>>14341168You can not, at least, not with Popperian empirical science.
Metaphysical theories are philosophical theories. Philosophy is different from science. There, theories make sense if they withstand the test of time, and reasonably explain our realities.
There are at least three viable metaphysical theories. The first can be called Aristotleian. It posits the existence of the physical world, and the ideal mathematical world does not exist. The second is Platonian: the ideal mathematical world does exist, and so does the physical world, but it is rather unclear and mysterious how these two interact and combine and communicate. It gives its own set of problems, but it is also richer, in that it gives ontology/existence to mathematical objects. The third is Pythagorian: This posits the existence of the mathematical world, but not of the physical world. In this theory, everything is made up of mathematics.
It is already hard to disprove or prove that we are not brains in a vat connected to a computer, dreaming the reality we feel is us, inside a simulation. One should look at these theories pragmatically: what roads to these lead down to? What richness of human thought can be described and categorized with it? What is the logical consequence of living inside a mathematical object, and could this give clues about our experience of reality?
Such theories can only be made popular, or ridiculed, by philosopher academics, based on erudition and authority. There is no repeatable laboratory tests on that level of abstraction.
