The Challenge of Understanding Naturalness

Consider this dilemma: scientific advancement reflects our ability to explain segments of nature through interconnected parts, expanding our comprehension of its vastness. Researchers have delved into the cosmos and microscopic realms, even retracing the universe's evolution over billions of years.

Patterns abound in nature, many of which are causal — they are consistent, predictable, and not arbitrary. For instance, the reasons for rain involve gravitational forces and water cycles, while the Sun's heat arises from nuclear fusion. Organisms consume food as a vital strategy to combat entropy.

However, if these patterns extend infinitely, as suggested in Roger Penrose’s cyclical cosmology, the question of why such an endless system exists becomes unresolvable. Alternatively, if they culminate in a primal source of nature that defies scientific explanation, like the Big Bang or quantum mechanics, then science struggles to elucidate the concept of naturalness.

Examining the origin of life can shed light on this issue. If Earth is the sole cradle of life, one might anticipate a universal characteristic that differentiates life forms. Yet evolutionary theory posits that all life on Earth shares a genetic lineage from a common ancestor, suggesting that understanding this origin could clarify the existence of all living entities.

Conversely, if life emerges independently across various planets, a broader essence of life would exist, complicating the explanation of terrestrial life alone.

Similarly, the interconnectedness of terrestrial nature with the broader universe raises questions about universality. What accounts for this shared naturalness? Why do miracles not occur?

One proposed explanation involves envisioning a multiverse where various types of universes exist, paralleling the diversity of life on other planets. Just as life adapts to different environments, universes may evolve, influenced by a greater megaverse. Our universe appears natural due to its adherence to specific laws that align with a hyperspatial context.

However, this evolutionary perspective only shifts the inquiry to the megaverse's characteristics, leaving the question of naturalness unresolved. Once again, scientists might rely on methodological naturalism rather than genuinely explaining the nature of naturalness.

The Intersection of Science and Theology

Two additional factors warrant consideration. First, the notion of naturalness is contingent on scientific objectives, meaning definitions may evolve alongside scientific progress. Fundamental sciences, like theoretical physics, diverge from special sciences by often bypassing causal explanations. As Bertrand Russell noted, they lean towards mathematical constructs instead.

This lack of empirical decisiveness in cosmological hypotheses leads to theoretical physicists relying on mathematical beauty rather than concrete experimentation. In effect, they engage in a modern version of Neoplatonism, proposing abstract structures that resemble supernatural phenomena.

Is there a substantial distinction between theologians and theoretical physicists? Both entertain unfalsifiable claims about distant realms impacting observable reality, albeit in different forms. Theologians personify the supernatural, while scientists objectify it, with the latter aiming to dominate the wild, uncivilized aspects of existence.

Thus, it seems that “science” may only delineate naturalness by evolving into a theological domain, cloaking its reliance on the supernatural with complex mathematics.

The Sociocultural Dimensions of Naturalness

The second point to consider is that the concept of naturalness might be subjective, shaped by the methodologies and goals of scientific inquiry. Fundamentally, nature is physical, subject to manipulation, yet impersonal and devoid of rights.

Consequently, the roots of naturalness could be more sociological than cosmological. Understanding naturalness requires self-awareness regarding the ambitions of science and civilization, as well as our standards for progress. The quest for nature’s vulnerabilities may not possess metaphysical grounding but rather reflects human ambition.

Even if nature has a supernatural origin, as some theists suggest, naturalists may maintain their stance since their aspirations are equally boundless. “Nature” could encompass nearly supernatural mathematical concepts like singularities and wavefunctions.

Consider the hypothetical scenario of an extraordinary event, such as humanity's sudden relocation to a realm of clouds. Would this indicate divine intervention or manipulation by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization?

The crux of the matter is that naturalism is not only a reflection of established facts but also stems from a modern, secular arrogance — a refusal to acknowledge the wilderness beyond developed societies, potentially at the risk of our own survival, as illustrated by the ongoing environmental crisis.

In essence, the inability to explain naturalness by invoking something else may undermine humanity's belief in its right to govern the planet and, by extension, all that exists outside human influence, including other species and natural resources.