There is no observer independent universe. No smooth even distribution of a measurable cosmic law. 
As Airl in Alien Interview explains, we are gods of our own universes, and space-time is just a sort of substrate we generally agreed to. But instead of retreating to our own universe, we remain in this "con-verse" where we can fall victim to one another and no one can have full omnipotence because retreating to our own universe is boring and isolating, so we continue. 

There is no observer independence, but the observer . . . is independent. And yet the observer consistently chooses . . . some dependence. 

These two frontiers emerge in which we desire to emancipate ourselves and each other from slavery, but we also practice to see how well we can remember to detach our consciousness regardless of whether anything could "rescue" us. 

This idea is a middle ground between two psyops. One is a disinfo channeled community, combined with popularized (loosh farming) talk shows, trying to convince you that you're "master of your fate, and you just dream whatever you want." But something seems lacking in the explanation. On the other end you have staunch physicists running furious over the modern interpretations of quantum physics and shielding themselves with this pitiful copenhagen interpretation. "The rules change in the small but at least they're the same over a certain size." They fight these interpretations because for them: "God" and the "soul" are locked in repeatable experimentation and if you cast that to the wind you are telling them, in their language: they have no soul.

Not everything is ok. Slavery isn't ok. Getting stripped of your own self understanding isn't ok. And its implications are real. But the sooner we accept that there isn't a central governing universe, the sooner we can see consciousness as the cosmic governor, and that belief in itself leads to higher states of being, applicable to everyday things like remote viewing. 

"No smooth even distribution of a measurable cosmic law."

"we remain in this "con-verse" where we can fall victim to one another and no one can have full omnipotence"

Sounds like an evenly distributed, measurable cosmic law to me.

"And yet the observer consistently chooses . . . some dependence."

And this is... bad? What's your point?

"because retreating to our own universe is boring and isolating, so we continue."

So, if dependence is a bad thing, but not being dependent is boring and isolating, how can you ever be happy? You cannot hold two contradicting beliefs at the same time and expect everything to work out for you. You need to choose one and act accordingly. If you don't want to be here, just leave. If you want to be here, what's the problem in the first place?

To me, it sounds like you're not choosing, but trying to avoid to make a choice.

"But the sooner we accept that there isn't a central governing universe"

Let me translate: There isn't a governor that will choose for you. The purpose of a universe is to generate the consequences of your choices within the context of immutable universal law. As long as you avoid making choices, you will be unhappy, always. It's called the Law of Integrity, and it works flawlessly, 100% of the time, in every universe. Because you don't understand the true purpose of a universe and therefore try to fight it.

Quote from the video, timestamp 10:26:

"Because what Bell did was, in a certain sense, he debunked two metaphysical assumptions: Locality in the sense that particles are only influenced by forces in their direct environment, and Realism, in a classical sense, that particles are predetermined. But before you misunderstand this: Bell did not prove that nature isn't local or isn't deterministic. He just proved that it cannot be both at the same time."

I don't know why this video is 3 hours long when you find the answer after 10 minutes.

This is exactly what I mean when I say: You cannot hold two contradicting beliefs at the same time and expect everything to work out for you.

You cannot be deterministic and non-deterministic at the same time, because the universe isn't either. You, as a free will being inside the universe, need to be deterministic as well, and this means: You need to make choices. The role of the universe just is to give you a response based on universal law.

Quantum theorists tried very hard to get rid of universal law and make everything arbitrary. It's just the projection of the archon mindset (who wants to rule everything by itself) onto the universe. But it's not how the universe works at all. The observer observes the universe, meaning the effects that already have been chosen (determined), and then can make a choice what to do next. This does not mean that the universe is not deterministic.

Let's take Schrödinger's cat as an example. They love the idea that the cat is dead and alive at the same time, because the premise is that if there's no observer, there's no decision yet. This is total nonsense, and you see it if you just look back in time a little bit: Who put the cat in the box? That person is the last observer, at least the last external one, and he saw that the cat was either alive or dead when he closed the box. But there's also the cat itself: It knows wether it's alive or dead. That information is not lost just because no human can see it anymore. The universe still knows, because the state of the cat has been determined before.

So, the universe is consistent. It just doesn't care wether you observe what's happening, because you are not the only observer. Essentially, the whole universe is it's own observer, just like you can observe yourself.

"the sooner we can see consciousness as the cosmic governor"

Yes, that's basically the gist of it, but I wouldn't use the term governor. Every being inside the universe is a governor of itself and its own decisions, and each decision contributes to the universe, creating a shared reality. Consciousness is the part of reality that can make choices if universal law allows different outcomes.

The idea that free will and determinism are mutually compatible is called Compatibilism, and Mark Passio explains it very well in this short clip: