This page in one paragraph
On this page we look at the form of Dost's words about time: time is both real and has no existence of its own outside, both a common measure and different for each one. The line that stands closest is one the page calls "greeting from a distance": the saying "time is real but not a thing in itself outside" set beside the Page-Wootters line, in which time is read from the relation between a clock and the rest. The line that stands farthest is "walking separate roads": in Dost there is a single now and it belongs to al-Haqq, while in special relativity there is no now that everyone shares. For the loosening of order, for re-creation at every instant, and for circular time we say "we did not look at this door." Whether the two sides ask the same question remains open; the page reaches no conclusion in any line, it only asks.
What is this form?
The subject of this page is the manner in which the words about time are spoken; "form of unreason" means the pattern of the saying, not of the content (the numbering of the sections is explained on the introduction page). We all live time as though we knew it. The clock runs, tomorrow comes, yesterday passes. But when asked "what is time?", our hands are empty. On Dost's pages, things about time that hardly fit together stand side by side: time is real, but it has no being of its own outside; it is a divine name, yet each name has its own day; it flows, yet the matter also returns to where it began.
What we call Time on this page is not the content of these sentences one by one but their form. Time is at once solid and like a shadow; at once everyone's common measure and different for each. In one sentence the "now" is single and belongs to al-Haqq; in another a journey fits a twenty-day road into a mid-morning hour.
We look to see whether physics has something similar to this form. In physics too, time is one of the most astonishing things exactly where it is thought to be best known. Clocks run differently with speed and height, "the same moment" changes with the observer, some theorists do not count time as something fundamental. The outcome is not known in advance: there are some who wave from afar, there are doors we did not look at, and in one place the two sides go in opposite directions. We write all of it as it is.
One more thing must be said at the outset: seeing time as a "relation" (nisba), that is, thinking that time appears in the relation between one thing and another, is not a manner of speaking peculiar to Dost; such sayings exist in philosophy and in kalām as well. So the form here should not be counted as one that, by itself, distinguishes Dost.
What does Dost say?
«As for the outer existence of time and nature, it does not exist.» (c2k26, p. 380)
The other verses in the same section say that time is real but is known through vehimler (illusions), that is, through the mind's grasp (we read this section from the summary); this sentence, however, covers not only time but also nature: neither has an existence of its own outside. The section also gives a reason: if time were something existing by itself, al-Haqq's not being limited by any limitation, that is, His tanzih, would not hold (tanzih: purifying al-Haqq of every limit resembling the created).
"Real" and "no existence outside" stand together, and the one does not cancel the other. In physics this is a form distinct enough to raise the question "is time something fundamental, or does it come out of a relation?"
«You are my time, and I am your time.» (c1k2, p. 60)
The time of one side is the other. The same idea appears in c14k159 as well: the time of the Lord is the servant, the time of the servant is the Lord; because the ruling of each appears only together with the other. Time here is not like a river flowing alone in the middle, but like a bond between two sides.
This bond is spoken of between Lord and servant, that is, at the level of the relation of lord and Lord (ilâh–Rabb); not at the level of the Essence, and the two sides are not counted as equal. The similar structure in physics (a clock and a measured system) is between two things of different kinds. The structure may resemble; the sides do not.
«Had you not left us?» (c13k150, p. 110)
A journey Dost recounts: a twenty-day road is crossed from mid-morning to sunset, and on the return his family says he never left. The time that passed for the traveler and the time that passed for those who stayed at home are not the same.
The time of the two sides differs, but in the account this seems not a matter of measure but a matter of state. In physics, "the duration of two observers differs" is a measured fact; here there is no measure, there is an account. This difference is important.
«The moment (waqt) is a state existing between two nonexistences» (c9k124, p. 356)
The moment is only the present; both past and future are on the side of nonexistence. In other sections (c3k38) it is said that the now belongs to al-Haqq, and that the servant is nothing but a "now" squeezed between these two nonexistences. (In Sufism "waqt" can also mean the state the wayfarer is in; here we looked at its meaning in the section's own sentence.)
Here there is a single now, and it is privileged. This seems to stand in the opposite direction to the physical sentence "there is no common now for everyone"; but we do not know whether the two sides mean the same thing when they say "now."
