That sounds nice and intellectual Fellblood, but the concept your going for is a known philisophical trap. If it may not exist unless its observed, but the observer may not exist either because no one can observe the observer without themselves being observed.....mean nothing is ever real. It is a philisophical dead end. All real philosophy must use something as real/concrete/existing to base/begin (I think therefore I am - ack - maybe to derivitive) its philosophy upon, thereby theorizing/determining its possible natures. The argument that "but you cant prove it exists" ends all argument or debate and wont win any prizes with philosophers because there is no room for any other possibility.
Reasonable doubt does not carry any weight in your argument. Please try to tell a jury that its not reasonable to believe they didnt exist until you saw them in the court room and that a murder victim doesnt exist because the jury cant see him/her. But wait, you might say, there are pictures, but those are not real. Fabrications of something that cant be proven to exist based on your argument.
My statement about sound vs noise is basic. Ask any scientist.
My statement about the philisophical trap is basic. Ask any philosopher.
I could go on and on, but I gotta goto work (assuming I am real and my job actually exists).
GMcG
PS: I love philosophy, and I am not necessarily a realist/pragmatist. Like all people, I have many views/beliefs that may seem to be contradictory. I have often said that sometimes certain things dont
seem real to me until I see/experience them myself. So, me=hypocrit