This page in one paragraph
On this page we look not at the content of any one sentence but at the state of exceeding reason itself: reason says "this cannot be," and then, either in a text or in a laboratory, the thing is seen to be. The row that stands closest is the first one, under the heading "what was held impossible turns out real"; even that one we only say "greets from a distance," because the order "first a prohibition, then a fact" occurs in many places in science and does not single Dost out. The second row, where both opposites are needed, also greets from a distance, but the greatest divergence is there: in physics the two pictures appear in separate setups, whereas Dost holds the opposites in a single thing. For tanzih and tashbih, and for the claim that saying unity breaks unity, we looked for no counterpart in physics; for "the small takes in the great" and for "neither exists nor does not exist" there was a tempting pairing, and we deliberately did not make it. What remains open is whether they point to the same limit or only share a verbal resemblance; and, since this form is weak on its own, whether its real worth lies in being the frame that holds the other forms together, which we also ask.
What is this form?
On this page we look not at the content of any one sentence but at the state of exceeding reason itself. Reason says of something, "it cannot be." Then, either in a text or in a laboratory, that thing is seen to be. Reason does not fall silent, but it also notices its own limit.
This is the most general of the forms we set side by side. Most of the other forms stand somewhere inside it: the coexistence of opposites, the veiling effect of knowledge, the reversal of containment. For that reason this is also where we must be most careful. For anything that seems to exceed reason can be likened to something else; moreover, exceeding reason is found in other traditions too, so this form alone does not set Dost apart. We look only at this: when both sides say they exceed reason, do they say it in the same form?
An aid to the telling: someone who looks at a compass pointing north and thinks "direction is single" reaches the pole and sees the needle begin to turn every way. The compass is not broken. The assumption carried by the word "direction" simply does not suffice there. Exceeding reason is sometimes a place like that.
What does Dost say?
The quotations below are taken from the Turkish chapter summaries on the site, with page numbers. The Arabic was never compared.
«By his joining of two opposites.» (c10k130, p. 247-248)
Abu Sa'id al-Kharraz was asked, "By what did you know Allah?" and this was his answer. So the way of knowing Allah passes through being able to hold opposites together. The answer does not state a piece of information; it states a manner of knowing. Knowing comes not by choosing one of the opposites but by carrying both at once.
«he learns to bring two opposites together. This is the presence of an opposite in its own opposite.» (c10k127, p. 100-101)
What is described here is not opposites standing side by side but one being found within the other. The text counts this as "the strongest knowledge." Two things stand in the same place and at the same time, yet without taking each other's place. In asking whether physics has something similar, it is the "at the same time, in the same place" part that needs looking at.
«Had the state that reason deems impossible been impossible in itself and in reality, that thing would not have been described with existence at the level of the barzakh; yet in the barzakh it has been perceived by the senses.» (c15k190)
The text says this: even if reason has called something "impossible," if that thing can be perceived by the senses in the barzakh, it need not be impossible. The limit is the limit of reason itself; it is not presented as the limit of the thing. Here we have the form "what was held impossible later turns out real"; since there are places in physics that resemble this, the first pairing on this page comes from here, but this form is common in science.
«Tanzih means the limiting of the one declared transcendent, while tashbih means the doubling of the one likened.» (c17k224, p. 223)
To keep Allah far from everything (tanzih) is like confining him to a place; to give him a likeness (tashbih) is like splitting him in two. Both fall short. Of the two easy roads, neither is safe. Whichever we choose, we limit something.
«Minds ascribe absoluteness to al-Haqq. They do not know that absoluteness too is a limitation.» (c12k145, p. 155)
The moment we say "limitless," we have drawn a limit called "not limited." Even when reason utters the greatest word, that word casts its own shadow. This sentence is the kind that is understood only when read with care.
«To know Allah is the very not-knowing of Him / Not to know Allah is the very knowledge, consider» (c10k126, p. 85)
Here knowing and not knowing are counted as the very same thing. The text does not say this like a riddle; it says it as a kind of knowledge. Even "knowing that one does not know" is counted here as a perception.
What is there in physics?
