Why isn't there more research in this field? Do you any other great and modern metaphysic projects?
The "experiments" in this philosophy include stuff like meditation, quietening of mind, and just removing the false sense of ego.
Now, like in any experiment, what is the expected, measurable output? Firstly, since the underlying model changes, the meaning of "I", perceptions, the meaning of "sense organ" etc. should all change. After all, we created our world models from "experiencing" through five senses. If we go beyond, the reality would be very different, including the possibility of the fact that the very concept of "I", time or space doesn't exist anymore.
Now, since Advaita has existing for thousands of years, it is natural to ask if anybody went "beyond" this world? How did they express the reality? Indeed, you have thousands of people like that - and through almost all the centuries. And they have expressed what it feels like.
Are they able to manipulate our reality? Perhaps. We indeed read about these things. But then, the focus usually is on the fact that everybody has access to that state, and waking up from Maya is something inherently a journey into the self.
UG Krishnamurti (who was supposedly one of enlightened persons) put it as this: "How can you transmit certainty of certainty of truth to somebody else?". Indeed, one may transmit by conducting experiments etc. But there is no certainty really - our assumption that natural laws will never change is still an assumption.
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).
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.
NLTK + Modal predicates[0]: Experiemental Metaphysics. Done.
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).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.
One, two, skip a few you've got schemas for modal hypermedia APIs across universes (at least). UPIs? Modal hyperpredicates?