Are you saying that the term "nature" would actually be conveying the deeper meaning that a veil, or head covering for women is as necessary even as nature provides natural hair is to cover the head?
I have thought for a long time, after studying
1 Cor. 11, (granted with my limited knowledge and abilities), that hair (for the most part) is a covering that you can't take on and off. It does seem that Paul was referencing, at least concerning a woman prophesying, that the covering was something to put on and off.
I think Daniel Wallace is probably quite correct, although I haven't heard out what he has to say about it, but the fact remains you can't take your hair on and off, unless you are wearing a wig, of course.
However, most believe the veiling, or head covering was a symbol of submission in their culture, and our culture today is most different from what the cultural rules were in that era of time.
Even the head coverings worn by the strictest Amish and Mennonite sects today would not be what the women wore 2000 years ago. From all the pictures and drawings I've seen of the cultural dress of that time period, most women were almost completely veiled, more similar to the women of India, and other Asian countries than any other head coverings worn in our culture today.
So, if then the veiling issue is really what you are trying to pinpoint here, then the bigger question remains... was it simply a cultural thing that Paul was teaching, or a greater spiritual reality?
It seems most likely that this was a spiritual reality of submission, headship, and distinction of gender that was the root of why Paul was teaching this, and not simply to install a cultural tradition as being salvational.