If there were no observers, would there be any point to anything existing?

Question

If so, what would its point be?

Answer 1

The "point" or "purpose" of the universe, less the existence of observers, would merely imply the "effect" of that existence as forces and such.

Bigcherr stated, "quantum physics says that everything sees and observes everything else. every partical is conscious. so if there where no observers there would be no existence."

I would interpret the way in which she used the word "observes" to mean "affects" and "effect." That is, when "everything sees and observes everything else," is merely to say that there is an irreducible state of force and phenomena that affects and is effected. Thus, it is not cognizant; it merely is. That is, it is not "observed" with eyes; it is observed by causality and relation to "Force and effect."

When you care to stretch the meaning of "point" or "purpose" beyond "effect" and "force", as I have said, you include the human version of point and purpose: "desire", to which reason is an instrument.  

Thence, your question (to me) is: "If there were no cognizant observers whom may exert their desire on the objects they observe, is there any purpose (beyond effect and force) to anything existing?" My answer would be No. Without the cognizant observer, desire and all its aims are nil. Nonetheless, the force and effect (which are independent of desire) of the universe would be the irreducible, prima facie, self-sufficient "purpose" unto itself. In other words, purpose would not be directed by desire, but by the inevitability of time, space, and the interplay of all other phenomena. Thus, aluminum, steel, and so on, would have no "purpose" in being cars and planes without man (and his desire, respectively); instead, metal's purpose would simply and merely be to exist as a matter with some constant velocity or potential energy that will be used by some physical system in the universe to produce/recycle/exert some force for reasons of physical balance/dissolution/entropy, etc.

Words have so many meanings that your question is so many questions at the same time. I hope this made sense.

Answer 2

Definitions.  Ask wether anything exists.  Does blank exist?  Any noun you substitute for blank is a definition of some sort.  A chair, a tree, a car, God.  All concepts we have in our head that, I believe, aren't ever perfect descriptions of anything in reality.  We have many things that closely resemble our definitions, but nothing that exactly matches them.  So do they exist?  Or is existence a fuzzy thing?

It's the observers that make the definitions.  They make them because they are useful.  Did a tree exist before anyone defined it?  Someone notices that there are many plants that share common characteristics.  So they made the definition of tree.  The definition was useful because you could say go find a tree, instead go find a large plant with a wooden stem and leaves on the top, there happen to be many things in the outside world that fit this description, finding such plants can offer shade or perhaps wood to burn or build shelters.

I can see any pattern with my senses and make a definition that closely fits many things I see.  But did I just create something, besides nomenclature for the world I live in.  Did trees know they were trees before someone came along and grouped all large plants with wooden stems and leaves as trees?  What separates a a short tree from a tall bush?

I don't there's any more meaning to the words we use.  They're just labels.

Answer 3

Every particle is NOT conscious. Nature has no cognizance of itself. Therefore you are correct--it has no point.

That Q. of yours is an amazing concept to understand. Most people don't get it. They think man is a parasite; whereas if man didn't exist, the animals would just go on as they have done for billions of years, living in what Loren Eiseley calls "the eternal present." [from "The Immense Journey."]

Animals don't know nature exists, (merely that "things" exist,) and nature doesn't know they exist. Everything to them is "the given."

For example, it is "the given" that it is "run or be eaten," or "eat or be eaten."

Only man can understand the principle of individual sovereignty, apply it to the species, and protect this species from remaining in "the eternal present."

Otherwise, there is no point to existence EXCEPT for the eternal present.

Answer 4

Why should you care if someone is observing you or not? In either case, sure there's a point in existing.

Answer 5

Nothing can be observed, if there is no observer

Answer 6

quantum physics says that everything sees and observes everything else. every partical is conscious. so if there where no observers there would be no existence.

Answer 7

The Universe exists.

It needs no "point"...

Nor witnesses to justify it.

It...

merely...

IS.

Answer 8

Without observers, things would have no point to us.

Our observations, is all organized intto different sub-categories under life. Everything is categorized in a way our brain can understand and get used to such as 'nature' , 'space' , ' heaven' etc and attatched to those are all objects that we classify as belonging to thos categories. Such as 'tree' goes with Nature, 'stars' go with space, ' sky goes with heaven. This classification comes from the observations and organization of human minds rather than the natural order of things. Without our observations, there would be no point in reasoning and everything would have no meaning to us. All knowledge has came from Human observation. Things exist, just we categorize it, and give it meaning. For example, the Vikings and their god Thor. After observing Thunder and Lightning, the vikings reasoning for this was that the noise was caused by Thor's banging of his hammer in the sky. But to us today, we see the happenings of thunder and lightning differently due to our observations of science. We notice that the seasons change, weather changes, etc all based on our observations which leads to the reasoning as to why this happens.

People have became so used to this 'general knowledge' of things that to interpret life for themselves is difficult.

I give up, im too lazy to type more.

Know what im getting onto? I'm terrible at wording ideas.

Answer 9

What makes you think that there's a "point" to everything existing WITH observers?  You'd have to justify that idea before proceeding.

Answer 10

existentialist's view might help, you make a point. perhaps god is trying to understand and amuses himself. perhaps between projects where there is state of dormancy, there is no point. when you past away, you may return dormant, but potentially to be active in the next life.

Answer 11

Nothing can not exist.

Answer 12

Potential.

Without any observer the universe would have a potential point pending the probability an observer coming into being.

Answer 13

The problem with this question is that if anybody or anything in the universe can cognite that there are no observers, then they exist as an observer.  Whatever that observer does with what they perceive exists is manifested in how they live their lives.  If we do have free will...and I think we do...at least most of the time...the observer gets to have whatever experiences they have with what is in their realm of existance, and, because they have the capacity to make value judgements and other things, they get to decide what the point is.

Answer 14

When I go to church on Sundays, there is usually 50-60 people there. Does what you say  mean that I should not go to church if there is no one there?

I sit in the house alone, and read the bible.  If there is no one observing, does that mean it has no point?

Answer 15

the answer to your question is one word: superposition. Einstein failed, ultimately, because he was unable to imagine a world without a "god" thus he could not comprehend the world without an observer.

Answer 16

There are, of course, plenty of philsophers who have argued that there's no point to anything existing no matter how many observers you have.  That there's just no point at all.

Of course, there are so many POSSIBLE purposes that people have proprosed for existance that it seems quite likely that some of them could have been served even with anyone around to see.  For example, some suggest that the universe is a manifestation of the efforts of its creator.  Like a car or a painting might have a point even if they were locked in a room and never seen or used again - the person who made them might have profited from the exercise of their making.  I know many writers who write book after book and never submit them for publishing but just lock them in a trunk in their attic.  They enjoy it even if nobody ever sees them.

The notion that quantum mechanics requires an 'observer' is a freqent misunderstanding of core phenomenon.  An observer in that context is simply anything that can be differentially interacted with.  So it's not that having nobody around to watch would cause nothing to exist, to have no quantum mechanical interactions of any sort means to have nothing around to interact with.  It's a circular argument ("if nothing were around, there would be nothing around").

Answer 17

If there were no observers there wouldn't be anything existing. But maybe this is not what you meant. "If there wasn't someone to notice something, what would be the point of that something to exist?" Am I right?

My guess is the point would be:

-  to bring to existence the observer.