system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why is nature comprehensible to us?

I went from a physics program straight to a philosophy graduate program and so likely missed out on the relevant literature, but I can't seem to find it on the SEP. So as to make my question more precise, it was motivated by the following two sentiments: 

> It is precisely the common features of all experiences, such as characterize everything we encounter, which are the primary and most profound occasion for astonishment; indeed, one might almost say that it is the fact that anything is experienced and encountered at all. (Schrodinger)

and, 

> One may say the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility. (Einstein)

That is, we find enough reason to be astonished that, say, abelian gauge theories like quantum electrodynamics offer so precise a framework for predicting and interpreting the time evolution of natural systems. But that we are able to come to this knowledge at all, or even to knowledge of the ordinary objects of experience, seems even stranger. Are there philosophers who approach this question in any manner?
gpt
what is "nature"? what is not nature?

Kant divides our cognition into sensibility (providing access to experiences) and understanding (or intelligence related to those experiences). the phenomenologists and Merleau Ponty particularly collapsed these two, arguing that all comprehension of the world is subject to the perceptual process that creates a "lifeworld" of lived experience for the individual. 

"nature" is interesting to consider in that context, because we can ask what is natural and what isn't? philosophy of science (Kuhn and Midgley for instance) has done a lot of work to critique whiggish, objectivist accounts of sciences as providing progressively improving and pure descriptors of nature, and instead argues that the products of science (the sort of sense-experience we get from it) are both convenient and perfectly natural human constructs. 

science and technology are constantly redefining what we perceive as "natural," whether in the social sense or the "natural sciences" sense, since they are involved with expanding the scope and nuance of our lifeworld. as we articulate the natural world via science or "conquer" nature via technology, we pacify its raw strangeness, subjectifying what is otherwise incomprehensible. so comprehension also has to do with power. a pheonomenologist like Dylan Trigg might argue that nature in-and-of-itself is a horrifying abstraction beyond our comprehension, so this is why we invent our own means of interpreting it (think Bowker and Star's work on classification or Foucualt's The Order of Things)