Page 1 of 22

Geometry and Number

alif is not a letter and 1 is not a number

Contents
―The number system, all of it, is combined in the 1‖ ......................................................... 2
―If you say, One, you are correct; if you say, Two things, you are correct‖ ................... 8
―An occurrence different from the maʿlūm is impossible‖ .............................................. 13
The Role of complex i ....................................................................................................... 13
Rapid upscale cascade of uncertainty ............................................................................ 14
Counterfactuals ................................................................................................................. 15
Squaring the Circle ............................................................................................................... 18
Spiritual Geometry: non-linear, discontinuous, non-commutative ............................... 21

[9,144] The spiritual tradition of Islamic civilisation held that alif is not a letter and 1 is not a
number. In the heart of this tradition, in the Futuhat al-Makkiyyah, we find that the situation
of the alif and the 1 is not a curiosity or an eccentric positition—it forms the core of a
worldview with implications in the everyday, in language and in behavior, in reading the
Qur‘an and in the practice of Islam.
That spiritual tradition treats what, especially today, people call ―life,‖ ―reality,‖ and
―the universe‖ as a subset of something much larger. In the geometry of the subset, things
occupy places whose distances from each other are measurable (space); things happen
before or after other things (time); and the world is potentially, if not always actually,
predictable and controllable (continuum), building a spacetime continuum. Those who see
all this as a subset in a larger reality accept the subset‘s conventions, up to a limit. Classical
mechanics and its Euclidean geometry, also, is considered real, up to its limits, which are the
very small (quantum mechanics) and the very large (cosmology and quantum gravity). The
limits, for the spiritual tradition, are reached at the periods before birth, after death, and
during dreams. The ―superset‖ is another world, most close (adnā), which we populate
before birth, which we populate after death, and to which we return in dreams (for some,
while awake, for most, while asleep). In the chapter al-zumar (39):42,
God takes to Himself the souls when they die, and the ones that are not to die, in
their sleep. He holds the ones fixed for death and sends back the others, until a set
time. In that surely is a sign for a people who reflect.

ِۡۡ ‫ٱلله ي وفى ٱ ۡلأنف ين م ۡو ها وٱل ى ل ۡم م ۡت فى منامه ۖا في ۡمُِ ٱل ى ََى َل ۡيَا ٱ ۡلم ۡوَ وي‬
‫ٱ ۡلأ ۡ ۡى إلى إ ۬ مِ ًم ۚى إ فى َللُ لأيٰت ۬ت ل َۡو ۬ ي فَۡو‬
One place to start our reflection (yatafakkara) is on the alif and the 1.
 Page 2 of 22

The number system, all of it, is combined in the 1 1

In Chapter 2,2 Ibn ʿArabi [1165-1240/561-638] is introducing the letters to us,

describing their properties and realities in the subset and the superset. In the subset, alif and
1 are both the first terms of the alphabet (cf. alif-ba’) and the counting, whole number system.
In this passage,3 Ibn ʿArabi is telling us that the counting numbers are built on 1.

‫ فمهم ن َۡ إلو ود م ا و فصيلا و َ إل و ي يص به لأ يفا َه إلب ة بة إلوإ‬١٠٢

‫إلأَ إدت فا إلأ نين لأ و إب إ ما لم َف إلى إلوإ م له و هو إلأ نينت و لأ صح إل لا ة ما لم زد وإ‬
‫َلى إلأ نينت و هَ إ إلى ما لأ ي ناهىت فالوإ لي إل د و هو َين إل د إي به هۡ إل دت‬
However much you look at wujūd,4 Whole or Differentiated, you will find tawhid [cf.
wahid, one] there, accompanying it, never parted from it, ever. The 1 is the
companion accompanying the multiples (numbers). The 2 is never found unless 1 is
added to its like,5 making 2. And 3 is not true unless there is 1 more than 2. And so
on like this to infinity. So the 1 is not a number, but it is a Source of the number; that
is, from it comes out the number.
The following sentence of this passage gives an example of how the 1 is in every
number, and the signification of that.

‫فال د كله وإ ت لو نَ من إلألف وإ إن إِم إلألف و َيَ ه و بَيت َيَة إ ۡى و هي‬

‫ِ مائة و ِ ة و ِ و ت لو نَ منها وإ ل هب َينهات فم ى إن إلوإ من شيء َ و م ى بت و‬
‫َلُ إلشيءت هَ إ إل و ي إ ََ ه وهو م َم إين ما كن م‬
The number, each one, is 1. If 1 is subtracted from 1000, the name and its reality of
―one thousand‖ is voided, and it continues in another reality; that is, 999. If 1 is
subtracted from 999, its very being vanishes. So when the 1 is voided from
something, it becomes voided, and when 1 is firmly there, the thing is found (exists).
It is like this with tawhid, if you verify it for yourself: He is with you wherever you are
[hadid 57 :4].
This description reappears soon after,6 resonating with the difference between that is
the Book (2:2) and this is the verses of the Book [tilka āyātu ‘l-kitāb]. Ibn ʿArabi says the Book is
connected to Entire (jamʿ), and the verses is connected to Dispersal. He will connect this to
number, here.
The dhālika (that) is masculine singular, and the tilka (this) is feminine singular. He—
exalted—points to that is the Book first because wujūd is at base Entire, before being
dispersed. Then, He brought out dispersal in the verses, just as He made Entire the

