Beginning
We looked through sixteen doors (fourteen from the first reading, two from the second). At each door we did the same thing: we found a place in Dost's speech that does not fit within reason, we looked in physics too for a place that does not fit within reason, and then we asked whether the manner of not fitting of the two looks at each other. This page is the collected state of those sixteen looks. Narrowing the question is one thing, keeping it open is another; we tried to keep it open. The counts below are not a verdict; they report the present state of our looking, saying what we learned and what we could not learn.
Let us say at the outset: this is not a reading summary, it is our own reading framework. We have not compared Dost's text with the Arabic original; what we have are the Turkish reading summaries on the site. In no line do we declare the two sides identical, nor do we say "Dost explains physics." Physicists on their own side say the same thing: those who know quantum theory best shrink from saying "we understand" [Feynman 1965; Bohr 2007]. This shared reluctance is the ground on which we can sit side by side. The meaning of the closeness phrases and the expansion of the abbreviations are on the introduction page; the "distinct" and "moderate" of the old working notes mean "stand close" here; "weak-moderate" and "weak" mean "greet each other from a distance."
Places that stand close
"Standing close" does not mean the same thing. It means: looking at the manner of speech of the two sides, we said "a question can be asked here." In each we also wrote plainly the place where they part.
Knowledge. In Dost, knowledge veils the known, yet the known also determines knowledge; the two stand side by side in the same text. «To know Him is not to know Him.» (c12k143) In physics the same subject turned into the question "is the state the real condition of the world, or our knowledge?" and went down to the laboratory [Pusey 2012; Ringbauer 2015]. This is the closest-standing row we found; but the existence of an ontic state is a presupposition on the physics side, and that must not be forgotten either. Where they part: physics tries to separate these two readings from each other, Dost holds the two together. (Knowledge)
Time. Dost counts time as a relation; he does not count it as a thing in itself outside. In physics too it is thought that time may not be fundamental but may arise from a relation [Page 1983; Moreva 2014]. "Time is a relation" is an old idea, and the relational understanding of time exists long before quantum physics; so we read this pair as greeting each other from a distance. (Time)
The "cannot be" of reason. Reason said "impossible," and then that thing was seen as having happened. In physics too, a picture that classical reason said "cannot be" was shown by Bell experiments not to hold [Hensen 2015; Kirchmair 2009]. This form does not weigh heavily on its own, because every strange thing is contrary to intuition; but it seems like the common frame of the other forms. (Reason)
Opposites being together. In Dost, two opposites are true together in a single thing. In physics, complementarity: both the wave and the particle description are necessary, but in the same setup the two together are not complete [Englert 1996]. The place where they part is large: in physics opposites appear in separate setups, in Dost in a single thing. That is why we say they greet each other from a distance. Both-and is the most crowded form, but the least specific one that can be asked about. (Both-and)
Whole and part. In Dost there are accounts in which the whole appears pure and the part mixed. In physics an entangled whole can be fully determined while its parts remain in a mixed state [SEP: Quantum Entanglement and Information]. The part-whole relation exists in other traditions of thought too, and in Dost this is the al-Haqq-creation relation, not part-whole (mereology); that is why we say they greet each other from a distance. (Wholeness)
Reciprocal demand. In Dost the two sides bring out each other's ruling; but this reciprocity is not symmetric (God is with things, things are not with Him). In physics the relational interpretation speaks of the value of a property together with the system it is relative to [SEP: Relational Quantum Mechanics]; there too, before the relation, there are the parties to the relation. This is a level of interpretation, not something that can be separated by experiment; they greet each other from a distance. (Relation)
Setup and viewpoint. In Dost the same thing looks different according to the position of the one who sees; in physics the measurement setup determines which property will appear [SEP: Copenhagen Interpretation]. Here the observer need not be conscious; this difference is important. (Viewpoint)
A link exists, an instrument does not. In Dost cause and effect are tightly bound, but no "transmission" is shown to be placed between them. In physics Bell correlations are like that too: there is a link, no signal [Bell 1964; Hensen 2015]. In physics this is a statistical sentence, in Dost an ontological one. (Cause)
No repetition. «According to unveiling, nothing is repeated.» (c11k141) In physics, the non-copyability of an unknown quantum state [Wootters 1982; Dieks 1982] looks at first glance like this, but a known state can be prepared again, and identical electrons exist. That is why we say they walk separate roads, or at best greet each other from a distance. (Non-repetition)
Which is which? In Dost the servant and al-Haqq are "two" but the one cannot be separated from the other (a saying close to the formula known in kalam as "neither He nor other than He"); in physics, in identical particles the question "which is which" loses its meaning [SEP: Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory; Hong 1987]. Whether a principle of symmetry and a servant-al-Haqq relation meet in the same place, we do not know. They greet each other from a distance. (Indistinguishability)
Those that greet each other from a distance
Here both places say that something is "not as it seems," but when we go into detail they seem to speak of different subjects. We did not count these as closeness; we counted them as a greeting.
