This page in one paragraph
Here we ask: if in Dost's text the master cannot be spoken of without the servant, the creator without the created, and time without two things standing in relation to each other, could this be the same question as the places in physics that ask "relative to what does a property exist?" We looked at three closenesses (the relational interpretation, the proposal that derives time from a relation with a clock, and contextuality), and all three stand on the page as "greets from a distance"; no row came out of which we could say "stand close." Where they part most is the direction of the relation: Dost sometimes speaks of reciprocity, sometimes of one-sidedness ("Allah is with things, but things are not with Him"), whereas in the summaries of the relational interpretation we could not see such a distinction of direction. We did not look at doors such as the reversal of roles; knowledge and the known, and the mirror and seeing, are on other pages. What stays open is whether the place where Dost says "relation first" and the place in physics that says "the property is in the relation" ask the same question, or whether only the word "relation" is shared. We ask this without comparing with the Arabic original, from the Turkish reading summaries on the site.
What is this form?
If we wanted to describe something, most of the time we would first think of it on its own: a stone, a human being, a clock. Then we would move on to its relation to another. First the thing exists, and the relation comes afterwards. In everyday life this feels natural to us.
In some places in Dost's text this order is reversed. The master cannot be master without the servant. The creator cannot count as creator without the created. Time arises from two things standing in relation to each other. That is, in these places the parties do not first exist and the relation is established afterwards; the name or the relation finds its meaning together with its counterpart. The text does not say this symmetrically everywhere, as will be seen below. We call this form Relation. In the reading summaries we picked out 289 places like it.
As an aid to explanation: think of a rope held by two people. The rope is a taut rope as long as both ends are held. When you let go of one, not only that side but the rope itself turns into something else. In physics, near this question, there are interpretations that ask relative to what and to whom a property exists, and a proposal that derives time from relation. We do not claim that they say the same thing; we only set them side by side and look.
What does Dost say?
All the quotations are taken verbatim from the Turkish reading summaries on the site. The section number (c6k80) indicates volume and section.
«Had He not been, we would not be / Had we not been, He would not be» (c6k80, pp. 223-224)
The quatrain speaks of a reciprocal dependence: without al-Haqq there would be no world, and without the world, al-Haqq's being "the First" or "the Lord" would find no place. This reciprocity is spoken at the level of the relation of the names Ilah and Rabb; it is not said that the Essence depends on the world, and the asymmetry between the Necessary and the possible stands. In another place the text says this more plainly: without the world, "being the first" is something that cannot be attributed to al-Haqq (c6k82). What to notice: the dependence is not set up in one direction; it is written in both directions.
«Just as possible things depend on Allah in coming into existence, He too depends on the knowledge about possible things in knowing Himself.» (c15k169)
Here the dependence has two separate domains. Possible things depend on Allah with regard to existence. Allah, according to this sentence, bases His knowing Himself on the knowledge about possible things. What to notice: the two directions are set up in the same sentence, for two different matters. The text does not stuff them into a single sack of "mutual dependence."
«Had there been no servants/servitude, there would be no lordship.» (c14k165)
The reading summary gives this as a matter of names: being "the Creator" is bound to the created. In the same place the sentence "A thing cannot be related to itself" also occurs; that is, a name can be a name only relative to another. What to notice: lordship is described less as a property than as a relation.
«Allah is with things. But things are not with Him.» (c6k82, p. 259)
Up to here there was always reciprocity; here the relation turns one-directional. Togetherness exists from one side and is negated from the other. The text immediately adds that the togetherness depends on knowledge. What to notice: this is a text not content with saying "the relation is two-sided." Even within the relation the direction is distinguished. A similar distinction is also in this sentence: «The state of creation before al-Haqq and the state of al-Haqq before creation are not the same.» (c13k151, p. 292)
«Had the point been lost, the circumference would be lost; had the circumference been lost, the point would not be lost.» (c9k123, p. 130)
There is a bond between the point and the circumference, but this bond is not symmetric: the circumference depends on the point, the point does not depend on the circumference in the same way. In another place this is also said by splitting it into two directions: "the circumference preserves the point with respect to knowledge, while the point preserves the circumference with respect to existence" (c13k150). What to notice: the direction and kind of the relation matter as much as the relation itself.
«While the father's time is the son, the son's time is the father.» (c14k159)
According to the reading summary, time is a relation that appears with the question "when?", a relation that has no existence outside. The father and son example makes this concrete: each one's time is defined together with the other's. What to notice: time here does not appear as something that flows on its own, but as two things standing in relation to each other.
What is there in physics?
