The World Unperceived

Does a tree make noise when it falls if no one is listening?  Is there even a tree if nothing is observing it?  This question might sound unecessary to a non-rationalist, but it is in no way obvious that there even is a world of matter beyond one's consciousness despite the stream of perceptions that make it seem as if one is having very specific experiences in the external world.  Although it is extremely difficult to actually prove that matter of any kind exists, it is possible to know with absolute certainty that some kind of matter exists [1], just in the sense that one has some sort of body that one's consciousness resides in.  The existence of one's mind is self-evident because it cannot be denied or dismissed unless one already exists as a mind, and matter is not self-evident whatsoever; all the same, both can be logically proven to exist instead of just assumed to.

That mind and matter both exist does not illuminate whether physical matter gives rise to human minds or whether human perception helps sustain the presence of the external world.  The predominant belief seems to be that the natural world not only exists, but exists unperceived--note that the world existing unperceived is not the same as the world coming into existence without a cause, an impossibility.  Many people just assume that there is matter on the first place though this can be proven (again, it is very difficult to prove it, but only an irrational person believes in something they cannot or have not proven to themselves by logical necessity), yet the idea that the world exists unperceived is at best an unproven and unprovable logical possibility.

What might seem so certain and obvious here when merely assumed is not even verifiable at all while living with human epistemological limitations!  Even distinguishing the uncaused cause from lesser, contingent consciousnesses does not reveal whether the world unperceived is really there.  The difference between causing something to come into existence and sustaining that thing's existence is also crucial here.  Nevertheless, something that can be proven with absolute certainty about this issue is that not even the uncaused cause, God itself, could perceive unobserved material environments or objects.

Not even an omniscient deity could perceive the world unperceived, for it is a logical impossibility as opposed to just an experiential impossibility for beings with human limitations!  While an omniscient being could still know if the world would exist unperceived after it is created, as it is omniscient and thus knows all truths, actually perceiving without perceiving is a contradiction and remains logically impossible even for something as powerful as a genuine deity.  To perceive an unperceived thing simply cannot be done regardless of what the perceived thing is or the relative scope of a being's power because logical impossibility is the only true kind of impossibility there is and could be.

So would a tree or any other material thing exist without a conscious being, whether God or a human or some other animal, perceiving it in some way?  Such a thing is possible but completely unknowable.  What can be known is that consciousness exists, or at least one's own consciousness, that some kind of matter exists, that there is a conceptual difference between mind and matter, that the uncaused cause is ultimately responsible for bringing the material world into existence, that either matter or perception could bring the other into existence, and that one has a plethora of sensory perceptions, most of which prove nothing but that the perceptions are there.  What the world is like unperceived or if it can exist unperceived at all is epistemologically up in the air beyond the fact that the laws of logic constrain it either way.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html