This page in one paragraph
This page asks: in Dost the bond between cause and effect stays tight, yet the one doing the work cannot be shown inside that bond; is there a similar form in physics? The place that stands closest is the effect of a cause set beside Bell correlations: on both sides the bond is real and tight, but no instrument can be shown of which one could say "this does that". Where they part is large, because the bond in physics is statistical, while the matter in Dost is ontological. Free choice and necessity, and indefinite order and "the work is a cycle", greet each other from a distance; mutual demand, the possible in the state of non-existence that knows, and to whom the act belongs are doors we did not look at. The question that stays open: are "there is a bond, no transmission" and "the cause is an occasion, the work is another's" two faces of the same form, or are they separate questions because one is statistics and the other ontology?
What is this form?
When we say cause, a chain comes to mind at once. Water heats because the fire is burning. Tea steeps because the water is hot. We think that each link is tied to the previous one "through its cause", and that something does the work in between: fire heats, water steeps, the hand throws.
In Dost's pages this chain breaks at one point. The bond is still there, and a very tight bond: when this happens, that happens. But it is not said "this does that". The cause stands as an occasion, as a veil; seen from another side, the one doing the work is another. Yet the cause is not wholly set aside either: the water is there, the washer is there, the hand too. The bond stands; the instrument that carries the bond is questioned.
What we call Cause on this page is not the content of single sentences but this form: there is a tight relation between two things, but no "effect" that establishes the relation can be shown. We look at whether this comes near something similar in physics. On looking, one place really does stand close, other places wave from a distance, and many places we did not look at all. We will write all of it honestly. That a cause is seen as an occasion may not be an idea peculiar to Dost; we think it falls close to some views in the kalam tradition, but we did not test this by reading from that tradition. This page is not a reading summary; it is our reading frame.
What does Dost say?
«You should know that al-Haqq does not create a thing by means of a thing, but creates a thing on the occasion of a thing.» (c13k150, p. 139)
Two words are separated here. "Means" is the instrument that carries the work; "occasion" is something coming about beside a thing, on the occasion of a thing. The text says that causes are not the instrument of creation, only that they are beside it.
We looked at the Arabic: in this edition the sentence reads لا يخلق شيئا لكن يخلق شيئا عند شيء, that is, "He does not create a thing, but creates a thing beside (at the time of) a thing". The "does not create by means of" half in the Turkish is not written in this edition (it may be a difference of edition or translation); "on the occasion of" corresponds to the Arabic "beside". This saying is a formulation mentioned together with the kalam view that a cause is not the instrument of creation but only what is present beside it; we did not examine that context separately.
What to note: the cause does not disappear, but it does not carry the burden of being "the one that does the work" either. This is something other than the cause being set aside.
«So the one who cleanses is neither the water nor himself. The one who cleanses the dead is in truth Allah. But Allah cleansed the dead by means of the washer AND the water» (c3k32, p. 146)
The washing really happens with water and the washer, and the text does not deny it. But when asked "who is the one who cleanses", neither the water nor the washer is the answer. The question of the one who does the work goes beyond the two who are instruments.
What to note: the two sentences stand side by side and both are held true. The work is done with instruments, but the doer is not the instrument. This is the form one could ask about in physics as "a bond but no carrier".
«When you threw, you did not throw, but Allah threw.» (c13k151, p. 298)
The throw happens before our eyes, the hand has a movement. The text points not to the hand but to another source as the doer of this act. The act is real; the owner of the act is asked about.
What to note: the bond seen with the eye (between hand and throw) is not denied, only the question of "who does" goes elsewhere. We did not see a relation to physics in this sentence, but a seer may look at it from the side of the question of causality.
«Had it not been for the beauty of the world, the beauty and goodness of the Ancient would not be known. Had it not been for the beauty of al-Haqq, beauty would not have appeared in the world. So the work is a cycle, and the sphere has turned with it.» (c13k151, p. 391-392)
The two sides are described as each other's condition: without one the other is not known, without the other the first does not appear. The text says "the work is a cycle", that is, the chain does not begin at one place and end at another; it turns around itself.
What to note: the order "first this, then that" is not here. Which is cause and which is effect cannot be chosen. One could set this beside the question "can the order be indefinite?" in physics, but we found the closeness weak (below).
