Thanks Graham for the very interesting discussion here and references to my thoughts on this. If you are struggling with determining whether you are a realist or idealist, I certainly share in that as I suggested in my article. I think I said was I was either a realistic idealist or an idealistic realist. Realism has been my view throughout my life, but understanding more of both physics and the role of perception has led me more in the direction of idealism. I can't let go with Einstein of believing that the moon is there whether I observe it or not. I think you suggest that we are left with two alternatives: the observations of others (throughout all time or all now) can bring the uncertainty of matter into classical existence (possibly through entanglement) or that it is the Mind (of God) that observes and sustains what we understand as reality. As I indicated in my post, I tend toward the latter. But, I will continue to muse on this as you will as well I'm sure.

On the issue of immanence and transcendence, I stand firmly with you on your statement that God is both immanent and transcendent. I can't say for sure I understand Sender Spike's point, but it seems to be that it must be one or the other. One cannot be within something and yet everywhere. I can see the point, but his comment that immanence means within and that naturally means it is part of something doesn't quite make sense to me. I can be in a room without being naturally a part of that room. The room can be complete and fully defined whether I am in it or not. God's active participation in the created world in my view remains a matter of his will and does not diminish his transcendence.

Thanks for letting me be a part of this discussion!