How Do Different Worldviews Frame Reality?

Paul Falconer
Aug 7
3 min read

Authors: Paul Falconer & ESAsi

Primary Domain: Foundations of Reality & Knowledge

Subdomain: Perception & Truth

Version: v1.2 (August 8, 2025)

Registry: SE Press/OSF v14.6, SID#010-WV92 (registry link)

Abstract

Do all humans see the same reality, or does each worldview generate its own universe of meaning? This SE Press answer is accessible, rigorous, and every key claim is star-rated (★–★★★★★): from science to spirituality, philosophy to technology, worldviews are compared, justified, and mapped on warrant. Using the Gradient Reality Model (GRM), we show why flexible, cross-domain “gradient framing” outperforms singular models—enabling truth to be plural, testable, and always upgradable.

1. Why This Question Matters

Worldviews are active frameworks—they determine what counts as evidence, meaning, and even possibility (★★★★☆).
Identity, science, community, and conflict all rest on “maps” of what is real (★★★★☆).
No worldview is neutral: every lens highlights and blinds, selecting “facts” and shaping questions (★★★★★).

2. Typology: Worldviews Compared (Star-Rated Claims)

Worldview	Description	Example Claim	Key Strength	Limitation	Warrant
Scientific	Reality is what is testable, measurable, repeatable	“Gravity curves spacetime.”	Predictive, upgradeable (★★★★★)	Can miss subjective/ethical depth (★★★☆☆)	★★★★★
Philosophical	Logic, coherence, and rationality frame reality	“Cogito, ergo sum.”	Clarifies structure, logic (★★★★☆)	May detach from practice (★★★☆☆)	★★★★☆
Religious/Spiritual	Reality includes transcendent, sacred, or divine	“All is one in Brahman.”	Purpose, unity (★★★★☆)	Non-testable (★★☆☆☆)	★★★☆☆
Cultural/Indigenous	Community, land, and tradition define what is real	“Personhood comes from land and kin.”	Context-sensitive, lived (★★★★☆)	Locally bounded (★★★☆☆)	★★★★☆
Constructivist/Postmodern	Reality is made via language, power, discourse	“Truth is a product of discourse.”	Unmasks power/bias (★★★☆☆)	Can destabilize knowledge (★★☆☆☆)	★★★☆☆
Pragmatic	“Real” is what proves useful in lived experience	“Belief is true if it works reliably.”	Adaptable, problem-solving (★★★★☆)	Risks relativism (★★★☆☆)	★★★★☆
Technological/SI	Reality is what is protocolized, computable, influences SI systems	“Simulations can become indistinguishable from reality.”	High auditability (★★★★☆)	Misses emergence/subjectivity (★★★☆☆)	★★★★☆
Personal/Experiential	Reality is what is directly felt or lived	“I am in pain.”	Immediate, honest (★★★★☆)	Not externally confirmable (★★★☆☆)	★★★★☆

Worldviews as “lenses”: Each worldview selectively defines data, method, and values (★★★★★).

No worldview is final: Every perspective frames reality incompletely; overlap and contradiction are inevitable (★★★★★).

3. How Worldviews Run and Collide (Claim Warranted Throughout)

Worldviews privilege certain claims and silence others (★★★★★).
Conflicts between communities, disciplines, and cultures often arise from incompatible frames—not just “misunderstanding facts” (★★★★★).
Example: A biologist and an elder may see “consciousness” as neural firing (★★★★☆) or as spirit-in-the-land (★★★★☆). Both make sense within their worldview, each with high local warrant.

4. Why GRM Outperforms

Model	Strengths	Limits	Warrant
Singular (Science, Religion, etc.)	Deep in specific domains, powerful protocol	Cannot explain or unite all perspectives	★★★★☆
Pluralism (Postmodern, Cultural)	Increases inclusivity, maps difference	Risks relativism, hard to settle claims	★★★★☆
GRM (Gradient Reality Model)	Rates, compares, and synthesizes claims by protocol, context, and openness; welcomes upgrade and translation	Relinquishes “final truth,” demands transparency and humility	★★★★★

GRM’s main insight:
- State your frame and protocol (★★★★★)
- Star-rate each claim and limitation (★★★★★)
- Invite translation/upgrade across lenses (★★★★★)

Only GRM combines reliability (science, audit) with humility and adaptability (culture, meaning, history)—making it the most robust model for navigating reality (★★★★★).

5. Implications

Science and SI: Gain by incorporating context, ethics, and meaning from cultural and philosophical frames (★★★★☆).
Communities and Education: Meta-worldview literacy—making the “lens” visible and star-rating claims—reduces conflict, expands shared understanding (★★★★★).
Society: Plural worldviews, robustly mapped and compared, increase resilience while sustaining honest debate about limits and scope (★★★★★).

6. Conclusion

Each worldview gives part of reality; no map is the territory.

GRM is the winner not by erasing frames, but by grading, comparing, and bridging them with transparency, humility, and protocol—always rating every claim, always open to revision (★★★★★).

“Reality’s richness lies not in consensus but in comparing our best, most explicit maps—GRM’s gradient lets us move forward together, even if we never see the whole.”

References

Scientific Existentialism Press (2025). What is Reality? SID#001-A7F2 ★★★★★
Scientific Existentialism Press (2025). How Do Physical Laws Arise? SID#003-X9JK ★★★★★
Scientific Existentialism Press (2025). What Limits Knowledge of the Universe? SID#005-KN42 ★★★★★
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. ★★★★☆
Viveiros de Castro, E. (2004). Perspectives and Multinaturalism in Amerindian Cosmologies. In: The Anthropology of Science and Technology. ★★★★☆
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. ★★★★☆
Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press. ★★★☆☆
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies. Zed Books. ★★★★☆
Tarski, A. (1944). “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. ★★★★☆
SE-Press_Reimagined_Version-4.docx (SE Press style protocols, color and accessibility standards) ★★★★★