No, no. Physical objects get entangled with one another. When we're part of the entanglement, we've observed something. We can perfectly well describe this as causality, and no nonphysicality is needed. Lubos Motl has grown increasingly grouchy over the years, but if you can find his old explanations, they're some of the best at cutting through the narrative that we layer on top of the mathematics and just explaining the minimal requirements of what the math entails. Hossenfelder is more pleasant, but doesn't quite address it as directly. Regardless, "My whimsy is that I like to tell this story rather than those four others about what QM math 'really means'; therefore, you have to agree with my ideas about consciousness," is a poor justification.

I'm not uncomfortable; I just don't feel like giving you free mostly-private tutoring in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. And without tutoring, you're using it to justify idealism (or at least panpsychism). If you can come up with cogent arguments against, say, Pat Churchland's statements on panpsychism (some of which apply tenfold against idealism), then maybe we have something to talk about.

But for now, there's no point, because literally anything evidential that I point out, you can go, "Oh oh oh, but that only happens because consciousness."