1 plus 1 equal 2. That is knowledge. Knowledge is nothing more than comparison. The more things you have to compare, the more knowledge you have. Intelligent is a skill. A book can contain knowledge. But a book cannot contain intelligent. As far as translating everything to mathematics, that is what a computer does. As far as the need for “guiding hand". Totally not logical.
Point being, I agree with your points and views. Then the question comes up. Have we got all the knowledge to establish the math base for creation? Or are we lacking the intelligent to do so.
1 plus 1 equal 2. That is knowledge. Knowledge is nothing more than comparison. The more things you have to compare, the more knowledge you have. Intelligent is a skill. A book can contain knowledge. But a book cannot contain intelligent. As far as translating everything to mathematics, that is what a computer does. As far as the need for “guiding hand". Totally not logical. Point being, I agree with your points and views. Then the question comes up. Have we got all the knowledge to establish the math base for creation? Or are we lacking the intelligent to do so.Oh, that is the crux of the matter. The irony is that we don't know if we are intelligent enough to understand how the Beginning came about, until and unless we have sufficient knowledge. Then the question becomes reversed and it assumes we are intelligent enough, but lack just a few last pieces of the puzzle. The Tegmark clip shows the underlying simplicity of the universal mathematical functions and in our ability to symbolize them from recurring mathematical patterns. We can write down what we see. Then we can search for that which makes it able to be seen. The very simplicity of his hypothesis is so elegant and constant that IMO, a natural mathematically functioning universe will eventually reveal the ultimate causality of Energy. . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtAFiI39_I But the Antonsen clip is very encouraging and with our knowledge expanding and accelerating by use of computers, I believe that someday we will gain enough knowledge to propose a fundamental dynamical precursor, causal to the BB. He demonstrates the forms and perfectly artistic shapes abstractly implied in the number 4/3. It's really beautiful. http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world? I may even have posted these before, but both these lectures are entertaining and mind-expanding. I'm an empath... :bug:
I appreciate that atheists do not believe in a God in the religious sense of the word. But do most atheists agree that some intelligent entity initiated or guided the process? I am willing to accept that if you throw enough atoms together in some space-time machine you end up with us… but ‘someone or thing’ coded those atoms! Are scientists then in the process of getting to know this ‘someone or thing’ by deciphering its work of art. And also perhaps what the purpose of this work of art is. I have heard at some stage the theory that because the Big Bang has a beginning and an eventual end, when all hydrogen and helium are depleted, the logical deduction points to some purpose… that is; a project has a purpose. My belief, or rather gut feel, leans heavily towards an intelligent entity, to the extent that I find it difficult that some atheists end at believing in nothing-nothing. No purpose driven kick-starter that initiated the process… I am not saying that us humans are neccesarily in the limelight of this experiment, it might be to witness the growth (or evolution) of consciousness of atoms over millennia.We don't believe in nothing, we believe in the scientfic method, which demands objective evidence to support claims. "Awesomeness" is not evidence. "Leanings" are not evidence. Feelings are not evidence. Your need or desire to posit a "purpose driven kick-starter" is not evidence. Atheists don't care if people "lean heavily" toward an intelligent entity. That is simply a preference. We lean heavily toward a rational explanation backed up by evidence for how life began. We don't care about anyone's "leanings" toward an explanatin without evidence. We only care about evidence. Without it there is no argument. We accept that we don't know precisely how life began. We're ok not knowing until actual, testable evidence comes our way. What we're not ok with are empty claims and "awesomeness" or "leanings" or theists' frustrations that atheists don't mind as much as theists do if we don't know. We certainly don't mind enough to dream up an answer with no evidence behind it.
1 plus 1 equal 2. That is knowledge. Knowledge is nothing more than comparison. The more things you have to compare, the more knowledge you have. Intelligent is a skill. A book can contain knowledge. But a book cannot contain intelligent. As far as translating everything to mathematics, that is what a computer does. As far as the need for “guiding hand". Totally not logical. Point being, I agree with your points and views. Then the question comes up. Have we got all the knowledge to establish the math base for creation? Or are we lacking the intelligent to do so.It isn't intelligence we're lacking. It's objective evidence. Without objective evidence that there is or was a creator, the default is that there is no creator. We don't have enough knowledge to establish a math base for creation and all the wishful thinking in the world is not going to create it. For knowledge you need evidence, and none has been presented. Raging at the fact that we don't know is useless. Pretending we can establish a math base without evidence is also useless.