Rovelli 1996 — Relational quantum mechanics
Rovelli asks: does quantum theory describe the "own" state of a system, or a system's relation to another system? His proposal is that a thing's properties exist not absolutely but relative to another system that observes it or interacts with it. For the same event two different observers, both in accordance with the rules, can say different things. Rovelli argues that the odd-looking aspects of quantum theory arise naturally from this idea of "being relative to a viewpoint." This is not an experiment, but a proposal about the interpretation of the theory. It is as disputed as the other interpretations, and no experiment has decided between them. The approach's both attractive and disturbing side is that it puts the sentence "it is such relative to this" in place of the sentence "the world is such." [Rovelli 1996]
SEP — The relational quantum mechanics entry
This is not an experiment; it is an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that presents the present state of Rovelli's proposal. The interpretation was put forward in 1996 and has attracted attention in recent years. The starting point is this: the confusion in quantum theory is not resolved by adding a new equation, a new fact, or an inaccessible reality; it is said that the theory proposes a radical renewal of our framework of thought. 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 the system it is relative to. This is a proposal of interpretation. It cannot be told apart by experiment, nor is it accepted among physicists. The entry presents not that this is true but what it says. [SEP: Relational Quantum Mechanics]
Page and Wootters 1983 — Change without change
The equations of physics always take time as a "parameter." But if the whole universe is a closed system, whose clock is there outside the universe? Page and Wootters proposed: the universe can be static, and change arises from comparing a part of the system with an internal clock. That is, the impression that "time is passing" is read from the relation between what the clock shows and the rest. This is a theoretical proposal, not an experiment. What stops us is this: looking at the whole of the universe, no change is visible; change comes out only of the relation between parts. Whether this is really so is a matter of interpretation and debate. [Page 1983]
Moreva 2014 — The experiment that derives time from entanglement
For someone looking at the universe from outside, does time flow? According to Page and Wootters's proposal, the total state of the universe may be frozen. Time arises from the entanglement of a part used as a clock with the other parts. This paper shows a small scene of the idea in the laboratory. Two photons are prepared in an entangled state; one is used as a clock, the other is measured with it. An internal observer bound to the clock photon sees the other photon change with time. An observer outside, looking only at the joint state of the two, sees no change at all: the state stands still. This is a demonstration experiment. It brings the idea to life in a small setup but does not show that the universe really works this way. [Moreva 2014]
Giovannetti 2015 — Quantum time
In quantum theory time is not one of the measured things; it is a parameter given from outside. Page and Wootters had proposed that time can arise from a relation with a clock, but the proposal had been criticized: for example, could it correctly give the usual results of successive measurements? This paper builds a consistent form of the proposal and tries to meet the criticisms. In particular it shows that the known probabilities of successive measurements made at different times can be obtained from this theory. This is a theoretical work, not an experiment. It does not claim that time really arises in this way. What stops one is that the impression of flow can come out of a state that never flows. [Giovannetti 2015]
SEP — The Kochen-Specker theorem
The Kochen-Specker theorem shows that a certain kind of "hidden variable" interpretation of quantum mechanics is impossible. The hidden variable idea is this: even before a measurement is made, every measurable quantity has a definite value, and the measurement only brings it out. The 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 were later tested by experiments too. An important detail: the theorem brings the notion of "context" to the fore; the value of a quantity can depend on which other measurements are made together with it. What stops one is that the intuition "measurement only reads what is there" cannot be preserved in this form. [SEP: The Kochen-Specker Theorem]
Kirchmair 2009 — A contextuality experiment
The question is: if we assume that the measured properties had definite values before measurement, do we contradict quantum predictions? Quantum contextuality means that the outcome of measuring a property can change according to which other measurement is made alongside it. That is, the result is not the property's own possession alone. Kirchmair and colleagues measured an inequality testing this idea with trapped ions. It matters that it is "state-independent": the violation of the inequality appears not for a special state in which the system is prepared, but in whatever state it is prepared. The result showed that the picture assuming predefined, context-independent values does not agree with experiment. This is an experimental finding; what to put in its place is a matter of interpretation. The experiment uses not distant particles, as in the Bell test, but multiple measurements of a single system. [Kirchmair 2009]
Looking side by side
Reciprocal requirement and the relational interpretation: greets from a distance.
At a glance, what is shared is this: on both sides what a thing "is" is not said on its own but relative to another. In Dost the names Lord and servant, master and slave find meaning by looking at each other [Rovelli 1996; SEP: Relational Quantum Mechanics]. In the relational interpretation the value of a property is spoken of together with the system it is considered relative to.
