who came first?

“Do we create what we observe through the act of our observations?” (230)

I'm not sure how I feel about this article and this question besides the fact that I did not like this article. It is an interesting question to pose. It's like saying when you look at a color, it's really every color except the one you're perceiving which is why we perceive that color. I'm going to have to say no.. simply for the sake of my sanity. Things are there and we perceive them because they are there, not they are there because we perceive them. It is comparable to Brufee's article, which claimed that thoughts are not thoughts until they are externalized to a counterpart. Things are not things will we observe them. It's a never ending argument... who came first? the chicken or the egg?

I think his weakest argument was his progress throughout the discovery of quantum physics. I took physics in high school, but I'm coming into this as a reader who is not very educated in physics. Since this is not a physics textbook, you must understand that some readers do not understand these physics terms. Although the entire article goes through this process of discovering knowledge, it made my head spin and devalued his argument because I was no longer interested. His argument fell apart to the reader who knows little about physics.