Any study of modern physics inevitably brings one to the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, and usually to the Schroedinger's Cat paradox. Pop articles on the subject usually give such a cursory and dumbed-down overview that the reader really doesn't gain a good understanding of the topics. I was reading a book, published in 2007, called 50 Physics Ideas You Really Need To Know, which brings the reader to the Uncertainty Principle, and then the Copenhagen Interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle, and then Schroedinger's Cat. As I was reading these articles, I was thinking of what seemed to me to be rather straight-forward answers to the seemingly-paradoxical nature of these concepts. Given that this book was published so recently, I was surprised that these "paradoxes" didn't seem outdated. I thought that surely my retorts to these questions must have been thought of by other people before me. Perhaps the knowledge of the author of the book was a little lacking. I want present my thoughts on the subject and learn if these ideas have already made the rounds in the scientific community, and I want to have the ideas critiqued. Firstly, relating to the Schroedinger's Cat paradox, I think that the crux of the problem relates to what one consider's an "observer". The root of the paradox comes from thing that an "observer" must be a conscious entity--which seems to be a completely unfounded presumption. In this situation, the Geiger counter would be the observer, thus its observation would cause the cat to be either definitely alive, or definitely dead before any human inspects the situation. But going deeper, into the nature of Uncertainty, as it relates to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the collapsing of wave functions, and wave-particle duality, I have the following thoughts. The Copenhagen Interpretation states that basically that, at the quantum level, phenomena are not deterministic, and position and momentum are fixed when they are measured. This is distinct from the notion that Uncertainty just stems from the way that we measure position and momentum with photons. I would propose that the position and momentum of a *particle* do indeed arise from our measurement. However, this is due to the fact that a particle is really nothing more than an interpretation of data---that data being the way that our measurement systems and and the measured entity(ies) interact. The particle position and/or momentum, according to this line of thought, are just abstractions that we, as humans, make about the interactions between the wave(s) that we are measuring, and the wave(s) that we use to measure them. With this explanation, the seeming indeterminancy (of particles) goes away, as particles do not really exist in the first place. There are only waves, which I would think have momentum, but no exact position, as they are not volume-less entities. Is there anything in these ideas that have not made the rounds in scientific and science-oriented communities? Are there any counter-arguments to or flaws in what I have just presented. I should probably mention that my formal education in physics is limited to 2 semesters of college physics, which dealt a lot with electromagnetism, but just barely touched quantum physics (and Relativity).