I personally agree completely. However, I do think many in quantum mechanics consider uncertainty to be a property of matter, not just a problem with observation interference. I have read that they consider particles to not just be a point, but a field distribution of possibility. This is why I said uncertainty as a property, not just a measurement problem in my last post. I defer to any physicist who works in quantum mechanics to clarify this, as I am not a physicist. Here are some quotations behind my reasoning:
"One common incorrect formulation is that observation of an event changes the event. This may be true in some cases for some events, but it has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics." and
"Within the widely but not universally accepted Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is taken to mean that on an elementary level, the physical universe does not exist in a deterministic form?-but rather as a collection of probabilities, or potentials."
"Uncertainty principle." Wikipedia. 5 Dec 2005. Wikimedia Projects. 05 Dec. 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle>.
I, too, am no physicist. But I think the view of determinism I expressed earlier, and that you seem to agree with, is rejected by science because it is only a philosophical view and not a scientific one. Science, in order to be relevant, needs an objective observer. So, any data that may conflict with this absolute objectivity is deflected and applied to the object of observation. This, I'm guessing, is how the quantum view of Uncertainty was arrived at.
But, like I said, I don't know. I, also, am interested in hearing from someone who really knows this stuff.