@ Lois,
I am not sure if I agree with the very last part of your post. Why do we keep looking? Perhaps new equipment will give us new information, until we have sufficient secondary data to infer a mathematical function which was causal to the BB.
For me the question of an intelligent creator is something of interest. We are indeed just star dust that came together with very precise forces and chemistry and evolutionary tricks. Don't forget the consciousness bit. If we want to define this as the spaghetti-jelly monster that is fine. All this is for me still pretty awesome. Most probably there is life abundantly over the universe. And photons might look different elsewhere. But none of this contradicts with the intelligent creator theory. I am not too concerned about the further question of the creator's, creator, and its creator, I think we have enough on our plates for now.That's the trouble with the "intelligent creator theory". The question of where this creator came from isn't just a trivial question. Life is complex. That's what separates it from "ordinary" physical matter, like stars and planets. And by all means don't forget the "consciousness bit"! Consciousness didn't just spring into existence fully formed from a random collision of a couple of molecules. It was the end result of millions of years of evolution. If there was an intelligent creator, where did IT come from? If your "intelligent creator theory" is correct, it would have to have been created by still another intelligent creator, and so on ad infinitum. So your "theory" hasn't really answered the question: Where does complexity come from?
I am somewhat amazed that atheists quickly stops at the science portion and do not philosophy about the beauty of science, in all its splendour - from atoms to consciousness. Does this appreciation not at least push you towards some creator? The 'what does a creator imply?' is the next set of questions. A true atheist then cannot believe in a non-creator, only that it does not care to speculate further, not withstanding the "awesomeness"factor... is this an accurate deduction?Obviously you haven't read much of Neil Degrasse Tyson's work. We do spend a lot of time wondering at the awesomeness of the universe, wondering and speculating about how we got here, how our consciousness works, what it's component parts are, how it evolved... It don't see that it pushes me toward a creator, for the reason I mentioned above. Postulating a creator simply does not answer any questions.
1 plus 1 equal 2. That is knowledge. Knowledge is nothing more than comparison. The more things you have to compare, the more knowledge you have. Intelligent is a skill. A book can contain knowledge. But a book cannot contain intelligent. As far as translating everything to mathematics, that is what a computer does. As far as the need for “guiding hand". Totally not logical. Point being, I agree with your points and views. Then the question comes up. Have we got all the knowledge to establish the math base for creation? Or are we lacking the intelligent to do so.Oh, that is the crux of the matter. The irony is that we don't know if we are intelligent enough to understand how the Beginning came about, until and unless we have sufficient knowledge. Then the question becomes reversed and it assumes we are intelligent enough, but lack just a few last pieces of the puzzle. The Tegmark clip shows the underlying simplicity of the universal mathematical functions and in our ability to symbolize them from recurring mathematical patterns. We can write down what we see. Then we can search for that which makes it able to be seen. The very simplicity of his hypothesis is so elegant and constant that IMO, a natural mathematically functioning universe will eventually reveal the ultimate causality of Energy. . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtAFiI39_I But the Antonsen clip is very encouraging and with our knowledge expanding and accelerating by use of computers, I believe that someday we will gain enough knowledge to propose a fundamental dynamical precursor, causal to the BB. He demonstrates the forms and perfectly artistic shapes abstractly implied in the number 4/3. It's really beautiful. http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world? I may even have posted these before, but both these lectures are entertaining and mind-expanding. I'm an empath... :bug: The way I understand math is that it is a form of measurement. There seems to be a lot of matrix types of thinking like in the movie. But math like the alphabet is a knowledgeable method of communication and method of gaining more knowledge. As far as the creator. You don’t need math to understand the creator idea is denialism of science and history.
