Does this foretell the effect of the observer on eliminating uncertainty in quantum mechanics, which was not discovered until 2000 years later?
To answer the question, no it didn't foretell anything. In fact, this passage sounds nothing like the statement of the observer effect or any uncertainty principle. In addition to being wrong in pointing out this 'prediction', Schafly is also conflating two different phenomena in quantum mechanics:
Uncertainty principles: In general, whenever we have two operators that don't commute there will be an uncertainty associated with them. An example in the case of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is that, for a particle in a one dimensional space, the position operator x and the momentum operator p≝h(2πi)-1∂/∂x do not commute. We have that
[center]xpf=xh(2πi)-1fx[/center]
and
[center]pxf=h(2πi)-1f+xh(2πi)-1fx.[/center]
for some function f, so clearly xpf≠pxf and there will be an associated uncertainty relation that can be found with some slick Fourier analysis.
Observer effect: The basic idea of the observer effect is that measuring a system changes it. E.g. If you want to examine an atomic nucleus you have to hit it with another particle, like a photon or a neutron. This interaction will alter the position and momentum of the nucleus, as well as possibly changing other characteristics.
Also, given a wave function
[center]Ψ=α1|ψ1〉+α2|ψ2〉+α3|ψ3〉+...[/center]
such that Σn|αn|2=1, Ψ will collapse to state |ψm〉 with probability |αm|2 after measurement.
These are clearly very different phenomena. I would imagine that even a reader unfamiliar with the material but with a moderate education in mathematics could discern they are different, so if Andy had the slightest lick of an idea what he was talking about he'd know at least that. Yet he clearly doesn't know the difference, which shows one of many holes in his education.
unusual quasi-causation effect that an observer has in quantum mechanics
He's fond of making up words, I also wouldn't be surprised if he thinks "observer" refers to a conscious observer and not a measurement of a system - a common mistake in pop-sci.
