This page in one paragraph
On this page we look at a single question: where "where?" gives no answer, is there something in physics too? We gathered six sayings from Dost: "You are in Him, but you are not in Him," "we are a place for Him," the veil being the very one veiled, and the like. The row that stands closest is that an entangled part cannot be described on its own; but even that we left with "we did not look at this door," because in physics the part has a place, and what is mixed is its state. The superposition analogy is "tempting but we did not do it": even on this page we turned it away for the fourth time. Also, since the crowded themes in Dost, such as the organ being al-Haqq, seeing, and knower-and-known, went to other pages, they were not looked at here. What remains open is this: do the two uses of placelessness answer the same question, and is Inside-outside a separate form or one face of Both-and, Indistinguishability and Viewpoint?
What is this form?
We ask where something is. "Outside or inside?" Most of the time one of these two answers suffices. The key is in the drawer or in the bag; either this or that. In Dost's pages, though, we often arrive at a place where neither answer suffices. The thing sought is neither inside nor outside; it is said "you are in Him but you are not in Him," it is said "not in a place," it is said "do not seek from within or from without."
We call this form Inside-outside (neither inside nor outside). In our reading, 174 items entered here. Most of the items actually open onto other doors: seeing with al-Haqq, seeing oneself in a mirror, the knower and the known mixing into each other. We look at those on separate pages. On this page we look only at the bare question: place, direction, inside, outside, near, far. The question "where?" is left unanswered, or its answer turns upside down.
On the physics side we will ask only this: is there a place in physics where the question "where?" gives no answer? If there is, what does it resemble, and what does it not resemble?
What does Dost say?
The first saying stands like a very short and very familiar sentence:
«You are in Him, but you are not in Him!» (c7k97, p. 216)
Two sentences stand side by side, and both are said at once. It says "you are in Him," then it says "you are not in Him." One does not erase the other. What to note: the two answers do not line up in a sequence, not "first one, then the other"; both stand at the same time.
The second saying turns place around:
«While He is not in a place for us, we are a place for Him.» (c6k84, p. 313)
Our usual view is this: a thing is in a place, and the place takes the thing in. Here the reverse is said: we become the place. He is not in a place, but we are the place where He manifests. What to note: the container and the contained exchange roles. What was inside stays outside; what was outside carries the inside.
The third saying asks one who is fleeing:
«From whom are you fleeing? Is there someone else?» (c7k93, p. 140)
Fleeing requires a distance. Distance in turn requires two separate things. The saying leaves this twoness as a question. What to note: while distance seems to be set up, it vanishes; the second side needed to say "separate" cannot be found.
The fourth saying opens the same door through nearness and distance:
«While the summit of nearness is a veil, the farthest point of distance is also a veil» (c7k94, p. 148)
In ordinary reason, nearness thins the veil and distance thickens it. Here the two extremes do the same thing: both are a veil. What to note: the scale does not stretch out like a line; its two ends turn into each other.
The fifth saying is from a story about prayer. A madman praying says he cannot form the intention to draw near:
«How can I form the intention to draw near to One who is with me, whom I witness, and who is not hidden from me?» (c2k23, p. 265-266)
To draw near, one must first be far. Drawing near to one who is already beside you becomes meaningless. What to note: the notions of "road" and "arrival" produce their own problems; one walks as though there were a road, but the place to go is already there.
The sixth saying tells the place of the veil:
«Allah the Exalted created no veil for you other than yourself!» (c12k145, p. 142-143)
A veil usually stands between two things. Here the veil is the very one veiled. What to note: the thing that comes in between is not a separate thing. The place called "between" is itself one of the parties.
As far as we can see, the common form of these six sayings is this: "Where?" is answered, but the answer does not point to a place. It stands distinct enough to ask whether something similar exists in physics, but we also know how heavy a question this is.
What is there in physics?