For me the question of an intelligent creator is something of interest. We are indeed just star dust that came together with very precise forces and chemistry and evolutionary tricks. Don't forget the consciousness bit. If we want to define this as the spaghetti-jelly monster that is fine. All this is for me still pretty awesome. Most probably there is life abundantly over the universe. And photons might look different elsewhere. But none of this contradicts with the intelligent creator theory. I am not too concerned about the further question of the creator's, creator, and its creator, I think we have enough on our plates for now. The theory of the "we are the God", for me also falls in the creator theory. I am somewhat amazed that atheists quickly stops at the science portion and do not philosophy about the beauty of science, in all its splendour - from atoms to consciousness. Does this appreciation not at least push you towards some creator? The 'what does a creator imply?' is the next set of questions. A true atheist then cannot believe in a non-creator, only that it does not care to speculate further, not withstanding the "awesomeness"factor... is this an accurate deduction?No and no. "Awesomeness" means nothing. It's simply an emotional response. In no way does it support a creator claim. That's no more than wishful thinking.LoisL is a little harsh I think. True scientists, Einstein especially, are driven primarily by that sense of wonder and not knowing. And part of that IS wondering about the possibility of either a Creator or a creator (little c - as in super advanced being that isn't the big C). I mean look at Star Trek. One of the best characters is Q, who is an immortal omnipotent being who is a small c creator, not a big C. It's fun and fascinating, but ultimately fruitless because it all boils down to "who created the Creator". And that's a showstopper. So scientists move on and get down to the real work of figuring stuff out.
True scientists, Einstein especially, are driven primarily by that sense of wonder and not knowing. And part of that IS wondering about the possibility of either a Creator or a creator (little c - as in super advanced being that isn't the big C). I mean look at Star Trek. One of the best characters is Q, who is an immortal omnipotent being who is a small c creator, not a big C. It's fun and fascinating, but ultimately fruitless because it all boils down to "who created the Creator". And that's a showstopper. So scientists move on and get down to the real work of figuring stuff out.Star Trek is science fiction. I agree with your point, but you're mixing categories. I've read quite a bit about science over the decades, and had beers with a dozen or so research cosmologists and astrophysicists, as well as spending time on observing fields with professional astronomers and science educators. I don't recall any of them pondering a creator. They ponder the origin of the universe, but like Laplace they see no need for a creator. Q is a fictional character. Scientists stick to reality even when they're trying to figure out things we do not yet know. Their hypotheses must fit the math. With few exceptions when scientists discuss a creator they do so only to refute the idea. Edit for clarity and typos
W4U said, But the Antonsen clip is very encouraging and with our knowledge expanding and accelerating by use of computers, I believe that someday we will gain enough knowledge to propose a fundamental dynamical precursor, causal to the BB. He demonstrates the forms and perfectly artistic shapes abstractly implied in the number 4/3. It’s really beautiful.http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?
Mike Yohe said, The way I understand math is that it is a form of measurement. There seems to be a lot of matrix types of thinking like in the movie. But math like the alphabet is a knowledgeable method of communication and method of gaining more knowledge. As far as the creator. You don’t need math to understand the creator idea is denialism of science and history.Obviously you have not yet watched the clip or you would not try to reduce mathematics to just a "measurement", it runs much deeper. Distance is a measurement, mathematics is the language which translates all measurements and their implications., which Antonsen so elegantly showed in his analysis of the number 4/3 (1.33333...) and creating a curved pattern (parabola) from purely straight lines, which IMO shows the pervasive power of mathematical functions. I agree with Tegmark that the universe has not just some mathematical properties, but that it has only mathematical properties. We live in an ocean of mathematical systems, actions, and interactions, from the very subtle (in the abstract) to gross expression in our reality.. We have pretty well figured out how to translate our reality in mathematical terms, but at the very subtlest level (quantum) we still havethings to discover, but whatever we discover, it will be of a mathematical nature. It cannot be otherwise, regardless if God exists or not.
@ Lois, I am not sure if I agree with the very last part of your post. Why do we keep looking? Perhaps new equipment will give us new information, until we have sufficient secondary data to infer a mathematical function which was causal to the BB.It's human nature to keep looking, but only irrational people accept explanations without evidence. Can we establish a math base on pure speculation? How would that work?
