Thank you for clarifying your position. Your 'Kaos' seems similar to Kant's 'noumena'.
Now, I would like to know the following:
1. Why is the world the way it is, and not otherwise? Is it the only logically possible world?
2. Even if we have no free will, and must create the world in a particular way, it still does not quite explain why we all create it in the same way, i.e. why we all appear to be living in the same world. If you reject solipsism, you must believe that people are distinct real entities. What, then, explains the similarity of our experiences, if it is not some property of the external world?
3. If we all experience a particular tree at a particular time and place, it suggests to me that there is some property of external reality corresponding to the concept 'tree'. (I am not saying that such a property is itself necessarily tree-like, any more than the word 'tree' is tree-like. You could think of it more as a type of code.)
Alright, here we go. I'm just going to address your #1 for now. I'll get to the other two tommorow probably...getting late.
1. I don't want to imply a Panglossian "best of all possible world's" kind of idea when I say that the world must unfold as it does and not otherwise. First let me define the words I'm using. As with chaos v. Kaos, the meaning I'm meaning (haha) is very subtle I think.
: All, everything that exists, the experienced or human world in addition to the external world
(assuming that the external world exists).
Here is my basic proposal: The world unfolds as it does and not otherwise; or, the world exists as it does and not otherwise; or, the world progresses in the path in does and not in another; or, the world consists of certain things and not others.
Let's consider each part (human reality and kaos) seperately.
Human reality is what we know it as, Yes? This sounds reasonable. It consists of what we experience and nothing more. It has a certain nature, certain characteristics and not others.
Kaos we know nothing about; that is the defining characteristic of Kaos. However, by assuming that it exists, we are assuming that it is something. Knowing only that it exists (assuming this of course), doesn't it follow that it must exist as it does
, and not as it does not
? (whatever that might be)
That sounds like tautology and I suppose it is, but there is no other way to deal with something that you know nothing about other than that it exists. Consider a more basic analogy. A toaster. The toaster exists as a toaster. A toaster is not an un-toaster. A toaster that is used to make 4 slices of toast every day is not also or possibly used to make 8 slices of toast. In short, 'it is what it is.'
In summary: the world is as it is, because otherwise, it would not be the world.
Imagine a cave man looking at some incomphrehensibly complex alien technology. He has no idea, not the faintest clue, what he is looking at. But he raises his finger, points at the thing and says 'Tuma-Bumo.' Whatever Tuma-Bumo is, it is what he is referring to, not something else.