That philosophers have said doesn't make it sensible; they don't exactly have the best credentials.
With all due respect, philosophers like Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, etc etc etc have far better credentials than anyone you'll find on this or any other message board. Their work, their thinking changed and shaped the nature of human reality for literally millennium and will continue to do so for several millennium more. You don't have to agree with their philosophy, but you can't dismiss it.
"Things don't exist until I see them" is how an infant thinks. You take away their teething ring, and bam, it no longer exists for them. We know better, I would think. There is no reason to believe that our perception creates the universe, other than an esoteric desire for weirdness.
What you're referring to here is the idea of persistence of objects, a concept that infants in the sensorimotor stage of cognitive development have difficulty understanding. Usually between 8 and 12 months of an infant's life they move into the secondary circular coordination stage, where they begin to grasp concepts such as persistence. Jean Piaget called this the first stage of proper intelligence. By the way.... can you tell I just got done taking an "Infancy and small childhood development" class this semester?
However, what I was referring too wasn't the nature of an object that leaves our perception. It was on the nature of reality itself, what does perception mean, and what is an object, perceived or not. I'm sorry if this mode of communication (forums) doesn't allow for the subtleties in such a discussion. It's very hard to have this type of a conversation with people familiar with the concepts when you're face to face... I'm starting to think that it was a mistake to bring it up on a forum where tonality and body expression is completely absent.
My entire point was to simply present a different viewpoint to the whole "time is a straight line" scenario that had been previously discussed in this thread. I didn't mean to cause such a ruckus.
As far as the whole quantum thing, that only happens on quantum scales. Particles, and such. Schrodinger's cat wasn't meant to be literal, only to illustrate an oddity of quantum mechanics in a way people could understand.
Finally, just so you know, Schrodinger actually presented the 'cat' scenario NOT as a way to illustrate quantum mechanics, but as a way to poke fun of quantum mechanics. He's saying "Look how silly this all is. It would be like saying a cat is both alive and dead at the same time! Such silliness!"
He was actually critiquing the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum states.