Agreed, QM is not an argument, it's just an illustration how old paradigm can be dethroned in science.

Interpersonal validation is the same as validation from scientific instrumentation. The problem is with subjective side of the story.

As for "models assume metaphysical materialism" - Newton mechanics is also quite useful even though proven wrong.

Regarding the matrix/Creation/panpsychism. I am a programmer. And it does not matter what the programs inside the computer "think" about their world (and mind you – they have quite accurate "knowledge" of where they are, but not entirely accurate for the meta-level). And yet, there are programmers outside who see their flatland "from above." This kind of relationship is what I mean when I talk about holons, about the "composition" of Existence, Being, Essence, etc.

Sorry, if I am expressing this all in a bit squeezed form. This is not really something, which can be resolved in comment thread on Medium.

As for unification across observers, now more than ever, we can see from the example of "virtual reality" that this is not an issue. And when I say "the Matrix," I mean the movie, where this idea was first vividly presented to the masses (as far as I know, although the original Star Trek and science fiction had already laid the groundwork).

Now, Western science (psychology, cognitive science) is confined to its "echo chamber" of (materialistic) reductionism. My point is that if we talk about breaking echo chambers, it makes sense to look more broadly. And reductionism will be replaced with the next synthesis. This will be quite a dialectical development for science, which any philosopher of science should have on their radar at all times.

Yes, thank you for fun!