[nitrogen]

...simulation...

Prove it.

Sir Arthur Eddington...

I've seen that analogy before and it's silly, because 1. people have prior experience with sea creatures smaller than two inches, and 2. scientists are keenly aware of the limitations of their "nets," and those limitations leave very little room for metaphysics.

[RockyMcNuts]

By definition science can't answer the question, "is there a reality that is outside science and what is its nature?" That's what I think Eddington is saying.

I think your 2. seems a little silly, metaphysics by definition is what is beyond science, which is the point Eddington is trying to make.

Thinking about metaphysics is a little like thinking about what happens inside a black hole, what happens to the physics and interactions and information. You can come up with a lot of theories but you'll never be able to test them. It's beyond our experience, but we can't say there is no reality going on beyond where we can measure and experience and reason about it.

[nitrogen]

The very phrase "beyond science" is a bit nonsensical though, and using it to define a category of knowledge that is "beyond science" is a bit like defining a new land called "metanorth" containing whatever is geographically further north than the geographic North Pole.

I don't think it's fair, either, to compare metaphysics to black hole physics. Everything in my layman's understanding of physics, astronomy, and cosmology suggests that the prevailing theories of what happens inside a black hole are supported by evidence gathered from what happens outside a black hole, rather than being invented from scratch with no evidential basis.