> Also consciousness has an effect on physics for the same reason. I don't think that is correct. If physicists are alleging that physics works differently whe

> Also consciousness has an effect on physics for the same reason. I don't think that is correct. If physicists are alleging that physics works differently when we literally turn our back then that is something they should spend more time publicising. What I assume you are referring to is that, in practice, to observe something experimentally we have to interact with it (eg, to record the velocity of an object a laser or something has to bounce off it). Ie, it is impossible to do an experiment without interacting with the subject of the experiment. The physics doesn't change based on consciousness, it is just a comment on the limits of what experiment is capable of. > It seems likely that it exists, because why would we discuss it? We discuss lots of things that don't actually exist. Most mathematical objects don't exist as far as we can tell, and even if the universe is infinite it is almost certainly not big enough to contain the bigger infinities the mathematicians can dream up unless there is a lot going on that we aren't getting hints of in our observations. And we won't ever settle the question of whether randomness exists. It isn't possible to rule out the theory that the universe is all just a simulation and built off a pseudo-random function. Theoretical random processes are still a foundation of modern society. Something not existing doesn't stop us from theorising how things would work if it did exist. The question really comes down to whether it is a quirk of evolution that results in a convincing illusion or an actual thing.