Dan
I have a slightly sharper distinction. But first I agree with Mach; "It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive through the changes of things."
On reality, sure, the light we observe from billions of years ago has undergone many interactions. We would have to know all those to determine the original emitter state and position. Spectroscopy can do more than we currently realise, but is still limited, so we cannot precisely know. We also influence what we find (i.e. local c) but cannot however influence the original events. So I think we agree.
On 'determinism' and the Copenhagen interpretation I find a simple relativistic logic. Just because nobody hears a tree fall does not mean we can't determine with good certainty that it fell. It may trip a 2km long wire, or be seen from a plane. The same with observing the moon. Just because nobody is looking at it does not mean we can't determine if it's still there or not with some accuracy. We look the other way, but still cast and see a shadow.
I hope you'll read my essay again, as it identifies a real boundary between observer effects and effects which will exist whether or not some arrogant organism is present at any place and time in any universe. The observer, like any other condensed mass, creates local csl. read carefully a second time all the magic of 'building a new model' for the first time should emerge.
You have to be able to visualise the evolving effects of motion, but anything you still feel 'over your head' do just ask.
Thanks, and very best wishes
Peter