[tacticalogic]

No one who is not alive can observe Reality. Thus one presumes life and consciousness are more basic and more general.

Doesn't that lead to a conclusion that nothing exists unless and until it's been observed?

[betty boop]

Doesn't that lead to a conclusion that nothing exists unless and until it's been observed?

Not necessarily. This is the old "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to observe it, does the tree make a sound?" problem.

Two great friends — Einstein and Bohr — are on record as having quibbled over this problem.

Einstein twitted Bohr in so many words: "Niels would deny that the moon rises in the sky, unless he could see it for himself."

That is to say, the "existence of the moon" depends on Niels having observed the moon. That is, the moon is ontologically dependent on Niels' observation of it, which is an epistemological exercise.

Of course, Bohr denied all this. His answer was that the moon's existence did not depend on his observation of it; He doesn't "create" anything by "seeing" it. Rather, he acknowledges that any description that he could give of the moon surely did depend on his observation of the moon.

Vive la différence!

[hosepipe]

[B].. No one who is not alive can observe Reality. Thus one presumes life and consciousness are more basic and more general.
[T]... Doesn't that lead to a conclusion that nothing exists unless and until it's been observed?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Depends on how one defines reality...

It's possible "your reality" is only a facet of Reality..
i.e. Second Reality..

Meaning.. all humans have versions of second reality.. -OR-
humans discussing reality is like;

Chimps inspecting a Rolex Watch... intrigued but inadequate to grasp "the Thing"... except that it's "shiney"..