I think you misunderstand.
If the sun exploded you would still be happily sun bathing for eight minutes unaware the sun had gone.
For those eight minutes you would be seeing something that had ceased to exist in space.
Of course you would swear it's there because you are observing it,
My point being observing an object far away does not mean it exists,
only that it had once existed.
current locations of objects are not verifiable by observation.
Hence my point about a universe model sold as fact due to observation.
(all based on the most popular paradigm)
Thanks for your reply. I think I know where you want to go with your example, but you choose a situation that is a bit unusual, because we are dealing with the information already moving at the speed of light. I am not sure if the speed of light is also the maximum speed of information, because if that is the case, then you could reasonably say that if the "light-horizon" hasn't reached you yet, the event hasn't happened.
Now, I think you didn't actually want to go into the specifics of that scenario, so allow me to propose a different example: Instead of the sun, let's use a radio, or any other speaker, and let's say it is so far away that, when it explodes, you still hear it play for 30 seconds (the information could have traveled to you much faster, though).
I think the different example also makes the problem much clearer. It shows that there is a two step process: What you hear, and thereby observe, is the
sound, not the radio. In the sun example, you observe light, not the sun. There is at least one extra step before you can say that the radio/the sun exists.
So you are not really observing something that doesn't exist. You simply conclude that whatever emitted the thing you are actually observing still exists - which unfortunately is an unwarranted assumption.
Note that this doesn't mean we can know nothing. You still know that the sound/light was emitted before it reached you and determine the cause.