This page in one paragraph
We read Dost's sentences saying "nothing comes a second time, everything is created anew at every moment" and asked whether physics has something resembling this. The place that stands closest is that both say "you cannot produce the same again": in Dost a self-disclosure (tajalli) does not come a second time, in physics a copy of an unknown quantum state cannot be made; the page labels this "greets from a distance". The same label is used for identical particles, where the question "which is which?" can lose its meaning, and for Dost's single sha'n. Where they part is wide: in physics the prohibition applies only to an unknown state and its reason is the linearity of the equations, whereas in Dost the reason is the exaltedness of al-Haqq. Themes such as non-annihilation, before and after creation, and the circle we deliberately did not look at, and the subject of bewilderment we left to the Bewilderment page. What remains open is whether the sentence "the same does not come" says something else that goes beyond that "unknown" proviso from the outset.
What is this form?
Reading Dost, one sentence stops a person: the self-disclosure does not come the same a second time. It does not come twice in the same form, nor does it come the same to two persons. The world seems continuous to us; the mountain we looked at yesterday is still there today. Dost, however, says that this continuity may be a veil: at every breath there is a new creating, and we see only the likeness.
We call this form Non-repetition (in Turkish, "tekrarsızlık"). Our everyday mind is used to this: if something happened once, with the same conditions it will happen again. Tomorrow the sun will rise too, the same prayer is the same prayer. Dost's sentence hollows out the ground beneath this habit: what we call "the same" may be each time a new thing resembling the other very closely.
On reading this we wanted to look at a place or two in physics. But let us say at the outset: in this section the physics side is not crowded. On Dost's side we saw seven themes, and for only two of them could we find a door in physics. The rest we either did not look at or left to another page. We wanted to write that down too.
What does Dost say?
«According to unveiling, nothing is repeated. Everything is in a state not of -renewal- but of re-creation.» (c11k141, p. 277-278)
Here Dost does not find even the word "renewal" sufficient. In renewal there is an implication that a thing itself begins again; yet what is said is that every moment is a new creating. Worth noting: this is not a sentence of "everything changes" but of "nothing comes a second time". To change presupposes that the thing that changes endures. Here even enduring is questioned.
«Allah does not self-disclose twice in the same form to a single person, nor does He appear in a single form to two persons.» (c2k26, p. 366)
Two things are said. One is that the same self-disclosure does not come twice to the same person, the other that the same self-disclosure is not shown to two persons at once. Worth noting: the prohibition runs in two directions. There is no repetition within time, and no sharing between persons. A self-disclosure comes once, to one person, in one form.
«Al-Haqq is too exalted to self-disclose twice in a single form or to two persons. So in al-Haqq there is no repetition in self-disclosure» (c10k130, p. 239)
The same idea comes elsewhere, with its reason. Not repeating is derived not as a defect or a prohibition but from exaltedness: what repeats is limited, whereas al-Haqq's self-disclosure cannot be limited. Worth noting: the reason is not "nature works this way" but "al-Haqq is too exalted for this". The closeness we look for in physics will be a closeness of outcome, not a closeness of reason.
«Every breath is a construction and a creation. So with every breath a new creating of al-Haqq takes place in us. Whoever does not know the matter falls into doubt about the re-creation. For the sense is veiled by a form in which the alteration is not felt» (c6k80, p. 224)
This passage tells the everyday face of the form: why do we not see the re-creation? Because our sense does not feel the alteration, likeness covers the new. Worth noting: the veil here is not the eye's deception but likeness itself. If a new thing resembles the earlier one exactly, there remains no way to tell the two apart.
«Al-Haqq does not annihilate things; He removes them, for He is the agent… So death is not an annihilation but a removal.» (c5k69, p. 431)
This is the other face of Non-repetition. If nothing comes a second time, what goes does not go to nonexistence either; it changes degree. The text reads death as a "removal". Worth noting: "every moment is new" and "nothing is annihilated" seem like the two ends of one sentence. The new comes, and the old is not annihilated. Whether we can look at this in physics we wrote below.
«So for al-Haqq the sha'n is one, whereas according to the capacities of the world the whole world is sha'ns» (c6k85, p. 333)
Here the matter turns into one of multiplicity: the sha'n that is one in al-Haqq appears, according to the receptivity of the world, as all the sha'ns of the world. Worth noting: the multiplicity comes not from real separateness but from the one being taken in different ways. This opens the question "are there separate things?"
