https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Rq1AEPJVyS4a3Hd2DOFTzSidHmNOItn1/view?usp=drivesdk

Given that human facticity is classical and nonrelativistic, I don't see the philosophical relevance – existential import – of either relativistic physics or quantum physics. We are proximate beings (i.e. locally embodied metacognitives), not beings who pre/judge and re/act at the fundamental scales of nature. Explain, for instance, how ethics, aesthetics and/or logic are derived from (or even entailed by) Relativity / QM-QFT, and therefore why 'we (non-academic) philosophers' should even consider such knowledge-domains in our reflections.

(Btw, my critical concern here is (mostly) pragmatic and not Hussserlian, Kantian or Platonist.)

Pardon my skepticism. Reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity is one of the most difficult issues in physics right now. It seems unlikely that the approach you’ve described here will resolve that. Are you a trained physicist or do you have other relevant experience or training?

I see what you mean absolutely. Given the vast scope of human intellectual constructs and considerations/musings such as ethics, aesthetic or art/beauty etc as you pointed out, they seem a far cry from fundamental physics. Almost or seemingly entirely separate/ devoid of influence or relevance in fact.

However, that being said I use the term "observer" in the loosest and most core sense, rather than by the higher order cognitive levels that derive all the extraneous features of the particularly human psyche.

The point I was arguing for pertained more to "accountancy" in the sense of unifying physical concepts without ignoring the measurers role (as we are physical beings subject to the same principles as the rest of the system.)

That is - when faced with the three physical domains of the specified scientific endeavour: 1). The Newtonian 2) the Relative 3). and The Quantum ... How does one measuredly refer all of these facets to the observer (the cognisant) whom studies them without factoring the measurer in?

It stands to reason that a theory that ties physics together cannot ignore the knot binder themselves-that is to say - the observer/measurer as well as the fundamental limitations - the boundaries, between them (consciousness) and the perceived external world - the subject of measurement.

We still do not know the fundamentals of consciousness/awareness nor how to conceptualise or understand them. Yet we can understand the products of such - art, literature, philosophy, ethics, etc. That made lead to an inherent sense of irrelevancy.

But at its base, the "physical" observer MUST interact with the "physical" environment at some boundary by some set rules and principles. Those are what i focus on - generalised as they may be.

So in a theory of everything/unifying theory -we must consider the external, yes - physics as it accords to the observer, as well as the observer in relationship to that physics. And I believe that is a matter of "perspective" - a phenomenon based on assumptions- the domain of the observer. Change those assumptions and you may get "the observer from the perspective of external physics" - a neccessary and complimentary opposite.

I don't believe the main physical domains can be reconciled without consideration for the role of the observer - we are not separate/isolated from the system we wish to understand. One slice of the cake cannot understand the whole without fitting their own piece into it.

Pardon my skepticism. Reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity is one of the most difficult issues in physics right now. — T Clark

Why do you think I'm drawn to that particular blockade with fascination/enthusiasm?

. It seems unlikely that the approach you’ve described here will resolve that — T Clark

Perhaps it is unlikely. That's perfectly fine with me. I'm prepared to accept that by concensus.

But the glaringly obvious is that if one does not attempt to put forth a proposal when they have one, then we certainly are no closer to an answer or even new lines of thinking. There's no shame in trying. And try we ought.

This is how I understand it, subject to ammendment or discredit by others.

Quantum field theory exists. The theory combines classical field theory, special relativity, and quantum mechanics (from Wiki). People are however troubled to find a theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics, such as string theory and loop quantum gravity, each has its problems.

I don't believe the main physical domains can be reconciled without consideration for the role of the observer - we are not separate/isolated from the system we wish to understand. — Benj96

The latter (truism) doesn't justify, or imply, the former (disbelief).

[T]he "physical" observer MUST interact with the "physical" environment at some boundary by some set rules and principles.

Why? Suppose what we call "observer" is only an aspect of "the environment" that "interacts" with other aspects of "the environment", then there is no "boundary". Consider Carlo Rovelli's RQM ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics