Nothing is unnatural or artificial?

BetweenMyths · Jul 15, 2008

Nothing within the universe is unnatural or artificial?The prevailing view among the scientific community seems to be that around 73% of the total mass-energy of the Universe is in the form of an unknown repulsive force, known as dark energy. Dark matter, the identity of which also remains a mystery, accounts for another 23% or so, with just the remaining 4% made up of everyday matter. A priority for the future is to try to discover the nature and distribution of dark energy and dark matter.My interpretation of ‘natural’ is everything that constitutes and makes up the universe, which includes everyday matter, dark matter, dark energy and anything else there may be that is undiscovered. Humans are made up of atoms/energy that has been provided by a universe that, according to scientific theory, has been here for billions of years before planet earth and humans existed. My understanding of matter is that it comprises such things as particles, atoms, molecules, energy, photons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, gluons etc. If everything within the universe is natural to begin with (matter/atoms, energy  and whatever else), then, in my opinion, nothing, that is made, derived, evolved, decomposed, degenerated, regenerated can possibly be unnatural or artificial, because regardless of what humans or any organism does, it is done with what the universe has provided organisms with.  (1) When a Hydrogen atom combines with two Oxygen atoms to form a molecule of water (H2O), the formation of water is not unnatural or artificial as it involves matter/energy (Hydrogen) interacting with matter/energy (Oxygen) to form water that is also matter/energy.  (2) When common wasps chew wood and mix it with their saliva so that they have the materials to construct a paper nest, this, also, is not unnatural or artificial. The wasps consist of matter/energy interacting with wood that is also matter/energy to make a paper nest that is also matter/energy. All very natural as it involves matter/energy interacting with matter/energy and all matter/energy provided by the universe is natural. (3) When hunter-gatherers made weapons from wood/stone/bone and used them to kill prey in order to survive, they were doing nothing unnatural. It was matter/energy (hunter-gatherers) interacting with matter/energy (wood/stone/bone) interacting with matter/energy (Prey).  (4) When humans make a natural material such as plastic, it is matter/energy (humans) interacting with matter/energy (materials/technology/equipment etc) to make a product that is also matter/energy (Plastic). All very natural as it involves matter/energy interacing with matter/energy and all matter/energy provided by the universe is natural.  (5) When some humans made an atomic weapon and detonated it, it was humans (matter/energy) interacting with materials – some radioactive, technology, equipment etc (matter/energy) to cause an explosion (matter/energy). All very natural matter/energy interacting with matter/energy and all matter/energy provided by the universe is natural. Anything that happens in the universe is natural as it is done with what the universe has provided us with, nothing is unnatural or artificial.  (6) Because something is natural does not mean that it isn’t harmful or fatal. In a situation where a lion(s) (matter/energy) was to live in close proximity to humans living in a community (matter/energy), it would be natural for the Lion(s) to try and prey on members of that community and also natural for the humans to try and protect the members of the community by possibly resorting to security measures, fences, weapons etc (Matter/Energy). In a situation where a psychopath (matter/energy) was preying on members of the same community (matter/energy), then that would also be natural. It would also be natural for the community to try and protect themselves by resorting to security measures, laws, prisons etc (matter/energy). (7) What many refer to as being an imitation plant (made from plastic) has been designed and produced to be exactly what it is meant to be –something plastic that resemble a plant. None of the matter/energy provided by the universe that makes up the plastic product that resembles a  plant is unnatural or artificial; therefore, none of the product is unnatural or artificial. The product consists of matter/energy, and the product has been made with the aid of humans, materials, equipment etc (matter/energy).    (8) Scientists can make what are referred to as man-made atoms and can also change atoms from one element to another, but this is also natural because the constitution (make-up) of the man-made atom has been designed and created by matter/energy (humans/technology/equipment etc)  interacting with matter/energy (atoms/electrons/photons etc) to create a man-made atom (matter/energy). Matter can neither be created or destroyed and creating what human-kind considers to be a new atom does not destroy matter or create more matter. Just as wasps (matter/energy) makes a paper nest (matter/energy) from wood and saliva (matter/energy); plastics are also a natural material because they have been produced from, and with the aid of, matter/energy interacting with matter/energy -  In my opinion, everything within the universe is natural - nothing is unnatural or artificial.

