Existence is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient

Now, now...you've not been listening at the back !

The observer-observed dichotomy refers to a polarity of co-extensive states interacting across an 'organism-environment ' boundary. Organisms have been defined as relatively stable dynamic 'dissipative structures' , simple examples of which have been shown to arise spontaneosly in complex chemical situations.(Prigogine) Current writers on abiogenesis (Pross) tend to endorse this view, and one 'systems -theory' biologist (Maturana) haS even written that 'observation' always involves verbalization (what I call 'thinging') and is therefore a behavior which should only be ascribed to those organic systems sufficiently evolved to be engaged in 'languaging'.

From this pov, your pursuit of 'origin of observers' is facile since it ultimately boils down to a 'first cause' quest little different in substance from 'prime mover' theism. I thought you might have spotted that by now, but having got your teeth into attacking this 'fount of wisdom' your hormone system appears to be interfering with your rationality.

BTW 'Causality' has little status in modern physics in which the concept of 'time' has been deconstructed.

You seriously delude yourself if you believe that I consider you to have any authority in making statements about science of any type. Tell me, when archaea were the dominant life form, the only life form, for billions of years, did they constitute your "observers?"

Ah-hahahahahahahahaha . . .

It's been shown that animals and insects are able to communicate.
http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-11_u-26_t-72_c-258/insects/nsw/insects/way-out-communication/animal-communication-methods
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/behavioral-biology/animal-behavior/a/animal-communication

Still not listening....see Maturana...
"Observers" are those EMERGENT organisms engaged in "Languaging".

The fount of wisdom is now going to bed.

According to Maturana, 'communicating' is not equivalent to 'languaging'.

References available but not tonight !

So you understand that there isn't anything that doesn't exist, because anything you can imagine not to exists in fact exists as a manifestation of imagination within a living brain?

You can imagine giant sloths on Mars that could never exist as biological organisms in Martian environments, but the fact that your mind can mix the concepts of giant sloths and Mars even though you've only ever read about either and imagined them in terms of something else you've actually seen/experienced constitutes a fact of the brain's cognitive abilities in the same way that Photoshop's ability to paste a picture of a giant sloth onto a Martian landscape is a real capability of the software and hardware of the computer running it.

Anything that can be thought out and described exists.

And well you should go to bed. Observation and communication are not the same thing of course. The archaea have no organelles--no cell nucleus, no mitochondria, no chloroplasts--but are just a glycerin sphere with the replicative chemicals inside. So how are they supposed to observe?

Try to follow the train of thought, 'K? Observe, not communicate.

Maturena, Rorty, Wittengenstein . . . they can all kiss my rosy red patoot.

Can you be specific with where the following is contradictory or paradoxical?
Existence = that which is all-existing/omnipresent

Well, "omnipresent" sounds god-like. Most of us are sheltered in our small world, and many never see outside of their village, town or state.

If you can't see that ...

...is tautologically vacuous, you should not be doing 'philosophy'.

Here's a reference to Maturana's concept of 'languaging' and his annalysis of 'observation'. It could be described as a development within 'second order cybernets' (the systems theory approach to the observation of observation).
http://www.enolagaia.com/M78BoL.html

typo
....cybernetics......

To understand existence, you have to think about what's actually happening and not what is being represented. When you "think out" or "describe" something, you are representing it in thought/description. What you are thinking or describing may not be true. I.e. lies exist. Lies describe something that isn't true, i.e. which doesn't exist, but they exist as speech acts and thought patterns. How does the Thomas Theorem go? Something to the effect of: "unreal things have real consequences?"

As always, you respond to the huge hole in the thesis you are pushing with insults. After all, you have no answer, and you'll never have an answer to the objection, the core objection, to the silly claim that reality is "context-bound." If there is no objective, independent reality, where did the "context-constructing" humans come from?

I have reported your post for the name-calling.

The typical profundity with which you respond to the criticism you cannot answer logically. I will report this name-calling, too. Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the new dispensation.

No. You obviously don't understand the nonrepresentalist view of language, or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language is the essence of 'thought'. Both of these point 'reality' as a social construction. What is 'actually happening' is always open to negotiation.

None of you dithering answers the question of whence the "languagers," the "context-constructors." Are we to believe that humans sprang fully-grown, fully-armed and -armored from the brow of Philosophy? Is this a new production of dance hall number of Athena springing from the brow and thought of Zeus? Really, you make of philosophy a silly talking shop. I guess that's because you no longer have any relevance in the contemporary world, and you want to protect your pay check.

Is the Pope involved ?

Sorry. You really seem to have 'lost it'. I should have known better than engage with you. Whatever abilities you once seem to have exhibited here are now sadly lacking. You have my sympathies.