I get what you’re saying.
It’s true that interaction is necessary in order for us to know something.
But that might be a condition on the side of knowing,
not necessarily a condition for something to exist.
For example, if we only call things “existent” when we can see or touch them,
then aren’t we just cutting out the part of the world we happen to be able to engage with?
From that perspective, something that doesn’t interact with us isn’t “nonexistent”—
it might simply not be appearing on our side.
And if that’s the case, then…
what exactly is it that doesn’t exist—
that thing, or us?
I get what you’re saying. It’s true that interaction is necessary in order for us to know something.
But that might be a condition on the side of knowing, not necessarily a condition for something to exist.
For example, if we only call things “existent” when we can see or touch them, then aren’t we just cutting out the part of the world we happen to be able to engage with?
From that perspective, something that doesn’t interact with us isn’t “nonexistent”— it might simply not be appearing on our side.
And if that’s the case, then… what exactly is it that doesn’t exist— that thing, or us?