Yes, I entirely agree, it is the sensory input from this world we deal with and that is our macroscopic reality. In terms of that reality, I can certainly consider theories getting closer and closer to what we observe empirically.

Where I run into doubts is the way physics deals with empirical observations but then introduces notions that can never be observed. Those notions seem to gain an element of macroscopic reality by many (perhaps they don't for most scientists - I'm not sure) that for me is unjustified. I can happily accept these notions when thought of as purely a model to accommodate macroscopic observation, but if we can never observe these notions, we can never say that they are close to or quite different to our reality. We can't say anything about them other than they are purely a model that is a human representation of the absolute (in what ever way you may interpret this "absolute").

The passage of photons from a source to sink is especially problematic I think. The source and sink are macroscopic in the manner you describe - they are part of our observable reality and the results we take note of are part of that reality. But the bit in between we can never observe so we construct a model based on a time difference between activation of the source and the detection of a signal and that model we call the propagation of light at a speed c. What happens in between can never be thought of as being close to or distant from our macroscopic world because we can never observe photons in flight. But I don't see this as a problem as long as we think of this model as being a human representation of the absolute (and again, I have no idea what this absolute is other than just calling it "something" that is inaccessible).

But for me this issue seems to come in to focus at the quantum level. Experiments at the quantum level involve predicted observations at the measurement device, the idea that a "particle" is localized independently of our knowledge is not assumed - the notion of an observer (which is the same as the measurement device) becomes an essential ingredient of the experiment rather than an option (such as watching or not watching a stone being thrown). So at this level we are forced to acknowledge that entities as particle events (the movement of one particle from point A to B) are not part of our macroscopic world - we construct models based on predictive observations, not events. The events are models that can never be observed, but that does not reduce their value as scientific truths because we make practical use of them. But again they are human representations of the absolute (what ever that is).

The lessons from quantum experiments tell us that the world at this level requires the notion of an observer/measurement device, we cannot talk about events as happening without this notion, and even then, those events are not seen, the predictive observations are seen. So we can take an interpretation from this - the underlying reality of our world that can exist without our presence is nowhere to be seen or accessed. Our models of particle events can never be compared in any manner to our macroscopic reality as being "true", nor can they be thought of as existing independently of observation/measurement. All we can say is that they are human representations of an absolute that we can never access. But the form this absolute would take can only be a philosophical interpretation, I think of it as an entity that is "out there" as something existing entirely independent of us. Some think of it as not being "something" out there but rather we are all part of a complete whole, everything is just "everything" if you see what I mean.

But the important point (for me) is nothing to do with how one interprets the absolute, the important point for me is where does science end and where does philosophy start when dealing with these questions. For me, science ends abruptly at the models that are human representations of the absolute, it can offer no authority over the nature of the absolute or how close models are to it with any greater degree than philosophical enquiry. But I don't say that in any negative manner in terms of what physics can achieve or will achieve in the future, it just redefines (for me) the role of physics in a much more satisfactory manner.