1 1:204.
2 Chapter 2 begins at 1:176 in the edition of Dr. Abd al-Aziz al-Mansoub, 1:231 in Osman
Yahia, and 1:55 in Bulaq, available at http://www.archive.org/details/alfutuhatalmakki01ibnauoft.
3 1:201.
4 ―Existence,‖ but more accurately, ―everything you find.‖
5 We will see later that this word is crucial: like does not mean identical to.
6 1:204.
 Page 3 of 22

number, each one, in 1, as we have said above. So when we subtract it, the reality of
that number becomes voided.
As with the 1 being Entire, so the alif. Ibn ʿArabi says, ―The alif is not one of the
letters, according to the one who smells a scent of the realities, but people in general call it a
letter. When one who verifies for oneself (a muḥaqqiq) says it is a letter, one is saying that in
the way of conventional usage. The station of alif is the station of jamʿ (Entire).‖7
When the 1 is removed, the thing is gone; when the alif is present, the letter is
sounded, and when it is gone, the letter is mute (cf., surd, the old name for irrational
numbers). What emerges is that ―this letter alif is present in every letter or word, just like the
Single Monad that is also present in everything in the world. Indeed any sound that we
produce starts by the sound of letter alif because it is simply the beginning of the blowing of
the breath through the larynx.‖8 Even the written alif has the property of being in every
letter: ―al-Jīlī refers to the names and pronunciations of the Arabic letters, which, in one
form or another, contain the alif. Insofar as the alif is a geometrical line, all letters, as
geometrical shapes, can also be reduced to it. Al-ʿAlawī explains how the spatial formations
of the letters are no more than a transformation of the alif. The hā’ (H), he says, is simply a
hunch-back alif, while the mīm (M) is a circular alif. The alif is what all the letters have in
common.‖9 Everything we find, that is, all of existence, is ―on,‖ if the 1 or alif is inside; when
that goes, it goes ―off.‖ This is why the Punjabi sufi Bulleh Shah says,

‫عل وں بس کریں او ار اکو الف ترے درار‬

Enough of your sciences, my friend! What you need is just one alif
The dynamic of creation based on this vision of the alif and the 1 is described by Ibn ʿArabi
here.

‫فما إل َى ۡفا إل إئۡة ى ث إلم يط و دل إلم يط َلى نَ ة إل إئۡة ف ت إل وط من إلنَ ة‬

‫إلى إلم يط و لم او ه فا إل ط إنما يَو إلى نَ ة من إلم يط فان هى إلى م ما منه ۡج فصو ة إولي ه‬
‫َين و ة إ ۡي ة فيصيۡ من َم نَ ة إ ۡه إل ى إن هى إليها من إلم يط مۡكز لم يط إ ۡ نصفه من دإ‬
‫إلم يط إلأول و نصفه من ا ه ل َم إل اهۡ و إلبا ن و يل َى ۡفاه إيَا كال َاء ۡفى إلم يط إلأول ى‬
‫يَو َلى و ه لأنه من إلم ال إ ي ۡج َلى غيۡ و ه م ي هۡ من إل َم في إلم يط ما هۡ في‬
‫إلم يط إلأول إلى ما لأ ي ناهى و هو ما يبۡ من لُ إل زإئن إل ى لأ ي ناهى ما وى َليه و هو إل لق إل ي‬
‫إل ى في إلَو دإئما إب إ و ب إلناس إو إك ۡ إلناس في لب من َلُ كما َال الى ب هم في لب من‬
10
‫لق ي مع إلأنفاست‬

7 1:207.
8 Mohamed Haj Yousef [2008] Ibn ʿArabi: Time and Cosmology, London and New York:
Routledge, p. 181.
9 Samer Akkach [2005] Cosmology and Architecture in Premodern Islam: An Architectural

Reading of Mystical Ideas, New York: SUNY, p. 101.

