, if only the number of exclamation points used could actually increase the validity of one's assertions, you'd have something there.
I have no idea who "David Maza, Nasa" is, and you didn't include a link in your post. I Googled "david maza nasa" and "david maza quantum mechanics" and came up with nothing, so I have naught to work with except the small excerpt you chose to quote (perhaps he's the "former airline pilot" alluded to in one of Terry
's posts). But even this tiny excerpt does nothing to support your position that physics dispenses with the observer-observed distinction. Maza wrote:
In quantum mechanics, the observer and the system being observed became mysteriously linked so that the results of any observation seemed to be determined in part by actual choices made by the observer. This situation is represented by the wave function, a function in the complex domain that contains information about both the cosmos at large and the observer's apparent state of knowledge.
So the observer and the observed are "mysteriously linked." In what fashion, we do not know, and presumably Maza didn't solve that "mystery" or else I'm sure you would have quoted it, fresco
. In particular, I'm quite certain that Maza never concluded that the "mysterious link" arose from the identity of the observer and the observed, as that would have made complete nonsense of his statement that: "In relativity, the absolutes of Newtonian physics were banished, and observations
obtained by observers
in different frames of reference became all that was available. These observations
were linked through a system of coordinate transformations" (emphasis added). In other words, Maza himself is clearly still wedded to the notion of "observers" and "observations" in a wholly dualistic manner.
Maza may be stumped, but I have no problem solving this mystery, since Heisenberg already provided a solution: the "mysterious link" is something we like to call "causation." Causation, in turn, rests on a firm foundation of dualism (as I have noted in several other posts, there can be no "causation" as we understand it in a non-dualistic universe). Thus, physics most definitely rejects
the non-dualist position of observer-observed identity.
Would you like to try again?