Actually that is precisely what the word means.
Sure. In everyday speech that's what it means. The problem is: you're confusing that meaning with the technical scientific meaning used in physics. Then you're pretending that the everyday meaning is the same as the physics meaning, or that the two meanings are interchangeable.
As to the mountainlake:
Water potential
As usual, since you're unable to distinguish one scientific concept from the next, you have introduced a new irrelevancy. Note that this "water potential" you've cut-and-pasted is not even the same thing as the "potential energy" you talked about earlier in a similar context. And it's very far from being your usual meaning of "anything that might happen at some time in the future".
Then you don't know what science is.
Gee, thanks for letting us all know that
I don't know what science is, Write4U.
Coming from such a prestigious scientific expert as yourself, that criticism really is like a punch in the guts!
You should try to be nicer to those who can't rise to your lofty heights of science achievement. Have some sympathy for the little guy!
Bohm was 10x the scientist you are.
How could you possibly know? You don't understand Bohm, and you have no clue about any scientific achievements
I might have under my belt. I could be Stephen Hawking, for all you know. (Nice job of faking my own death, if so...)
If you don't understand Bohm, it is you who is lacking in scientific proficiency.
And if
you don't understand Bohm, what follows? Will you admit that
you lack scientific proficiency, if it turns out that you don't understand Bohm? I'm thinking not.
Hypocrite, much?
You may even enjoy reading "Wholeness and the Implicate Order".
No thanks. I read some Bohm 20-30 years ago. That was enough.