Well, you even stated, yourself, that:
"the answer to this question may depend on one's philosophical and scientific worldview."
Isn't this what all this really was about? Not the physical vs metaphysical world debate, necessarily, but seeking truth and understanding of the world we live in through empiricism seems to be the biggest overlap. As we all do this, there are points of divergence on certain topics. While exploring those divergences, we're exploring (debating/discussing) the various points of subjective experiences from one issue to the next. Are we noticing when we reach an objective data point or are we "digging our heels in" and giving into our cognitive biases when we prefer what our experiences tell us versus someone else's delivery of their experiences?
All of this would seem to lean towards supporting the view that the world operates independently from human consciousness; providing a "safe haven", of sorts, for human consciousness to flourish and grow to its next stage (whatever that may be). But I'm all for stating this is an opinion.
How would exploring the metaphysical argument look like in a persuasive argument contrary to this?