I haven’t dug into this, but it really feels like begging the question… it assumes quantum effects require a consciousness to happen, and from there it concludes that consciousness must be everywhere and in everything. Adding the idea that consciousness itself is due to conscious effects seems a bit paradoxical.
But before wandering down those paths, it might make sense to try to find ways to test whether a conscious observer is required? The dual-slit experiment and related experiments, for an easy example, seem to come to the same result whether a person is viewing it while it is run or not… and even if that result isn’t determined until a person views it, it always (so far as I’m aware) comes out the same no matter how many times it’s run or who views the result. Why, then, should we assume that conscious observation is not only required to create the result, but even has an active influence on the result?
But of course the tree that falls in the forest makes a sound, whether there’s any human around to hear it or not; of course, any other life that’s in the forest will hear and feel the vibrations it makes when it hits the ground.
I hate to see anything burnt down that hardworking laborers and skilled craftpersons built, no matter for whom it was built. Sure, it represents the inhabitant/s; but geez, the sheer work put into it should mean something.
And we’ll never know who they were, and the memories of them are no longer of any physical substance.