What Is Natural

Last edit 2003-07-10. Can someone distill this, or is it a hopeless mess ...

I have moved the discussion about my proposal definition here to separate discussion and (current) definition.

I recount an idea about this of a friend of mine.

He didn't try to define natural, but instead its opposite anatural:

Some process is anatural, if it is based on a future state.

This is a very short definition. Try shorter. And also, it is sharp in the sense, that it allows to clearly separate natural from anatural processes.

I hope that this wiki community finds this an interesting definition or idea.

Please excuse my English. I fear that it severely distorted my making the point.

-- GunnarZarncke (a German)

But I fear that I have to explain what he meant with "based on a future state".

He meant (we got to the point in our discussion, that I can say this), that the decisions made in the process (presumably by an anatural structure, e.g. some life form (see DefinitionOfLife)) are dependent on properties (e.g. usefulness to the process) of some future state. Because the future state cannot under common circumstances be known in advance, it is assumed, that is somehow extrapolated or otherwise acquired. But this definition makes no assumptions about this or the internal structures of the process to achieve this.

:Predictions of a future state are represented in the present state, not the future state. Goals for the future state are represented in the present state, not in the future state. This implies that neither such predictions nor processes upon them are 'anatural' - dependent upon properties of a future state. A future state affecting present processes would be quite non-intuitive and would imply some interesting properties about space-time as a whole, but whether such exist remains an open question.

I normally assume that some world-model is required to represent the future state.

This DefinitionOfNatural obviously makes the most actions of humans anatural, but this is intended. It allows e.g. to clearly separate instinct and emotion from reason and intelligence or possibly unconsciousness from consciousness (at least if we use the DefinitionOfConsciousness).

:It does not make actions of humans anatural. Most decisions made by humans are performed using predictions and goals that clearly exist in the present, not the future. That these are predictions of the future, goals for the future... is of no consequence. You may as well say a seed's growth is 'anatural' for it is a process leading towards a future state in which there are more seeds.

This definition is confusing, since it tries to define the word natural without ever mentioning nature. It is also misleading, since it makes "makes the most actions of humans anatural", which they are not - humans are part of nature and cannot act anaturally. As stated above, this definition intends to separate human actions from natural processes - why? Are humans supernatural?

I agree, humans are part of nature, but this is obvious, also by themselves they are not supernatural/anatural, only their actions are. And this is not an uncommon statement, or?

The statement is common, but false. Why not recognize it, instead of redefining the term "natural" to make such statement true?

Why is it false? You seem to indicate, that everything is natural. But that doesn't help us any further. I try to make a useful distinction.

Everything that exists is natural. How useful can a distinction be, if it is only related to non-existent processes? Why do you use the word "natural" and not "non-intentional" instead?

Do I read you right? You would prefer a definition like 'Nature is the set of all existing things.' But what's then left for the word 'universe' (see DefinitionOfUniverse)?

Is Universe a thing? If so, then it is a part of Nature.

'Everything that exists is natural.' Is that your definition? And does it include the Universe or not? And if so, how would you define "natural"?

No, it is not my definition, it is a statement. And yes, it does include the Universe. No, I would not define "natural", it is a word with an established meaning - not exactly precise, perhaps a bit fuzzy. But not all words need an exact definition to be useful. Your definition narrows the word's meaning in an inappropriate way. It could be useful, if you always stated that you use your definition instead of the established meaning. But that is confusing. Below, you have collected a list of topics using the word "natural" in their name - none of which uses the word in your meaning. Narrowing or altering the meaning of a word and then using it out of context serves no purpose but confusion. Besides, your definition renders expressions like "natural interest", "natural wish" ... meaningless. Why don't you simply use the word intentional? It fits much better into your definition

That is true. I agree that "my" definition is too narrow. I like the distinctions, that can be drawn from it, but yes, another word is required for this distinction. Intentional - hm, hm...

And not using nature in the definition is required, otherwise I would have to define nature. Bingo!

Ok: Nature is the set of all natural processes (according to the above definition).

Is Nature only set of processes? No things?

New try: Nature is the set of all things and natural processes.

(C.K.) If I have followed you in your statement "all is nature", then I would make all these expressions you write about senseless. With the given definition you could understand them. What is the difference between natural law and law made by men, what is the difference between natural selection and selection made by men? How you will explain it, if everything is nature? Every law is a nature law, every selection is a natural selection? You really believe it? But I do not think that many people will following you on such a confusing way.

If anything that exists is natural (e.g. trees, grass, ant-hills, COBOL) then the statement is so broad as to be meaningless. If 'Natural' is to have a distinct meaning, then it should be possible to find some 'x' such that 'Exists(x) and !Natural(x)' or 'Natural(x) and !Exists(x)'. Similarly with processes. If all processes are natural (e.g. birth, death, breathing, paving roads, programming, developing Intercal) then 'Natural' has again lost its distinction.

A practical definition for 'Natural' must distinguish these things.

An interesting consideration is whether no languages should be considered natural, or if there are some languages (like Intercal) that are decidedly less 'natural' than others.

I think this discussion based on a misunderstanding in the beginning.