10 Chapter 369, 3:403 (Bulaq). The verse is qaf 50:15. The last phrase, ―with the breath,‖ refers

to the nafas al-raḥmān, Kind One‘s breath, that infuses everything—it is the alif, the 1, that makes
something alive.
 Page 4 of 22

The outside wall of the circle proceeds until a circumference occurs. The
circumference points to the centerpoint of the circle, and the lines occur from the
centerpoint to the circumference, but not overstepping. The line is to the point from
the circumference, and so it ends like it went out. The form of its first part is the very
form of its last part.
Then by the motive force of a point at the last part of the line, where it ended on the
circumference, there starts to be a central point for another circumference: half of it
is inside the first circumference, and half of it is outside it—this is the force of
Exterior and Interior. The two walls proceed, too, as the first wall of the
circumference did, until it becomes its (the first‘s) form, because it is impossible that
it should come out in other than its form. Then, there appears with the motive force
of the circumference what appeared in the first circumference, on and on to infinity.
It is what protrudes from these treasure troves which do not end, what is
encompassed therein; it is the New Creation which existence is in ever, forever, and
some people—or most people—are in confusion about that, as He—exalted—said,
Rather, they are in confusion about the new creation, with the breaths.
Here are some illustrations of these bubble events.

Figure 1
From "Cosmology" [2005]

Figure 2 Author's sketch

We will look later at the idea of ―half inside and half outside.‖ Right now we are looking at
the New Creation, and in particular, a very important phenomenon that arises from these
endless proliferating bubbles. We continue with the passage. Ibn ʿArabi is talking about the
radial line, which generates another bubble, and the centerpoint. He says,
These two motive forces emanating into each circle are brought out from the First
Circle, so as the ensuing circles come out, as many as do—and they never cease to
 Page 5 of 22

come out—the First Circle [Ci], from which was made anew these circles [Cn]—starts
to become hidden, not recognized, not perceived; because each circle, approaching it
nearly or leaving it distantly [Cn→ci Cn→∞], is of its form. So one may say about it, it
is seen-but-not-seen; it is the Unseen in the Seen.11
(Earlier [1:199] Ibn ʿArabi spoke of the Unseen in the Seen as in the example of yā sīn, which
is visible, in the sense of being articulated, but invisible in the sense that in the manuscript
they are written, not voiced, i.e., y. s.) These circles are all alike, shaped as the original First
Circle, and yet they are different events, moments, observed worlds. The sentence before
―The outside wall of the circle proceeds‖ starts, ―You are told‖ (qāl lak), and so these bubbles
are the observer‘s world. Where do these bubbles go?
To answer the question, Where to these bubbles go, we turn to the descriptive
language of Clifford algebra (William Kingdon Clifford, 1845-1879) , called generically
Geometric Algebra. Start with the one-dimensional number line of the Reals. This number
line gives us a metric space that fits our conventions, including our notion that large
volumes emptying into small volumes make the large volume smaller and the small volume
larger, which we will challenge below. For now, what we do is expand the number line into
a number plane. That is, don‘t just move back and forth along the line; go up and down as
well. The geometric understanding of this two-dimensional number plane is attributed to
the 19th century mathematician Jean-Robert Argand. The two dimensional number plane is
called ℂ. We then have a complex number described by two axes, for example (5, 3i ).
On the number line, take 4 and multiply it by -1. The effect is
to swing 180 degrees around zero to -4. Multiply again by -1 and the
effect is swinging 180 degrees around zero back to 4. Multiplying by
a positive +1 takes negative numbers to positive and keeps positive
numbers positive. But on a number plane, there is a ―parking‖ space
where 4 could sit after being multiplied by some number i which
swings it to 90 degrees. Another multiplication by the i would swing
to 90 degrees to -4. Then, i x i = -1.
The number plane could also be extended to become a number volume, a three-
dimensional space of numbers. These are the quaternions, and the 19th century
mathematician William Hamilton came up with the ―parking‖ spaces for rotations, where
i² = j² = k² = i j k = −1
Doug, in The Far Side, has a sign reminding him, ―Socks first, then shoes.‖
As with socks and shoes, rotations in three-dimensions are non-
commutative. Rotating this way and then that way is not always the same
as rotating that way and then this way. The quaternions eliminate the problem of gimbal
lock, where a robotic arm or a camera mounted on a tripod twists one way completely (say,
up), another way completely (to one side), and a third way completely (say, inward) and
gets stuck. There is no other ―way‖ to go. The quaternion solution is to describe a single
move, say, rotate this many degrees around this new vector, instead of three separation

11 3:403.24-26.
 Page 6 of 22

directions. Quaternions are the way computer animations and games are designed.12 (There
is also a seven-dimensional space of numbers called the octonions, .)
Let us start with (a + b) multiplied by (a + b). That is, (a+b)2. We have a2, ab, ba, and
b2 . We have an a-squared element, two rectangles axb, and a b-squared element. The
binomial expansion is 1 2 1, for each element. Continue to (a + b)3. That is, (a+b)
(a2+ab+ba+b2). Multiplying through, we get
a3 + a2b + ba2 + ab2 and ba2 + ab2 + b2a + b3
We now have an a3 element, three a2b elements, three b2a elements, and a b3 element.
1a3 + 3a2b + 3b2a + 1b3
or
1 3 3 1
The binomial expansion is also the space of geometric
algebra. The combinatorial triangle seems to have been
universal (discovered by Chinese, Indians, and Arabs),
although we call it ―Pascal‘s‖ in English. We can call the
first 1 of the triangle the scalar numbers, that is, non-
dimensional values (such as temperature).