«The matter has ended as it began, the end has become the same as its beginning.» (c12k143, p. 59-60)
Here time does not stretch out like a line; the end returns to the beginning. In c14k167 too it is said "the matter is circular, there is no extremity." As an aid to expression: even if someone who sets out on a journey arrives, on arrival, at the place he set out from, the road has not gone to waste, because the one who returns is no longer the same person.
The return here is not a model of time but a circle of state and station. In physics we did not look for a counterpart for this; we wrote that below as well.
«al-Haqq is swifter than His servant, and before the servant reaches the sins, al-Haqq reaches the retribution.» (c12k146, p. 249)
Here the order is reversed: the outcome is ready before the cause is reached. In the same direction, c11k134 recounts that what is to come is "descending" as a command, and that the people of unveiling see the future in this way.
The ordering of before and after loosens in these sentences. But these sentences are spoken in the context of destiny and divine knowledge; this is not an order in an experiment, but an order concerning being. We did not read this context separately, so we avoided placing it side by side with the order experiments in physics (below).
What is there in physics?
Hafele-Keating 1972 — Flying clocks, the prediction
Hafele and Keating calculated that the theory of relativity says something: a clock moving fast falls behind, while a clock held at height (because gravity is weaker) runs ahead. The question was whether this could be seen at everyday scale, with real clocks. The plan was this: to carry four cesium atomic clocks around the world on commercial airplanes, once eastward and once westward. This paper is only the prediction: the clocks going east should fall slightly behind those on the ground, those going west should run ahead. The differences are on the nanosecond scale, that is, a billionth of a second. The observed results are in an accompanying separate paper. This prediction is a consequence of a theory, but that it was made testable is important. [Hafele 1972]
Hafele-Keating 1972 — Flying clocks, the measurement
The second paper of the same team writes what the flights actually showed. The clocks flying east fell behind by about 59 nanoseconds, those flying west ran ahead by about 273 nanoseconds. Both numbers come with a margin of measurement, but direction and magnitude agreed well with the prediction of the theory of relativity. Here the measurement is experiment; how much of the difference depends on speed and how much on height is theoretical calculation. What gives one pause is that time's not being a single flow for everyone has been shown with clocks one can hold in the hand. This is not an interpretation, it is a measured fact. [Hafele 1972]
Bailey 1977 — Muons in a circular ring
The muon is a very short-lived particle; the time it takes to decay makes it a clock. At CERN, researchers circulated muons in a circular ring at speeds very close to the speed of light and measured how long they lived. Moving muons lived markedly longer than stationary muons, and this lengthening came out very close to the relativistic prediction. It was done separately for positively and negatively charged muons. This is an experimental result; what time is, is a separate matter of interpretation. We did not go into numerical details. [Bailey 1977]
Chou 2010 — Optical clocks and relativity
Formerly, to see relativistic effects one needed speeds close to the speed of light or satellites. Chou and colleagues used extremely precise optical atomic clocks and showed that the effect can be measured at everyday scale too: a clock moving at very small speeds runs a little slow, and a clock set higher by a very small height difference advances at a different rate. This is an experiment and consistent with relativity. What gives one pause is that the intuition "time flows the same for everyone" is disturbed in a measurable way even at a very small height difference. [Chou 2010]
Einstein 1905 — On the electrodynamics of moving bodies
If the speed of light is found to be the same for everyone, how does what two moving observers call "at the same time" fit together? Einstein started from two principles: the laws of physics look the same to everyone moving uniformly, and the speed of light in vacuum does not depend on the motion of the source. From this he concluded that simultaneity is not absolute: "the same moment" changes according to who looks. This is a theory, and it has been tested by a great number of experiments over the following century. The side that gives pause is that the "now" is not single for everyone. What this says about the nature of time is a matter of interpretation. We did not go into the electrodynamic details of the paper. [Einstein 1905]
Page-Wootters 1983 — Evolution without change
The equations of physics always take time as a parameter. But if the universe is a closed whole, who keeps the clock outside it? Page and Wootters brought a proposal: the whole of the universe may be static; change arises from comparing one part of the system (an internal clock) with the rest. That is, the impression "time is passing" is read from the relation between what the clock shows and the rest. This is a proposal of theory, not an experiment. The side that gives pause is that change does not appear in the whole, and comes out only from the relation between parts. Whether it is really so is disputed. As an aid to expression: like the clocks and calendar in a closed room, a static picture seen from outside the room, a flowing life seen from inside. [Page 1983]
