Limits of human thought

To what extent are the "laws of physics" "in nature" and to what extent are they "in our heads"? In his doctrine of classical concepts Bohr believed that we had to describe reality in terms of classical concepts like space, and mass, and force. (See my blog of 27 April 2017.) Since we only have access to our sense impressions does this limit the concepts that we can create and use to build our models ("laws")? Asa H can have access to sense impressions we humans do not have, things like direct observation of electric and magnetic fields. With tools like field meters we give ourselves additional artificial senses. Both Asa and humans can also extrapolate, interpolate, abstract, etc. and so form concepts that have no direct counterpart in the world, things like unicorns and mathematical systems that do not correspond to any observed pattern present in the world. But do such mechanisms (interpolation, extrapolation, etc.) give us (or Asa) a complete or adequate set of fundamental concepts from which to build models that have any hope of describing ultimate reality, Kant's "thing in itself"? As with conventional neural networks it is difficult to translate the concepts (patterns) that Asa learns (creates) into human English phrases. (See my blog of 19 Nov 2017.) Perhaps Asa has learned some important concepts I am unaware of.

Nagarjuna argues that "To express anything in language is to express truth that depends on language and so this cannot be an expression of the way things are ultimately." (Beyond the Limits of Thought, Priest, OUP, 2002, page 260) But some languages express some ideas better than others do. (To express ideas in physics I prefer mathematics over English.) I am simply looking for BETTER languages* with which to describe reality. BETTER ontologies.*

* Plural because scientific pluralism may be needed. Multiple models not a single one.