The OP is using declarative, relatively absolute language. And it’s too clinical to carry us across the gap between what it promises… and what it might otherwise deliver, directly.

I’d probably present something similar as an experimental perspective, rather than declaring it outright. But it’s useful, in that it has the capacity, if we ourselves are curious and ache to understand… to reveal something about our internality that’s otherwise mostly invisible. It’s a good attempt; filled with clues that are difficult to discern… but only for those who have formed not merely the questions and passions that surround them…

… but have become the quest.

Also: physics doesn’t assume anything because physics isn’t a mind. Ways of knowing should not be presented as minds in English. A physicist, or cohort, may participate in assumptions (only when they actively or passively do so), but physics itself is a way of knowing. Methods, questions… and math…