Giovannetti 2015 — Quantum time
The Page-Wootters proposal had been criticized: for example, can it correctly give the known results of successive measurements? This paper builds a consistent form of the proposal and shows that the known probabilities of successive measurements made at different times can come out of this theory. This is a theoretical work, not an experiment. It offers a mathematically convincing model but does not claim that time is really born this way. What gives one pause is that the impression of flow can come out of a state that never flows. [Giovannetti 2015]
Rovelli 2009 — Forget time
Physics equations mostly put a time t at the head. Rovelli, in the effort to unite quantum theory and gravity, argues that the fundamental equations can be built without a flow of time as well: there are measurable relations between things, and "time" appears like an approximation derived from them. This is a proposal of theory and philosophy; not a result tested by experiment. The side that gives pause is that what everyday experience counts as the most unchanging thing may not be needed at the fundamental level. The view is still disputed. [Rovelli 2009]
Moreva 2014 — Time from entanglement, a demonstration
This paper shows a small scene of the Page-Wootters idea in the laboratory. Two photons are prepared entangled; one is used like a clock, the other is measured with it. Someone who reads the other photon by looking at the clock photon, that is, someone looking from inside the system, sees the other photon changing with time. Someone looking from outside the system at the state of the two together sees no change at all: the state stands still. The title itself says this: "an experimental illustration", that is, a demonstration. It brings the idea to life; it does not show that the universe really works this way. [Moreva 2014]
Procopio 2015 — Two orders together
In an operation, doing A then B and doing B then A often give different results. In this experiment, through which gate a photon passes first is tied to the state of a second photon, making "two orders together." With this arrangement, whether two operations give the same result when their order is swapped can be learned with fewer trials; a theoretical advantage is shown in the laboratory. This is an experimental result. The authors say this can be read as a "superposition of causal orders," but this reading is interpretation. What gives one pause is that the order of events can behave like a quantum possibility. [Procopio 2015]
Rubino 2017 — Indefinite causal order
In daily life events follow an order: first A, then B. In this work researchers built and measured a process, in short a "quantum switch," in which the order of two operations on a light particle depends on another quantum particle. The results match a criterion showing that the operations cannot be put into an order of "first this, then that." This is an experimental result, but which assumptions it rests on and how it connects to everyday time is a matter of interpretation. To read it as "the real flow of time in the universe has changed" would be wrong; this is a controlled process set up in the laboratory. [Rubino 2017]
SEP 2024 — Being and becoming in modern physics
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry takes up these questions: is time real, does it flow, do past and future exist as much as the present? These questions have been debated for more than two thousand years. The entry says modern physics gives tools that sharpen these old questions. In relativity, because "the same moment" can change according to the one who looks, there seems to be no common "now" for everyone; what follows from this is disputed. What is certain are the equations of relativity and the measurements of time dilation. What is disputed is what these say about whether time flows. The entry deliberately separates these two domains. [SEP: Being and Becoming in Modern Physics]
What does the secondary literature say?
According to the SEP entry, in Ibn Arabi God's words, like human words, quickly dissipate, and so are renewed "with every breath" (ma'a'l-enfâs). The conclusion the entry reports is this: everything other than God is created anew at every instant (tajdid-i khalq) and nothing remains in a single state, passing continually from one form to another. The entry gives this understanding as connected to the principle "there is no repetition in self-disclosure." This paragraph is not Dost's word, it is the account of the secondary literature. [SEP: Ibn 'Arabi]
Looking side by side
Time is real but not a thing in itself outside: greeting from a distance.
What is shared: on both sides time ceases to be fundamental at the very place we thought most solid. In Dost "it is real but has no outer existence"; in the Page-Wootters line time is read from the relation between a clock and the rest [Page 1983; Giovannetti 2015; Rovelli 2009; Moreva 2014]. Where they part: Dost's sentence speaks of being and tanzih (if time were fundamental, al-Haqq would be limited); the physical one is a model, the proposal of some authors, a demonstration in the laboratory. Moreva calls itself an "illustration" and the theory is disputed. Besides, saying "time is relation" is an old philosophical line; we cannot say it is the same line as Page-Wootters and Rovelli either. Where one who sees might notice a difference: in the twofold stance of Dost's saying "real but not outside," and in the pair in physics, "flowing from inside, still from outside." Open question: could "time is real but not outside" and "time is not fundamental, it comes out of relation" be two answers given to the same question, or answers to different questions?