What is there in physics?
Wootters 1982 — The uncopyable state
A photocopier duplicates a page. The question is this: can a machine be built that exactly duplicates an unknown quantum state? The paper by Wootters and Zurek shows, starting from the linearity of the equations of quantum theory, that it cannot. A perfect second copy of a state we do not know contradicts the theory. This is not an experiment but a theoretical result; yet today it is used at the foundation of quantum information science and secure communication. Why does it stop one? In the classical world we duplicate information as much as we like without damaging it; here, there is no second copy of an unknown state. An important detail: the prohibition is for an unknown state. If it is known, preparing that state anew is allowed. [Wootters 1982]
Dieks 1982 — A proposal for communication through entanglement
Dieks's short paper comes out with another question: could entangled pairs of particles serve faster-than-light communication? A proposal put forward around that time hoped to read out by copying the state at one end of the pair. Dieks showed that a perfect copy of an unknown state is incompatible with the rules of quantum mechanics; so the proposal does not work. The same result is also known from Wootters and Zurek's work of the same year and is called the "no-cloning theorem". This too is a theoretical result. What matters for us is this: that an unknown state cannot be copied is a result that refutes proposals of faster-than-light communication through entanglement. [Dieks 1982]
Bennett 1993 — The teleportation proposal
Think of sending not an object but its information. Bennett and his colleagues propose a route like this: Alice and Bob share in advance an entangled pair of particles. Alice makes a joint measurement on the particle in the unknown state she wants to send and on her own entangled particle. This measurement destroys the original state but yields an ordinary two-bit result. Alice reports this result to Bob by an ordinary route; Bob applies a correction to the particle he holds according to the result and obtains an exact copy of the original state. This is a theoretical proposal, later realized in experiments. Nothing travels faster than light, because ordinary news cannot pass light. Nor does copying take place, because the original is destroyed in the measurement. What stops one is this: one half of the information is carried by entanglement, the other half by the ordinary channel. [Bennett 1993]
Bouwmeester 1997 — The first teleportation experiment
Bouwmeester and colleagues realized the proposal in an experiment. They rebuilt the polarization state of one photon in another photon, without carrying that photon over. They made two photons entangled, the sender side made a joint measurement, passed the result through a classical channel, and the state formed anew at the receiver. The original state was destroyed in the process. This is an experiment. The stopping side is that the whole information of a state reappears elsewhere through communication that does not exceed the speed of light. But it must be said that this does not mean "matter was teleported": only the state is transferred, the photon itself does not go. [Bouwmeester 1997]
SEP 2024 — Identical particles
This entry of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy asks: does quantum physics permit us to think of particles as separate individuals of whom we can say "this one" or "that one"? According to the entry, the "accepted view" that became widespread at the time quantum theory was founded is that elementary particles cannot be counted as individuals in this sense. Following this, special logic systems that set up identity differently, which cannot count individuals, were developed. On the other hand, it has also been argued that physics can nevertheless be reconciled with a metaphysics that speaks of individuals; but in that case these individuals are so indistinguishable from one another that Leibniz's principle of the "identity of indiscernibles" is violated. This claim too has met with objection. That is, this is not an experiment but a philosophical inquiry; the results are not certain, they are contested. What stops one is that the question "which is which" about two electrons can lose its meaning. [SEP: Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory]
What does the secondary literature say?
According to the SEP entry, "la tikrar fi't-tajalli", that is, there is no repetition in al-Haqq's showing Himself (tajalli), is one of the basic principles of Ibn Arabi's thought, and the entry counts it as a direct application of tawhid. The reasoning the entry relays is as follows: since al-Haqq is one, He is unique in each of His acts as well; hence every created thing and every moment of everything is unique; because it depends on the infinite, nothing can be repeated exactly. The entry presents this together with the understanding that says the cosmos is re-created at every moment (tajdid al-khalq) and extends the same principle to the reading of the Quran as well: according to what it relays, Ibn Arabi says that a person who rereads a verse and sees in it exactly the same meaning as before has not read it as it deserves. This paragraph is not Dost's word, it is the secondary literature's account. [SEP: Ibn 'Arabi]
Looking side by side
The non-repetition of self-disclosure and the uncopyable state: greets from a distance
At a glance, what is shared is this: on both sides there is a limit that says "you cannot produce the same again". In Dost the same self-disclosure does not come twice or to two persons; in physics a second copy of an unknown quantum state cannot be produced [Wootters 1982; Dieks 1982].
