Is the universe as consciously experienced by animals (not just us, but all animals) the "only thing that exists"?

The world of our experience is all we have, as humans. Fundamental physics is only an abstract model, like a mathematical description. We can't even imagine or directly observe the referents of modern physics (e.g. wave functions, field vectors, extra dimensions, whatever). From a philosophical perspective, I find it's reasonable to assume that our conceptual models of the universe are not the real thing. What does this mean for us and for animals?<br><br>Animals probably don't have any notion of the real world existing independently of their conscious experiences of it. Fundamental physics doesn't exist to them, but they do perceive the macroscopic world. Yet animals don't have any notion of the macroscopic world existing independently of their own experience of it... this is part of why I don't think abstract models of the world can represent the universe during periods where no life exists.<br><br>So what is the universe when there is no life to perceive it? Well, it's time for some weird as fuck value systems. If the universe isn't itself conscious in any sense, then we can only meaningfully talk about it in terms of how it operates on conscious beings such as ourselves. Do we prefer a universe where the laws of physics as we know them operate and consciousness is an important aspect of the universe? Or do we prefer a universe that is "realistic" with a few degrees of freedom, like the mathematical models we have of it, operating independently of any conscious observers?