If the thing you are claiming exists does not interact with anything else in any way, how are you proving that thing exists in the first place? It's basically a circular argument. You make a claim that something exists yet then state that it is impossible to prove that the thing exists. It's just one big circle of "trust me, bro". The question isn't "does it exist?" the question is properly, "how do you know it exists in the first place?" You need to prove that the unicorns exist before expecting people to accept that they exist. Their existence is not a given.
If the thing you are claiming exists does not interact with anything else in any way, how are you proving that thing exists in the first place? It's basically a circular argument. You make a claim that something exists yet then state that it is impossible to prove that the thing exists. It's just one big circle of "trust me, bro". The question isn't "does it exist?" the question is properly, "how do you know it exists in the first place?" You need to prove that the unicorns exist before expecting people to accept that they exist. Their existence is not a given.
What if, regardless of whether something interacts or not, there is still an observer of it?
In that case, the question is no longer “does it interact?”, but “what makes it observable in the first place?”
I actually came across a paper that presents experimental evidence for the existence of such an observer.
If you’re interested, here it is: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393397861_Experimental_Evidence_of_Nonlocal_EEG-Quantum_State_Correlations_A_Novel_Empirical_Approach_to_the_Hard_Problem_of_Consciousness