Thread: Would the universe exist without observers?

Hmm, didn't see this thread when it first popped up. Considering it's still this month and there were no replies but the discussion can get some pretty interesting ones from past debates over this that I've seen, I'll go ahead and say what I think.

Do I believe the universe would exist without observers to observe it: yes. Do I think its existence would matter if there were no observers? No. The only way something can matter or have meaning is by an observer assigning meaning to whatever it is that they are observing. Considering the fairly reliable evidence we have come up with that confirms that the universe existed before there were observers there to make it exist, I find it hard to believe so many people think that it wouldn't. I can see why they might think that before giving the idea the appropriate amount of thought before coming to their conclusion, but given enough pondering it's a bit surprising so many would think that it wouldn't (I wouldn't even know so many people did if not for seeing past debates on it).

Usual proponents like to use seemingly logical theories that are actually illogical most of the time. One such theory is that because we are not able to observe the universe objectively (or in other words we have only a subjective and limited experience and perspective at our disposal), it is impossible to know anything, let alone know that the universe would be there if we or another observer weren't. While the statement is true enough, let's think about this. You can say that you never existed the moment before you last woke up. The only thing telling you that you did is your collective (and might I add faulty) memory. You remember you were there yesterday, so you believe you were. But if you continue iterating the logic, you can't say you existed in the past or that you will exist in the future. All you know is what is you are experiencing presently, and you only appear to know that (funnily enough given the laws of physics and the observed property of the brain to wait until it can build a complete picture of reality based on all sensory input, you can't even say you exist in the present because you don't know if you do or not yet--what appears to be present has already passed). Again, also true. You could even point out that all "knowledge" is actually a group of assumptions that are just turtles all the way down (if you aren't familiar with the expression, Turtles all the way down on Wikipedia). You will never reach a point where you arrive at a solid fact, the further you investigate "known" facts. This is also a true statement. But, why would you apply this logic to this situation, when you don't anywhere else? Why do you still go to work everyday? Why do we care about anything or do anything at all? How is our assumptive knowledge possibly capable of providing us with the technology we have developed? Why can we test things and they can be predictably turn out "true" or "false" given all the right information and prior knowledge needed to make an educated guess about the outcome of an event? If none of this is more than assumption, if we can never truly know something, why do we not use this logic for practical purposes in our daily lives?

The reason being is that it is far more useful to assume the opposite, because after making a few small and necessary assumptions that allow us to bridge the gap and provide the proper suspension of disbelief, we can actually be proven time and time again, as many times as our bodies are able to do it, that the assumption that we take part in a shared and objective universe which existed before we did and will still exist for some time after we are gone is the smarter choice of the two. It is practical, it is testable, it is at least able to be observed, demonstrated, and reproduced again given the same controlled conditions.

Another thing proponents of the universe wouldn't exist without observers theory posit is that with our current understanding of quantum mechanics, or at least given the wave-particle duality, that the universe exists in a sort of superstate before condensing into a fixed position at any given planck time that has been observed by an observer. I feel like a lot of quantum mechanics is really watered down if you are a dedicated hobbyist to researching information about it on the internet or simply take a few college classes that include it for brief to moderately brief intervals. It leaves a lot of room for the error in understanding what is actually being stated, simply because the obscurity the watered down language used to explain the findings possesses. Not to mention that if it were even stated as accurately as possible, it doesn't mean someone is going to interpret it right. And, on top of all that, we still don't know enough about the things we had simply taken for granted in the past or even right now because the ideas and theories concerning everything implicated in the topic that worked in pretty much all cases until we came to a greater understanding of what it is we were dealing with and new findings suggest that we need to make serious revisions to what we believe about those ideas. A good example: gravity. Good example from the past: Newtonian Physics vs Einstein's theories of relativity (which obviously need expanding upon given there is a need for quantum mechanics as a field of study whatsoever).

So, even if we assume that the wave-particle duality of light seriously suggests that the universe exists in a sort of superstate before collapsing upon observation, how do me know this isn't simply a limitation of human perception manifesting itself in the form of this apparent duality? There simply isn't as much information as is needed to make that sort of determination. As such, the scientific community are not in agreement about the universe existing as a superstate and then collapsing upon observation. It's led to ideas like the universe being able to observe itself (which is obviously fairly silly despite the fact that we don't know if this is the case). We can reproduce the results of the observation of an interference pattern arising from a double-split experiment where light apparently behaves as a wave until we interact with it by observing it and it appears as a particle instead. We don't have terribly much to go on based in this result, and despite being able to reproduce it, the reproduction thereof only confirms the observation. It does not explain it at all. So, there is no way we can say reliably that the universe doesn't exist until observed based off this simple observation. There simply is too much data that we lack to say with any reasonable certainty. Now, it might seem like I have contradicted myself here because a lack of information meaning we can't say one way or another whether something is reliably true, right? Well, yeah, you would be right if there weren't enough evidence just living your daily life that the universe is there and can consistently be interacted with over time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that it is the absolute truth that the universe exists without us observing it (lack enough information), but it is at least reasonable to assume that it does based on something more than an a few ideas you come up with but have extreme difficulty testing in anyway based off of what we observe.

Common sense can often be stupid-assumption-based-on-a-lack-of-thinking sense, but common sense given the right information is a useful tool. There is more evidence that suggests the universe exists without observers to observe it than there is that it doesn't. I'm completely open to the possibility that that is indeed not the case, and the idea is wrong. However, conclusions not coinciding with what is suggested by the current evidence we have are often pretty silly (although in some cases they may be right), and a common sense approach to the situation seems the best way to handle things. Evidence points to this --> it's probably this.