Schlosshauer 2005 — Decoherence and the measurement problem
According to quantum theory, a system before measurement can be in a state in which several possibilities enter the calculation together. We call this superposition. When we measure, though, we always see a single result, and the mismatch between these two situations is called the measurement problem. Schlosshauer's paper is a review describing how much help the phenomenon called decoherence gives with this problem. Decoherence is this: 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 part is well understood as a matter of experiment and calculation. The paper also asks whether this closes the question "why a single result," and examines the main interpretive approaches (Copenhagen, many worlds, hidden variables and others) 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]
SEP 2024 — Quantum entanglement and information
This is an encyclopedia entry, not an experiment report. Two quantum systems can be so related that we cannot describe them separately, only as a whole. This is called entanglement. The entry explains that entanglement gives rise to relations with no counterpart in the classical world, that these relations can be measured and transformed, and that they can be used as a kind of resource. Entangled pairs are used in computing and cryptographic tasks that cannot be done with classical systems. The entry presents experimental results, theory and interpretations separately. What stops us here is this: there is a shared wholeness between two things that are far apart, and there is no firm consensus on how this is to be read. [SEP: Quantum Entanglement and Information]
SEP 2024 — Relational quantum mechanics
This too is an encyclopedia entry, and it introduces not an experiment but an interpretation. The interpretation was put forward in 1996 and has attracted interest in recent years. Its starting point is this: the confusion in quantum theory is not resolved by adding a new equation, a new phenomenon or an inaccessible reality; the theory proposes that we thoroughly renew our frame of thought, it is said. According to the entry, the role of the "observer" in the traditional account can be played not only by large, classical bodies but by any physical system. Thus the value of a property is spoken of not alone but together with which system it is relative to. This must be marked plainly: this is an interpretive proposal, it cannot be distinguished by experiment, and it is not accepted among physicists. The entry tells not that this is true but what it says. [SEP: Relational Quantum Mechanics]
Looking side by side
The entangled part's place and the question "where?": we did not look at this door.
When we try to describe one of two entangled systems by looking at it alone, the description falls short; the description can be made only for the whole [SEP: Quantum Entanglement and Information]. At first glance this seems to come close to the saying "neither inside nor outside." But in physics the part has a place; what is mixed is not its place but its state. In Dost, the problem concerns place itself: place does not work. The two may be saying different things, so we recorded no closeness. Open question: do these two uses of placelessness answer the same question, or do they meet only at the point where the concept of place is shaken?
The relational interpretation adds a note to this greeting. The sentence "the value of a property is spoken of relative to a system" recalls that the question "where" asks for a viewpoint [SEP: Relational Quantum Mechanics]. In Dost's saying "we are a place for Him," too, place appears to depend on a viewpoint. We do not set this down as a closeness; the interpretation itself is not accepted, and in Dost viewpoint is not a physics term. We leave it as an open question: is the binding of place to a viewpoint the same move on both sides?
As for superposition and the matter of "neither A nor B," this is tempting but we did not do it. The sentence "neither inside nor outside" invites likening something to the state in which two possibilities enter the calculation together [Schlosshauer 2005]. We had also rejected this analogy on the pages for the barzakh, reason and both-and; here we record it for the fourth time. Why: in superposition both options are counted as real possibilities, and on measuring one comes out. In Dost's sentence "neither the one nor the other" is said, and there is no moment called measurement. Only a verbal resemblance remains, and we are not content with that. If a viewer nevertheless notices something, let them tell us. Open question: why does this analogy return so often?
For more crowded themes such as the heart and the al-Haqq–creation relation, we did not look at this door. These are ontological; that is, they concern the question "what is there?" and not the question "where?", and physics does not ask this question in this form. The organ being al-Haqq goes to the Indistinguishability page, seeing and the mirror to the Viewpoint page, and knower and known to the Knowledge page; we looked there. For the themes of speaking, reading, remembrance and journeying, too, we looked for no category in physics; we did not look at this door.
Questions we are left with
- Is Inside-outside a separate form, or one face of Both-and, Indistinguishability and Viewpoint? Its most crowded themes went to other pages.
- Do the entangled part's state not being given apart from the whole and the saying "not in a place" answer the same question, or are they different things?
- Why does the superposition analogy always return, and why do we always turn it away?
- Is there a similarity of move between binding place to a viewpoint (the relational interpretation) and the saying "we are a place for Him," or is this only something we see?
What did we not do?
We did not compare Dost's words with the Arabic original; what we have are the Turkish chapter summaries on our site. The quotations were taken from the chapter summary letter for letter. Reader agents also worked when extracting the item groups; this means the theme divisions are our reading.
On the physics side the sources consist of short summaries and encyclopedia entries; we did not conduct a deep physics discussion. That most of Dost does not match physics in this form is also a result. This is not a reading summary, it is our reading frame; we do not understand Dost, we do not give up trying to understand.