Within physics you have astrophysics or cosmology which are also historical.

That would be a reasonable statement.

And, to a certain extent, stationarity and ergodicity are model-dependent features.

As a rule, stationarity and ergodicity are directly observable on experimental data if you have it, and vice versa. It's by no means a given in all theoretical models, but it's a real observable phenomenon regardless of subjective prior assumptions.

It's not that "postmodern" "textual analysis" doesn't apply to physics, it is that when studying physics one has to take into account the repeatability.

I never claimed it couldn't be applied to physics, rather I fail to see its value when an oracle exists which spits out facts for any well chosen question. Thus physics is not limited by the insights of postmodernism.

So "repeatability" is a special quality that applies to a subset of human knowledge.

Another good word is "interactivity". In an experimental science, we can choose the questions we want to ask, and receive answers from the world. In a "historical" science, we must accept the answers we are given, with little or no choice in the questions. In physics, much effort is spent designing experiments to isolate the bits we care about, in archaeology we cannot ask what the ancient Greeks would have been like if they had had television.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

Nonsense; your definition of experiment is overly restrictive. The observable universe is finite, but the number of stars, galaxies, clusters and so on is very large.
Just like the number of hadrons available for high speed collision, or elements to chemically combine, or bacterias to cultivate are technically finite, too.
Astronomers don't just point their scopes up randomly and write down what they see. They also design experiments. Some don't even require pointing a telescope, they just reuse existing images for analysis; see Galaxy Zoo.  Some experiments try to capture ephemeral events, see gamma ray burst: just because you don't decide when the event is going to happen doesn't make the experiment any less experimental. The results are reproducible, just not within a predetermined timeframe.
It is therefore fundamentally different from History, as a discipline; no matter how long you're willing to wait, you won't be able to reproduce a French Revolution. However, social psychology (see Miller, Cialdini ...) shows that you can obtain reproducible results by deriving abstractions and then designing experiments to test them. In other words, you can do science about anything as long as you're willing to get off your ass and do some real work.


A 'centrist' is someone who's neither on the left, nor on the left.