>>>It seems to me that if the observer already knows about the particles it is observing, than it has already observed them.
>>
>>Contradicts your assumption that the particles have their own .observe() method - so the observer wouldn't observe directly, it would poll its particles.

>So you have these particles, which are there own entities in the universe. They interact and behave like matter does.

And what would stop them from being here own entities?

>But then you're saying in the universe there is another entity (the observer object) that provides special abilities to ordinary matter (particle objects).

Define "is". We're doing a Gedankenexperiment here. So far we have:
- observer class
- particle class (which we the agreed would be the parent class of the observer, and that observer would have a collection of its particles)

So... which universe are we talking about? The physical universe where UT's servers reside, or the class space of the imaginary machine where our classes would be instantiated?

>That sounds alot like a soul, or at the very least a non-naturalistic account of consciousness.

Unfortunately, whatever I write, UT will wrap it, and I'll have multiple lines. Can't write so short. And you'll find a way to read something between the lines. Can't help you there.

Besides, define naturalistic in context of OOP design.