*The motivation* behind this research programme is to try understand the different physical forces and laws of nature, and how they can be unified, by making the conjecture that an inference about nature or and environment by an observer(wether a scientist or a measurement device), must to an external observer be indistinguishable from a normal physical interaction. Ie. implicit is an equivalence between physical law and evolving inference systems. Thus by analysing the structure of stable inference systems that exists in a ecosystems with others, we should also be able to constrain physical law obeyed by the matter in the universe…

*The background* is the ongoing attempt to find a coherent theoretical framework and explanatory models for the the laws of physics. In particular the unification of the standard model of particle physics, and the general theory of relativity and cosmological models, but also the attempt for grand unification of all the forces in the standard model of particle physics at extremely high temperatures….

Key Conjecture: A measurement/observation is the same thing as a physical interaction, except for the difference in inferential perspecive.

The solution to the measurement problem in this program is thus to unify the measurement process and the interaction process. So by systematically characterizing the structure of the measurement process, we should be able to, given the right perspective identify and explain the laws of physics as we know them.

The laws of physics as they are understood today, are inferred from the perspective of a “classical measurement device” attached to a context with sufficient information processing capacity to in principle not be limiting. In practice its earth based science for cosmology, and for high enerrgy physics the theories are effectively inferred from a remote infinite boundary (scattering matrix) of processes that can be repeated at high rates to get statistics fast. This is why laws of physics as we know them are mostly thought of as timeless and fixed. But it is a conceptual fallacy to think that laws are fundamental fixed and timeless when we consider what happens when the notion of observer and their inference are generalized to inside observers, where the inference machinery is grossly limited, and there is no such things as confident statistics.