Can we think of consciousness as a force of nature?

If it has been proven that matter needs a relationship to an observer to exist. Without it, there would be no reality, just the potential of one.
I believe that is how it goes.

But how can that be, if observers only came into existence when matter had already existed for a long time? Or in other words, how can observer capable beings evolve from physical matter if there were no observers in the first place to make physical matter happen?

Observer indicates consciousness. That is how we tend to think, and further, consciousness indicates a being to be conscious. So in the end we are left with two choices, accept a paradox or accept some deity theory.

But what if consciousness didn't indicate some entity to be it's master? Does it make sense to talk of consciousness without a conscious entity?
It would perhaps be like speaking of a flame without something burning. But it could be that that metaphor is just misleading.

What if we think of consciousness as "reaction to information" rather than the more traditional definitions?
In that sense we could speak of "conscious events" where consciousness happens but there is no supervising entity. One such event would be the creation of matter on the quantum level.
Physical reality happens in that moment, but also consciousness. Enough of it a least that there is an observer function to make matter happen. Quantum probabilities fill the required roles as they happen, as reality happens.

I like to think of it like a film that no one is watching. Just a series of conscious moments in no particular order or direction, some natural function of the fabric of reality itself. Experience that is being built upon but not recorded. At least not in the way they are recorded in the physical memory of the human consciousness.

All very speculative and intuitive, I know, but when I think about it this way, consciousness no longer has to be the result of physical existence. And that single troublesome detail may be why we require some fantastical force to be behind everything.
But if consciousness is as fundamental to the universe as physical matter itself, the whole thing seems a bit more logical. We see how truly unique the phenomenon of life is. It is conscious matter. A combination of fundamental, universal attributes to give the outcome we know as human or tree or animal.
In us consciousness is continuous. That is entirely due to physical memory. If we weren't able to remember, to store information about previous conscious events, we would have no continuity.

But for all this to work we would have redefine consciousness, and that's sort of a big deal. But in the end we derive explanations from what we know, by experiments or by intuition, and then we proceed to measure these explanations against eachother, and somewhere in all that they take on the qualities of "real". Some chose one, some another, but we all have an explanation that we think of as reality.
So the question is if the idea of consciousness being a fundamental quality of the universe itself, like a natural force, really does fit with what we know.
If it does I would say that it is perhaps "better" than our traditional explanations, since it eliminates the paradox of life coming from "dead" matter. And there is no need for a god in any of this. Instead we think of the universe as potential. Something in which everything happens. What we percieve is merely what works, what endures. But everything has been tried, or it is being tried or it will be. It is a matter of potential and probability, and everything that can happen will happen.

In this perspective, the creation of life was some event that enabled matter to consciously react to it's environment, crudely in the simplest life forms, more detailed and complex in other forms of life.
And it happened because it could.

This turned into quite a rant, and if you are still reading I guess I should thank you for it. I don't claim that this is truth or fact or anything that you must adopt as your own belief. It's just another explanation, and if it doesn't fit the facts that are being put under it I guess it fails. But if it does fit the facts, I'd say its a good way to see it, if we need to see it at all.