The next line is 1 1 and is the complex numbers, ℂ, where numbers have scalar and
dimensional (a directed magnitude on the Argand diagram) values, such as (5 + 4i ). The
next line is 1 3 3 1, giving us one scalar, three vectors, three bi-vectors (where two vectors
make a parallelogram), and one volume. Next is 1 4 6 4 1,
where we have a scalar, four vectors (which could be
compared to four orthogonal axes), six bi-vectors, four
volumes, and one ―pseudo-scalar.‖ One way to visualize the space is to see the four vectors
going up-down, left-right, back-forth, and some other direction at right angles to each of the
previous three. The six bi-vectors are the planes swept by left-back, left-forth, left-some
other direction; right-back, right-forth, right-some other direction. Switching to labels ―e,‖
we can describe the four volumes as e1-e2-e3, e1-e3-e4, e2-e3-e4, e2-e1-e4, and e3-e1-e4. As
with a matrix, we are combining (hence, combinatoric) each element once with another
element. Finally, there is one hyper-volume of four-dimensions.

12 John Vince [2007] Vector Analysis for Computer Graphics, London: Springer, page 189.
 Page 7 of 22

The binomial expansion table has many interesting qualities, including Fibonacci‘s
series13 and Sierpinski‘s triangles (where the odd numbers are shaded in, above). Let us
consider Pythagoras‘ triangle in the Clifford space. We note that the triangle reveals an order
at a higher dimension that is missing from the scalar dimension. The
numbers 3 and 4 and 5 are not related by 3+4=5 but their squares are
related as 32 + 42 = 52. The triangle is one-dimensional lines. But we
can jump up to the next dimension, by projecting orthogonal lines
from each length to make a square. Now draw two triangles, an
inside one of area C2 and an outside one of (a + b)2.
(a + b) (a + b) is a2 + ab + ba + b2
Notice that the difference between the two squares is the presence of four triangles. These
triangles have areas of ½ (a x b). Four such triangles are 4 (1/2) (a x b) or 2ab. Above, we had
ab and ba which is 2ab. So the difference between the two squares, on both sides, is 2ab.
That is,
c2 + 2ab = (a + b)2 = a2 + b2 + 2ab
subtract 2ab from both sides
c 2 = a 2 + b2
By moving up a dimension, the relationship between lengths could be seen as relationships
among areas.14
Now consider the triangle‘s legs to be vectors. Vectors are added by putting the tail
of the second onto the head of the first. So for the triangle, we see that vector a plus vector b
have a vector c as their sum. The hypotenuse, c, is the vector that is the same as the two
vectors a and b. The start of the a vector to the end of the b vector is the single vector c. We
can say that c = a + b. That is, the vector c is the sum of vector a and vector b. Further, c
squared, or vector c times itself, or cc, is (a + b)(a + b). Expanding, we have:
cc = (a + b)(a + b)
cc = aa + ab + ba + bb
Notice that when we expanded (a + b) we got two extra elements. We know from the
theorem that these two elements have to be zero, so that cc = aa + bb. We can write the two
―extra‖ elements that cancelled out two ways:
ab + ba = 0
ab = -ba
With the idea of a paintbrush,15 ab is the vector b swept along the vector a, giving the bi-
vector or plane we saw above. What is –ba? This product is the vector b turned into its

13 Counting from the binomial expansion triangle, we get 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 and on. These are the
number of petals (which is why the four-leaf clover is rare) on a flower, the spiral and number of
squares on a pineapple, and so on.
14 See Kerri Welch [2010] A Fractal Topology of Time: Implications for Consciousness and

Cosmology, Dissertation, California Institute of Integral Studies, page 101, for some implications.
 Page 8 of 22

negative, -b, and swept along vector a in such a way that the ab
plane is erased. The –ba paintbrush sweep makes a shape that is
under the fold or behind somewhere. It, plus the ab plane, make
zero. The –ba product is an oriented plane, a plane that has a
direction. But as with the Moebius strip, the ―side‖ is not defined.
One starts on the ―top‖ side and winds up on the ―bottom‖ without ever having left the
strip. The process provided a ―parking space,‖ much as does the complex i.
It is this paintbrush, I suggest, that tells us ―where‖ the bubbles go. Let us use this
vocabulary to describe this important phenomenon in the next passage.

If you say, One, you are correct; if you say, Two things, you are correct 16

Here, Ibn ʿArabi is describing how the alifs work under multiplication, and how a
New thing fares under multiplication by an Old thing. Old, here, is primordial, something
that never was not; new is something that was not, is now, and may not be later.

