I would say that physics (and science in general) doesn't have any axiomatic paradigms about the absolute nature of universe. Despite the popular belief, QM did not negate "objective" universe. The problem you describe are incorrect interpretations of scientific knowledge. Case in point -- absence of knowledge of quantum mechanics (QM) didn't prevent Spinoza to correctly deduce his "Deus sive Natura" (heck, knowledge of non-duality as such is at least 4000 years old), and even though we have QM for roughly a century, dualists of all kinds (and materialists, who struggle in vain to incorporate consciousness into the big picture) are completely unfazed and no big change in understanding has happened. But -- what QM in conjunction with neurobiology proved beyond any doubt is the fact that universe as we perceive it is, indeed, an illusion (e.g. we see neither photons nor any other particles, but a "world" constructed by mind-brain whatever that is).

https://senderspike.medium.com/quantum-observer-466e61f8d4b9

https://senderspike.medium.com/holographic-universe-fd2834e43c71

https://senderspike.medium.com/mind-brain-and-consciousness-9127f14dea4

When it comes to free will, fate, determinism, and omniscience (or omni-informedness) it's a bit more complex. QM allowed us to discover the mass-energy-information equivalence. That is, all possible states of universe (past and future) can be arrived at from present state (because information cannot be destroyed). That does not mean, however, that universe is completely deterministic. The direction of flow of causal streams is simply a matter of relative strength of all influences (chance and choice included).

https://senderspike.medium.com/let-there-be-light-ac9cb17e26c1

https://senderspike.medium.com/absolute-equivalence-b4584dc2e290

As for "those whose eyes have 'a little dust'" -- I have found out the hard way that even "a little dust" can skew the view beyond recognition. Thus, I'm firmly convinced that anything outside of practical advice on sadhana is counterproductive and can be misleading (then again, it might be just my propensity reflecting my own pragmatism :P) On the other hand, these talks can definitely serve the purpose of actually realizing that one has indeed realized what is there to realize ;)