One can never PROVE a metaphysics.
Because one would have to stand outside the entire cosmos to view it all-
and simulate Creation itself â€“ to test it all
However one can certainly ASSESS different metaphysics.
Metaphysics is always hypothesis. But, hopefully very, very intelligent hypothesis.
One can, indeed, analyze different metaphysical constructs with a consistent set of questions.
Now, some of the questions involved in assessing various metaphysics might be the following: (These questions tend to overlap, but have different thrusts and nuance.)
Is the metaphysics overarching? All-embracing?
Does the metaphysics handle the key questions in philosophy? (re-capped in the INTROS and FOREWORDS of the two books of this series)
Does the metaphysics have a fatal flaw(s);
a major gap(s),
– or does it essentially legitimately â€˜stitch-togetherâ€™
all the key issues
To what extent is the metaphysics TETHERED to classic works or spiritual texts?
Does the core of the metaphysics RESONATE within us?
Is the case made exclusively â€œin an Ivory Towerâ€ –
– or is the case somewhat brought-down-to-earth,
Is the presentation some sort of miasma (~ murky, obscuring vapor)
– or is it actually fairly articulate and systematic?
Are the themes, however allegedly profound, articulated in a totally obscure manner –
– or in a generally intelligible manner?