‫ فا ۡب إلألفين إ إ إ هما في إلأ ۡ يصح لُ في إل ا ج إلف وإ ة إ و ه إ َيَة إلأ صالت‬١٠١

‫ك لُ إ ۡب إلم ث في إلَ يم ِا يصح لُ في إل ا ج إلم ث و ي ف إلَ يم ب ۡو ه و ه إ َيَة‬
‫إشا ة إل ني في َوله‬ ‫إلأ صال و إلأ ادت وإَ َال بُ للملائَة إني اَ في إلأ ض ليفة و ه إ نَي‬
‫إ إلم ث إَإ َو بالَ يم لم يبق له إ ۡ لأ لاف إلمَا ت‬ ‫لل ا‬
Multiply (hit) the two alifs, one against the other, and you will correctly get for the
product 1 alif. This is a truth about continuity. Like that, multiply the New by the
Old, physically, and you will correctly get for the product New, and the Old will be
hidden by the product. This is a truth about continuity and oneness. Lo, your Lord said
to the angels, I am the Maker on Earth of a khalīfah [baqara 2:30]. This is the inverse
(opposite) of a subtle pointing by Junayd, with him saying to the sneezer, ―The New,
when it is connected to the Old, not a trace of it is left,‖ because of the difference of
station.17, 18
The reader must hold the first sentence in abeyance, because it is only one part of two truths,
namely, the one part of the truth about continuity. The second example is given as being
part of the double truths, of continuity and oneness. In the paintbrush, wedge product
vocabulary we developed above, let us multiply the New by the Old.
New x Old = - Old ^ New
Indeed, when the New is multiplied, hit, against the Old, the Old gets hidden and only the
New is seen. Ibn ʿArabi now recites a verse from the Qur‘an, with the key word khalīfah,
which must be taken back to its ʿarab, as opposed to modern, usage, if the passage is to make

15 See John Denker‘s description of the paintbrush as an expression for the outer wedge

product, http://www.av8n.com/physics/clifford-intro.htm
16 1:203.

17 A man sneezed and said, al-hamdu-lillah, and Junayd completed the verse, rabb al-ʿalamin,

whereupon the man said, Who is the created being, that he should be mentioned in the same breath
with God? This is the first part of Junayd‘s answer.
18 1:202.
 Page 9 of 22

any sense. The khalīfah is the one from behind (min khalfu) whom one acts. In this context, the
one from behind whom One Acts. When this ―wedge product‖ of Human being and the
Divine occurs, the visible product is the New, and the Old becomes hidden. What Junayd is
saying is the opposite, or more accurately, the inverse or reverse. The two statements are
―opposite,‖ in the sense of being inversions of one another, with both being true (not
―opposite‖ in the sense of one being right and one wrong). Notice that the first term is New,
and second term is Old, but the verb is in the passive; that is, the order would be reversed if
the verb were active. He is saying,
Old x New = - New ^ Old
And yes, when the New is multiplied by the Old; that is, Old x New; we find the New to be
hidden and the Old visible. (This wedge product illustration works throughout the Futuhat; I
have used it elsewhere to illustrate Ibn ʿArabi‘s use of the metaphor of shadows.)
Let us now take up again what we were holding in abeyance.

‫فبَيت إلفا إ إ في إلفۡقت‬ ‫فا ۡ نا نصف إل إئۡة من إللا إل ي فيت في لأ إلألف إلى َالم إل ۡكيب و إل‬
‫دإء و هو‬ ‫إلأ ۡ فَا إلوإ‬ ‫و هو ۡب إلشيء في نفِه فصا وإ إ إ فلب إلوإ‬ ‫في إلوإ‬ ‫فَۡبنا إلوإ‬
‫إل ي هۡ و هو إل ليفة إلمب ع بف ح إل إل و كا إلأ ۡ مۡ يا و هو إل ي في و هو إلَ يم إلمب ع فلا ي ۡف‬
‫َت و إ َلت َإ ا‬ ‫إلمۡ ي إلأ با ن إلۡدإء و هو إل مع و يصيۡ إلۡدإء َلى شَ إلمۡدي فا َلت وإ‬
19
‫َت َينا و كشفات‬
So we take out the half circle of the lam which is hidden in the lam alif into
the composite and physical world, and there remains two alifs, in the division.
So we multiply (hit) the one to the one; it is multiplying something by itself,
and there becomes one alif. The one is clothed in the other. The one is a cloak; it
is the one which came out; it is the khalīfah20 who was created [by the divine
Name al-badīʿ]—pronounced mubdaʿ--and the other is the one cloaked; it is the
one who is hidden; it is the Primordial who first created [mubdiʿ]. The one
cloaked is not recognized (seen) except by the inside of the cloak. It is union, and the
cloak begins to take on the shape of the one cloaked, so if you say, One, you are right,
and if you say, Two things, you are right, visibly [by demonstration] and by kashf.
The word ―clothed‖ (labisa) in ―the one is clothed in the other‖ is resonant with the
confusion (labs-in) the people are in about the New Creation. Now we see the two algebras:
1 x 1 = 1 and 1 x 1 = 2.
In geometric algebra, the square of a vector, for example, is a scalar. If the vector A1 is
exactly equal to A2, its square is a ―degenerate polygon.‖ It has no area—it becomes a scalar.
But Ibn ʿArabi‘s algebra does work, if one takes his axiom that A1 ≠ A2. There are no two A‘s.
There are like A‘s, just as the circles were all like each other (thus causing our confusion), but
there are no two things the same. Here Ibn ʿArabi is stating the perennial truth of existence,
expressed by Heraclitus as follows:

