of assumption as the impressionable nature of the senses is reduced purely to an interior assumption of reality. Whether or not the senses can be doubts subcedes them to interpretation regardless of the derived verdict and corresponding justifications.
To test the physical with the physical results in a circular loop, to test electrons with a device composed of electrons results in a regress. The formation of physical tests for physical properties is a formation of physical laws as the tests are interpretations that influence how reality operates by nature of the test itself. To seek knowledge is to make the distinction of knowledge itself where what is physical, and the knowledge forthwith, is merely an action of distinction that self creates what it means to know a phenomena. Tests fail and succeed not because of incorrect or correct theorizing but rather as the inevitable limits of awareness that require said limits to avoid an oblivion of indistinct unity for if there is no distinction then nothing occurs, thus distinction is necessary, and in a hypothetical realm where anything is possible then even then limits would still exist so that there are distinctions and intrinsic order that would allow the possible to exist.
The nature of empirical proof institutes an inherent change within the physical not only by the nature of testing but by the simplistic arranging of matter to percieve how the arranged matter relates to other arranged matter and yet with the constitution of this arrangement comes a self cycling nuance that the arrangement itself is the act of abstraction instituting changes to the material world where the act of perception institutes change and yet change is the paradigm that allows matter to be by movement thus implying the consciousness is the unmoving mover by necessity of being the void through which potential physical changes emerge. Empirical testing becomes a paradigm for the self prescribed identity that constitutes the observer by nature of it being the formulation and change of the empirical.