Indeed. Physical experimental set-ups require a decision as to which view of the "particle" one wants to see; because to have both views at once — position and momentum — is not possible.
Yet both views are necessary to the complete description of the "system" that entails them both. This is the essence of the principle of complementarity — which implies that human direct observation has a natural limit.
Yet I wonder: What, exactly, is the "particle" that we observe? This is a difficult question, for two reasons. First, for Newton, a "particle" was a purely abstract idea, unifying all "massive bodies" (i.e., bodies possessing mass) of whatever size, or scale. This is the "classical" idea that continues to inform contemporary physics. The second question isn't really a question, so much as it is a presupposition: that "particles" are material entities.
Eminent physicists have proposed that everything supervenes on the physical, by which they mean the material. That is to say, everything that is bottoms out in matter (albeit matter moving according to physical laws — an acknowledgment which instantly introduces a paradox, summed up in the question: Are the physical laws themselves "material?").
Let that problem be for now. Let's ask the next question: In what does "matter" itself bottom out?
The deeper physics looks, the more constituent "particles" it finds. Indeed, physics has some putative "particles" of which it has been aware for decades; and yet it cannot "isolate" them for direct observation and study. I'm referring to the family of quarks....
Maybe physics can't "find" quarks — whose existence is indubitable, judging from their effects — because quarks are not "material" entities.
But then, neither is DNA, which encodes individual living organisms for life.
Of course, when one speaks of a "code" of whatever description, it seems only reasonable to suppose the existence of a code maker, an intelligent one.
Intelligence is never the outcome of a random process. Also ineluctably, it is not "material"; it does not bottom out in "matter in its motions," that can ONLY be described by stochastic methods.
Anyhoot, just some stray thoughts. I'm probably spending way too much time incubating such problems.
Then again, I'm a virtual shut-in nowadays, the weather hereabouts having been so stunningly awful (or awesome) for the past three weeks and counting. I've only been "outside" three times in this period; and was very glad to see how cheerful my fellow suffering Yankees are under the present conditions.
Though lately I've been manning "the bucket brigade" on a routine basis, I'm cheerful, too. Notwithstanding my little town some 40 miles west of Boston has had over seven feet of snow over the past few weeks! AMAZING!!! I was here during the Great Blizzard of 1978; and it was a total piece of cake compared to our recent experience....
Must sign off, but not before concurring with your finding regarding "the whole is not observable": "[M]an cannot make such an observation — only God can!"
For we humans see only "through a glass darkly," only in part....
Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for your insights — and your very kind words.
And strangely, the atheists never seem to wonder how chaos becomes informed. LOLOL!