Does the Universe Exist if No One’s Looking?

Does the Universe Exist Without Observers? Exploring Schrödinger's Cat Paradox

Have you ever wondered if the universe would still exist if there was no one around to perceive its existence? We'll examine Erwin Schrödinger's famous 'cat' thought experiment to shed light on this paradox and include some insights from physicists John Wheeler and Andrei Linde to help us answer the question, 'Does the universe exist if no one's looking?

Thank you for watching! If you found this exploration of the universe's enigmatic nature intriguing, please show your support by giving this video a thumbs up and subscribing for more content.

#UniverseExistence #SchrödingersCatParadox #PhysicsMysteries

[ExistentialGuide]

It's been a while since I last posted a video, but thank you to all who have subscribed and who stay subscribed! It definitely helps me stay motivated to keep creating content here. Let me know what you think about this video in the comments 😀

[jdndrtrrnc]

THANK YOU SO MUCH! you are the only one who explained it very well and clearly. more power to you!

[lisandro]

thanks for the vídeo, it helped to solve my existencial crisis.

[_Louch_]

This was a Very interesting Video, Great Job !

[nameless-ydko]

"If a tree falls in the forest, and there are none to hear (goes the old Zen koan), does it make a sound?" I say NOT! It makes a SILENT shockwave. The silence of the shockwave can be demonstrated in a similar experiment to the one we performed with light. These silent shockwaves must act upon, stimulate, the eardrum, or similar membrane, and be translated in the old reliable brain as sound. The world around your ears is quieter than the emptiest reaches of deep space. Absolute silence. The place where all sound exists, (thank you Beethoven!), is, again, in the head. As the perceiver and translator of signals from the ear drum, the brain creates a concept of sound and attributes appropriate meaning to it, then stores the data. Outside your head... silence. Darkness.
Likewise for all of those Original Senses. There are no deliciously aromatic clouds of fragrances hovering over a summer garden. There are bits of "random programming" (the stuff from which atoms are "made/discerned") that stimulates our olfactory sense. After filtering the information through our whole life history, making various modifications, lots of computing (albeit in a very short amount of time), correlating memories like a "line-up" at the Brain-land Police Station. We then "perceive" an odor, a perfume in the air all around. Ah, lilacs! Sorry, all in the mind. Without, there is "potential", within, a deliciously fragrant garden.
‘We don't see things as 'they’ are, we see them as WE are!’

[MMAGUY]

There’s no evidence that everything is in a superposition. We only know that microscopic particles are in superposition not things like a tree, a cat or a car.

[nameless-ydko]

To exist is to be perceived!
That answers your question.
You're welcome! ;)

[vscmnvi]

yes but any particle can be an observer

[georginawoodward]

The difference between fact and personal opinion, feeling or judgment based on them, is objective proof. Light meters, being devices, do not have opinion or feeling. It can be demonstrated that most material existing things are sources of ‘light’ quanta, stimuli, either being emitters such as light bulbs or reflectors. The exception being objects coated in highly absorbent paint. Human-kind knows how eyes and camera like devices function being receivers of ‘light’ quanta, stimuli input.
To be sources of stimuli the objects must exist. They can not themselves be products of observation.
If objects are existing, not as observation products, but material things the particles from which they are composed and particles they emit or reflect must also be existing. Not being relative observation products, they can not be occupying the same sensory or device generated space as them.
When testing a particle, the existing particle, the apparatus and experimenter (bodily) are not relative to ‘this way of testing’. They exist independently of the test. unlike the relative measurement product.

[nothingmanofgod.]

after all it's coming blinds forever all🤸

[nothingmanofgod.]

if God not see it it's blinds human foolers🤸

[dowddash]

The universe obviously exists without a conscious observer, because its existence lead to the creation of a planet where a conscious observer could evolve to the point of becoming conscious.

[randomenvelope]

Tired of the schrodinger cat, the cat is an observer aswell tho.

[bruceleeroy]

Even a kindergartener could make this simple deduction. In order for the universe to exist there had to be a primary observer. When did we abandon common sense and reason for arrogance?

[deutschlandfurimmer]

I am a FIRM proponent of there is existence if there is no awareness. And I don't care how well argued any other opinion might be.