The sources we list here show how a result that exceeds reason was found. In each we tried to separate the experiment first, then the theory, then the interpretation.
Bell 1964 — The limit of local hidden order
In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked: might quantum theory be incomplete? That is, was something already determinate before measurement, with the theory simply not saying so? John Bell made this question testable. Imagine we measure two linked particles in distant places. If there is a "local" hidden order that settles each particle's result in advance and is not affected from afar, then the relation between the two results cannot exceed a certain limit. Bell wrote this limit as an inequality. The predictions of quantum theory exceed this limit at some settings. This is a theoretical result, not an experiment; the experiments were done afterwards. What the result leaves behind, that is, locality or pre-existing determinacy, is still debated. [Bell 1964]
Aspect 1982 — The experiment that changed the measurement direction in flight
Aspect and colleagues measured the polarizations of two photon pairs. They changed the measurement direction very quickly while the photons were on their way; the aim was to close off the possibility of communication at light speed between the two measurements. The result agreed with the prediction of quantum theory and exceeded the Bell inequality by about five standard deviations. This is an experimental finding. What it stops us at is this: the relation between two separately measured things cannot be explained by a local "hidden plan." Whether this points to a non-local influence or to another description of reality is a matter of interpretation and is disputed. [Aspect 1982]
Hensen 2015 — A loophole-free Bell test, 1.3 kilometres apart
In all the earlier Bell experiments there were loopholes through which the result could be rescued by an ordinary explanation. In Delft, a team entangled and measured the electron spins of two defects in diamond, 1.3 kilometres apart. Here two major loopholes were closed at the same time. The result was again a violation of the Bell limit: correlations that an ordinary, local calculation cannot supply. This is an experimental result; the authors state that they closed the two major loopholes together. Its interpretation is an open debate. The experiment says only "local hidden variables do not exist"; it does not say that there is communication. [Hensen 2015]
Giustina 2015 — A loophole-free test with entangled photons
The question: can two particles be bound so specially that, when one is measured, the other's result, though no signal passes between them, cannot be explained by something "determined in advance"? The team produced entangled photon pairs, chose measurement settings quickly and at random at two distant stations, and counted with highly sensitive detectors. In older experiments some photons were never caught; here these most important escape holes were closed at once. The inequality was exceeded by a margin that is extremely hard to explain by chance. This is an experimental finding. What it shows is the collapse of the picture of local and pre-determined properties; what to put in its place is disputed. [Giustina 2015]
Nobel Committee 2022 — The prize for entangled-photon experiments
The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was given to Aspect, Clauser and Zeilinger. All three experimented with entangled photons. Entanglement means that two particles, even when in separate places, turn out connected in a way that cannot be accounted for when their results are taken one by one. These experiments showed that the Bell inequality is violated: nature does not agree with simple pictures such as "every particle has definite, local properties before measurement." The prize text also notes that these works led to quantum information. The results of the experiments are firm; "what they say about reality" is read differently in different interpretations. [SEP: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 (press release)]
Kochen-Specker theorem — Does measurement only read what is there?
The hidden-variable idea is this: even before measurement, every measurable quantity has a definite value, and measurement merely brings it out. The Kochen-Specker theorem shows that if, in systems of three or more dimensions, you try to give values to all quantities at once and independently of the manner of measurement, you fall into contradiction with the rules of quantum theory. This is a mathematical result, not an experiment; but some of its aspects have since been tested in experiments as well. The theorem brings the notion of "context" forward: the value of a quantity may depend on which other measurements are made together with it. What it stops us at is that the intuition "measurement only reads what exists" cannot be kept in this form. [SEP: The Kochen-Specker Theorem]
Kirchmair 2009 — Testing contextuality with ions
In classical thinking, the properties of an object are definite whether we measure or not, and do not depend on which other measurement it is measured together with. Kirchmair and colleagues measured, on trapped ions, an inequality that tests this expectation. What matters is that it is "state-independent": the inequality is violated whichever state the system is prepared in. The result showed that the picture assuming pre-determined, context-independent values does not agree with experiment. This is an experimental finding. Unlike a Bell test, it does not use distant particles; it uses multiple measurements of a single system. What to put in its place is a matter of interpretation; whether it is ontological or about information is disputed. [Kirchmair 2009]
Englert 1996 — The limit between interference sharpness and path knowledge
In the double-slit experiment, light or a particle can pass by two paths, and on the screen an interference pattern of light and dark lines appears. The question: what happens to the pattern if we try to learn which path the particle took? Englert described this with an inequality. The sharper the pattern, the less the path knowledge; as path knowledge grows, the pattern fades. The "wave-particle duality" once stated in words is thus tied to a measure. The derivation does not rest on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, so this limit is not a restatement of that principle. This is a theoretical result; the question "what is this an expression of" remains open as a matter of interpretation. [Englert 1996]
Aharonov 1988 — Can 100 come out for a spin?