19 1:203.
20 Literally, the one from behind whom One acts.
 Page 10 of 22

ῷ ὐ ἔ ῆ ῷ ὐ ῷ η ἀ
ό ἄ (91)
It is not possible to enter in a river itself twice; it fragments and again gathers; it is
left behind, proceeds and recedes21
It is expressed by the physicist Julian Barbour this way:
According to many accounts, in both mainstream science and religion, the universe
either has existed for ever or was created in the distant past. Creation in a primordial
fireball is now orthodox science—the Big Bang. But why is it supposed that the
universe was created in the past rather than newly created in every instance that is
experienced? No two instants are identical. The things we find in one are not exactly
the same as the things we find in another. What, then, is the justification for saying
that something was created in the past and that its existence has continued into the
present?22
These ideas are expressed in the spiritual tradition of Islam as shā’n, from al-raḥmān 55:29,

َ ۚ ‫الس اوات و ْ َاْ ْرض‬

ْ‫ُ ي ْو هو ِ شأ‬ َ ِ ْ ‫ْيسأَُ م‬
They ask of Him, whoever is in the Heavens and the Earth; each day He is fī shā’n
where ―ask‖ is the dynamic of the dependent toward the independent, and shā’n is the
brilliance that lights up beings.
The first attempt to deal with the complex number i is sometimes attributed to
Jerome Cardan (16th century), who describes a strange visitation occurring to his father.
Consider this idea related to shā’n described as per singula momenta. He says,
Manserunt apud illum horis plus quam tribus: disputarunt autem interim, rogante
illo de causa mundi: qui procerior erat, negabat Deum effecisse mundum ab aeterno:
contra alter aftruebat per singula momenta ita Deum creare mundum, ut fi vel
momento desisteret, protinus mundu ipse periret. Ad hoc ipse ex Auerrois
disputationibus quaedam adducebat, cum liber ille nondum inventus esset.
Referebat & nomina quorundam librorum, quorum pars inventa, pars adhuc latitat.
Atque hi omnes tamen Auerrois errant: ille vero palam Auerroistam se profitebatur.
They stayed there for more than three hours. They disputed, meanwhile, when he
asked them about the Cause of the World. The tall one denied that God made the
world from eternity. The other disagreed, adding, Each single moment; in this way
God created the world, such that if for a moment He desisted, right then the world
would perish. For this, he brought out from the Disputations of Averroes certain
statements, when at that time the book had not been discovered. He referred, and by

21For translations of Heraclitus into Arabic, see my article ―The Fragments of Heraclitus‖
http://www.iais.org.my/en/publications/articles/item/45-the-fragments-of-heraclitus.html
22Julian Barbour [1999] The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics, Oxford: At the

University Press, p. 251. Also, see my ―Time is not real: Time in Ibn ʿArabi, and from Parmenidies
(and Heraclitus) to Julian Barbour,‖Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabi Society (50) January 2012.
 Page 11 of 22

name, to some books, some that had been discovered and others still hidden. They
were all works of Averroes.23
The second argument is part of the perennial truth of existence‘s complete and
intimate dependence on its creator, and just as with the alif and the 1, if they disappear from
a world, that world perishes. Let us explore that world with the term shā’n. There are many
days: the convention of the ʿarab is the Day and Night, 24 hours; other measures are in a day
whose measure is one thousand years as you count [32:5]; fifty thousand years [70:4]; and the day of
the Dajjal, a day like a year, a day like a month, a day like a week, and the rest of his days like your
days.24 The day we look at for the shā’n is the time quantum, the zamān al-fard, the shortest
possible time duration. Ibn ʿArabi says, ―The smallest day is the time quantum (al-zamān al-
fard), and in it emerges Each day He is upon a brilliance [al-raḥmān (55):29], so the time
quantum is called a day because the shā’n [brilliance] occurs in it. It is the shortest time and
the most minute.‖25 The key word is in the singular—one day for one sha’n. Here is the
elaboration.

