None of this disproves empiricism at all, honestly. Time and mathematical relationships are observable things, as we can see from this very comic. That time predates observation and is necessary to observation doesn't really affect that fact and still limits reality to the observable.
Now, if we're doing the Descartes argument, we could always just cite Hume in saying that ideas can be manipulated and extended into other ideas--for instance, if you have an idea derived from people that certain things are "good", and that some are more good than others, one could develop an idea that there is something that is "most good" without any outside interference. As to where it first came from, why are humans too small to have such a capacity innately?
You are presuming too much about time, it is not observable unless you make it conceptually suited to observation, which is why Scientism is fundamentally— philosophically flawed. Time is not a fungible ['physical'] property or feature (and the contrary is empirically impossible to falsify, and so Science or Empiricism is fundamentally incapable of resolution [or a resolution that can amount to anything other than the reading of an indeterminacy— that amounts to statistical non-sense: oh wait, the new-atheists actually believe that such 'statistical models' contain something other than a figment of philosophical ineptitude...
#BANDWAGONSlol ] ).
Science as a case for real Empiricism is incredibly weak, Empiricism itself is incredibly weak unless your willing to retract its domain to quite scant, relativistic and contingent measurements. The people who philosophically laid down Science knew better, which is why they spoke of "regularities", and NOT 'laws'. The same is why they spoke of MAGNITUDES, and not 'quantities' (they weren't presumptuous philosophical piss-ants like the new-atheists we see today). Only the deists among them ventured the "law" connotation; for an Atheist to adopt this language is an hypocrisy required to cover over the gaping conceptual lacuna that is the confused state of material-monism— as the case for our reality: which manifests as the impossible hope that Science can render a final answer, instead of just pretending to be on the search for one..
No game can produce an answer that doesn't uncover more about the Game's own nature than the actual field of its play- Science is not an exception; the universe is not such an outsmarted and dormant THING to be outshone by the superior avatar of worship through the mighty group-thinkers in New-Atheism... Thanks for literally taking us back to the warring Gods of the Sumerian city states. Set or Tiamat will devour you now.
[MENTION=26953]The Mask[/MENTION] , A lot of what I wrote wasn't specifically directed at you, although I do think my writing comprehensively covers the fuller intellectual-sentiment represented by your post, furthermore, I would like to specifically point out that:
That time predates observation and is necessary to observation doesn't really affect that fact and still limits reality to the observable.
^ I believe that statement is essentially tautological, isn't it?