I guess we would have to go into what defines "existing", just to clear it a bit.
As it is possible, even if very very unlikely, that things fade in and out, it couldn't be proved and that's the problem, as you said. Heck, it's as likely to prove then to disprove it as you can't really observe something that can't be observed
If e define that the ceiling exists only if someone looks, sees, feels, hears, etc, it, then isn't it valid to say it doesn't exist if it's not seen/heard etc?
We're getting into semantics now; by that logic everything could turn into giant slices of bacon every time we turn our back on it, but we'd never know because it changes back whenever we turn around again.
This sort of thoery is valid, but its also essentially pointless because it doesnt affect us and by its own laws states that it cant possibly affect us, no matter what. I admit its possible, but even if it is true, it doesnt - and cant ever - change anything in our observable world, so whats the point in theorising about it?
things only exist because its the most likely result, same for why anything happens at all ever.
things dont turn to bacon because its not the most probable event, otherwise it would be happening already,
if things didnt exist just because you cant see them, what about blind people?
I've thought up the perfect test for this.
Here's what you do
1. Go find a wall,
2. Close your eyes as suggested,
3. take 10 steps back
4 Now run as hard as you can towards where the wall was before you closed your eyes
5. Conclusion ? or should we maybe say concussion ?
Probabilities can and do shift you know, it might not be happening now but how can you know it hasn't already happened once somewhere or will happen once somewhere?
You fit into category 3 with a little dash of 5 I think.
Wow Tris, you completely missed the entire point.