«For this reason the knowledge in your knower came about according to the form of the known, and the known appeared in the form of knowledge» (c10k130, p. 261)
The bond between knowledge and the known is established from both directions. Knowledge takes shape according to the known; the known also appears in the shape of knowledge. This sentence touches, on one side, the question of "cause" that is this page's real focus: the effect also determines the cause.
What to note: the question "what determines, what" does not look in one direction only. A separate page exists for this subject's counterpart in physics (Knowledge); it was looked at there.
«The world is compelled, and the principle too is compelled in particular. Where is freedom left?» (c5k64, p. 308-309)
The text states necessity openly and at once asks where freedom is. The power of choice is tied to the chain of cause and effect; but the chain does not remove the question of freedom.
What to note: we do not read this question as an answered one; the text leaves the question by asking it. In physics the idea of free choice is touched only as an assumption; the closeness is weak.
What is there in physics?
Bell 1964 — Local hidden order and the inequality
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen asked in 1935: could quantum theory be incomplete, that is, is there a depth in which things are definite even before measurement? Bell made this question testable. Imagine measuring two connected particles in distant places. If there is a "local" hidden order that determines each particle's result in advance and is not affected from afar, the relation between the two measurement results cannot exceed a certain limit. Bell wrote this limit as an inequality. The predictions of quantum theory exceed this limit in some measurement settings; that is, no theory can be built that explains the results with local and previously definite values. This is a theoretical result; experiments were made afterwards and matched the quantum prediction. The interpretive side is open: what the result leaves (locality, or prior definiteness) is still debated. [Bell 1964]
Hensen 2015 — Entangled spins 1.3 kilometres apart
Bell's limit was in the first experiments always tested together with a loophole; these loopholes made it possible to save the result again with an ordinary explanation. A team in Delft entangled the electron spins of two defects in diamond 1.3 kilometres apart (entangled: two particles being in a state no longer described separately but together). And measured. Two of the loopholes found in earlier experiments were closed together. The result is the exceeding of Bell's limit: correlations that cannot be given by an ordinary, local calculation. This is a very robust experimental result; two experiments with photons in the same year gave a result in a similar direction [Giustina 2015; Shalm 2015]. How it is to be interpreted, that is, whether action at a distance or a renunciation concerning reality, is an open debate. The experiment says only "local hidden variables are not possible"; it does not say there is communication at a distance. [Hensen 2015]
SEP — Bell's theorem (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Bell's theorem is not a single result but a family of results. All proceed like this: from the idea of "local causality" (a thing is affected only by influences near it) and a few side assumptions, a limit is derived for the relations between the results of measurements made far apart. These limits are called Bell inequalities. Quantum theory predicts relations that exceed this limit in some cases, and experiments show that it is exceeded. This entry is not an experiment but a summary of theory and philosophy. Which assumption is to be given up is disputed: locality, measurement freedom, or something else. Measurement freedom is the assumption that the one making the experiment can really choose the measurement setting freely. [SEP: Bell's Theorem]
Procopio 2015 — The order of two operations together
In an operation, doing A then B and doing B then A often give different results. Does quantum theory allow these two orders to exist together? In this experiment, which door a photon will pass first is tied to the state of a second photon, thus making "both orders together". Thus whether the two operations give the same result when their order is changed can be learned with fewer trials than by applying each operation one by one many times. This is an experimental result. The authors say that we can read it as a "superposition of causal orders" (the state in which two possibilities of a thing enter the account together before measurement), but this reading is an interpretation. [Procopio 2015]
Rubino 2017 — Indefinite causal order
In everyday life events follow an order: first A, then B. In this work researchers set up and measured a process on a particle of light in which the order of two operations depends on another quantum particle, that is, a "quantum switch". Their results agree with a criterion showing that the operations cannot be placed in an order "first this, then that"; that is, they point to the causal order not being definite in advance. This is an experimental result, but which assumptions the result rests on and how it is to be tied to the way everyday time works is a matter of interpretation. To read this as the flow of real time in the universe having changed would be wrong; it is a controlled process set up in a laboratory. [Rubino 2017]
Looking side by side
The effect of a cause and Bell correlations: they stand close. At a glance what they share is this: in both places the bond is real and tight, but no instrument can be shown of which one could say "this does that". In Dost the water and the washer do work, but they are not the one who cleanses. In physics the results of two distant measurements come out in agreement, but no message can be sent with this agreement. [Hensen 2015; SEP: Quantum Entanglement and Information]
Where they part is large. The bond in physics is statistical: it emerges from the results of many measurements and has been shown not to be explainable by a local hidden order [Bell 1964; SEP: Bell's Theorem]. In Dost the matter is ontological: whose is the work, who is the cause? One keeps saying there is no instrument for the question "who carries this correlation"; the other says "the work is Allah's". We do not say that these two "nones" are the same thing.
