Igor, I think You misunderstood me - I do not propose a method of finding the source of anomalies, and propose how to fix it IN PRINCIPLE.
I used the following assumption, already made in a previous post, but I will repeat it in a more explicit form:
The result of observation is an essential component of the triad of observer-observed is the result of the observation (can't remember what it's called in philosophy, such axioms are used in quantum mechanics, for example). Because of this assumption, the ANOMALY in the behavior of the device there is also a feature of this triad, and, therefore, to separate the observer from the observation result it is IMPOSSIBLE, whatever the outcome.
This assumption does not exclude the observer as a possible SOURCE of the anomaly, but the experiment proving this fact, and worked at Princeton - a topic for another discussion.
You, judging by Your comments
what caused it You will never be able to figure out
this assumption do not accept or do not understand.
Generally, any course of so-called indirect logic with which we are dealing, in this case, based on some original concepts and assumptions to be taken as true. If they are accepted, then a possible discussion. If it is rejected, discussion is impossible.
Question number three, don't You think that abnormal activity can be discovered easier ways?
Other ways, of course. But I believe the so-called "instrument" of the ways this is optimal.
Ready to hear Your point of view.
