The 'laws of nature' were distilled by humans describing everyday perceptions. They are models. 'Nature' doesn't go to some mythical galactic laws written on a tablet floating around in space someplace and consult with some alien lawyer, so it can 'follow' or 'obey' them, y'know.Objective reality exists. There are real things that are following real laws of nature.
The notion that reality, the laws of nature and things that truly exist independently from all human minds, is a pure belief.
You, nor anyone else I've ever encountered, can even come close to citing the objective test independent from any human mind whatsoever, that would lead to such a conclusion. It is thus a belief.
I haven't said any of that .. that's all just your misconceptions of how science approaches that topic.doubtingmerle said:You cannot get from "Our language cannot express everything precisely" to "therefore reality does not exist."
What can be demonstrated from objective test results, is that what we mean by 'reality' or 'exists', whenerever we use those terms, comes about by either of two ways: by belief or by the scientific method.
Try this on:
Me: Please tell me something you regard as physically real (ie: existing);
Person#1: The Empire State building, (etc.)
Me: Ok .. so the Empire State building is something you are sure exists independently of human minds?
Me: And why are you sure it exists?
Person#1: For reasons X, Y, and Z.
Me: So those reasons convince you that you are sure?
Me: Those are the parts that aren't independent of your (human) mind.
(And yet somehow, the Empire State building is? )