I understand your long complex sentence to make this argument:
(1) the necessary perspective of observation is the perspective of the observer.
Therefore (2) the facts existing are only those which the observer can yield true or false.
Therefore (3) if I do not exist, the world does not exist.
If I understand correctly what you mean with these sentences, then I think there are two problems with your reasoning. The premise (1) states that observation requires an observer. Fair enough. From this you want to conclude that (2) things can exist or facts can obtain only if there is an observer who judges them to exist/obtain. But this conclusion does not really follow. Without an observer, the Rocky Mountains would not be observed or known, and the fact that there are these huge mountains would not be known to obtain. But not being known is not the same as not existing. It does not follow from the fact that mountains are not perceived by anyone that these mountains do not exist. How would the removal of all observers alter the fact that there is this mountain chain which we call the Rocky Mountains? To be sure, without observers, this mountain chain would have no name. But it could still be there, couldn't it? This is the first problem with your reasoning.
Suppose, on the contrary, that (2) any thing can exist and any fact can obtain only if observed by some observer. Even then it does not follow that this observer must be you. It could be I, for example. Well before you were born, I traveled to Colorado and carefully looked at the Rocky Mountains. According to your second proposition, the Rockies existed and various facts about them obtained while I was looking. But you didn't exist then -- and might easily never have come into existence. So it would seem that things other than you (the Rockies, the world, I) can exist independently of your existence. This is the second problem with your reasoning.