‫زؤ منه‬ ‫فهو فيه في شؤو َلى َ د ما في إلو ود من إ زإء إل الم إل ى لأ ينَِم ك‬
‫زء من إل الم‬ ‫فهو في شا مع ك‬
‫فلا يصح بَاء إل ال مانين لأنه لو بَى مانين تتت كا ي صف بال نى َن ه و ه إ م ال‬
He is there ―on‖ the brilliances according to the number of particles in the world—
particles that cannot be further split….He is fī shā’n with each particle in the
world…The state does not persist for two time durations, because if it persisted
across two time durations…it would be described as being Independent of God, and
this is impossible.26
We get from here an equation where in a day D all the particles N are brilliantly lit.
The time quantum, then, is D/N. In antiquity, Archimedes put the number of grains of sands
(ψ ί ) 27 in the universe at 1063. If we work backwards, we may take the theoretical time
duration of the Planck second, the time the fastest thing (light) takes to traverse the shortest
measurable length. Then, the Planck second expressed in days D is 4.7x10-39, which is an
unimaginably small duration of time. When dividing D by N, that is 10-39 divided by N, we
are doing ―one over one over 1039,‖ so the exponential sign changes: we then have 1039 as
the number of particles in the world getting lit brilliantly. The reader may take a moment to
ponder every particle in the world—the 109 people on Earth, the 1015 bacteria in each one of
them, the 1030 bacteria in the world,28 every cell and spot and grain—being brilliantly lit so
many times in a second that if each light-duration were a millimeter, it would reach to the

23 Averroes is Ibn Rushd, a contemporary of Ibn ʿArabi from Andalusia. Cardano‘s book may
be found scanned at http://echo.mpiwg-berlin,mpg.de. It is De Subtilitate, Book 19, p. 656. My
translation.
24 See Futuhat Chapter 59, 1:325 (Bulaq) for Ibn ʿArabi‘s explanations.
25 1:325.
26 Chapter 192, 2:427.4-8.
27http://physics.weber.edu/carroll/archimedes/sand.htm
28 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/08/980825080732.htm
 Page 12 of 22

edge of the observable universe. This is quite a contrast with the idle god of Newtonian
physics!
Each 1 is different, Aa ≠ A2 , and one gets ―hit‖ (multiplied) and goes into the
paintbrush of –B. With this axiom in place, the geometric-algebraic vocabulary we examined
above seems to be appropriate.
The outer product (the wedge product) is found in the formalism of quantum
mechanics as the complex i , and the disagreement the interpretation of this formalism has
caused is major indeed. Schrödinger dealt with the insanity of the interpretation by positing
a cat in a box with a radioactive bomb. Before opening the box, the formalism of quantum
mechanics describes the cat‘s situation this way: live cat〉 + i dead cat〉. The formalism
works, but the interpretation—the cat is both alive and dead before the box is opened—
doesn‘t, which was Schrödinger‘s point. Presumably, the ―wave function collapses‖ and one
of the two situations becomes true. As Caner Dagli puts it, ―The ‗collapse‘ of the state vector
is still debated by physicists as a matter of philosophy, since there is no general
disagreement about the data.‖29
The ―collapse of the state vector‖ is a formalism, that is, a mathematical description.
The math describes what happens, but it will be another language (e.g., English, French) that
provides the interpretation. The majority of physicists support the Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum mechanics, to the extent they are concerned with interpretation. Is
there a better formalism? Is there a formalism that is as good as quantum mechanics with its
i –which is quite good indeed—and also provides a working philosophy, a realist
interpretation? There is. We look now at the physicist/meteoreologist Tim Palmer‘s
postulate of an Invariant Set. He replaces linear complex i quantum mechanics with a non-
linear real number quantum mechanics. The Invariant Set and a non-linear real quantum
mechanics will be used here as a language to understand and illustrate the world where alif
is not a letter and 1 is not a number.
With the Invariant Set and non-linear real mechanics, we will be able to explain why
the interpretation of quantum mechanics today is so unsatisfactory. While physicists such as
Einstein and Bohm, and today Penrose, are on record as being dissatisfied with the
understanding of quantum mechanics we have today, most scientists simply accept the
formalism and ignore the interpretation. The Invariant Set is a way to explain the oddities of
quantum mechanics, including entanglement, superposition, and the delayed choice
experiment. We will find it a remarkably fit language to illustrate some of Ibn ʿArabi‘s key
ideas. In particular, we may challenge the idea of continuum and counterfactuals. As we
follow Palmer‘s argument, we will attempt to illustrate some particularly important
passages in the Futuhat. As we begin, we take the Invariant Set (I) to be Ibn ʿArabi‘s maʿlūm
and the deterministic dynamical system (D) to be the world as we construct it, both
dependent on which geometry of alif and 1 we use.

29 Caner Dagli [2004] ―On Beginning a New System of Islamic Philosophy‖ The Muslim World,

January, volume 94, issue 1, page 22.

 Page 13 of 22

An occurrence different from the maʿlūm is impossible 30

The Invariant Set Postulate starts with the idea that there is a fractionally-
dimensional subset I of the state space of the physical world. It is invariant with respect to a
deterministic dynamical system DI.31
In conventional situations—the subset—we take the dynamical system D as defined
by differential or difference equations to generate an invariant set, making D primary. We
assume that D is defined at all points of state space. We assume a metric (measurable) space
and continuity. This approach is unsatisfactory, at least or especially when it is applied to
the quantum world. Now, with I, we take I to be more primitive than D, so that the physical
actions we see are described as DI (t) mapping some point p I a parameter distance t along
a trajectory of I. We describe points, landing places, of the states along the Invariant Set to be
real and any points that lie off the Invariant Set to be unreal, or undecidable. Palmer
explicitly connects this approach to atemporal descriptions of physics, such as those of Julian
Barbour (above).32 Let us examine three parts of Palmer‘s Invariant Set Postulate, the role of
the complex i , the rapidly upscale cascade, and counterfactuals.

