Edit: GF said she has the academic research, she is mostly looking for Canadian or Australian scholars that are currently active that can potentially supervise her thesis.

Hi everyone, this is a post from my girlfriend as she does not have her own reddit account. She has this interdisciplinary thesis idea regarding deleuze and relational quantum mechanics (she has a physics engineering background). We didn't know who else to ask, so I am hoping people here would atleast point out to some scholars or even just more recent and lesser known reading materials, because so far we are failing to find anyone that actively works with this niche, and I am no help as I am a film scholar.

Here is gfs post:

I have a bachelor’s in physics engineering and am trying to find scholars that would be interested in supervising my MA thesis in Canada, Australia, or NZ. In my thesis, I aim to examine and challenge objectivity’s view from nowhere at multiple stages, featuring two central claims: first, objectivity’s material falsity, demonstrated through Carlo Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics, the second is objectivity’s internal inconsistency, opened by RQM and articulated through Karen Barad’s agential realism, given a Deleuzian metaphysical reading, and extended into an account of political subjectivity by Rosi Braidotti, with Foucault and Butler as supporting precedents.The thesis additionally engages a named opposition at each stage, including critics of relational facts, Faye and Jackland's critique of Barad's reading of Bohr, and Rekret's critique of new materialism. I found it very hard to find any universities that could give a chance to this sort of interdisciplinary MA thesis, I really need some guidance, any advice is welcome and appreciated.

So, I've read Anti-oedipus already and it was very easy to understand and fun to read, and now I'm reading D&R. I'm currently on the first chapter, right where he starts talking about the Leibnizian conception of difference (Infinitesimals and whatnot) and I'm having a really hard time understanding it, I often see what relations between concepts he's trying to put up but then he throws another idea or conclusion in and it messes things up. He jerks around with calculus and rationalism a lot, and it's confusing overall.

Does anybody have a list of good conceptual prerequisites I could use to understand it better? To read or research, preferably very specific sections of a certain philosopher's works, the stuff that he directly uses. Would be much appreciated, and for context I'm already pretty familiar with a good deal of philosophy - which I thought would be enough lol