DrRocket · Jul 15, 2008

Ok.  So you have eliminated any need for the words "natural" or "artificial".  So what ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

centsworth_II · Jul 16, 2008

I bet he's just reacting to the advertising world's co-opting of the word "natural" as a synonym for "good" or "wholesome".  Especially when the product they are pushing has been extensively manipulated by humans.  I feel his pain.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jul 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I bet he's just reacting to the advertising world's co-opting of the word "natural" as a synonym for "good" or "wholesome".  Especially when the product they are pushing has been extensively manipulated by humans.  I feel his pain.  Posted by centsworth_II</DIV>Take an aspirin, it is a natural compound.The one that I really like is "organic" food.  Ever try inorganic food ?  Kind of hard to live on table salt isn't it ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jul 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In my opinion, everything within the universe is natural - nothing is unnatural or artificial. Posted by BetweenMyths</DIV>Nice write up, but you are only stating the obvious to most of us.The term natural and artificial are anthropocentric definitions.  A human perception.  A bird might look at all of our houses and cars and think they are natural while the nests they build are not.  It's a point of view.Obviously, everything that exists within the universe is bound by laws of physics.  Whether these laws are understood by us or not, they are the fundamental nature of things.  No such beast as unnatural or artificial in the realm of physics.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

centsworth_II · Jul 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No such beast as unnatural or artificial in the realm of physics.  Posted by derekmcd</DIV> Don't you think that even physicists might think of the man-made elements -- those not existing in nature -- as unnatural?  I don't see any problem with using defined terms to distinguish something made by humans from naturally occurring things.  Why not distinguish "natural" vitamin C from "man-made" vitamin C, even if the structures are identical?  It's just another bit of information.  And that's the purpose of words, to carry information.  The problem is when people don't agree on the definitions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jul 17, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Don't you think that even physicists might think of the man-made elements -- those not existing in nature -- as unnatural?  I don't see any problem with using defined terms to distinguish something made by humans from naturally occurring things.  Why not distinguish "natural" vitamin C from "man-made" vitamin C, even if the structures are identical?  It's just another bit of information.  And that's the purpose of words, to carry information.  The problem is when people don't agree on the definitions. Posted by centsworth_II</DIV>Hmm... good point.  Got me in a bit of a quandary on the elements.  I guess I could fall back on the fact that the laws of physics allow for their existence and I would ask if there is no place in this universe that they could not occur without human influences.  At some point during the universe's lifetime, there must have been some exotic environment where these elements might exist for hoever brief a period of time.I'm not really up on my periodic table, so i don't know.I guess my point with physics is that it makes no distinction nor does it concern itself with natural or artificial... Physics' only concern is whether it can exist or not. Personally, I have no issues with using natural, man-made, artificial, synthetic, etc, etc.  As far as I'm concerned, birds nests, termite hills and beaver dams are all naturally occuring while houses, skyscrapers and Hoover dams are not.   That's my humancentric point of view... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

DrRocket · Jul 18, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hmm... good point.  Got me in a bit of a quandary on the elements. ...Posted by derekmcd</DIV>I wouldn't spend too much time on that quandry.  The processes that produce the heavy elements are normal (natural ?) processes.  The number of atoms in the earth is pretty big and the very heavy atoms that have been created are few in number and short in lifetime.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vogon13 · Jul 21, 2008

Seems like most earthian life forms prefer dextrorotatory (or was it levorotatory??) compounds over the other, so one class of chemicals would be more 'natural' than the other. {See how smart you get when the GD Pluck software is working.}    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

vogon13 · Jul 21, 2008

"Normal" oxygen atoms have 8 neutrons, a small percentage have 7  or 9, so most normal oxygen molecules have 2 "normal" oxygen atoms. Some very unusual oxygen molecules would have 2 sevens, or 2 nines, or a nine and a seven.  {if you want to start a 'normal' discussion.} Where I am headed with this, is carbon, most of it is C12, but a bit is C13.  So 'normal' carbon is C12.  But DNA molecules have so many carbon atoms, that quite a few of them have at least one C13.  So 'many' DNA molecules are abnormal. Same with C14.  {I think Asimov pointed this out}          <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