A positive version of the try of a definition could be: Natural processes make no interaction with knowing of future. Nature is the set of all natural processes. Explanation: "Knowing of future" do not mean "Knowing of the future".

On a fundamental level the set of processes and the set of things describe the same system, it is only a change in viewpoint.

Maybe this try of a definition of natural processes is not very common. But not the definition for existing words itself should be common, the consequences of such a definition should be. That these consequences of the given definition do not fit with expressions like natural law, natural selection, natural numbers, natural interest and natural wish is simply wrong. [A phrase can hold meaning independently of the words that constitute it. It is not 'wrong' or 'simply wrong' for expressions like 'natural law' to be distinct from 'law'. It is, however, less than ideal.] First this distinction of natural an anatural gives them a special sense. If everything is natural there would be no difference between law an natural law, no difference between selection and natural selection. But people, who talk about these things understand a difference. Discussions about �natural whatever� becomes fruitless and senseless if one part thought talking about everything, and the other part thought these word have a special meaning. Your arguments shows that this word is not only a little bit fuzzy, its seems to be totally undefined. This try of definition should give a chance using the word �natural� again to all, who think it was a great discovery that all is nature, what would make this word meaningless.

However this definition implicates this world-view of All Is Nature, but it also gives natural a simple version of a meaning you can use in other situations too. In extrapolation of the physic world-view to psychological- and social-systems, you can come to the conclusion everything based on fundamental natural principles. But if you do so, you have to analyse every one of these fundamental processes of human behavior too and on this level everything that happens inside a human is natural, no one of these processes based on future states. The definition says nothing else. And should be something (who knows) metaphysical, like fatalistic parts, gods, etc., on the way from physics to human behaviors, the definition told you to call these behaviors anatural. Where is the problem, no decision between these world-views is made, there is no narrowing through this definition, nothing is new in the understanding of natural.

These arguments are simply an intellectual gimmick, but you can use this definition also in everyday life. The meaning of words always depending on the system you are using, and there is no one who really mentally lives in a system, depending directly on the system of fundamental physics, I guess. You always have a system build through reducing complexity. Thermodynamic in physics is an example, the way to chemistry and biology are others. Processes in such systems are not fundamental processes. Reducing complexity more and more on your way to psychological- an social-systems, you create without any force, conscious or unconscious, processes that based on future states, there is nothing magic about. And these processes are the common known parts of the system called anatural. Discussions about genetic determination and socialization of special human behaviors, for example, use exactly this definition. A natural determined behavior you can not change, only compensate and an anatural social behavior you can change if you only change the vision of future in what way ever.

The definitions of words are necessary for serious discussions, else these discussions are only publicity. Knowing about the emotional context of natural or anatural (bad or good feelings about), you will use it to create special effects in the group of people you are talking to. But you cannot say anything of importance about [?] and make no conclusions. Sometimes all is natural, sometimes is not.

A process is not necessarily good or bad, because of identifying it as natural or anatural. Maybe some processes have to change their common state, but most definitions in science works in the same way and in most cases it's very helpful for further understanding.

-- CarstenKreyser

Everything that exists is natural. "Unnatural"/"natural" is a distinction between some things humans do and make and the rest of the universe. It is based on the assumption that humans are less natural than other animals. I think this is a dangerous way to categorize things so I avoid the words "natural" and "unnatural" whenever possible. -- EricHodges

I believe/know that only NonExistEnce? can be natural at all. When saying "I believe", I mean that I cannot prove it beyond what I try to explain below. When saying "I know", I mean that I have found out by thinking about it, yet I cannot prove therefore I should rather "believe". ;-)

Consider, in our current universe we have structures of the simplest form (quarks that cannot exist by themselves) and atoms such as the H+ ion that only consists of three quarks. And yet, this makes the structure of the H+ ion already artificial, or even unnatural in some sense, as the quarks contained and making up the H+ ion need to communicate via gluons. These gluons are required by the quarks in order to keep their state of equilibrium. As such, we could state that we find the original hypothesis in here in that each individual quark must assume that a gluon is being emitted by one of the other quarks in order for the quark to stay in existence and therefore for the H+ ion to stay in existence. And, winding it up until we find cells or organelles we know that these cells are capable of motion in search for, for example, nutrition (be it light or some other cell that they might consume). As such, these cells also, first by being structured from the ground up of said quarks and other particles, also require future states for their existence, i.e. if I move there I might find something for my daily diet, if not I have to move on and, if that cannot happen, I have to divide in order to stay alive.

I think that the initial hypothesis that everything that depends on some future state cannot really be the definition of naturality, as it would make everything that exists purely artificial or unnatural, if we define that the two terms define the same state of being not natural.

I believe that everything that is not artificial, i.e. goods produced by humans, atomic structures that are not the result of natural evolution but rather the making of mankind or beast (cob-webs are a good example, or the housings of snails and so on) or even plant and mineral. Yet, they all result from appliance of a) intelligence and b) instincts and c) extrinsic requirements and last but not least d) evolution.

As such we could also just say that everything that is, is natural, as even cars or space ships are based on and result from above assumption. -- CarstenKlein