I don't think so. For example, it doesn't matter how your brain is put together when it comes to the outcome of jumping off a clif. Gravity will affect humans, lemmings and frogs in the same way. All that humans have done is to predict what these outcomes will be. I think there is a genuine, objective, 'outside' world that exists independently of whether humans are present or not. The particular way in which we describe this world may have a certain degree of arbitrariness to it. We can develop an entire physical theory on the Newtonian concept of 'force' and obtain a consistent system of description. We can also develop a theory that describes everything in terms of energy and 'Lagrangian Mechanics' in which force is never mentioned, and still develop a completely consistent way of describing the world. These two descriptions were developed by humans about the same time in the 18th century. There are also other 'systems' of interpretation which suggest that there may be several self-consistent ways of describing the physical world. The key thing that unites all of these approaches, however, is mathematics. Each system can be mathematically transformed into the other in a definite way, just as english can be transformed into french or german.
Until we meet other, non-human beings who have become equally competent in exploring the physical world, we will never really know how different these interpretive frameworks can be. One thing is certain, however. Even among the human systems of physics, some are definitely better at interpreting aspects of the world than others. Quantum mechanics and 'quantum field theory' have their 'natural' expression in terms of Lagrangian mechanics not Newtonian mechanics. There may be yet-to-be-discovered frameworks that will prove better in explaining key aspects of quantum theory that are better than Lagrangian mechanics.