everything that we know today is the result of someone's interpretations.

I don't agree with "everything we know today is the result of someone's interpretations"

Because a lot of what I know is a result of my own interpretations. Your description of what is real isn't how I see things at all. This is all very real to me. I am experiencing real. If its not real it really isn't happening and doesn't exist. Sorry but this does exist and I am experiencing something.

So there, Everything is real and unreal to a conceptual level. But this existence is real. But then once you say it's real you are coming back to a conceptual level of viewing this there unreal exists, so lets just say everything IS. without involving the ''real'' label.

the radio waves (sounds) are only there when you are listening to them

Knowledge of the unobserved world
Main article: Observer-expectancy effect

Can we assume the unobserved world functions the same as the observed world? - e.g., "does observation affect outcome?"
A similar question does not involve whether or not an unobserved event occurs predictably, like it occurs when it is observed. The anthropic principle suggests that the observer, just in its existence, may impose on the reality observed. However, most people, as well as scientists, assume that the observer doesn't change whether the tree-fall causes a sound or not, but this is an impossible claim to prove. However, many scientists would argue as follows, "A truly unobserved event is one which realises no effect (imparts no information) on any other (where 'other' might be e.g., human, sound-recorder or rock), it therefore can have no legacy in the present (or ongoing) wider physical universe. It may then be recognized that the unobserved event was absolutely identical to an event which did not occur at all.". Of course, the fact that the tree is known to have changed state from 'upright' to 'fallen' implies that the event must be observed to ask the question at all - even if only by the supposed deaf onlooker. The British philosopher of science Roy Bhaskar, credited with developing critical realism has argued, in apparent reference to this riddle, that:

If men ceased to exist sound would continue to travel and heavy bodies to fall to the earth in exactly the same way, though ex hypothesi there would be no-one to know it[7]

This existence of an unobserved real is integral to Bhaskar's ontology, which contends (in opposition to the various strains of positivism which have dominated both natural and social science in the twentieth century) that 'real structures exist independently of and are often out of phase with the actual patterns of events'.[8] In social science, this has made his approach popular amongst contemporary Marxists - notably Alex Callinicos - who postulate the existence of real social forces and structures which might not always be observable[9][10][11] .

I feel that the whole idea of "the world only exists because our consciousness perceives it to exist" is a little arrogant. It's basically saying that humans are far superior to everything else because our minds create the existence of anything else. It's almost like saying you're a godly being. Only "god" can truly know what actually exists and doesn't. Saying something exists only because you allow it to, is pretty close to comparing yourself to god. This is strictly my opinion. No opinion is correct or wrong.

I feel that the whole idea of "the world only exists because our consciousness perceives it to exist" is a little arrogant. It's basically saying that humans are far superior to everything else because our minds create the existence of anything else. It's almost like saying you're a godly being. Only "god" can truly know what actually exists and doesn't. Saying something exists only because you allow it to, is pretty close to comparing yourself to god. This is strictly my opinion. No opinion is correct or wrong.