Because if something exists it needs something that observes it otherwise it doesn't exist or...?

If this is true then at some point in this universe we all will very likely vanish (Big Freeze or Heat Death, Big Rip Big Crunch, Big Bounce, Cosmic uncertainty to name a few likely theories).

If this is true then there will be no observers left and existence would end.

If this is true then we would be in a quantum state of existence and nonexistence because time itself is relative and just a variable, meaning past, present and future are one and the same variable. We exist now, but at some point we never existed.

  • I suggest removing the string of buzzwords dropped in with no particular relevance.
    – Boba Fit
    Commented Dec 7, 2022 at 13:34
  • @iJ1nXz, is the mystical interpretation of QM correct, though? I suppose you're framing your question that way, though, so... One option is to imagine that we have temporal parts, and after various observer-destroying scenarios, we have nonexistent temporal parts, and so then from a timeless POV we have both existent and nonexistent parts. Commented Dec 7, 2022 at 19:45
  • I just notice a flaw in my question:"Is it possible that we are all in a state of existing and noneexsiting" rather then "Is it possible that we all exist and not exist at the same time?" because as i said "time itself is relative and just a variable, meaning past, present and future are one and the same variable." we cannot exist and noneexist at the same time becaue the time changes and we all exist atm, but we all can be in a state of existing and not existing.
    – iJ1nXz
    Commented Dec 8, 2022 at 4:19
  • Objects do not exist per se (simpler: can objects exist for nobody? No!). Objects exist for a subject. Every interaction (every predicate, like "exists") requires of an object and a subject, humans being the default subject. Without humans to see colors and light, how would rainbows exist? Without humans to touch, move and see, how would rocks exist? Without a mind, how can a kitchen exist, given that all earth is just dust? Given that there are subjects that have interacted with you, and others that never did, you exist and don't, at the same time, nothing new under the sun.
    – RodolfoAP
    Commented Dec 8, 2022 at 9:00

1 Answer 1


Yes - if you redefine 'exists'.

This rhetorical tactic is often done, like when someone says'everything is an illusion' just redefines illusion. Existence has an accepted context, a use, it points at distinctions in certain language games. In that sense, no.

I suggest the way to think about taking measurements and what exists where, is Indra's Net. Each point in the universe contains information about other points, we are each mirrors reflecting other mirrors.

It is a mistake to think quantum observers have to be a conscious sentience. You might be interested though to look at Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, in which theory something like what you mention happens: when there are only photons left, which don't experience time, a large high entropy universe becomes conformally equivalent to a small low entropy universe - a Big Bang.

More generally, what you are talking about is just the Quantum Multiverse, in which all possible outcomes from our same initial conditions exist, and each branch is experienced by the minds on it as their only timeline, and we are one of the timeline we are on's necessary subjectivities. But in the Multiverse as a whole, all the outcomes are there.

This is a statement of the Wavefunction of the Universe, the idea that measurements don't divide timeliness, but only add a specific sub-outcome to a bigger outcome, both of which are quantum wavefunctions.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .