Can the Universe Exist without consciousness?

[Violet]

This is sort of like the "If a tree falls in the forest" argument, but I would like to add something to it.

The 'argument' cited is as point-missing as 'I think, therefore I am.': You've presumed the conclusion in the former statement. 'I think' and 'it thinks' and 'it is' and 'I am' all state existence. 'If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?' misses the point by asking as asinine a question as that and expecting something to come of it. It is not an argument: it is a question. And philosophical questions do not have but a single answer.

The reason the tree does in fact make a sound is because it is part of a universe in which consciousness does/has/will exist. I am proposing that in order for the the multiverse and every universe within to exist, at least one of said universes must contain consciousness. Our universe contains some form of time and at some point within that time consciousness existed, so, the universe did in fact exist before consciousness came about because it would contain consciousness at some point in time.

Existence is not 'essence'... everything necessarily exists, even should it amount to nothing, which must also exist. Something will always exist, however it is organized.

You see a computer, ant sees a mountain, giant sees a pebble, space alien sees food... how the universe is organized is the result of the observer, not of the material being observed.

And this is part of why 'If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?' is such a piece of shit: without the observer... there is not even a tree, nor a forrest of trees, and sounds but a faint nothingness upon the chaos. The material that made up "trees" and "forests" and "sounds" is there regardless of whether it be a "fire" or a "cancer" or a "time machine" or sixteen Japanese dancers or "Rusfafnoaw" in a left ankled "Soamenfnaa". The suggestion puts a focus upon whether the sound exists if it isn't 'observed'... when it has already assumed 4 other things exist without being 'observed'.

My point is: If there was no consciousness in any universe in the multiverse, there would be no one to prove that it existed, if one cannot prove it, one cannot say for certain that it exists. I feel that the multiverse somehow has it's own laws of "physics" that force consciousness to come about.

Certainty has exactly nothing to do with correctness. Perhaps this will break your mind, but logic is entirely circular and taken on faith. So our best tool for determining what is and is not 'true' is itself taken on faith.

A question: Why does it matter that there is nobody to prove the cosmos exists if there is nobody in the first place?

Please discuss, this is a new theory I'm working on and I would love some input.

Input granted... theory needs serious out-of-textbook testing Welcome to the forum, by the way.