I had a thought. I discussed this observation and perspective with Claude and it really made my thought more streamlined and clarified ambiguity. What do you think?
Claude’s elevated version:
When we imitate nature and find superior results—whether copying a bird’s wing or harnessing fusion like the sun—this shouldn’t surprise us about nature’s accomplishments. It should recalibrate our perspective. Nature’s achievements aren’t objectively extraordinary; they’re simply normal operations of physical reality, while our baseline expectations remain inadequately calibrated. What we label as “phenomenal” reveals more about the poverty of our initial assumptions than about nature itself. Our tendency to elevate the unexplained or incomprehensible to “remarkable” status represents a perspectival error: these processes are mundane to the universe, appearing exceptional only because we don’t yet understand them. The wonder we feel is an artifact of our limited vantage point, not a property of the phenomena themselves.
My original statements:
In the same way that imitating nature and finding that the result is better, we should not be surprised by the great things that nature has already achieved. It’s not that the thing that exists is amazing, it’s actually just natural but our expectations are too basic. What we don’t understand or can’t explain is instantly elevated to amazing even though it is passé to the universe.
Boiled down to: It’s our perspective that exaggerates our appreciation of all things normal as something phenomenal.
Claude: “To the universe, fusion isn’t amazing. It’s just Tuesday.”
Leave a Reply