is something visible because its seen or seen because its visible?

I'll try again in your language: actually you have explained well with A and B, but then you have erased them and just rest X. Finally you state X exists just because X looks at X, what is saying X exists because you say so. Is like saying "The Bible is true because in the Bible it says the Bible is true".

I still can't believe how you accept that idea that you create and destroy the universe with your personal cpacity of senses (i.e. view, observing capacities). Also you have ignored my other argument, about the observer itself. If according to you something must be observed to exist, the observer also must be observed to exist. The observed can't be observer of himself as a prove, since this is the circular argument. If you say the observer of the universe is the observer of himself, and since it doesn't observe light doesn't exist, I could say the light is the observer of herself and if she doesn't observe your observer it don't exist.

Otherwise said, if you say a thing just exist because of an observer, I would aplly your theory and say the human being ONLY exists BECAUSE god is lookin at it.

I understood that since the begining but I have found it so silly that I was playing with side consequences of your statement in an intent of getting you to know your statement is circular ("this is true because I say so and I say it because it is true"). Before getting to know whether something is visible or not, you should define what is that "something" and what is "to see". I assume that something is a physical being that has some matter that reflect the light describing light rays with special propeties (i.e. color, energy etc). I assume "to see" is the mental idea the brain builds up of the entourage basing on thoose reflected light rays and ther color, energy, etc properties. (How good I am in optical studies lol). I'll try to talk in your language and give you fables: Imagine there was only the blind Homer in the universe, but with a bit of Aristotle's wisdom. He wants to write about what the world looks like, what will he do? He takes a photometer and goes around measuring (a photometer with a braile screen where he can read digits with his fingers). Then he writes "a rose is 1800ºK" and one day in the future a mistaken translator will understand "a rose is red". If Homer is also a good researcher he can even prophetise "The sun is 1600ºK but artistic representations of the sun are 4000ºK: human being is weird". And our translator will translate "The sun is blue but artistic representations of the sun are yellos: human being is weird". The fables always have a parable at the end, this one has too: 1.if there was only a blind "observer" in the universe, would it mean for you that universe has not the conditions for it to be seen? 2.if this blind obsever takes a surgery and gets to see, would you say the universe was invisible and has turnt visible? As you can see, all you are doing is projecting your personal defects and virtues to the abroad universe, what is a very antropocentric and egocentric idea (where did I heard that before mmmmmmm do you think that Galileo should be burnt?).