The notion of "The universe IS because we observe" means the universe behaves like this, or carries certain attributes is depends on how we observe it. Or simply put, Objective reality doesn't exist . It depends on the state, and who the observer is.

If you and I were unconscious and being carried in to a container in a bullet train with no outside noise which is then running at 400km/h constant speed, upon conscious, there is no way we know we are running at 400km/h, we "thought" that we are at static. Why, because this is how our lens (eyes, ears) tell us. Need not to mention, an observer C (the kipnapper) who is station at the platform aware that we are moving at 400km/h. Both are right.

When you sit down, and the universe appears quite to you, the universe is not actually quite, it was due to you that only can hear frequency between 20-20,000 Hertz. An inserts that flaps its wings 30kHz doesn't exist to you but it exists to says, a dog, as it hears it.

You want to trust your limited senses and say this is the "One absolute reality that the universe is" based on? Think again.

May I know how much do you weight? Probably 60kg. If you were to sit in a spaceship which is running at 0.6C, you might weight 70kg. Both measurement are right.

If your velocity can influence space/time and affect the gravity, what reference point do you want to use to define "the one single objective reality"? Is it our current motion relative to earth, which is circling around the sun?

If you would, you are thinking earth is the center of the universe, just like the era where Copernicus lives.

Newton influences you too much, my friend, try Einstein and Schrodinger.

My apology for not addressing your question directly. The above points illustrate that even within the observable universe, "a single objective reality doesn't exist". Left alone talking and discussing about universe depends on "who"'s consciousness and also the philosophical question on existence.

For your question: If the universe depends on consciousness to exist, who consciousness might that be?
Your consciousness and the dog consciousness. If only dog exists, the 30kHz insert exists. If only you exist, the 30kHz inserts doesn't exist. (Note, using an advanced electron microscope is besides the point, as there is boundary limits that it can achieved, and analogy to 20-20,000kHz limitation).

For your second question: Where would that consciousness reside with"out" the universe?
Before asking this question, are you sure consciousness resides with"in" the universe? Physicist is not so sure about it. To say consciousness resides within the universe, it much carries some attributes just like other objects.

What is the shape, what is the size of consciousness, what is it velocity, what force does it interacts to? It we cannot measure it, does it exist?

There is one consciousness thread, you could try to browse through if you are interested.

A very good question by you, and it is more towards philosophy.

So if I look into the night sky and spot a bright dot, and from what i observe i conclude it's a star, but when my friend with a telescope look at it, no it's a planet, does the universe change according to consciousness. Since there is no objective truth, in this example my universe is physically different from my friend? If not how do we know which one is the objective truth?
But doesn't what you said contradict your argument? Reality does not depend on your consciousness, does not depend on your perception of it. It is exactly there is some objective truth out there (we are actually travelling at 400km/h, or there is a 30kHz sound, or my weight is 60kg at certain condition which follows some objective laws of nature etc ...), that we cannot depend on our senses, our feeling of it. We need some objective method, that is science, to find out what is the objective truth out there.
So if I have a instrument that detects a 30kHz sound universe where there is no dog ever existed, does that mean the universe physically changes according to my instrument? So my isntrument now has some sort of consciousness?
There is another simpler explanation for consciousness, it is just our awareness of what is there, our feelings of how we interpret events in the real world that may not be correct or accurate. Once you die, the consciousness dies with you but the universe remains physically unchanged. So to measure consciousness, is to measure some vague definition of a complicated emergent property of the brain, more like taking some measurement of how many peeple like red compare to blue that depends on many inter-related factors.

You misunderstood me. It wasn't about I declared banana as apple and you declared banana as orange and which is the objective truth. As both of us are stationary on earth, our observable space is rather similar. However, this is just a niche spectrum of reality.

When we touch about a broader spectrum of fundamental elements that made up our world today, nature is playing roulette and doesn't seem to follow rules as we known today. there is no single observation of reality as you could observe the cat is dead and my observation could be that the cat is alive.

Left alone if 3 persons are traveling with three different velocity, their space/time, gravity vary.
Again, you misunderstood me. Uncertainty is intrinsic in nature, it is not about measurement errors. And space/time is not a constant. If you want one objective truth, it is that it is a variable. The objective method that we use in science tells us this.

Yes, you could say that. It is not saying that your instrument is alive, but the total system of the insect (30kHz), you plus the apparatus of the instrument as a large quantum system, force you to conclude that the new nature of the sound is now transferred to the observer, you plus the apparatus, as a whole.

You explanation seems fair. You mentioned awareness and feelings, but aren't they are unquantifiable quantity. You have made an assumption that consciousness arise from the brain. As physicist is not too sure about it. Plants are conscious, but whether they have brain is arguable.

That is why I tend to classify consciousness have philosophical attributes rather then sciences attributes.

If I understand you correctly, your argument is about absolute reality. Can we know absolutely about nature? Since what we know is limited to what we can observe with our senses and instruments, we can only know a small spectrum of reality, where we believe there is a bigger world out there. In other words, we are not talking about objective reality because while what we know may not be complete or absolutely precise or infinitely true, we know that what we know is objectively true within that limitation. What we know now does not depend on our individual perception of reality, right?

I think he is referring to Participatory Anthropic Principle,
this has been used by physicists for quite a long time

If there are realms that lie beyond our universe, why would we want to worry how the universe begins or how fine tune our universe is? We should worry how do these realms come to exist without an universe? Are they fine tuned as well for a mind to appear?