Where they part is wide. In Dost the parties are al-Haqq and the world, and the relation is a matter of being. In physics the parties are two physical systems and the relation is a framework of description. Moreover in Dost the direction of the relation can be reversed, and can even be one-directional ("Allah is with things, but things are not with Him"). We cannot say that we saw such a distinction of direction in the summaries of the relational interpretation. On the other hand, in that interpretation too, before the relation the systems in the relation (the relata) stand; for this reason we do not say "cannot be defined before the relation."
How might someone who sees notice? Perhaps from the fact that the question "relative to whom does a property exist?" comes first on both sides. We looked only at the form of this question. We do not know whether the answers fit each other.
Open question: do the place where Dost says "relation first" and the place where the relational interpretation says "the property is in the relation" ask the same question, or is only the word "relation" shared? This closeness is at the level of interpretation; no experiment can tell it apart.
Time and relation, and Page–Wootters: greets from a distance.
What is shared is this: on both sides time is described not as something that flows on its own but as something arising from a relation. Dost says "time is a relation, it has no existence outside" and ties the father's and the son's time to each other. Page and Wootters, for their part, read change from the relation between an internal clock and the rest [Page 1983; Moreva 2014; Giovannetti 2015].
Where they part: in Dost time is tied to a name, to a divine "day"; in the physics proposal there are entanglement, a static total state, and measurement probabilities. What the two sides call "relation" comes from very different fields. Moreover the closeness on time in this section is treated separately on another page; here it adds no new specificity.
How might someone who sees notice? Probably from the inside–outside distinction in the sentence "unchanging when seen from outside, flowing when seen from inside." We did not want to force this into a pairing; someone who sees may say it more clearly.
Open question: do the place where time is said to be a relation and the place where it is said to arise from a relation with a clock point to the same tension, or do they fall side by side only because both say "time does not flow, there is relation"?
The recipient's receptivity and contextuality: greets from a distance.
What is shared is this: in some places in Dost a self-disclosure appears differently according to the recipient's receptivity, belief, and form. In quantum contextuality, on the other hand, the outcome of a measurement can change according to which measurements are made alongside it [SEP: The Kochen-Specker Theorem; Kirchmair 2009]. In both places there is the feeling that "the result is not the property's own possession alone."
Where they part is open here: in physics the context is part of a measurement setup; in Dost it is the recipient's state, capacity, belief. What the recipient "is" is not even a subject in contextuality.
How might someone who sees notice? Perhaps from the form of "finding the same thing different according to what is next to it." We did not find this close; we only noted it as a greeting from afar.
Open question: is it possible to build a bridge between the place where context is a setup and the place where context is a recipient's state, or does this bridge remain only in words?
The reversal of direction and roles: we did not look at this door.
In Dost there are many places (16) where the role is exchanged in the pairs al-Haqq–servant, ruler–ruled, giver–receiver. In physics we could not find a principle of the form "roles are exchanged." Since we did not search, we cannot say we did not find it either; we did not look at this door.
Knowledge and the known: this form is on another page.
The places where Dost speaks of the relation between knowledge and the known (twenty-seven items) were treated separately under the Knowledge form. We do not repeat them here.
Mirror, seeing, form: this form is on another page.
That what appears in a mirror depends on the mirror and the viewer was treated under the Viewpoint form.
Letter, breath, point of articulation, number; circle and point: we did not look at this door.
These themes are not places to look for a counterpart as a category of physics; we did not look either.
Questions we are left with
- Do the relational interpretation's "the property is in the relation" and Dost's "relation comes before relation" ask the same question, or is only the word "relation" shared?
- In Dost the relation is sometimes two-directional, sometimes one-directional. Can a relation in physics have a direction, or is direction an extra burden that tries to separate the parties?
- Do the place that counts time as a relation and the proposal that derives time from a relation with a clock point to the same tension?
- Can a meaningful bridge be built between the place where context is a measurement setup and the place where context is a recipient's state?
- For only a few themes among the 289 places could we find a candidate on the physics side. Does this show that Relation is a form specific to Dost, or that we did not scan the physics side widely enough?
What did we not do?
We did not compare Dost's word with the Arabic original. What we read is the Turkish reading summaries on the site and the direct quotations taken from these summaries. A detail that may have slipped in the layer of translation and summary, we cannot see.
We did not draw a conclusion saying that the two sides are identical or that Dost foretold physics. We did not put an interpretation, a theoretical proposal, and an experiment on the same shelf; which is which is written separately in each source. Everything we set side by side remains a question. We do not understand Dost, and we do not give up trying to understand.