When we measure a particle's spin, the result is "plus a half" or "minus a half." But what comes out if we make the measurement very gentle and select only particles that have certain states at the start and at the end? The authors showed that in such a setup the average result can give an unusual value, and they called it a "weak value." The example in the paper's title says that for a spin-half particle a value like 100 can appear. This is not read like an ordinary measurement result; it is a kind of average that a selected ensemble gives under a gentle measurement. This is a theoretical definition and calculation; the question "is this value real" is disputed. [Aharonov 1988]
Schlosshauer 2005 — The measurement problem and decoherence
According to quantum theory, a system before measurement can be in a state in which several possibilities enter the calculation together; this is called superposition. Yet when we measure, we always see a single result. This mismatch is called the measurement problem. Schlosshauer's paper is a review that describes the phenomenon called decoherence: a small system inevitably interacts with its surroundings (air, light, heat), and the traces of the possibilities' coexistence, that is, interference, are erased very quickly. This is a well-understood matter of experiment and calculation. The paper also asks whether decoherence explains why a single result emerges, and examines the main interpretations one by one in this frame. The point it reaches is this: decoherence explains why results look classical, but does not by itself close the question "why only one"; that part depends on interpretation. [Schlosshauer 2005]
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — The Copenhagen interpretation
This entry describes the first general attempt at interpreting quantum mechanics, the Copenhagen interpretation. The main names are Bohr and Heisenberg, and also Born. The entry stresses that these two never fully agreed on how the mathematical framework is to be understood. They themselves did not use the name "Copenhagen interpretation"; the name was popularized later, by those who opposed this view. Among the shared ideas one may count the need for classical language in measurement, complementarity, and the giving of the outcome by probability, but these are not a single list of rules. This is a piece of interpretive history and philosophy, not an experiment. [SEP: Copenhagen Interpretation]
Looking side by side
We describe each closeness below in four things: what is common, where they diverge, what a viewer could notice, the open question.
1. "What was held impossible" turns out real: greets from a distance
What is common: in both places, something reason said "cannot be" later meets us as having been. In Dost, reason says impossible, yet that thing is perceived by the senses in the barzakh. In physics, classical reason says "before measurement everything has a definite value, and someone far away cannot disturb this"; the loophole-free Bell experiments and the contextuality experiment show that this picture does not hold [Hensen 2015; Giustina 2015; Kirchmair 2009; SEP: The Kochen-Specker Theorem].
Where they diverge: in Dost this perception happens in the barzakh and by the senses; in physics, in the laboratory and by statistics. Dost does not say "what is held impossible is always real"; physics does not refute every impossibility either, only a certain picture.
What a viewer could notice: "contrary to intuition" alone is not enough. Here there is an order: reason first said "impossible," then it was seen to be. But the order "first a prohibition, then a fact" is found in nearly every great change in science; for that reason we do not count it as specific.
Open question: does Dost's sentence "reason said impossible, but it is real" and the physics sentence "classical reason said impossible, but experiment showed it real" point to the same limit, or is it only a verbal resemblance?
2. Two opposites, both needed: greets from a distance
What is common: two pictures are each other's opposite, yet both are needed. In Dost, opposites are held together and this is counted "the strongest knowledge." In physics, complementarity (an idea named by Bohr), that is, both the wave and the particle description being needed, and the two together not being complete in the same measurement [Englert 1996; SEP: Copenhagen Interpretation].
