Do things only exist when observed?

When observers, for example, a human, a camera, or a digital sensor, are present in an interaction with a physical system, the measurement results are predictable. However, when we do not have direct access to the system and can only observe the effects of interactions, things become trickier. We lack knowledge about the system's state prior to the interaction.<br><br>In this case, the notion of "existence" is complex. Systems have characteristics that we can't predict or influence when we aren't observing them. Consider the act of flipping a coin. Heads or tails, each side has a 50% possibility of landing face up. Once flipped, however, the uncertainty about the results is resolved; the system's state is established. This leads me to the conclusion that the system's existence precedes our observation of it.<br><br>Observation is not necessary for the existence of a system. All that is required is knowledge of the system's features and state. Additionally, because the act of observation is not what establishes the system's state, our interaction with the system has no effect on its reality. <br><br>**We do not create a system by observing it; rather, we are aware of its presence by observing it. **<br><br>If that's the case, then a rose in a distant, inaccessible portion of the universe exists regardless of whether we can see it or are even aware of its presence. **That's basically what Schrödinger's cat claims: "If you can't see it, it's both there and not there."**