Schrodinger's cat is different than observation of the universe in this respect: The cat has already been observed prior to being placed in the box, so the cat is already realized in the macro sense. Then it is an issue of knowledge. In the case of the universe, initial observation has not yet occurred so realization has not happened.
Even if the cat is
not observed prior to going in the box it is realized if it exists within the box. Only our knowledge of it's existence is altered by the act of observation.
This goes back to the Quasars. We are observing them billions of years
after they existed. Observation has to be secondary to existence.
Also, look at something like Tycho's supernova. This is a good example because the star that went supernova was never observed prior to going supernova. It was first observed by Tycho Brahe when the light from it's destruction finally reached earth. But this observation happened 7500 years
after it had already been destroyed.
In a subjective universe, this star could not have gone through it's entire life-cycle due to never having been observed. But it
had to already have been destroyed prior to being observed due to the properties of light. The day before it's light reached Earth in order to be observed, it did not exist in both states. It could
not have existed in both states.
If it had, it would have been producing light from both states.
In the case of quantum mechanics with quantum particles, it is not merely the absence of knowledge which leads to the wave function, but the lack of observation and detection.
Observation and detection are inherently intertwined with knowledge and are inseparable. Knowledge is the product of observation and detection. The wave function describes mathematically all of the potential observations that are possible. The collapse of the wave function occurs through observation because at that point knowledge is accrued. The knowledge in this case is which potential realities are invalidated and which one is validated.
Particles really are in many states of existence, at least this is my understanding of QM.
This isn't certain. The issue
could be that the fourth dimension is vastly different at the micro-level than it is at the macro level. If the rate of time at the micro level is massively different than it is at the macro level, the issue isn't that these things exist in many states at the same time, but instead that they
appear to do so because of the difference in the rates of time relative to the observer and observee.
Imagine that you and I existed in areas with vastly different rates of time, and that we were immortal. Let's say that the comparative rates of time were for every nano-second in your region, a millennium passed in my region. Now lets say that you are able to observe what is happening in my region.
Since the things going on in my region are happening over a relatively long period of time, there is a
whole lot going on. But all of that is occurring, form your perspective, in a nano-second.
Of course, to the observer in such a situation it will appear that the occurrences in my region are happening simultaneously and that everything exists in multiple states until the observation occurs, which would be a "Snapshot" of a nano-second in my relative time frame.
That's how I imagine it.
The puzzling thing is the transition from many quantum particles with uncollapsed wave function to macro level things. At which point do macro level things become realized (wave function collapses)?
I think the issue is one of time distortion as described above.
I don't see the evidence proving otherwise. I think it is an open question. This leads to holding a belief about the issue. If the universe is subjective, you are correct, the existence of the universe is dependent on observation, thus our consciousness is the center of the universe and we are not insignificant.
I believe the universe is objective, but our understanding of it is limited by multiple factors, not the least of which being that we are bounded by our own relative time frame. We aren't capable of adjusting our own rate of time to suit the rate of time of that which we observe and this leads to false perceptions.
I think our perspective is highly limited by the rate of time at which we perceive the Universe. When I first went to college I was a physics major and my favorite subject of discussion was relativity. I wrote a paper in my Astronomy class about how the age of the Earth is probably greater than estimated when compared to the age of the universe because of the relativistic effects of gravity and velocity on the Earth that are not present in a "Universal mean rate of time". The estimates of the Earth's age come from Earth based observations such as K/Ar dating, which are bounded by the rate of time present on the Earth (which is slowed by it's presence in a gravitational field and the velocity of the galaxy, which is approaching the speed of light if one uses observations of red shift to make that determination). An empty portion of the Universe, however, would have a "faster" rate of time because it is not traveling at velocity or contained within a specific gravitational field (although it would be affected by the general gravity present throughout the universe, but not to the same degree that the Earth would be affected by it's gravitational neighborhood).
This would mean that the age of the Earth, relative to the Universe, would be potentially much greater than the estimated age of the Earth relative to the Earth itself.
It is a confusing subject because, even with knowledge of relativity, our natural tendency is to consider the rate of time as essentially static because relative to our perceptions, it
is static.
Obviously, this hobby of mine is affects my views with discussions like this. I see our
ability to make observations at this scale as
infinitely limited because we are bound by our own rate of time. We are not evolved or designed or what have you with the ability to truly think of things from a pliable rate of time perspective. We are limited by our own natural resources, which are not designed/evolved/whatever for this kind of thing. Our natural ability to perceive things is limited to that which will help us survive and procreate.
What is being discussed delves
drastically outside the realm of what we need for these purposes. We are able to scratch the surface of it because the ability to think abstractly
did assist us in these goals, but this adaptation can only reach that surface level wen far more would be required to reach a full understanding of that which exists.
This actually falls in line with my views about the "relative insignificance" of humanity and is actually a part of my belief in an objective reality. Our natural limitations act as a barrier to a full understanding of the objective reality, and force us into a subjective interpretation of reality to "make sense" of the incomprehensible.
I would say that the existence of "reality" is subjective, once again calling into question: what is the nature of "reality"? In a subjective world view, it is consciousness which is reality, not the universe.
I think you're getting down to the more metaphysical question of "What is the
meaning of reality/life".
Ironically, my belief in an objective reality and human insignificance has lead to a personal philosophy of existentialism when applied to the individual.
Since I believe in individual, even species-wide insignificance, and that is a terribly depressing belief, I have adopted an existential worldview regarding personal significance.
I believe that since there is no objective meaning to life, at least at the individual level, we have to subjectively create our own
meaning.
For whatever reason, humans have the need to find meaning even where no meaning might exists.
So at the individual level, I would say that reality can be
viewed as existing subjectively even if it is truly objective, because this subjective interpretation of reality is more beneficial to the human psyche than a truly objective universe is.
I should add that if a Deity were to exist, it would lead to a
subjective reality because the subjective interpretation that creates existence would be that of said deity, which would add meaning of some sort to existence.
In a truly objective universe, though, there can
be no meaning to existence. Since this is what I believe in, despite my own psyche's distaste for such an idea, I then feel that one must essentially invent a
false, subjective meaning to existence/reality.
So if I view your question from a Universal sense, I would say that
the Universe exists in an objective sense.
But when viewed from a personal sense, I would say
My universe exists in a purely subjective sense.