If I told you the philosophical assumptions of physics were intrinsically unknowable and provided a reasonable explanation why, would you continue to ask that question?
I'll give the usual answer and then go on to provide a helpful answer and point you in the right direction to form your own philosophical assumption of physics.
Physics does not delve into ideas that cannot be impirically evaluated and understood, so asking questions like
Q: "what would it be like to be a photon?", "whats outside of the observable universe?", "whats is smaller than the smallest observable parts of the universe?" are asking for nothing but a speculative answer.
A: "Because of time contraction, you would experience nothing and feel as if you had never existed", "pixies and pink dragons", "it's turtles all the way down"
Pondering the absurd can be a useful tool of imagination, but it not part of the scientific process. It's inspiration for an idea.
Your Schrodinger's box analogy is way off. The Schrodinger's box example is a tool used to explain the mathematical process of determining the probability of some quantum state. It is not some magical property of the universe which turns every sealed box and crate into a wave-particle limbo machine. Uncertainty arises from the physical contraints imposed by the methods used to probe properties of the smallest pieces of matter we know. To probe the small, we must prod it (using light, electrons, etc), and know approximately where the particle is. So we can either not look at it (box is closed) or look at it and not know it will be in the future (open box).