Where they part is important and we should not take it lightly. The prohibition in physics is only for an unknown state; if it is known, we can prepare the same state anew as much as we like. In Dost's sentence we did not see a distinction of "known" and "unknown"; the self-disclosure does not come twice in any form. Moreover, the reason for the prohibition in physics is the linearity of the equations, in Dost it is the exaltedness of al-Haqq. We did not set out to compare the reasons. And one more thing: the idea that "there is no repetition" may have been said also in other traditions of thought (kalam included); we did not look at those contexts, and we do not say that the form is specific to Dost.
Where might a reader notice a difference? Perhaps here: by looking at the relation between "not knowing" and "not coming a second time". In physics, uncopyability is tied to being unable to obtain the information. Whether Dost's sentence has such a condition of information we could not see; a reader may notice a difference if he sees the place of knowing in Dost's account of self-disclosure.
The question we are left with: can the sentence "the same does not come a second time" only be spoken of together with the "unknown" proviso of physics once that proviso is removed? Or is Dost's sentence saying something else that goes beyond this proviso from the outset? In addition, that in the teleportation experiments the original state is destroyed in the measurement and appears elsewhere [Bennett 1993; Bouwmeester 1997] opens no new closeness, it shows one face of the same uncopyability result.
The single sha'n, many forms, and identical particles: greets from a distance
At a glance, what is shared is this: on both sides the question of "separate things" is shaken. In Dost the single sha'n appears as multiplicity according to the receiver; in physics the question of which of two electrons is which can lose its meaning [SEP: Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory].
Where they part is wide. The SEP entry is a philosophical debate and the results are not certain; it is about the difficulty of counting individuals. The sentence in Dost, however, is an account of being: what is seen in multiplicity is the way the single sha'n is taken. The one says "we cannot count", the other says "the one appears many".
Where can a reader notice this? By looking at the concept of "indistinguishability". In physics, the number of two indistinguishable things even becomes a question; in Dost multiplicity is a matter of viewpoint. This link can gain meaning only through a more careful look by a reader; we could only say that they greet each other from a distance.
The question we are left with: does the meaninglessness of "which is which?" and saying "multiplicity exists as form" lead to the same door, or just to two different doors?
Non-annihilation and return: we did not look at this door
Dost says that nothing goes to nonexistence, that there is only passage from being to being (c5k69, c16k207). In physics there is a conservation idea resembling this, but we did not want to set them side by side without adding the source. We made no pairing without a source. For this reason we do not say closeness for this theme, and we do not open a question either.
Before and after creation, the circle and endless return: we did not look at this door
The sentence "with al-Haqq there was nothing else" and the idea that the circle has no end approach cosmology and geometry. The cosmology side is largely speculative, the geometry side would be too bare a similarity for us. We deliberately did not look at these two themes.
Bewilderment, incapacity and knowledge: we left it to another page
This theme is a form in its own right, Bewilderment. We take it up more broadly there; we did not repeat it here.
Questions we are left with
- Does Dost's sentence "it does not come twice in the same form" contain the proviso of physics that "an unknown state cannot be copied", or does it say something broader that passes beyond that proviso?
- Could the original state's disappearing in teleportation and appearing elsewhere come together with Dost's sentence "He does not annihilate, He removes", or is this merely a similarity of words?
- Does the meaninglessness of "which is which?" rest on the same intuition as the single sha'n appearing many, or are there two separate bewilderments?
- If in Dost the reason is al-Haqq's exaltedness, and in physics the reason is the linearity of the equations, can the two reasons ever be set side by side?
- In this form we were able to make only a small part of 102 items speak with physics. Is it also a result that the majority that remains has no counterpart in physics?
What did we not do?
We did not compare Dost's words with the Arabic original. What we read was the site's Turkish section summaries; we kept the quotations identical to the text in the summary, but we did not see the original. We also reported the physics sources not by reading the full texts but with the summaries we have.
We do not say that one thing is identical to another or that it confirms it. Each of the things we set side by side carries meaning within itself, in its own language. We do not understand Dost, but we do not give up trying to understand; this page is a record of that effort, not a result.