See, this is not a problem for me. I have designed settings where magic and technology affected each other negatively, and settings where a kingdom used magically heated and animated engines to create airships, well, an airship. It's all flavor to me.
So wait, how many people here actually like magitek / blending magic and science together?
I love Final Fantasy VII which is what I think of as magitek. I also like Eberron. That said I'm going more back to roots with arcane magic (besides the PCs) being rarer and not necessarily well understood. This, however is after more than a couple of apocalypses ensuring there's plenty of ruins with magical and technological artifacts (technology and psionics were created in an ancient Age that predates elves discovering how to manipulate arcane magic). I'd say I've inadvertently created a world similar to Numeria (I haven't read the setting), especially as there's a group called the Esoteric Order of the Forbidden Mountain (taking the place of the Technik League) who hide their science around enough mystery and ritual as to make it seem magical.
So it's not what I think of as magitek but it does allow science and magic to coexist without science overwhelming the magic (at least to begin with. If the Esoteric Order of the Forbidden Mountain loses their monopoly on advanced technology it could have a drastic effect on the world).
My highlights of the Golarion setting thus far? DMing a game set on Akiton, having mi-go as the villains of an entire adventure and exploring the ruins of Shory city as a player (in this version the Shory city was filled with science gadgets).
Technically, through nuclear power, we did achieve the alchemist dream of being able to transmute materials.
We just figured out it comes with a bit of a higher cost than the alchemists wanted and involves some very nasty byproducts.
This is what stops a lot of alchemists in my setting from inventing more advanced technology. They're too busy chasing after the lead to gold dream. Thing is though, they're so close!
a 2.0 is inevitable at some point. The hardest point is going to be getting away from the 3.5 OGL, and truly making a game of their own. {. . .}Getting away from the 3.5 OGL is not required for a Pathfinder 2.0/M&M 4.0, and unless they come up with a substitute for this that is better, it is probably better to stick with it.
There's a lot of legacy rules from 3.5 that they stuck with that they'd like to get rid of now that they feel more confident about the game. For instance, requiring deities for clerics, just for starters.
the new book about options will hopefully be talking about what they'd like to do different, that will still make the core decent.
Sorry, when you said 3.5 OGL, I thought you meant the Open Game License itself. With this clarification of what you are actually talking about, I can understand where you're coming from and could add some of my own to the mix (probably not a good idea right now since it's 02:05 here as I am typing this).