Dear Sascha Vongehr,
You speak of logic "implying the physical" and state that an "External Reality Hypothesis" before a "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" must lead astray.
I believe that physical universe underlies logic, rather than is "an implication of logic." As I stand in the shower, shampooing my head and moving around with my eyes closed, I am guided by gravity, not by logic, and the fact that my physical neurons operate logically does not contradict the physical reality that is at work. There are no abstractions employed here, nor any implications.
If, instead, my neurons operate logically to solve a calculus problem, or even to address metaphysical problems, the neurons are physical, their operation may lead to abstractions, but the abstractions, i.e., the "implications" are always secondary, and this encompasses "The Mathematical Universe".
I do not directly perceive gravity because I understand Newton or Einstein. I understand Newton and Einstein because I perceive gravity. By the way I'm glad you specified Einstein's relativity of synchronicity, as opposed to the physically unreal "non-simultaneity".
I found your point about Popper very interesting:
"The correct ToE can therefore by definition not offer something that could be conceivably observed yet also refute the theory."
The key word here is "correct", and seems to bear some resemblance to "This statement is false." But I may be wrong.
You later state:
"We eventually complete a full pull-back onto phenomenal experience and the ultimate limits of description," which I take to be the abstractionless experience of gravity with my eyes closed.
Your arguments are too many to be addressed at length, although you do ask "is the found Bell violation standard quantum, namely the empirically observed sin^2(delta)?"
The empirical observation agrees with the quantum prediction, and neither confirms nor denies locality. Bell's abstract theorem denies locality, and in my essay I analyze the exact abstraction where he went wrong. I hope you will read it and comment.
Thanks for a very interesting essay.
Edwin Eugene Klingman