> we cannot know the world as it is, independent of the structure, capacities, and limits of the human mind
This resonates with me. For example, I feel that even though mathematics and physics are perfect systems for describing nature and the universe, I am not convinced that mathematics is a property inherent to the universe itself as many people often say. Rather, I think there is a significant chance that these systems are tied closely to the structure and operation of the human brain.
Maths and physics are definitely not perfect descriptions, they approximate nature, they are not nature.
If you think they're capable of becoming "perfect" then I'd have to ask under which axioms. Also reflecting on Godel's incompleteness theorem it seems if we had a perfect maths (whatever that means) we couldn't prove it to be such.
If at some point you study scientific philosophy, you will learn a lot of terminology that makes it way easier to discuss these things. You might want to look up the anti-realist school of thought and obviously the Kantian view of it.
I've been reading some New Realist philosophy recently (Maurizio Ferraris). The basic idea is that although we don't have direct access to reality (Kant), we are constrained by it in ways that give us insight into it and it provides affordances for us that further reveal its nature as something independent of our perceptions and inferences. Sort of an anti-Foucault outlook but informed by Deriddean deconstruction.
This resonates with me. For example, I feel that even though mathematics and physics are perfect systems for describing nature and the universe, I am not convinced that mathematics is a property inherent to the universe itself as many people often say. Rather, I think there is a significant chance that these systems are tied closely to the structure and operation of the human brain.