A Malleable Universe Consider modifying this bold bit to something like: 'what it is to have that property is just to be interacted with in a certain way under certain conditions". Is this a Kantianism? But there are no noumena here: the idea is that all properties are relational in this way: any interaction whatsoever will yield a 'result' appropriate to that interaction. There's only a Kantianism if one tries to substaintialize an 'object' apart from these interactions (like a 'red' without the conditions of 'red': a nonsense). There's nothing special about measurement. If there were no measurement, the universe would still be there, quite independent of it, insofar as measurement is just a subclass of physical interactions, which take place all the time, everywhere. The charge of Kantianism only holds if measurement is not understood to belong to the larger class of physical interactions - that is, if you exceptionalize measurement. But this is just what the QM shows to be false: we are no different to anything else in the universe. — StreetlightX
Would it help if the label "Kantianism" were dropped?
We are still left, on your purported solution, with the inability to ascertain any properties except those that are in relation to the measurer.
That all properties are relational, if they are, doesn't seem to help. When we seek knowledge of things, we don't generally think of ourselves as just reporting how the measured thing affects the measurement apparatus (ultimately, us). But your out seems to be exactly what a hardcore correlationist or idealist would accept: that the only properties we can possibly measure, are those that are artifacts of the measurement.
Whether the universe "is" independent of this is also irrelevant, because those things that "are" independent of the measurement are precisely what the act of measurement locks us out of ascertaining.
if one tries to substaintialize an 'object' apart from these interactions (like a 'red' without the conditions of 'red': a nonsense). — StreetlightX
Or, put another way: what is this, but an admission of what you tried to deny? You warn: do not substantialize the object outside of the interaction of measurement! But that seems to be the point of the OP.
Also, note that you deny the noumenon while affirming it: the universe is, you say, outside of our measuring it, but all we ascertain in measurement are our interactions with it!