Where they diverge: this difference is large. In physics the two pictures appear in separate setups; the contradiction is not at the same time and in the same place. Dost, however, holds the two opposites in a single thing. Englert's inequality too limits the balance between the two pictures with a number; in Dost there is no such measure.
What a viewer could notice: in the sentence "both of the two opposite pictures are needed." In Dost, choosing one of the opposites diminishes knowledge; in physics too, choosing one of the two pictures leaves the description incomplete. The inability to choose is shared.
Open question: Dost holds the opposites in a single thing, physics in two setups. Can complementarity close this difference, or is the difference essential?
3. Tanzih and tashbih, both falling short: we did not look at this door
In Dost, both tanzih and tashbih fall short, and even absoluteness is counted a limit. We looked for no counterpart in physics for this, because even if we found one, it would be only a forced pairing. We leave this door closed; if someone wishes to open it later, let them open it knowing the gap we left.
4. The small takes in the great: tempting, but we did not do it
It was tempting to set the sentence "My servant's believing heart took Me in" (the "heart" takes in the great) beside an idea like the holographic principle: both seem to speak of "containing." But the holographic idea is still speculative, and "containing" describes different things on the two sides. So we did not set them side by side; we only record it here.
5. Saying unity breaks unity: we did not look at this door
In sentences such as "Whoever says 'I have united' has broken absolute unity," what is described is language breaking itself. In physics we saw no counterpart in the same form; we did not look for one either. We did not look at this door.
6. "Neither exists nor does not exist": tempting, but we did not do it
It comes to mind to pair this expression with superposition, that is, with "neither A nor B." We did not. Superposition is probability amplitudes summed by a definite calculation; "neither exists nor does not exist" is the description of a level. This pairing had also been found tempting and set aside in our earlier work on the barzakh and imagination; we record it again here. Verbal resemblance alone is not counted as closeness.
7. "Why" falls away, the cause is the cause itself: we did not look at this door
What is common: the chain of causality fails to hold itself at some point. In Dost, "Allah is the cause itself," and the question "why" falls away. In physics there is no violation of causality; only in some cases the "before-after" order remains undefined.
Where they diverge: physics keeps the causal chain going; Dost ties the chain to another place from the very start. What a viewer could notice: in the manner of asking "why," in which order the asker assumes. Open question: is the falling away of "why" on the two sides two faces of the same thing, or two separate events?
8. Helplessness is a perception, bewilderment holds the verdict: greets from a distance
What is common: even those who know the theory best saying "it is hard to say we fully understand." Even the Copenhagen entry tells that Bohr and Heisenberg did not agree on how to understand the framework [SEP: Copenhagen Interpretation]. In Dost, "bewilderment" is spoken of as a kind of knowledge.
Where they diverge: when a physicist says "we do not understand," he does not give up on solving it; when Dost says "helplessness is a perception," he is describing a perception. This is a very general common ground; we do not count it as a pairing. Open question: is the "we cannot understand" on the two sides the same attitude, or only two honesties?
Questions we are left with
- Does Dost's sentence "reason said impossible, but it is real" and the physics sentence "classical reason said impossible, but experiment showed it real" point to the same limit, or is it only a verbal resemblance?
- Dost holds the opposites in a single thing, physics in two separate setups. Can complementarity close this difference, or is the difference essential?
- Is an unusual but openly calculable value such as Aharonov's "100" an additional example for the door "reason could not contain it, but it happened," or only a by-product of the logic of measurement?
- This form remains weak on its own. Is its worth in being the frame that holds the other forms (knowledge, unity of opposites, containment) together?
What did we not do?
We did not compare Dost's words with the Arabic original; we worked only with the Turkish chapter summaries on the site, and the page numbers are the page numbers of the Turkish translation. The physics sources were checked against Crossref and arXiv records; the summaries were written in our own words, and short summaries of the sources are on the /yan-yana/kaynaklar/ page.
We do not say that the two sides are one, or that one confirms the other; we only ask whether they stand in a similar form before something that exceeds reason. We do not understand Dost, but we do not give up trying to understand.