presup, multiple worldviews, and operating systems

[Scott]

This is from a message I wrote to an atheist. I had suggested that, in principle, only one worldview could be correct. He gave me an analogy that multiple operating systems could run the same program, Excel. Let me know if you guys think this is right and if you have any other ideas.
___
I will give you points that this analogy has a good rhetorical appeal (rhetorical in the best and classic sense of the word, ala Cicero). I have thought about this exact analogy too. I don't think it works in the end, though. One reason is that it does not properly account for the relation between the two operating systems.

Anytime one posits the existence of multiple worldviews, one must ask, "What is the relation between those two worldviews?" In the operating system analogy the two computers either cannot make sense of each other or they communicate through some third system (an API, protocol, or whatever). If they cannot communicate, then they are not accurate examples of worldviews, as worldviews by definition are what we use to account for all human experience. If they can make sense of each other (through a protocal, API, or whatever), then the part of the analogy that corresponds to human worldviews would be the entire structure (both operating systems and the protocol).

In essence, the analogy fails b/c the operating systems are better likened to pieces of worldviews than entire worldviews themselves. In principle there can only be one correct worldview.

[Edited on 3-7-2006 by Scott]

 

[natewood3]

I don't suppose this is directly related to the OP, but it is a question of multiple worldviews.

Where do the worldviews of JW, Mormons, Christian Scientist, Charismatics, etc. fit in? Are they considered "Christian" worldview? If so, could a Pentecostal, who is an Arminian, argue for the Christian worldview presuppositionally? Can Roman Catholics?

I suppose my questions relates to the "Christian" worldview that presuppositionalism is arguing for, if it is the ONLY worldview, are we arguing for the Christian, Calvinist worldview? Where do other denominations that disagree with Calvinistic doctrine fit it? Are they "Christian" worldviews also? Do we just lump all of them together as the Christian worldview, so that if we persuade an atheist that the Christian worldview is correct and he becomes, at least intellectually, a believer in Christianity, what from there? Send him to any denomination that has a "Christian" worldview? I am somewhat lost as to what we are to consider denominations and sects of Christianity which claim to be Christian, but with whose doctrine we disagree...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Scott
This is from a message I wrote to an atheist. I had suggested that, in principle, only one worldview could be correct. He gave me an analogy that multiple operating systems could run the same program, Excel. Let me know if you guys think this is right and if you have any other ideas.
___
I will give you points that this analogy has a good rhetorical appeal (rhetorical in the best and classic sense of the word, ala Cicero). I have thought about this exact analogy too. I don't think it works in the end, though. One reason is that it does not properly account for the relation between the two operating systems.

Anytime one posits the existence of multiple worldviews, one must ask, "What is the relation between those two worldviews?" In the operating system analogy the two computers either cannot make sense of each other or they communicate through some third system (an API, protocol, or whatever). If they cannot communicate, then they are not accurate examples of worldviews, as worldviews by definition are what we use to account for all human experience. If they can make sense of each other (through a protocal, API, or whatever), then the part of the analogy that corresponds to human worldviews would be the entire structure (both operating systems and the protocol).

In essence, the analogy fails b/c the operating systems are better likened to pieces of worldviews than entire worldviews themselves. In principle there can only be one correct worldview.

[Edited on 3-7-2006 by Scott]

Doesn't have to be that complicated Scott.

Your friend doesn't know much about computers does he? Operating systems are not the presuppositions, the machine language is. For any given processor, there is only one instruction set that will work. While an operating system can be written in any programming language you like, if it cannot be compiled into language the computer understands it will not run.

 

[Scott]

Do all computers use the same machine language?

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

Isn't the purpose of an analogy to take something unfamiliar and difficult to understand and model it in simpler terms that are easier to understand?

we all have intuitive ideas of how our world views operate and how we create and use them. Most people have absolutely no idea what is under the hood of their car or how their computer actually boots up, let alone a significant understanding of the physics of combustion or the mechanics of operating systems.

why would someone want to complexify the discussion by making an analogy from worldviews to OS's? under these conditions? wouldn't it be easier to stick to analogies like that of geometry? presuppositions = euclidean axioms, that alone is hard enough to make good sense out of.

just an opinion of someone who has taken CS classes on both compilers (go dragon book) and OS's (go linux). and knows what is under the hood of my computer, if i ever actually put the case back on....*grin*

 

[Civbert]

If the OS are worldviews - then yes, multiple world-views can explain the same observations (such as Excel). But that does not mean they can both exist in the same memory of the computer at the same time. To run two OSs on the same computer, they need to be isolated from each other. They do not exist in the same RAM at the same time running the same programs. They would conflict with each other and the computer will crash. So both worldviews can not be right at the same time.

To stretch the worldview/OS analogy - it would be like asking which OS is running when Excel is running. Well Excel does not determine which OS is correct. But we can know that Excel is running only under one OS and not both at the same time. We may not know which, but it is not both.

So the analogy is not too bad. Maybe some OS's run programs are better than others -- some worldviews explain what we observe better, or moral truths better. But that does not mean either OS (worldview) can be equally true at the same time. Either your program is working under Windows, or Linux, or Mac - but two or three OS's can not run the same program at the same time. That's about as far as the analogy seems to work.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Scott
Do all computers use the same machine language?

No, each CPU design has a unique instruction set. The OS is written to conform to the one instruction set that will work for a given computer. If the CPU is the universe then the only "logic" that will run the CPU (universe) is the created logic.

Come to think of it, that's the problem with his logic. The reason why the analogy doesn't work is:

1. If he insists that Excel will run on different computers then you have to point out that each computer represents a different universe or created order. On any given machine, the OS is a convenient way to represent the single logic (instruction set) that will work for that specific CPU. No other logic will fit for that CPU and the program will crash. All OS's and compilers are merely reducing, more or less efficiently, to machine code. So the argument first fails because if he specifies two computers he is specifying two completely different created orders.

2. If he insists that Excel can run on the same CPU (universe) using different Operating systems then, again, he is stuck with the fact that only ONE instruction set (logic) works for that created order.

 

[Scott]

Rich: That is great, thanks. I am going to save that.