Time is a bond between two sides: greeting from a distance.
What is shared: "You are my time, and I am your time" and the mutual bond of a clock and a measured system; both speak of time not from a single side but from between two sides. Where they part: in Dost the bond is between two beings; in physics, between a measuring device and a system. The sides are of different kinds. Where one who sees might notice: in the structure of the sentence "the ruling appears only together with the other." Open question: is this resemblance a real structure, or a general pattern that fits every two-sided relation? We could not tell them apart.
Duration is not the same for everyone: tempting, but we did not do this.
What is shared: in Dost a twenty-day road fits into a mid-morning hour, the Night of Qadr corresponds to a long span; in physics the duration of a fast or high clock is different [Hafele 1972; Bailey 1977; Chou 2010]. Where they part: in physics this is quantitative and lawful; everyone can calculate it with the same formula and has measured it. In Dost the scale depends on name, state and person, there are no numbers. What is shared is only the sentence "duration may not be the same for everyone," which is very general. We could not see more than this resemblance. Open question: does so general a commonality really say anything?
Order loosens: we did not look at this door.
In Dost the outcome can be ready before the cause and the future is "descending"; but these words occur in the context of destiny and divine knowledge, and we did not read that context separately. On the physics side the order of two operations may not receive a single definition [Procopio 2015; Rubino 2017], but this is the measure of a quantum switch set up in the laboratory, not carried over to everyday time. To put the two side by side without reading the context would have been forcing. Open question: in Dost does "before-after" loosen on a plane of comparison, or does it really lift? To find out, this must be read together with the context of destiny.
A single now, no common now: they seem to walk separate roads.
What is shared: on both sides the "now" holds a special place. Where they part: in Dost there is a single now and it is al-Haqq's; the servant is nothing but a now squeezed between two nonexistences. In special relativity there is no universal now that everyone shares, "the same moment" changes according to the one who looks [Einstein 1905; SEP: Being and Becoming in Modern Physics]. They seem to stand in opposite directions, but whether the two sides ask the same question when they say "now" is not known. We record this too; the page makes no choice. Where one who sees might notice: in the word "now" meaning something different in the two places. Open question: is this opposition a sign that the two languages ask different questions, or a real divergence?
Re-creation at every instant: we did not look at this door.
Dost's line "nothing is repeated" (c11k141) is tied to the question of continuity and discontinuity, so it was taken up as a separate form, on the Continuity page. We did not repeat it here.
Beginning and end touch: we did not look at this door.
In Dost "the matter is circular." In physics there are cyclic cosmologies, but they are speculative, and the circle in Dost is a circle of state and station, not a physical cycle. To pair the two would have been forcing; we did not do it.
Analogies we rejected: tempting, but we did not do this.
Tying the sentence "fifty thousand years fit into a day" to time dilation was set aside because it does not meet a quantitative criterion. Matching circular time with a cosmic cycle is also without support. We recorded these so that they will not be proposed again later.
Questions we are left with
- Could the sentence "time is real but has no outer existence" and "time is not fundamental, it comes out of relation" be two answers to the same question?
- Dost's single now and the now according to the observer in relativity: are the two languages asking different things, or do they really diverge?
- The commonality "duration may not be the same for everyone" is so general; does it say anything?
- When "before-after" loosens in Dost, on what plane does he say it: being, knowledge, perception?
- Does the two sides' seeing time as a bond show the same structure, or only a general pattern that fits every two-sided relation?
What did we not do?
We did not compare Dost's sentences with the Arabic original; what we read is the Turkish section summaries of the site and the translated quotations. This is not a reading summary, it is our own frame of reading: we do not understand Dost, and we do not give up trying to understand.
We do not say that one thing is identical to another or that one confirms the other; what we see is only a closeness of form, and that remains a question. We are not physicists; short summaries of the sources are on the /yan-yana/kaynaklar/ page, and those carrying uncertainty are marked there.