I was going to comment on the author's lack of understanding of HUP, but a Times commentor already said exactly what I wanted to say, so credit to him:

This essay recapitulates a common fallacy with regards to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, namely the idea that the HUP has something to do with observation. While explanations of the HUP intended for the layperson often invoke the unavoidable causal interactions between observers and observed phenomena, Heisenberg's theory actually makes a more fundamental statement about the nature of matter.

Heisenberg asserted that, at least at the subatomic level, the behavior of particles can be completely described by a particular set of differential equations. These equations, however, contain non-linearities such that a particle's position is a non-continuous function of its velocity and vice versa. As the zone within which a given particle can be said to exist with a high degree of probability gets smaller, the range of velocities that can possibly be assigned to that particle approaches infinity. The same is true in reverse. The key point here, though, is that such "uncertainty" is not an effect of observation but rather a fundamental property of particles themselves, one that, at least according to Heisenberg, holds true even in the absence of observation.

Although I would add to this that there are several other physical properties whose quantities are interconnected beyond position-momentum, the most fascinating of which I find to be time-energy.