For me the question of an intelligent creator is something of interest. We are indeed just star dust that came together with very precise forces and chemistry and evolutionary tricks. Don't forget the consciousness bit. If we want to define this as the spaghetti-jelly monster that is fine. All this is for me still pretty awesome. Most probably there is life abundantly over the universe. And photons might look different elsewhere. But none of this contradicts with the intelligent creator theory. I am not too concerned about the further question of the creator's, creator, and its creator, I think we have enough on our plates for now. The theory of the "we are the God", for me also falls in the creator theory. I am somewhat amazed that atheists quickly stops at the science portion and do not philosophy about the beauty of science, in all its splendour - from atoms to consciousness. Does this appreciation not at least push you towards some creator? The 'what does a creator imply?' is the next set of questions. A true atheist then cannot believe in a non-creator, only that it does not care to speculate further, not withstanding the "awesomeness"factor... is this an accurate deduction?No and no. "Awesomeness" means nothing. It's simply an emotional response. In no way does it support a creator claim. That's no more than wishful thinking.LoisL is a little harsh I think. True scientists, Einstein especially, are driven primarily by that sense of wonder and not knowing. And part of that IS wondering about the possibility of either a Creator or a creator (little c - as in super advanced being that isn't the big C). I mean look at Star Trek. One of the best characters is Q, who is an immortal omnipotent being who is a small c creator, not a big C. It's fun and fascinating, but ultimately fruitless because it all boils down to "who created the Creator". And that's a showstopper. So scientists move on and get down to the real work of figuring stuff out. Nothing wrong with wondering or speculating. Accepting claims without evidence as true is the problem.
@ Lois, I am not sure if I agree with the very last part of your post. Why do we keep looking? Perhaps new equipment will give us new information, until we have sufficient secondary data to infer a mathematical function which was causal to the BB.It's human nature to keep looking, but only irrational people accept explanations without evidence. Can we establish a math base on pure speculation? How would that work? No, but with more secondary data we may be able to form a mathematical model. The actual causal event itself will forever be hidden from direct observation, but the beauty of mathematical functions is their reliability. I believe several models have already been proposed and are being studied. But when we speak of *symmetry breaking*, etc. we are addressing mathematical functions, and if any mathematical patterns emerge from our observations, we might be able to infer a pre-universe causal event. I know this is an optimistic view, but if we consider how fast our knowledge is expanding, I have hope that someday we may be able to say "this is the way it must have happened because all the secondary effects point to a specific mathematical function. This is what Tegmark posited and he believes the answer may be a simple mathematical function which made the BB a mathematical imperative.
I watched the clip. We don’t need math to prove if god the creator exists or not. All we need is a calendar. I didn’t get that math has any magical powers. I agree that math is the language, but math is still comparison which is knowledge. I thought that the examples of other animals using math was rather weak. And I didn’t get that the universe is only mathematical properties. It may be that we can only explain the universe with mathematics,W4U said, But the Antonsen clip is very encouraging and with our knowledge expanding and accelerating by use of computers, I believe that someday we will gain enough knowledge to propose a fundamental dynamical precursor, causal to the BB. He demonstrates the forms and perfectly artistic shapes abstractly implied in the number 4/3. It’s really beautiful.http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?Mike Yohe said, The way I understand math is that it is a form of measurement. There seems to be a lot of matrix types of thinking like in the movie. But math like the alphabet is a knowledgeable method of communication and method of gaining more knowledge. As far as the creator. You don’t need math to understand the creator idea is denialism of science and history.Obviously you have not yet watched the clip or you would not try to reduce mathematics to just a "measurement", it runs much deeper. Distance is a measurement, mathematics is the language which translates all measurements and their implications., which Antonsen so elegantly showed in his analysis of the number 4/3 (1.33333...) and creating a curved pattern (parabola) from purely straight lines, which IMO shows the pervasive power of mathematical functions. I agree with Tegmark that the universe has not just some mathematical properties, but that it has only mathematical properties. We live in an ocean of mathematical systems, actions, and interactions, from the very subtle (in the abstract) to gross expression in our reality.. We have pretty well figured out how to translate our reality in mathematical terms, but at the very subtlest level (quantum) we still havethings to discover, but whatever we discover, it will be of a mathematical nature. It cannot be otherwise, regardless if God exists or not.
