I've got a doctorate and I don't really see what you are saying, primarily because "no objective physical reality" is somewhat vague.
QM, for example, is a totally adequate theory of objective reality! it just describes an objective reality with properties which differ to some degree from those intuitive to creatures at classical scales. It may be inadequate in other respects (not invariant, a little unsatisfying wrt the born rule, etc) but it isn't as if it implies NO OBJECTIVE REALITY.
This is what’s meant by no objective reality as alluded to in the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics
The claim is not that objects don’t exist, just that they don’t have observer independent properties.
This is what I mean.
And to further clarify, observer independence is referring to the frame itself not that humans imagine the world into being in the solipsistic sense many believe.
I say this because just a few days ago on this forum someone was asserting that without humans the earth would not exist, that human observation instantiates the earth and the earth did not exist before human consciousness.
What do you mean? That according to relational quantum mechanics absolute reality doesn't exist? But absence of absolute reality doesn't imply absence of objective reality. And it's according to relational quantum mechanics, not according to mathematical formalism of QM.
I second your comment. This is where a degree in philosophy would have been useful. The term "objective reality" is just a semantic indirection to a cluster of loosely defined concepts. Okay, what concepts? That whole discussion is philosophy, informed by physics.
See above.