>Just as physicists define their ideas with formulas and equations, we're can try the same thing using classes and methods.
>
>So as we're talking about how to implement these things, we are actually in the process of defining them.
>
>Dragan suggested that we define an observer class along side the particle class.
>
>That would mean that the observer is something special, it is not material because it is not made of the particles of matter.
>
>Your suggestion was to put an Observe() method right on the particle class, making the particle the observer. That makes the observer material, but it doesn't really explain how a human observer fits into the model. The human being is obviously not one particle, but it is an observer.
>
>So if the particle has the observe method, how does a human being like myself observe?

If the human is part of the system, then it would use its observe() method. :) It must have one, since it is part of a system made of particles, right? Otherwise, if the observer does not participate in any way, then it would probably be better to follow Dragan's suggestion to create an observer object that records the events, regardless of whether the observer is material or not.
However, it would be better if at this point you could define *observation*? Is it acknowledging an event? And if so, how does the information travel from the place of the event to the place of the observer?