The universe we describe is inseparable from the organism that describes it

The kind of theory physicists are searching for isn’t meant to describe subjective experience as such, it’s meant to describe measurable phenomena: the structure and dynamics of matter, energy, space, and time.
A theory of everything would unify the laws governing observable behavior including particles, fields, gravitation, etc., not the internal, phenomenological texture of experience. That’s not because experience is invalid, but because physics, as a discipline, deliberately restricts itself to what can be formally modeled and empirically tested.
So even if all scientific inquiry happens “within experience,” that doesn’t imply that the subjective structure of experience should mirror the mathematical structure of the theory. Physics describes what is observed, not how it feels to observe.

My OP claim agrees that "..all scientific inquiry happens within Experience..". And because all Experience is subjective, and because of my key ideas about why mathematics as a language has a 'universality' (i.e. maths language describes the relationships of some structure we share), a mathematical structure of a theory of everything would be found mirrored in some 1:1 correspondence within some structure/s within the organism having the Experience, and coming up with the theory... is exactly my claim.

My OP claim agrees that "..all scientific inquiry happens within Experience..". And because all Experience is subjective, and because of my key ideas about why mathematics as a language has a 'universality' (i.e. maths language describes the relationships of some structure we share), a mathematical structure of a theory of everything would be found mirrored in some 1:1 correspondence within some structure/s within the organism having the Experience, and coming up with the theory... is exactly my claim.

I’m still unclear on what you mean by a “1:1 correspondence” between a theory of everything and structures within the human organism. Even if all theorizing happens within experience, and even if mathematics reflects shared cognitive tools, that doesn’t imply the theory’s structure must literally mirror some internal biological structure in the theorist.

Could you clarify what kind of structure you're referring to within the organism? Neural architecture? Perceptual systems? Without that, the idea of a 1:1 correspondence remains too obscure to evaluate.

Even if all theorizing happens within experience, and even if mathematics reflects shared cognitive tools, that doesn’t imply the theory’s structure must literally mirror some internal biological structure in the theorist.

It must, that's my claim... because our Experience of some internal structure within the organism is also within Experience. Hence a mathematical  structure of a theory of everything must logically also exist within our Experience of the organism where the theory arose.

Any mathematical ToE must collide within our Experience of the organism having the Experience and coming up with the mathematical theories to explain it's Experience.

The only thing scientists can explore... is their own experience... a ToE can only explain Experience.

A key idea is that what people call 'objective' in the context of my claim, I reevaluate as 'shared'.

In mathematics, a “1:1 correspondence” (a bijection) has a precise meaning:

A one-to-one and onto mapping between elements of two sets where each element of one set is paired with exactly one element of another, and vice versa.

You seem to be using this mathematical term metaphorically, without explaining what the sets are or what the mapping would actually be between.

[Laird]

Avoiding for now the question of this 1:1 mapping you're talking about, @Max_B, I'm curious to know whether what you're suggesting is a form of idealism. In other words, are you saying that all that exists is experience, and it's just that some of that experience is shared, or do you think that there is more to reality than just experience, and, if so, what is it that lies beyond experience?

Avoiding for now the question of this 1:1 mapping you're talking about, @Max_B, I'm curious to know whether what you're suggesting is a form of idealism. In other words, are you saying that all that exists is experience, and it's just that some of that experience is shared, or do you think that there is more to reality than just experience, and, if so, what is it that lies beyond experience?

what the 1:1 correspondence is... isn't actually important... it's an inevitable consequence of everything being within Experience, And that our Experience of the organism which is having the Experience is the same organism coming up with the stories to explain it's Experience... (that is if Experience has any validity at all - which I think it must).

A mathematical theory of everything, wouldn't be a ToE anyway, if it couldn't explain Experience, and that's exactly what scientists are exploring and theorists propose to solve - there is nothing else they can do, we are stuck within Experience. We don't have a ToE yet anyway, so it would be hardly possible to map it, that's what the theorists will do, and the experimenters will test. But there are interesting candidates like Nima & friends summing of triangles (I've mentioned elsewhere).

But all they will discover... is us.. as it is 'us' who are apparently having this shared Experience, and 'us' coming up with the stories to explain it.

Ultimately, I don't think it's hopeless though. Like an alcoholic's first step to recovery is to accept one's inability to control drinking. The moment we discover our selves, and accept we are trapped within Experience, is the moment we can choose a new path.

[Laird]

Thanks for your response, @Max_B. I think that I am justified in interpreting your indirect response, paraphrased as a direct answer, as, "Yes, I am suggesting a form of idealism, in which all that exists is experience."

Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but I just want to be 100% clear on this, because it helps with getting to the bottom of what is mapping to what (some type of experience, and some other type of experience).

The kind of theory physicists are searching for isn’t meant to describe subjective experience as such, it’s meant to describe measurable phenomena: the structure and dynamics of matter, energy, space, and time.
A theory of everything would unify the laws governing observable behavior including particles, fields, gravitation, etc., not the internal, phenomenological texture of experience. That’s not because experience is invalid, but because physics, as a discipline, deliberately restricts itself to what can be formally modeled and empirically tested.

Well that may just be a serious limitation with physics! I mean somehow the inside of our heads experiences a ton of stuff (or it communicates with something else that does the experiencing).

The only way round that is to deny that you experience anything! I know some people claim to do that,

but your very icon contradicts that idea applied to yourself. What does 'want' mean in the absence of experience?

As far as I can see, modern science has become lost in self denial.

I am confident that science needed to become objective for a while, but that could only be a temporary fix because humans and animals are part of the world and they don't work like clockwork!

David

Thanks for your response, @Max_B. I think that I am justified in interpreting your indirect response, paraphrased as a direct answer, as, "Yes, I am suggesting a form of idealism, in which all that exists is experience."

Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but I just want to be 100% clear on this, because it helps with getting to the bottom of what is mapping to what (some type of experience, and some other type of experience).

I can't label my ideas with past labels... I've tried... they don't fit anywhere... the closest I got was Alfred North Whitehead... but they don't fit properly there either... they are what they are...

[Laird]

I can't label my ideas with past labels

That's fine. You don't have to label it "idealism". All I'm trying to clarify is that you are asserting that all that exists is experience (and, presumably, the experiencers having those experiences).