> Because the conditions for the universe to allow for this configuration of matter existed before man.
> Humans, a product of the universe itself, just discovered or found a way to configure matter this way.
If you accept this as the distinction between "discovery" and "manufacturing", then everything in existence is discovered rather than manufactured, which feels like a useless distinction to make. I think this is just an inherently fuzzy line. An ancient example of this is the debate around whether mathematical concepts are discovered or invented.
> then everything in existence is discovered rather than manufactured
The first time this is true. But the second time it's a known process with a known outcome (and if it isn't, then you've just discovered something else). The first time is always science. The second time is usually technology.
"everything in existence is discovered rather than manufactured, which feels like a useless distinction to make."
Is it all that fuzzy or useless if you shift your thinking to view things as discoveries made by you rather than manufactured by you?
Manufacturing something could be a process carried out by human intelligence but the knowledge to process stuff into something 'more' is a discovery to be made.
i.e. people make/invent chairs but discovered/experience a universe that lets them sit on chairs.
So humans discovered a way for matter to be configured in a new configuration for this uranium isotope, but we didn't discover how to arrange things into the shape of a chair?
> Humans, a product of the universe itself, just discovered or found a way to configure matter this way.
If you accept this as the distinction between "discovery" and "manufacturing", then everything in existence is discovered rather than manufactured, which feels like a useless distinction to make. I think this is just an inherently fuzzy line. An ancient example of this is the debate around whether mathematical concepts are discovered or invented.