You called....
The real issue is to eliminate the terms "subjectivity-objectivity". These represent a dualistic scenario in which "we" appear to be separate from "an external world". The point is that neither can be characterized except in terms of the other. "Physical
laws" are so stated because of our specifically
human motivation to attempt to
predict and control agreed "features of the world" relative to human needs. Such agreement is a function of our common physiological apparatus but even our descriptions of
that are subject to the same "need to control".
In short, our
being and
the described world are inseparable.
Neither has "existence" in its own right. We need only to consider "the world" through the physiology of another species, or for humans universally lacking same one of "the senses" to understand this. (A key word here is "description" and its relationship to socialization and internalization of group paradigms through "language" but this merely embellishes the main attack on duality).
The scientists/thinkers who have come closest to struggling with this directly are Kant, Piaget and Maturana. (Kant started out as a physicist BTW). Other scientists (notably the QM guys) have explored the "physical implications" (e.g. non-locality) but have consciously avoided getting into a potential philosophical quagmire. Fritjof Capra is perhaps an exception to this.
Late Googling on that last point...
Anton Zeilinger a current "interested scientist" stated this year
Quote:In the history of physics, we have learned that there are distinctions that we really should not make, such as between space and time... It could very well be that the distinction we make between information and reality is wrong. This is not saying that everything is just information. But it is saying that we need a new concept that encompasses or includes both. I throw this out as a challenge to our philosophy friends.