On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:16:18 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

You have still to demonstrate your metaphysical god.

I realize that.

I am trying to set the stage. Here's the next step.

One of the surest ways to start a big argument in philosophy is for
two people to adopt different Worldviews. According to Webster, the
Worldview (aka " Weltanschauung") is

Worldview: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world
especially from a specific standpoint

More specifically the Worldview is the epistemological basis, plus its
supporting ontology, for your rational system - the one you are going
to employ when you argue your point.

In even simpler terms, it is the collection of assumptions you adopt -
the set of axioms about how you view reality. It should be obvious
that if your view of reality is fundamentally different from my view
of reality, we can never argue our points to one another even though
we may adhere to rational arguments within the framework of our
Worldview.

As you know, all the truths that you discover by rational argument are
contained in the axioms you adopt as the basis for your rational
system. The new propositions are just new ways of saying the same
basic thing that is inherent in the axioms. Thus Euclidean Geometry is
development of propositions that are inherent in the axioms. If you
assume that parallel lines cannot ever meet, as an axiom, then the
properties of lines follow as propositions.

Therefore it is critical to any rational system which you will use to
develop rational arguments to support your claims that the Worldview
be declared and accepted before beginning to develop proposition.

Some people when they first encounter this get the feeling that there
is a circular line of reasoning going on - that the propositions are
built into the axioms and the axioms are justified by the proposition.
But with careful thinking you will find that is not the case. It is
indeed true that the propositions are the "result" of the axioms. But
that does not mean that your rational system is circular.

So what are these Worldviews? The two most promiment can be understood
in terms of "objectivity" and "subjectivity". We call the Worldview
that claims reality is objective by the name Realism. We call the
Worldview that claims reality is subjective by the name Idealism. Then
there are offshoots of these two Worldviews such as Mysticism. I do
not pretend to know everything about Worldviews so I am not going to
go any further with this. But I do know enough to point out that
certain rational systems of thought are based on an objective
Worldview and some are based on a subjective Worldview.

For example, despite the nonsense of the Copenhagen School and its
stupid half alive and half dead cats (Schrodinger invented his cat to
ridicule the Copenhagen Interpretation), Physics is most definitely
based on the Worldview of Objective Realism. There is absolutely no
doubt in the mind of the Physicst that electrons actually do exist in
objective reality. If you don't believe that - if you thing electrons
are subjective constructs like the tooth fairy then you will allow
yourself to be hooked up to a high voltage source. After about 1
millisecond you will decide rather certainly that electrons are
exceedingly real.

On the other hand, Mathematics is most definitely based on the
Worldview of Subjective Idealism. There are no such things as
"numbers" in objective reality. There is no such thing as a circle in
objective reality. If you don't agree, then I will let you connect me
to a number or to a circle. I guarantee that nothing will happen,
because numbers, circles and everything in Mathematics is a subjective
construct that resides completely in the mind of the Mathematician.

There are certain tenets of a Worldview - call them axioms if you
want. One of the most fundamental tenets of Objective Realism (aka
"Existential Realism") is the Principle of Apprehension of Being. This
is also known as the Authority of the Senses. Something exists in
objective reality precisely because it is something out there that can
affect your senses - like the shock from a high voltage source.

The apprehension of Being - the awareness of something out there - is
very primitive. A new born infant puts his hand on a hot stove burner
and immediately comes face to face with "something out there". He does
not know what it is, but he definitely knows it is there.

This Principle is not found in Mathematics. There is no "thing out
there" in Mathematics. Everything in Mathematics is contained in your
mind, subjectively. So the very first distinction between Objective
Realism and Subjective Idealism is that Realism adopts the Principle
of Apprehension of Being, and Subjective Idealism does not. This is
critical to deciding on which Worldview you must adopt for any
particular rational system.

From here we move on to Metaphysics, which is the Science that

explains how Physics works. That is what Aristotle meant by it and

what is implied by the prefix "meta". It ultimately is the Science of
Being - the Science of Existence. But whatever it is, it is critical
to realize that it is based on Physics - and that Physics is based on
the Worldview of Existential Realism.