Yes.
> Those differentiations belong to your familiar top-down religious
> cosmogony. "Primal Cause" might as well be termed 'Creation', except that that would be rather too
> blatant.
Either you're misreading me, or I wrote poorly. I'm not saying "God did
it" at all, for that matter the idea that all of "creation" ever came
into existence, as opposed to having simply always existed, is one that
it is not necessary to accept. I will try to paraphrase to make it more
clear.
The material universe is an effect, not a cause.
All primal causes originate in a realm beyond the material universe.
All causal chains that appear within the material universe are
incomplete; the primal cause in each originates "outside" of the
material universe.
> That's all fine by me. My only point was that order and chaos contain the seeds of each
> other, as in the Yin/Yang symbol, and, I have little doubt, co-exist at all possible levels of a
> possibly segmented universe.
>
Order and chaos don't contain the seeds of each other, they are separate
and mutually exclusive; true chaos does not exist within the material
universe, any more than acausal events occur within the material
universe. Chaos theory has to do with a level of complexity beyond
human understanding, and that is not the same as true chaos which admits
no order whatsoever.
You might be asking what difference it makes. If a man lives in a box
what difference does it make whether the sun is visible outside the box
or not. The difference is that because he lives in a box, the man
cannot see the sun, and will almost certainly be unable to explain why
the temperature of certain walls varies over time. He may decide that
it is magic, ie "random", since it has nothing to do with anything
inside the box. This is the situation human science is in, because
presuming that everything causal is within the box of the material
universe it can only conclude that the unexplained is inexplicable or
"random".
One may well say that science will eventually discover the reasons
behind inexplicable changes in the temperature of the box's walls, but
unless it hypothesizes that all evidence available is only the evidence
available within the box of materiality, it will never escape from the
phenomenon of the inexplicable "random" occurrence.
For that matter we (mankind) might as well be deaf and blind for all the
information our physical senses give us, we can't see infrared for
example, and if not for lightning and similarly obvious manifestations
of electricity we'd probably never have discovered it. If you can't
sense something there's no way you can know it's there to sense except
for logic. When the pieces don't fit there's a reason they don't fit,
and a partial set of pieces will never become a complete picture.