"Is the absence of observers... the absence of existence?"
no
First time making a gay thread but this idea is in my head lately. If something cant prove it exists to another thing, then does it exist? I guess it's a similar argument to the "tree falls in the wood" sound thing, but I'd like to know what you guys think.
Somewhat relevant, a video where a guy explores an abandoned MMO and finds out he's not alone.
Definitely because observation is just an extension of seeing the affects of something, directly or indirectly.
Now what does this mean. Take a far away planet we've never directly seen, we might observe it's gravitational impact and by extension the planet. Or even the more extreme case of a planet so far away we can't observe it's gravitational impact or in any way say that it exists, even in that case if there's a planet there it will have a gravitational impact (extremely minor) on something we see and by extension observed. This line of thought leads to the conclusion that anything that exists (has any direct or indirect) effect on us is observed.
Unless I'm missing something, it's easy to prove to someone else that infants exists, throw a baby at them, something can't hit them in the head of it doesn't exist :P or if the baby needs to prove itself, it can just cry or tug someone's sleeve or smth, something must exist before it can cry, right?
Exactly, a somewhat far-off example of this is untouched tribes in certain regions of our planet. In a cultural sense, do they really exist? If we refuse to interact with them and they refuse us, then we may as well not consider them to be existant or even human in a sense. We have a name for them, but we dont know the name they have given us, and to them the universe is their island(s). It makes it hard to believe in a higher power when the parallels between us and them match with God and humanity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese_people for more info.