abodywithoutorgans
Well-known member
so many threads on 'outer space' in the 'nature' subsection. so it ought to be asked: is space nature
You're losing your touch - I was expecting a "space is fake" at the very least.
You're losing your touch - I was expecting a "space is fake" at the very least.
I think this is a useful definition. Normally I'd define nature as a total, all-encompassing category for the physical universe, with the artificial being what conscious matter has engineered within that universe, but I also tend to think that all-encompassing definitions aren't always that useful.Sure, why not? If you define "nature" as everything that exists outside of human culture - which isn't very satisfactory, but is how people tend to use the word - then it certainly is.
Don't look at me - I'm thick as two short Plancks.Perhaps, if someone is present to witness it
It’s nature if we infer its various properties as natural but then we would have to define space too, Planck energy n all that without looking like you’re kicking back having sussed fuck all
View attachment 11907
Hm, interesting take on what 'nature' is/ought to be—haven't really thought of it as defined as being outside of human culture, I'll have to think that through more. Doesn't the epoch of the 'anthropocene' complicate that outsideness, though?Sure, why not? If you define "nature" as everything that exists outside of human culture - which isn't very satisfactory, but is how people tend to use the word - then it certainly is.
What I meant by "unsatisfactory" is that I think the concept of nature is sort of redundant, or tautological, in that nothing is actually "unnatural", since it would have to arise out of the natural and is therefore itself natural.Hm, interesting take on what 'nature' is/ought to be—haven't really thought of it as defined as being outside of human culture, I'll have to think that through more. Doesn't the epoch of the 'anthropocene' complicate that outsideness, though?