I guess when I say "further from nature" I mean further from the original state, from which nature comes. You see we tend to compare what now is, to what once was. And rightfully so, this seems to be the logical method for developing a definition of "natural." For instance, we may look at a shoe and say that it is not natural. Indeed it is made of leather and cotton and other fabrics, but we say that the shoe itself is not natural. Because we look at what makes the shoe. So we end up tracing the composition of the shoe to what it originally was. But why don't we trace it any further than that? Anyways, we'll consider a bee hive natural but not a house natural. This is because we tend to trace back the origins of the compositions. So to determine what REALLY is natural we have to trace everything all the way back to find the true original state. So we have to first discover what first was. If at some point nothing existed, then existence itself is unnatural, because nonexistence would have been the original state. But the mystery would remain: how did nonexistence become existence. If existence did just become, and somehow nothing caused it, then it would, itself, not be natural. This is the mystery that plagues forever. Did existence begin? Or has it always been? This is the classic debate.
If existence just "began" (by a big bang or similar) then we cannot consider anything natural, except for nonexistence. No one thing within existence would be natural. But this leaves us at base one. We still seek some conception of "natural." Well I think we can still provide a concept within proximity. So we have to imagine the original state of things, the split second in which existence became what it was. What was the beginning of existence like? What was within existence? Energy? What was the original state of "things" in existence? Do we propose the "primeval atom," or a "point of singularity"? We would then have to redefine existence. Because according to theory, the point of singularity was the cause of existence. So what was the point of singularity before existence? (Or even more dubious, what was the cause of singularity?) These are things that our little brains cannot fathom because our level of consciousness is at too low a level, and the terms in which we think (cause, time, beginning, end) blind us to the truth.
Back to the point. What was the "original state" when concerning matter? The millisecond after the big bang? Is that the original state? What about the microsecond after? Or the nanosecond after? It's an infinite regress. We can forever reverse by time increments, and we will never reach an end, because by our understanding of time, it is infinitely divisible. This seems to suggest that the original state is simply nonexistence.
But the real point is to decide what we can "sort of" call natural (for pragmatic use). To do this, I propose that we HAVE to consider the original state of existence at the point when it became what it became. However it becomes irrelevant to pin point the exact point in which the original state of nonexistence became existence because as stated, it is fundamentally impossible. So if we view nonexistence and the initial point of existence, then this will create two different original states, a true-original state (nonexistence), and a false-original state (the initial beginning point of existence). It is only important to understand that at some point there had to have been an original state of existence once it became separate from nonexistence. So by this false-original state (the beginning of existence), we will then be able to determine what is natural to this false original state.
But then again, perhaps a "true-original state" and a "false-original state" is unnecessary. Some may argue that there is no such thing as "nonexistence" therefore there can be no divide between true and false states. Some might say that existence just is, and always has been in some form since the beginning. As counter-intuitive as this may seem to be, it may be right. We shouldn't think that there was anything before the beginning now should we? But the main point to focus on, is that existence with physical matter and energy had a beginning. Through this view, you can still imagine an "original state." It's only important to keep in mind an original state of some sort, rather it be nonexistence or exisetence.
So, to determine what is natural or perhaps "sort of" natural, I propose that it is the state nearest to the original state (whatever it was). So the further through time we go, the more unnatural everything becomes, because it is further from the original state. This is how something can be "further from nature." Meanwhile, the more complex something (states) become, the more unnatural it is. Because it is furthest from the simplicity of the original state.
So lets consider a bag of cheetos. Is it natural? Well, it is certainly far from the original state. We have to trace the chain all the way back, through either determinism, indeterminism, or agency, and realize that the matter that composes the cheetos had an original state. Through billions of years of rearrangement and mutation it has become a bag of cheetos, thanks to the humans, the humans thanks to preancient bacteria, the bacteria thanks to amino acids coming together, the amino acids thanks to particular kinds of matter being where they were at a certain point, so on and so on. So you can see that a certain thing's distance from nature is determined by its STATE in TIME.
But this is only the case if we believe that there was a beginning to existence.
So lets suppose that existence has always been and the universe is cyclical or infinite. Therefore existence would be infinite both ways through time. What then would be natural? What of the cheetos? Well if this is the case, then nothing would be natural, because if existence has always been, then there is no original state to provide a point of definition. This would make everything at any point in time and in any state, forever changing and rearranging but always the same, because there is no right way for it to be. So naturalness would be an unnecessary, and actually, a mistaken concept. There would be no such thing as true origin either.
It just depends on which theory of existence you believe. Most people go with the big bang. In that case we can "sort of" define natural.
To be honest, I think that the real confusion is when people replace original with natural. Someone says, "that isn’t natural." Most of the time what they really should say is, "that isn’t original." Only then would their statement be true.
We simply get origin and nature mixed up when we try to trace back to find naturalness. "Natural" simply becomes the substitution of "original" when measuring on a macro level.
Really I think we just need a redefinition or replacement of terms because "natural," as we use it, doesn't seem to really apply to the bigger picture. But then again it does work in some situations, such as if I were to say, "I like pussy because it is in my nature," then in that sense it properly applies, because it is referring to that which is beyond my control and dictated by forces beyond me and before me. But the idea of me, myself, being natural, simply doesn't apply in that sense (if I believe in the big bang and a beginning). Because I would actually be far from the nature of the original state, thus making me less natural. Additionally, if I believe the universe is cyclical then natural doesn't make sense here either because nothing would be natural. I guess for the sake of saying natural, yes I would be, but really when you get down to it, it doesn't make sense. The only way "natural" would REALLY make the most sense is if a god created us. But then again, if you were to really think about that, you could conclude that so called "supernaturalness" would actually be natural, thus turning into the same result as a cyclical universe. Once we abandon the idea of "magic" then naturalness breaks down, because only with magic, could natural exist. It's really a problem that penetrates everything.
