See what I mean? Absence of proof or absence of observable evidence is not the same thing as proving the obverse. That was where my earlier quip about shooting pool with Hume came from. The fact that no one "observes" causality doesn't mean it is not there. It is just not observable. If this is true in one area of data collection and observation it is true in the others. We know a LOT more about activity on a subatomic level than back when I was in school, but there is also alot we don't know. It is safer to say with Heisenberg that we disturb stuff simply by observing it so that no clear causal links can be observed on a quantum level. Just my opinion.
I'm not claiming to have TRUTH here. I am claiming that given the current state of physics, it is not reasonable to say that all phenomena are caused. It is up to skeptics of quantum theory to demonstrate causation.
That isn't exactly what Heisenberg said. The dispersion relations hold even if the "observer" isn't sentinent; maybe it's only a crystal. There are also observations that don't disturb the object.