I watched the clip. We don’t need math to prove if god the creator exists or not. All we need is a calendar. I didn’t get that math has any magical powers. I agree that math is the language, but math is still comparison which is knowledge. I thought that the examples of other animals using math was rather weak. And I didn’t get that the universe is only mathematical properties. It may be that we can only explain the universe with mathematics, That's the point. Everything can be explained mathematically because it functions mathematically. The functions were there before we *discovered* them. Thus, in direct answer to the OP question, IF there is a God. It must be of an abstract mathematical nature and more importantly, not an intelligent and motivated mathematician. If you can provide alternative properties of God, I invite you to present them now/.W4U said, But the Antonsen clip is very encouraging and with our knowledge expanding and accelerating by use of computers, I believe that someday we will gain enough knowledge to propose a fundamental dynamical precursor, causal to the BB. He demonstrates the forms and perfectly artistic shapes abstractly implied in the number 4/3. It’s really beautiful.http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?Mike Yohe said, The way I understand math is that it is a form of measurement. There seems to be a lot of matrix types of thinking like in the movie. But math like the alphabet is a knowledgeable method of communication and method of gaining more knowledge. As far as the creator. You don’t need math to understand the creator idea is denialism of science and history.Obviously you have not yet watched the clip or you would not try to reduce mathematics to just a "measurement", it runs much deeper. Distance is a measurement, mathematics is the language which translates all measurements and their implications., which Antonsen so elegantly showed in his analysis of the number 4/3 (1.33333...) and creating a curved pattern (parabola) from purely straight lines, which IMO shows the pervasive power of mathematical functions. I agree with Tegmark that the universe has not just some mathematical properties, but that it has only mathematical properties. We live in an ocean of mathematical systems, actions, and interactions, from the very subtle (in the abstract) to gross expression in our reality.. We have pretty well figured out how to translate our reality in mathematical terms, but at the very subtlest level (quantum) we still havethings to discover, but whatever we discover, it will be of a mathematical nature. It cannot be otherwise, regardless if God exists or not.
I watched the clip. We don’t need math to prove if god the creator exists or not. All we need is a calendar. I didn’t get that math has any magical powers. I agree that math is the language, but math is still comparison which is knowledge. I thought that the examples of other animals using math was rather weak. And I didn’t get that the universe is only mathematical properties. It may be that we can only explain the universe with mathematics, That's the point. Everything can be explained mathematically because it functions mathematically. The functions were there before we *discovered* them. Thus, in direct answer to the OP question, IF there is a God. It must be of an abstract mathematical nature and more importantly, not an intelligent and motivated mathematician. If you can provide alternative properties of God, I invite you to present them now/. I don’t believe there is a creator god. But if there was, I can see your point.W4U said, But the Antonsen clip is very encouraging and with our knowledge expanding and accelerating by use of computers, I believe that someday we will gain enough knowledge to propose a fundamental dynamical precursor, causal to the BB. He demonstrates the forms and perfectly artistic shapes abstractly implied in the number 4/3. It’s really beautiful.http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?Mike Yohe said, The way I understand math is that it is a form of measurement. There seems to be a lot of matrix types of thinking like in the movie. But math like the alphabet is a knowledgeable method of communication and method of gaining more knowledge. As far as the creator. You don’t need math to understand the creator idea is denialism of science and history.Obviously you have not yet watched the clip or you would not try to reduce mathematics to just a "measurement", it runs much deeper. Distance is a measurement, mathematics is the language which translates all measurements and their implications., which Antonsen so elegantly showed in his analysis of the number 4/3 (1.33333...) and creating a curved pattern (parabola) from purely straight lines, which IMO shows the pervasive power of mathematical functions. I agree with Tegmark that the universe has not just some mathematical properties, but that it has only mathematical properties. We live in an ocean of mathematical systems, actions, and interactions, from the very subtle (in the abstract) to gross expression in our reality.. We have pretty well figured out how to translate our reality in mathematical terms, but at the very subtlest level (quantum) we still havethings to discover, but whatever we discover, it will be of a mathematical nature. It cannot be otherwise, regardless if God exists or not.
Mike Yohe said, I don’t believe there is a creator god. But if there was, I can see your point.Are you purposely misunderstanding me? I don't believe in a creator god. I believe in a creative Mathematical function. A timeless permittive condition with a certain inherent Mathematical Potential. Probability. Mathematics is a logical language of patterns, some creative, some destructive, but recognizable by their constant recurrence in specific forms.of specific patterns. Fractals , patterns that are based on the simplest known plane (form) , the triangle. CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation), by Renate Loll and colleagues has found great support. (search Wiki for Renate Loll). It proposes that Spacetime itself unfolds (evolves) in a fractal (mathematical) manner. The potential for variety inherent in the fractal functions is near infinite as long as it is mathematically permitted is derived from basic simplicity of mathematical requirements. It is mathematically permitted by the "permittive condition". http://cdn2-www.webecoist.momtastic.com/assets/uploads/2008/08/white-and-blue-peacock.jpg
"I find the ideas in the fractals, both as a body of knowledge and as a metaphor, an incredibly important way of looking at the world." Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore, New York Times, Wednesday, June 21, 2000, discussing some of the "big think" questions that intrigue himIMO, causal Potential (that which may become reality) can only be coherently expressed through *some form* of purely logical functions and processes. (Patterns). Man's greatest asset is the invention of several mathematical languages which can translate known patterns. which we clearly see all around us. Its a remarkable ability of dynamical expressions.
Then I don’t get your point. I thought your point was that if there was a creator the only way it could be defined was by mathematical language. Please step me though your points.Mike Yohe said, I don’t believe there is a creator god. But if there was, I can see your point.Are you purposely misunderstanding me? I don't believe in a creator god. I believe in a creative Mathematical function. A timeless permittive condition with a certain inherent Mathematical Potential. Probability. Mathematics is a logical language of patterns, some creative, some destructive, but recognizable by their constant recurrence in specific forms.of specific patterns. Fractals , patterns that are based on the simplest known plane (form) , the triangle. CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation), by Renate Loll and colleagues has found great support. (search Wiki for Renate Loll). It proposes that Spacetime itself unfolds (evolves) in a fractal (mathematical) manner. The potential for variety inherent in the fractal functions is near infinite as long as it is mathematically permitted is derived from basic simplicity of mathematical requirements. It is mathematically permitted by the "permittive condition"."I find the ideas in the fractals, both as a body of knowledge and as a metaphor, an incredibly important way of looking at the world." Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore, New York Times, Wednesday, June 21, 2000, discussing some of the "big think" questions that intrigue himIMO, causal Potential (that which may become reality) can only be coherently expressed through *some form* of purely logical functions and processes. (Patterns). Man's greatest asset is the invention of several mathematical languages which can translate known patterns. which we clearly see all around us. Its a remarkable ability of dynamical expressions.
Mike Yohe said, Then I don’t get your point. I thought your point was that if there was a creator the only way it could be defined was by mathematical language. Please step me though your points.Is an abstract mathematical function necessarily intelligent or motivated.? The god you describe does not exist in spiritual literature. If we had to fashion a name for IT, Mathematics actually has an equation for a mathematical imperative. Potential. Today science speaks of a different kind of god with this equation, God = Potential = *That which may become reality*, through natural mathematical *imperatives*, but NOT intelligent or motivated in and of itself. I's just Potential waiting to become expressed by way of Probability and the law of *necessity and sufficiency*. Potential is a common denominator of all things, it is the "soul" of the universe. It is mathematical in essence, but it a not a motivated intelligence. IMO, in Science the word God, as an intentional creator, is superfluous and by Occam's Razor......? p.s. I do like Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate order". It is a beautiful and elegant metaphor.
Can you replace the word “GOD" with the word “KNOWLEDGE"?Mike Yohe said, Then I don’t get your point. I thought your point was that if there was a creator the only way it could be defined was by mathematical language. Please step me though your points.Is an abstract mathematical function necessarily intelligent or motivated.? The god you describe does not exist in spiritual literature. If we had to fashion a name for IT, Mathematics actually has an equation for a mathematical imperative. Potential. Today science speaks of a different kind of god with this equation, God = Potential = *That which may become reality*, through natural mathematical *imperatives*, but NOT intelligent or motivated in and of itself. I's just Potential waiting to become expressed by way of Probability and the law of *necessity and sufficiency*. Potential is a common denominator of all things, it is the "soul" of the universe. It is mathematical in essence, but it a not a motivated intelligence. IMO, in Science the word God, as an intentional creator, is superfluous and by Occam's Razor......? p.s. I do like Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate order". It is a beautiful and elegant metaphor.