We could present spatially an atomic fact which contradicted
the laws of physics, but not one which contradicted the laws
of geometry.
—Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (1922).
Predicate calculus and Modal logic supply us with more than enough tools to make experimental metaphysics convenient and easy to do.
The problem is that most people simply don't have familiarity with the topic, don't study philosophy (confusing it with Humanities, rather than seeing it as a gateway into the most fundamental science: logic), and because of the "science is sexy" crowd and the distraction of the Atheist Initiative (Dawkins, etc.) who push and preach Scientific Realism.
Modal logic as a tool to analyze and elucidate philisophical problems (epistemic, doxastic, deontic etc.)? Yes. Modal logic as a tool to do `experimental metaphysics'? I don't think so. In the end a logic is a bunch of intellectually sophisticated stuff built on top of mostly set theory. It is not clear that a logic models something in the physical world. Let alone metaphysical world.
We could present spatially an atomic fact which contradicted
the laws of physics, but not one which contradicted the laws
of geometry.
—Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (1922).
Let me rephrase my objection to your initial post: To experiment means to test a hypothesis. Even if you can write down a hypothesis concerning the metaphysical (although I don't see how that's possible without resorting to what Wittgenstein in TLP calls "nonsense") you will not be able to test it. Therefore metaphysical experimentation is impossible.
Your conclusion indicator is not doing what you think it's doing.
I've already been warned about sharing philosophical jargon with you startup hackers, so I'll be brief.
With Ancient Greece, "metaphysics" meant "after the physics." In concrete cultural terms, it means literally "the stuff we say after we talk about everything that presumably falls under the heading: Physics". It was a way of naming a topic transition.
That said, at this critical point in history, we are wrapping up Newtonian Mechanics as Novel to discuss or explore. Quantum Mechanics is our New Departure. We can do both, but the former is more like a reference point in the history of physics and ideas generally. Experimental Metaphysics involves Quantum Mechanics.
Who says modal predicates cannot apply to leptons, etc.? It is common parlance to discuss properties of necessity, etc. when discussing the features of distributed probability systems.
In any event you're just making uninteresting assertions. I am explaining what testing involves, even if lacking detail. Whereas you apparently shown a clear sign of intellectual authority rather than exploration. How boring.
OK I don't know enough about quantum physics to comment further. But on the one hand you copy/past Wittgenstein to make your point (intellectual authority, you were talking about?) and on the other hand you talk about experimental metaphysics. If you're a philosopher, as you seem to imply, then you shouldn't be surprised to cause confusion.
Throw in Pandas and you're well on your way to modeling universes with document-term matrixes, assuming you have some basic familiarity with possible world semantics, natural kinds, rigid designators, etc. à la Kripke.
One, two, skip a few you've got schemas for modal hypermedia APIs across universes (at least). UPIs? Modal hyperpredicates?
