L2 Layer of W2 Is Disected

L2 Layer (the scientific image):
L2 is not synonymous with scientific knowledge, but it is rather close to it. Perhaps L2 content is provided by a philosophical approach (that science provides only a portion of it). L2 layer tries to provide the most descriptive and predictive knowledge about W1, W2, and W3, yet it is only a successful hypothesis, which is constantly revised. This layer answers how, what, when, and where questions. There are some serious limitations for the content of this layer (that I will address extensively later).

A. Certain mathematics rules W1 and consequently rules L2 layer, yet L2 layer is far from being intelligible enough. Common sense is accumulation of observable W1 laws that form certain W2 lenses, yet W1 follows different laws (and mathematics) in different scales that defies common sense. This shows that W1 laws are not fully and easily ineligible.  Moreover, discovering deterministic laws of time and space (and matter and energy) do not solve their fundamental mysteries.

B. An example in order to clarify the importance of mathematics in determining whether a thought belongs to L2 or not: A small missile can destroy a house, but it does not have enough destructive power to destroy a planet . If you have an accurate estimate of the destructive power of this missile, your L2 is correct. In other words, your thinking lies in layer 2 or in L2 territory. However, if you think (or believe) that the missile can destroy the sun, your thought belongs to L3 or L1. L2 content corresponds to W1 reality, but L1 and L3 layers do not.  We are surrounded by mysteries in an unknown world, yet L2 lenses give rise to constructs that are closer to W1 reality.

C. Our common sense "assumes" that a principle of uniformity applies to laws of nature. We assume sun will rise tomorrow because it rose every day in the past (yet in core it is an assumption, and there is no way to make sure 100% that it will rise tomorrow). Our Knowledge about W1 is acquired gradually and organically since childhood. Every thing we know about W1 gives rise to our solid construct reality. Our belief system, memory of past emotions, desires, and preferences all affect L2 layer and this construct.

D. We do not know what being itself is. Not knowing what being is, we cannot determine if something is real or unreal. Establishing some objective criteria to determine whether something is real or not will fail because everything we have in W2 about that so-called objective reality is mind-dependent. This means the mission of science as to present accurately what is out there in W1 is doomed to inaccuracy (if not failure) because everything about those so-called accurate representations are mind-dependent and subjective in a sense.
Although L2 can give rise to a construct that are more predictive, yet L2 constructs are incomplete, biased, and limited construct of W1. L2 constructs can never be completely objective because our hardware imposes some limitation on observation. What we register may only be a partial impression of the thing in itself. Regarding science as an objective knowledge is a grave mistake because we are erasing the knower, its qualities, its limitation, and its unique way of construction from X equation. In an ocean of  uncertainty, science is a means or tool to serve the feeler. Science is only a method of gaining power and control for the feeler's desires' ends.