Time being a bond between two sides, and the relation between a clock and a system (Time). Duration not being the same for everyone: in Dost the account of a journey, in physics a measured clock difference [Hafele 1972] (Time). While reason asks "why," the cause itself becomes the cause (Reason). Knowledge's being subordinate to the known, and the value of a quantity depending on which measurements it is asked together with (Knowledge, Relation). The veil's covering and the environment's covering of a system, that is, decoherence [Schlosshauer 2005] (Viewpoint). Space and direction not operating, and the bond of distant particles (Containment). The structure lying under what is thought continuous, and the quantum Zeno effect [Itano 1990; Facchi 2008] (Continuity). The look of the whole and of identical particles (Wholeness, Both-and, Non-repetition).
Those that walk separate roads
In two places we saw the two sides going in opposite directions. Writing these is as important as writing the closenesses.
A single "now." In Dost «Time is a state that exists between two non-existences» (c9k124). In Sufism "time" (waqt) also means the state the wayfarer is in; and in Dost's account the now looks like one. In relativity, however, there is no common "now" for everyone [Einstein 1905; Rovelli 2009]. Whether the two ask the same question, we do not know; if they do, they seem to look in opposite directions. (Time)
The continuous and the discontinuous. In Dost what looks continuous is described as separate things re-created at every moment. In Minev's experiment, on the other hand, the jump thought to be sudden turns out, looked at closely, to be smooth and continuous, even reversible [Minev 2019]. Both sides say "not as it seems," but "as it seems" is opposite things in the two places. Whether this is a resemblance or a sign to the contrary, we do not know. (Continuity)
Places where we looked and found nothing
Fitting into the heart. The greater entering the smaller could have been likened, at a glance, to the holographic idea ['t Hooft 1993; Susskind 1995; Bousso 2002]. We found this pairing speculative and did not make it. The "dimension" of a Hilbert space is not a spatial breadth either; "containment" would here be something else. (Containment)
Neither inside nor outside. We looked in physics for the places where the question "where?" remains unanswered. Superposition kept coming to mind, but we counted it only as a resemblance of words and set it aside for the fourth time. (Inside-outside)
Bewilderment. Here we did not look for a correspondence. At the end of knowing there is no understanding, there is bewilderment; the physicist's saying "we do not understand" is the very ground this work already walks on [Feynman 1965]. We noted this not as a resemblance but as a shared stance. (Bewilderment)
Pairing the sentence "neither is nor is not" with superposition came before us on five separate pages. Each time it was tempting, each time we set it aside for the same reason. This too is a result: we could not form a bond with it by another way.
Doors we did not look at
Some doors we deliberately did not look at, or left to another page. Reciprocal demand (the names demanding the contingents, the contingents demanding the names), the light's not being seen but making seen, the question "whose is the act," circular time and the being that does not perish, dream and imagination, letter and breath... These either do not exist in physics as a category, or we could not see a closeness. "We could not see" does not mean "there is none"; someone who looks may think differently, we do not close the door.
There was also a list of suggestions from outside: headings such as tunneling, teleportation, thermalization. We looked at these in a single round; in none did a new "distinct" closeness come out; thermalization came nearest, to the whole being pure and the part mixed.
What we learned
- No strong correspondence came out. The closest-standing row is the veiling of knowledge and the question "is the state knowledge, or reality?"
- In this round we lowered several closenesses by one rung (time, complementarity, no repetition, whole, which is which, reciprocal demand). What is left that we can call "stand close" is little, one or two rows in each. In all of them the place where they part is written: in physics the thing is said with number and statistics; in Dost it is about being itself.
- In two places the parting looks distinct: the single now and the direction of continuity. We write both, not as a firm verdict, but as findings.
- Most of the forms on Dost's side exist in other traditions too (Nagarjuna, Eckhart, Heraclitus; in kalam, no repetition, the occasion, nothing better in possibility). We did not test this: we did not make the same pairing with a text outside Dost.
- The most crowded forms (unity of opposites, relation, inseparability) are those that match physics least one-to-one. Occurring in many places does not mean being specific.
- That physics takes these questions down to the laboratory, while in Dost those questions are left open, showed us something even as they stand side by side: narrowing the question is one thing, keeping it open is another.
What we could not learn
- We could look at Dost's Arabic only for the first thirty quotations; the other sentences we worked with are a translation's summary. Some quotations were checked in the text of the translation, but that is not an Arabic check.
- For some of the physics sources we wrote the summary not from the article's own text but from general knowledge; we marked this "uncertain" on the relevant pages.
- We still cannot tell whether a closeness is deep or superficial. Every strange thing resembles every other strange thing; we cannot say we have found a criterion that could overcome this.
- In none of them can we say "these two sides are saying the same thing." Someone who looks may see this better than we do; if there is no such eye, the question remains a question.
Next
At the end of each page there are the questions left to us. Going back to the Arabic original and testing the hundred or so most secret items could also be a next step. Before we decide, we await that you read and tell us.