Fine-tuned for observers?

To be fine-tuned for life isn’t the same as to be fine-tuned for intelligence and a Universe which is fine-tuned for observers is perhaps different from them (although not necessarily). It is an interesting question since our World isn’t optimal for observations, while there are imaginable universes more favorable for it. But to live in an older Universe would be even a more serious disadvantage.
According to Avi Loeb, the viewing conditions were optimal when the Universe was a mere half billion years old and the circumstances were excellent to study the cosmic perturbations. On the other hand, Lawrence M. Krauss and Glenn D. Starkman pointed out that in an ever-expanding universe “presently observable distant sources will disappear on a time-scale comparable to the period of stellar burning,” and we will forget the existence of our Universe within a hundred billion years. So our position in spacetime is between the two ends of the scale, but it is far from optimal. We can recall the words of King Alonso X who said that he had “some useful hints for” a Creator to produce a World.
To give a trivial example: it is impossible to decide directly whether light source is a distant and bright object or it is a weak source close to us [G. F. R. Ellis: Cosmology and Verifiability. In: Modern Cosmology and Philosophy 1998, p. 121.]. It is imaginable – theoretically at least – a physics where this kind of problem is eliminated, i.e. because every sources brightness is equal; or we could find other, more sophisticated solutions (Cepheids seems to be exceptions with the correlation between their light intensity and period).
All in all, it is a laborious and uncertain work to measure the distances in our Universe, and in the absence of real knowledge, we are willing to accept an “unproven cosmological assumption” about the homogeneity of space as an extension of the Copernican – Darwinian revolutions. Then this unproven assumption is used to interpret astronomical information (including distances) [ibid, p. 123.].
This problem is caused by the nature of our World, and is not a desirable situation for observers. But the worst scenario is a universe where one cannot able to observe anything – I strongly suspect that this world would be lifeless.
So there are two possible explanations. Perhaps we simply live in a Universe which is neither the best nor the worst from this point of view. It is imaginable as well, that a really observer-friendly Universe is impossible, and so this is the best one within the framework of our physics.

The Galileo question

It was a common argument at the beginning of the 17th century against the use of telescope in astronomy, that we knew the terrestrial circumstances, so it was possible to “correct a range of apparent instrumental distortions” [Steven Shapin: The Scientific Revolution, p. 73]. But in the case of heavenly bodies, the situation was different, since neither Galileo nor any other scientist had a reliable, new theory about the human vision. So there was no an opportunity to ascertain whether an astronomical observation was true or a mere optical illusion.
Despite of this problem, the astronomers of that age were able to work out some reliable hypothesis about the Solar System and its objects. To give an example, generalizing their mundane observations, they supposed, that the planets were fundamentally similar to the Earth, and there were mountains and valleys on their surfaces (for example, on the Moon). Obviously, these generalizations were misleading, when they tried to draw conclusions in connection with the Martian life and some other, not detectable phenomena, but it is remarkable, that their method in many cases worked.
It is not a surprise that our evolutionary past trained us to interpret usually correctly the terrestrial environment’s events – after all, it was a criterion of our survival. But this does not mean necessarily, that our mundane experiences should be extendable to the astronomical objects.
In other words: why the laws, which govern both earthly and the celestial world, can be interpreted in the same way, using our everyday experience as a starting point, while in case of quantum physics the situation is really different?
This raises two questions.

• It would be interesting to know whether intelligent species living under the surface of an ocean or in another strange environment could extend their abilities effectively to understand the world above the atmosphere.
• And it is another interesting question, whether it is a necessity that an intelligent being’s larger-scale environment can be relatively well described using their planet-based observations. 

After all, we cannot exclude the theoretical possibility of a universe where the differences between these two levels are as big as between the physics of the humans' and the quantum scale.