I disagree with you here on the grounds that as humans we do in fact correspond to nature and any opinion that nature posesses an independent logic must rest soley upon the points of it with which we correspond. For example, our physical bodies are part of nature and understanding one gives to us also an understanding of the other. And since it is true that we do things with or use our physical bodies via the operation of our minds, then it is fair to say that we also do things with or use nature via the operation of our minds. In this sense nature also 'follows' our logic. If the plurality that's found in nature is to be understood or related in any way it can only be so by way of intelligible intellectual processes and not brute or blind empirical terms.
I am not saying there is no correspondence to nature. I was denying the remark by Kant that the laws of nature are the result of human understanding. We discover them, but they are there to be discovered. We have evolved to our nature, as part of nature, and can sense what is there, and often what is not there. Is it possible we are missing some of what is there in gross. I doubt it. We are likely missing the mental ability to discover its logic, its form of behavior, or its laws. Nature does not follow our logic. Our sense of logical expectations is almost entirely built upon nature. There may be causes without effect, but no effects without causes.
What I mean here is it can not be proven that nature posesses its own independent logic anymore than it can be proven that there exist absolute things as time and space. Nature corresponds with our minds and vice versa through the understanding, through the natural order of things. We can not imagine or conceptualize nature as existing without perception - and I would say there is a definite state of equality between that which is perceived by us in nature and that which is thought to be perceived i.e. an intelligible equality of relations exists between thought and the physical world.
Matter behaves in an orderly and predictable fashion. I have been reading the Secret History of the Atomic Bomb, and it is fascinating how advanced the physics was of 60 plus years ago. And they knew before testing the first bomb what it would do, and had the others sitting ready to go. To jamb all this U235, or pl239 into a critical and supercritical mass, and in a small fraction of a second the expansion due to heat would bring it to a point where no more nuetrons could find targets and the chain reaction would cease. Bamb, its done, let the clean up begin. Only humanity failed to follow the laws of nature, except when it came to dieing at the prescribed moment. Understanding writes the laws, but the forces and reactions are not just there, but here, as what we are made of.
Schopenhauer expressed it more generally as "no object without a subject." That is, it is impossible for something to be an object of human conception without its being conceived by a human subject. As Berkeley put it, any attempt to conceive of perceptual objects as existing "without the mind" requires "that you conceive them existing unconceived or unthought of, which is a manifest repugnancy. When we do our utmost to conceive the existence of external bodies, we are all the whole contemplating our own ideas" (Principles of Human Knowledge, Section 23).
And I say it differently. We assume that existence exists without us, before us, and after us; but it is our own lives which gives to all existence its meaning. Our thoughts do not affect being. What ever is, is, with or without us. We do not conceive of everything. That would be a complete waste of time and ability. We conceive of only those things with value, and give them meaning by conceiving of them. List our major conceptions, the top 10, the top 100, and etc. You will find the first are formost of what we value, or find essential to life. Life is meaning, and not being.
That's quaint, but I think the basic point is that we do not occupy space and time; or more specifically all of us together and indeed the whole universe (whatever that is) are said to occupy one space or one point about space and one point about time. What I mean is that motion is illusory, or that's the way that I interpret the philosophy. There is no space or time because these things are transcendental appearances.
We freeze most phenomenon of reality in space and time to conceive of them. We cannot conceive of whirlygigs whirling for the most part. We have to disect the dead to sense the living. Yet, ideas are in no sense correct. You can stand the Empire State Building beside the Pyramids in your head when you cannot lift a stone of either. The impossible can be done because it can be conceived of, and is not conceived of only because it is possible. And again we, in our lives and in our bodies are both time and space. You are a set number of seconds. You are the increasing space you replace with matter. These may, as external reference, serve to give context to all change that occurs; but we cannot escape them even in our thoughts.
I would even argue that each of the spaces that we all occupy is really the same space, or the same non-space, if you will. When we walk forward into a different room, for example, we are actually occupying the same exact (non-)space as before as we merely displace "energies," as the phenomenologists might say, or conserve the total perception of motion. Do we move through the world or does the world move through us? I think it's a fair question because we can't conceive of absolute time without an individual instance of time and we can't conceive of absolute space without an example of it; therefore I would argue, they don't exist as such. Because who are we if we are not natural and what is nature when it perceives itself but symmetrical and uniform? If it is intelligible or intelligibly connected, I would argue, then it remains unmoved.
I am not certain I get your point, but our space, living space, must be displaced of gas before we can occupy it. Even outer space is full of elements which may in some sense expand to what we might consider unnatural limits. But time and space are not absolutes except in terms of our space and our time. Your space and your time is totally relative to me, and totally subjective as an experience. My time and my space are an absolute and objective experience.
But it seems to me that we can either let the physical world go and try to see the whole by abstracting the truth or remain blinded by what 'the many' think are realities.
What we recognize in the phenomena or its abstract, causal relationships is something that is not an emprical object in nature, what we recognize in the mere phenomena is something that is eternally motionless yet intelligible. We call it truth. And furthermore our method of ascending to it is through contemplation, stillness, uniformity and simplicity; the virtue of philosophy.
We do not see the world as it is in itself. That is something we can approach as an understanding. We sense the world as it appears and form concepts which reflect our grasp of the reality we are perceiving. From the magnification of our senses we can build a more detailed picture of reality, but these do little more than scratch the surface of any being. All we need to do is understand the limits of knowledge. We do not have to understand every fact of life to improve by degrees the quality of our lives.
I assume a typo above. I see the phenomenon as being of two sorts, of those we can identify with a concept, and those we cannot identify by any means. Everything is in motion. Our concepts are static, but reality is dynamic. We pull a piece of reality apart from its background and freeze it to examine it. We must kill everything to see it, and can restore nothing to its former being. Can we restore nature to its place in our conceptions? Can we build up a true picture of a real reality? I don't know. I think the test of the value of our conception is in what we can do with them. We have proved their potential for destruction. Now what good can we do with them.