Quantum Mechanics and step closer to proof of SRH

https://www.science.org/content/article/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-you-measure-it-quantum-parlor-trick-confirms

So Quantum researchers have found an even simpler way to show that Quantum experiments do not reveal a hidden reality, they are involved in creating that reality.

Now wasn't it obvious this would happen. As humans explore the world wasn't it always going to happen that they would start to create theories about the very process of reality?

This is argued in the blog under SRH. You can't have theories that are their own foundations. All theories MUST be based on other theories.

So it naturally falls that belief in a Material Reality was always going to have to go beyond Material Reality if it was ever to explain material reality.

Of course the hidden issue here is that to understand Classical Mechanical we needed create Quantum Mechanics. And it will naturally fall that to explain Quantum Mechanics we will need a new theory. That is perhaps a 100 years or more away; we can never tell.

So the Corollary of SRH is that there can be no Total Theory [self contained] of Everything.

At Uni we called the universal final theory Q (Ahead of any actual discovery). But Q is impossible cos it would also need to prove why -Q.

So it is logically necessary that Material Reality one day would fall to a theory not based on Material Reality.

But isn't SRH then in trouble? To understand SRH doesn't it say itself that it will need to depend upon something other than SRH call that SRH2. To be a self contained theory would be to contradict itself. For SRH applied to everything it would contradict SRH.

But what if SRH does not apply to everything? What if it does not apply to itself? Then it remains true that SRH is not a universal theory, and it means SRH can allow for at least one exception and one Universal Theory namely itself

Extraordinarily it means that SRH can be based upon itself without contradicting SRH!

Perhaps here I've finally cracked at least the form of the proof of SRH. This feels very Kantian that at least we can outline the shape of the universal theory before finding a candidate.

It it naturally follows that the universal theory candidate must be about self-reference in order to escape contradiction we have a great proof of SRH.

Let me take this further now:

The Universal Theory Q must deal with the issue of -Q. Now for a normal theory this break universality. -Q cannot be in terms of Q otherwise Q could prove -Q. A universal theory that cannot account for both Q and -Q fails universality. But it looks like universality must be contradiction then. We have either contradiction or inconsistency a la Godel if we ever seek Universality.

But what of the above theorem which states that

-(Q => -Q)

And that

P => Q then -(P => -Q) and -(Q => P)

where => means proves (within whatever calculus or set or rules this is).

can't we say that negating the theorem Q requires an exception, and that allows for Q.

Since the theorem required Q to account for -Q, then because the theorem is about self reference itself, the negation allows for an exception to the self-reference requirement and that allows a universal theorem.

==

Note: "Every rule has an exception" is a valid universal rule because if it is universally true then it has an exception, and that allows it to be the exception.

=unfinished...

"All theorems require proof by *other* theorems" looks like there is no universal theorem.

"All theorems cannot prove *their* negation" Both these look simple but they are making complex self referential statements. How do these behave under negation? This is the issue to formalise.