Where could a seer notice a difference? Perhaps here: on both sides one starts not from the idea of causality but from the experience of "we cannot show the cause and the instrument together". We leave this only as a possibility.
The question we are left with: are Bell's "there is a bond, no transmission" and Dost's "the cause is an occasion, the work is another's" two faces of the same form, or are they separate questions because the bond is statistics in physics and ontology in Dost?
Free choice and necessity: they greet each other from a distance. Dost holds necessity and choice in the same sentence (c5k64). In Bell tests, by contrast, it appears as an assumption that the one making the experiment can choose the measurement setting freely [SEP: Bell's Theorem]. What they share is only the word "choice" and its being tested. Where they part: free will is not a question of physics; "choice" in physics is the choice of a measurement setting. A seer may nonetheless draw another question from here; we did not see one. The open question: do the "freedom" assumed in the Bell test and Dost's "compelled but choosing" sentence come out at the same door? Most likely not, but we do not give up asking.
Indefinite order and "the work is a cycle": they greet each other from a distance. In Dost two things are each other's condition and it is not said which came first (c13k151). In physics the order of two operations can be put into an indefinite state [Procopio 2015; Rubino 2017]. At a glance what they share: the order "first this, then that" is broken. Where they part: in Dost this is an ontological bond covering the whole world, in physics a controlled process set up in a laboratory. The form of time was dealt with separately on the Time page, and the extra specificity there did not come up again on this page. The open question: can indefiniteness of order fit into the same sentence as the idea of the cycle, or is only the word "no order" shared?
Mutual demand and the cycle: we did not look at this door. In Dost names demand the possibles, and possibles demand names (for example c15k186). We did not look for a place for this in physics. A seer may perhaps find a place; we did not.
The possible that knows and hears before existing: we did not look at this door. Sentences such as "The possible in the state of non-existence has the property of hearing" (c12k146) are ontological; we did not look for a counterpart in physics.
The act belonging to Allah, the servant being the locus: we did not look at this door. "To whom does the act belong" is not a question asked in physics; the relevant row on the Both-and page can also be consulted.
Knowledge is subordinate to the known: we referred it to the Knowledge page. "Knowledge is subordinate to the known" (c15k168) and the sentence of mutual determination in c10k130 are not the main subject of this page. They were dealt with separately on the Knowledge page; a closeness at the level of greeting from a distance was found there.
Questions we are left with
- Are the sentence "there is a bond but no transmission" (Bell) and Dost's sentence "the cause is an occasion, the work is another's" two faces of the same form, or are they separate questions because the bond is statistics in physics and ontology in Dost?
- While Dost says the work belongs to Allah, physics says "there are no local hidden variables". Are these two "nones" the same thing, or only the same word?
- In Dost the breaking of the chain is a judgment embracing the whole world; in physics the breaking is measured in carefully built laboratory setups. Does this difference in scale weaken the closeness from the start, or are we only meeting the same form in different places?
- In Dost, are the sentences "knowledge is subordinate to the known" and "the act is Allah's" two ends of the same question of cause and effect? We could not tell them apart.
What did we not do?
We did not compare Dost's words with the Arabic original; what we read is the site's Turkish section summary and the translation. The grouping of themes (which sentence goes into which group) is a reader's work and could be done otherwise. The bibliographic details of the physics sources were checked against Crossref, arXiv and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Every closeness on this page stays a question; the places where we say "we did not look at this door" are also a result. We do not understand Dost; we do not give up trying to understand.