`  == A problem with your exegesis of ``physics`` ==  In your user page you say: entities that physically argue are assumed not to have knowledge of how natue actually behaves for what is being considered This sentence is very unclear because of several problems:  #The meaning of ``entities``.  You could mean anything from electrons to angels. As I read this sentence and try to make sense of it I flip-flop between ``anything that is or appears to be discrete enough to have an identity, e.g., lever bars,`` and ``sentient entities.`` #The meaning of ``physically argue.`` Unless you believe in mental telepathy, any arguing that I have ever heard about is conducted via some kind of physical interaction. But maybe by ``argue`` you mean ``interact.`` Maybe you are talking about any mass, any electromagnetic radiation, etc., and how it and other such things interact. Or, it just occurred to me, maybe you mean ``people who argue about physics.`` #The phrase ``are assumed not to have knowledge`` could mean that, e.g., ``some proton does not have knowledge of the neutron nearest to it,`` or ``bricks falling from the top of a building know nothing of the air.`` But if you are using these words to discuss philosophy in natural language, then probably that means that ``entities`` must mean ``people`` until such time as we find other sentient beings to talk to.  #The final ``for what is being considered`` would normally be interpreted as pertaining to the word immediately preceding it. But probably you don't really mean to say that nature behaves for us (the way my dogs behave well or badly for me).   #Why use ``assumed``? In ordinary language, when we say something like, ``I assume she must be his daughter,`` we indicate a belief that the speaker knows is not well grounded. It amounts to saying something like, ``I don't have very good grounds for saying it's his daughter. Maybe she's a paid escort.`` But if I am following you correctly you actually mean to say that we have absolutely no grounds for affirming that we know how nature actually works.    Supposing that the ``axiom`` quoted above is talking about people, you may be trying to say something like: ``People who communicate with each other in an attempt to understand some facet of physics have absolutely no grounds for believing that they actually understand, or could eventually understand, the real way that things work.``  In other words, we know that we are always in the situation of poking various things into the black box, watching what comes out of the black box, and trying to make up a persuasive story to account for what has happened.  I hope this crituque is helpful. At least it may indicate to you how at least one ``average well-informed reader`` interprets what you have written.   `