[SinJin]

I would say yes. From a purely scientific standpoint, the theory of everything governs the universe. It's why stars and planets form, why life on Earth evolved. It's why we walked out of the forest and evolved into humans. It's why we live and breathe and go to work. It's why I'm typing this right now. And it's why we develop and make cars. From a purely scientific standpoint, there is no other "unnatural" force acting upon humans, only the theory of everything, the same theory that acts upon everything in the universe, including our will to make cars. The entire universe is nature, and so everything inside it, every particle and force and interaction and event and thought and process is natural.

[Guille]

It is exactly the opposite. Not that the TOE makes stars collapse, galaxies crash, rabits heve long ears, people become crazy, mass is a kind of energy, atoms have neutrons and protons, someone love someone..... It is exactly the opposite: the fact that we come along these phenomena through oru experiences and perceptions and observations and conceptions, impplies that we develop an explenational panel for such events.

[TinyTree]

Originally Posted by SinJin I would say yes. From a purely scientific standpoint, the theory of everything governs the universe.

This depends on your conception of natural. Governed and created within the physical laws which define the universe? Yes, they are certainly natural.

If natural means "not created by humans" then no, they are not natural.

So your question is asking it seems: are humans somehow beyond the scope of physical law? The answer is clearly no.

Cars are cultural artifacts, and all of culture is a phenomena of propagating probability waves. Ideas which have been created- and then passed on- are part of the probability function. New ideas are lower probability, and may or may not contribute to the future of civilization or be adopted by the masses.

There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of small ideas, "memes" if you will, or "low probability events" which are stored within a car, within the tempering of the steel, the curve of its hood, the tolerance of the valves within the engine block. These low probability events that work are passed on in the instructional paradigm of the universities, and more are passed on from coworker to coworker either implicitly (seeing others ideas) or explicitly (instruction about how to achieve things in an effective manner)

HOwever every single one of these ideas, these improvements, these designs, existin within the framework of our physical law and arose from conjunctions of events which began as quantum phenomena.

[SinJin]

TinyTree: "This depends on your conception of natural. Governed and created within the physical laws which define the universe? Yes, they are certainly natural.

If natural means "not created by humans" then no, they are not natural."

The first statement is of course what I'm referring to. Cars are obviously made by humans, and I don't think I could resonably convince anyone otherwise. I was simply using cars as an example. I brought this subject up because I hear people talk about technology not being natural, how humans "should" have stayed in the forests instead of coming out and starting civilization. In my example with cars I was trying to point out that there is no "should" or "shouldn't", no "natural" or "unnatural". The universe simply plays out and things and events unfold according to the laws. Even polluting the waters with garbage is natural, simply because it's happening and its cause is nothing other than the forces of the universe.

[TinyTree]

The first statement is of course what I'm referring to. Cars are obviously made by humans, and I don't think I could resonably convince anyone otherwise. I was simply using cars as an example. I brought this subject up because I hear people talk about technology not being natural, how humans "should" have stayed in the forests instead of coming out and starting civilization.

There are many motives why someone may suggest that we shouldn't come out of the forest and begin civilization. One of them certainly may be that "consciousness" brought about an unending series of self plights- sort of the Adam and Eve parable brought into modern thought.

However, I think a more compelling argument is where we are the happiest. It seems that living among stench and pollution will not bring us happiness, so I would prefer not too, even if it is natural.

I would posit that you are proposing as "actuality" as "preferable because it is actualized" and I would argue no- that which exists is one among many alternatives, and many alternatives are better than where we are now. Certainly many other alternatives are worse, but that does not mean we want to pursue those- we should pursue those which are better. Admittedly, this is a difficult thing to discern- it is not immediately obvious what of the many social constructs a people will be happiest within- but some are certainly better than others.

In my example with cars I was trying to point out that there is no "should" or "shouldn't", no "natural" or "unnatural".

I agree with the sentiment that humans are nothing more or less than a part of the universe and on an objective level should not be raised above that status. However, as cognitive agents we have to make real decisions which impact our futures- propelling us down many of the possible futures, and thus there are "should" and "shouldn'ts" which are tied in with these possible futures.

these possible futures- these different potentials- are all real- they are all manifestable by the physical substrate of this universe, and one of them will become real. They are all natural- and some of them are desirable, and some not.

They are not desirable from a unbaised view- IE an unweighting view of the future. With not basis for relative value, they are all identical. But as a conscious agent, I prefer some more than others.

[SinJin]

I agree with you TinyTree that since we have reached a level of self awareness, we must make conscious decisions to construct a future that we want. Like you said, we certainly could sit around at let the world become polluted and say "well, that's just nature", but of course then we would be left with a rotting planet, and no one wants that.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that we can use the word "manmade" to convey the idea that something was created by a human, instead of growing from the ground. But in the larger view of things, I don't think there is much of a difference. Nature created man, and man created the car, so nature created the car. There was nothing else that intervened during the process, no otherworldly consciousness or intelligence that acted apart from nature.

I still believe that everything acts within the laws that govern the universe (the toe) including intelligence and consciousness. I don't think it would be accurate for an alien race to look back on humans and say "wow, they really went against nature and destroyed themselves", because no matter what we do, we're acting under the direct influence of nature.