Physicist who argues that there are no objective laws of physics

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26435120-900-the-physicist-who-argues-that-there-are-no-objective-laws-of-physics/

is that really progress? Shifting the basis of laws from the observed to the observer. But it does demolish that tenet of Science that the observer must be independent of what is observed. Ultimately there is no observer or observed they are the same thing... very long way for the West to go on that one. But even getting there what is the basis of "objective" laws? I love Noether's theorem that maps "conservation" Laws to symmetry and vice versa. But however we slice and dice this there must be assumed structure on which we build (always). And that assumed structure cannot be explained by the theorem on which it is based. It's an endless game. There is no "fundamental" theorem... which IS the Fundamental Theorem... which poses a contradiction... which can be escaped by developing it one more step... the fundamental theorem is that all theorems are incomplete and non-universal. And how does that qualify as complete and universal? Because that derived implication is the very incompleteness of the theorem... i.e. it says everything is incomplete so it has to be incomplete itself meaning at least something is not incomplete. That is the best I can do on universal theoreams. But there is practical use here... realising there is no "fundamantal" basis for the world we have to accept it is what it is as it is, can't do better than that. Could call that Newton's Folly. It is a castle in the sky and we have to get used to that insubstantial nature of reality. They call it emptiness is other places.