DrRocket · Jul 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Normal" oxygen atoms have 8 neutrons, a small percentage have 7  or 9, so most normal oxygen molecules have 2 "normal" oxygen atoms. Some very unusual oxygen molecules would have 2 sevens, or 2 nines, or a nine and a seven.  {if you want to start a 'normal' discussion.} Where I am headed with this, is carbon, most of it is C12, but a bit is C13.  So 'normal' carbon is C12.  But DNA molecules have so many carbon atoms, that quite a few of them have at least one C13.  So 'many' DNA molecules are abnormal. Same with C14.  {I think Asimov pointed this out}          Posted by vogon13</DIV>You are using "normal" in some sort of unstated statistical context.  That is not what we are talking about here.  I think this discussion is just about done in any case. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dabiznuss · Jul 28, 2008

Seemingly Nothing as we have come to find in physics, NOTHING meaning no energy, motion, or anything could constitute as the only unnatural or artificial thing, b/c when we think we will find Nothing, something is always there. Can nothing in the pure sense of the word actually exist? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vandivx · Aug 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Seemingly Nothing as we have come to find in physics, NOTHING meaning no energy, motion, or anything could constitute as the only unnatural or artificial thing, b/c when we think we will find Nothing, something is always there. Can nothing in the pure sense of the word actually exist? Posted by dabiznuss</DIV> it goes off on tangent as far as thread topic goes but anyway, your 'nothing in the pure sense of the word' has been given (in the philosophy of science) proper name - void void cannot exist physically, it only exists as abstract concept in our minds - as abstractly conceived opposite or negative alternative to existence - denoting non-existencevoid is properly subject of philosophy of science precisely because physics as such can't deal with something for which you can never have physical determination (detection) in the positive sense - physics is by its very nature 'some-thing' or physically oriented subject and so the concepts such as void are dealt with by its parent discipline, the philosophy of science and this bramch of physics says that void doesn't and even can't existin analogy I'd liken it to the possibility of existence of regions free of water und the water surface in a lake, like whether there could exist place in lake where fish could swim into where water would be missing, naturally water would move into such place and it would never come to exist in the first place (I am not talking about bubles and such likes that naturally occur in water but about waterless region underwater, say cubic metter in volume, in the shape of cube where the water would be missing)  (physical) non-existence of void implies that everywhere there has to be something, there cannot be a place in universe where there would be 'nothing in the pure sense of the word' or void, in past this view has led to conception of ether as some stuff fundamental to existence, to universe (which term encompasses all that exists) in the form of some underlaying substratum permeating all of space everywhere Unnatural Artificial -  while it is true that nothing that happens in nature and that includes manmade alterations to it can escape laws of nature and is only a rearrangement of it, still the concepts of unnatural and artificial have their valid place in our languages denoting that which was rearranged by man as opposed to rearrangement by natureit might very well be that some manmade rearrangement had been or will one day be replicated by nature, still today it wasn't nature that did it but man and that's the point why we have those terms in our languagethat opponents of progress make them icons of fear is another thing and it won't go away by pointing out that scientists don't do anything 'unnatural' or 'artificial' when in fact they do and its the whole point of what they are doing - to change the natural course of nature, problem is really with people not being open to reason in the first place and no change of terminology will alter that  when you start thinking negatively of artificial you might as well put on skins and return to nature because just about everything making our world is not natural and would have been feared at one point or another as it usually often was  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Aug 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Seemingly Nothing as we have come to find in physics, NOTHING meaning no energy, motion, or anything could constitute as the only unnatural or artificial thing, b/c when we think we will find Nothing, something is always there. Can nothing in the pure sense of the word actually exist? Posted by dabiznuss</DIV> Your phrasing makes it a bit difficult to understand your concept, but the vacuum is not exactly a complete absense of everything, at least it is not in quantum theory.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Search

Nothing is unnatural or artificial?

BetweenMyths

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

vogon13

Guest

vogon13

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

dabiznuss

Guest

vandivx

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page