this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2026
25 points (83.8% liked)
Asklemmy
54671 readers
1023 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Classical question. Heard it often. I mean, yes without someone being aware we can't prove the existence of it. But I think this is a really human self centered world view. The earth existed for millions of years even before we or any other animal was aware of it. I mean we can prove that now later. Yes this prove now also only exists thanks to someone being aware. But it shows to the past to something that was there already even without it.
I don't think the Universe cares. It was before us, it will be after us. Yes we have no prove while we are gone, but the Universe doesn't care.
Ok, new question: can something exist if there is, was, and will be, nothing or no one that is/was/will be aware of its existence?
Note my definition of being aware here: if that something can be illuminated, photons are "aware" of it. If it can fall freely, gravitational fields are "aware" of it.