I think we are in general agreement.
Probably not so much. The point of divergence remains significant.
At what point do we diverge? That the concept of infinite potential is a common denominator of everything and is the scientific equivalent of God which is also presented as a common denominator of everything?
IMO, Potential is a common denominator of all that exists at all levels of the universal hierarchy, in that it must be present for anything to happen at all.
It is a simple formula, all that exists, has existed and will exist in any form is (must be) preceded by potential. If the potential for something does not exist there can be no Implication of what is to become reality (in any form) and therefore does not become reality.
Hierarchically speaking, ‘potential’ is preceeded by infinitude. That means that there is no actual limit to “potential”, so the term itself becomes ‘something extra’. It is as intangible as the emergent characteristics of ‘mind’. (Isn’t this what Occam’s razor is about?)
Question: is infinitude a static or a dynamic condition?
I submit that “infinitude” is a generic term for an abstract “condition” that does not exclude the concept of “a condition of infinite potential”.
IMO, by Ockham’s razor the definition of an infinitude of pure Potential is the perfectly reduced Prime Causality for reality. I submit that the additional concept of a sentient, motivated God is the “something extra”, in that it introduces sentience, which apparently (in science) is no longer a necessary aspect of Prime Causality.
Bohm identifies the “infinitude” as a pure (dynamic) energetic “zero state” condition which he termed “insight intelligence” or a state of “pure potential”, in which Implications (specific potentials) form, which eventually become expressed in our reality. This process has to be a mathematical function, and not a product of a sentient mind. One might say, “a pseudo intelligent mathematical function”, which negates the need for an intentional and purposeful creative action, and a God.
By definition Potential is “That (the condition) which may become reality”, which means that infinite potential for becoming reality is perfectly equivalent to the concept of an infinite God with an inherent ability to create reality, sans sentience.
I think we can agree that from the human perspective we do live in a reality. So the question of causality rests on two possibilities; an implaccable process from pure potential to reality, or an intentional creation of reality which circumvents the entire process of potential becoming expressed in reality altogether.
While the latter may sound the least complicated, the notion of “intention” actually begs many more questions than it solves.
The Word that theists use for the condition named God, I call it Potential. There is no difference in function, just a different Word. Two Words, one an undefined intangible, the other a well defined latent ability, a common denominator of all that is known.
The one difference is that the function of Potential is observable and well defined as an inherent latency of everything, whereas the function of God cannot be observed or defined AND it is presumed to be purposefully motivated. IMO, this is the only difference and causes a fatal flaw in the proposition of a sentient (by human standards) God.
You have merely circumvented the intangible characteristic to allow your paradigm credence. It is equivalent to the ‘fatal flaw’ referred to above.
Why do you presume that infinite Potential needs be encapsulated and is just a property of the “intangible” you speak of?
The finitely infinite version of potential, remains an encapsulated, and therefor a relative understanding. Useful within it’s sphere, but necessarily partial and anthropomorphic. The concept of it does not acknowledge the unbounded and absolute nature of the ‘true’.
Yes it does. You are changing the goal posts with “finitely infinite”, whatever that means.
The unbounded and absolute nature of truth can certainly be “infinite potential” as being “That which may become reality.” It seems you are trying to extend this concept to an infinite intangible which is somehow sentient but which does not promise any dynamic action at all, unless you employ circular reasoning, or perhaps intense prayer.
What if Truth (infinitude) is a static zero state condition without potential? Could that be considered a Prime Causality or just a static condition?
Now consider Truth being a dynamic zero state condition of “timeless pure potential”. Which of the two seems more effective?
IMO, whatever there is, it must be dynamic and therefore must have been preceded by the potential for dynamism.
Sentience (as in human sentience) is not a property of the universe, it is an emergent property in living things.
This is the ‘preferred framework’ I mentioned earlier. I would suggest that it is akin to an optical illusion. Consider the possibility that sentience is the emergent characteristic of infinitude and that what you describe as emergent from the brains of living beings, is an abstracted sense of localized sentience. In spiritual circles, the overly specialized ramification of this is often referred to as ‘ego’. Or, the ‘false self’.
And how would a sentient infinitude work? Entanglement? Exchanging discrete packets of information? Random Chaos or a self-ordering (self-similar) fractal unfolding of spacetime itself? It’s all accomplished trough an implaccable mathematical process.
But a mental image has no substance, it is an emergent mental construct, a variable mental hologram, requiring a physical brain. Just as music requires an physical instrument to be produced, but when the music stops, it no longer exists except as a faint memory in our brain, but not outside our brain (in the universe).
What is gained by excluding the intangible? It certainly does not lead one to ‘truth’.
What is gained by including an intangible? What is the point of science, if it results in an unknowable “intangible”?
It seems to me that an intangible aspect of the infinitude is a preferred framework to justify an Intangible God. So how does one perceive an intangible God?
I would have to point out, that the absolute intangibility of infinitude, makes the fleeting and ephemeral dreams of man as heavy as lead.
Very poetic, but that begs the question; Why?
Of course we can say that as humans are part of the universe, everything a human does or thinks is part of the universe, but that would only be a fleeting moment, dependent on the activity of the thinker/musician, emerging, then dissolving. What I think is not produced by a universal mind, but is an emergent product of my perceptions and mental processes, which are at best relative to truth, but not necessarily Truth in Reality.
‘Truth’ is foundation as well as the manifestation; Entirety. The parsings of science and religion only pay homage, and most certainly do not circumvent or supplant ‘truth’.
And therefore Truth must be sentient?
Talking about an unsupported extraordinary claim. Do you propose that scripture scientifically supports the notion of an intangible Truth, or is it just wishful thnking in the direction of greater satisfaction?
That homage that we pay, can be inadvertent or intentional. It makes no difference to the Truth.
Then what is the purpose of paying homage?
The effects manifest as experience.
Yes, subjective experience of sentient organisms.
The potential of that, is unbounded.
That does not follow at all, IMO. We can just as well start with unbounded (infinite) potential. Try to see Potential as an abstract quality. That which precedes Truth.
IMO, if you cannot create a mental image of your “firmly” held belief in an “intangible” God, then how do you relate to that intangible God (the Word which you choose to use).
I prefer to identify the exact same “condition” with the word Potential and we can certainly relate to that concept in every facet of our lives as well as in all things. “That which may become reality”.
It is not clear to me how or why you would prefer an intangible God over the known quality Potential.
The only question that remains is our personal relationship with the Word. You may believe you can communicate and influence your God. I do not believe the function of the greater universal Potential and its expression in reality can be influenced, except at very, very small levels, such as in a testing laboratory, in order to test the functions of potential in our reality.
In a theist world, the testing laboratory is ritualized mental exercises in a church or temple. Do you believe prayers have an influence on a universal God?
Potential is infinitude. But not the linear kind as in a set of possibilities.
Pure Potential is not linear, it is chaos.
I think that this must be what you envision, and it explains the exclusion of the intangible from your version of the Universe.
You are right, this is exactly how I see it. And I would argue that in the condition of pure infinite potential (metaphysical chaos) there is no sentience, intangible or otherwise.
The linear process starts with the first ordering of a “field” within the intangible chaos of infinite potentials, an Implicate.
As Carlin said, what about God’s grand design? Can it change by wishing (praying) it to be different?
Even in the relative primitivity of my (and presumably your) experience, reality is wonderfully malleable.
I agree, as long as the malleability remains within the mathematical framework. There are no miracles.
George’s too. He must be talking about something else.
No, Carlin knew exactly what he was talking about. He just presented it in verbal caricature, but that did not make it less profound in principle.
I wish someone would explain that the phrase “man was created in god’s image” is a metaphor and does NOT bestow man any special status over all the other things that were also created in God’s image (That which did become reality). and least of all, sentience, which can be shown to be an emergent quality of neural complexity.