The Role of complex i

Julian Barbour33 points out that when Pauli was asked why complex numbers are
unavoidable in quantum theory, he pointed to the two-tier structure of wave mechanics, in
Schrödinger‘s equation, i = HΨ. Barbour remarks, ―Many of the most characteristic
features of quantum mechanics follow directly from this, whatever the form of the wave
equation (number of components of the wave function, orders of the various derivatives):
the superposition principle, interference, the possibility of forming wave packets, Bohr‘s
correspondence principle (through the geometrical-optics limit) and the association of
energy with frequency and momentum with wave number.‖34 This means that while the
mathematical formalism—the way the equation is written—works, it does not provide us
(living in the real world) an interpretation that makes sense. That is why Einstein always
insisted that quantum mechanics was incomplete. The formulas worked and correctly
accounted for reality, but the description of what was happening, the interpretation of what
was happening, was too strange to be true. The wave function tells us that an entangled pair

30 Chapter 179, 2:404.

31 T. N. Palmer [2009] The Invariant Set Postulate: A New Geometric Framework for the
Foundations of Quantum Theory and the Role Played by Gravity, p. 9. See Proceedings of the Royal
Society A, http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/465/2110/3165. Other articles in which
he develops the postulate include ―A Realistic Deterministic Quantum Theory Using Borelian-Normal
Numbers‖ arXiv:quant-ph/0205053v1 10 May 2002; ―A granular permutation-based representation
of complex numbers and quaternions: elements of a possible realistic quantum theory‖ Proc. R. Soc.
Lond. A 2004 460 1039-1055; ―Causal Incompleteness: A New Perspective on Quantum Non-locality‖
arXiv:quant-ph/0511525v1 29 Nov 2005; ―Quantum Reality, Complex Numbers and the
Meteorological Butterfly Effect.‖
32 Palmer [2009] 10.
33 Julian Barbour [1993] ―Time and complex numbers in canonical quantum gravity,‖ Physical

Review D, v47:n12:p5422.
34 Barbour [1993] 5422.
 Page 14 of 22

of particles will show behavior that when Alice (the first, A, particle) is changed to be
spinning left, Bob (B, the second particle) will be found to have been changed to be spinning
right. When we shift from the formalism of the wave function to the explanation, we get into
problems: we say, A determined B‘s behavior instantly even though they were separated by
miles—spooky action at a distance, as Einstein said, something that would violate the law
that nothing (no information traveling from A to B, for example) is faster than the speed of
light. Scientists today ―deal‖ with it, and say, correlation does not imply causation, and
move on. Palmer‘s reformulation of quantum mechanics with the invariant set provides us a
realistic explanation.
Palmer introduces a Permutation Operator ℙ that does realistically (in the reals) what
the complex operation i does. Take a two-bit string of a1 and a2, {a1 , a2}. The permutation is to
take the second element and change its sign and put it in front, and let the front element
slide into the second element‘s place. Do this a few times.
{a1 , a2}
{-a2 , a1}
{-a1 , -a2}
{a2 , -a1}
{a1 , a2}
The perceptive reader will notice that each permutation took the set 90 degrees around the
Argand plane—the complex number plane. We started with positive a1 and positive a2, in
quandrant I. Then we got to negative-positive in quandrant II, negative-negative in
quandrant III, and positive-negative in quandrant IV. The permutation operator ℙ gives us
complex operation. The operator is extendable to the quaternions as well, because besides
waves (complex), we have to handle spins and rotations, which means going up in
dimension to the three-dimensional space of quaternion numbers.

Rapid upscale cascade of uncertainty

In Palmer‘s graph below (Figure 3 Permutation operators), we see the permutation
operation performed on pairs: this is called i1. With i1/2 we get {-a4, a3, a1, a2, -a8, a7, a5, a6…}.
The next level down is i1/4, where -a8 and a7 have gotten to the front. The self-similarity as
one ―zooms‖ in and out of the picture tells us we are looking at a fractal.
The term ―butterfly effect‖ is attributed to Ed Lorenz and has taken on new concepts
in the popular imagination. Fellow meterologist Palmer describes it specifically as ―growth
in scale of arbitrarily small-scale initial perturbations.‖35 What the effect does is note that
uncertainty in the flap of a butterfly‘s wings leads to uncertainty in a gust of wind, leading
to uncertaintly in the buildup of a cumulus cloud, leading to uncertainty in some cyclone.
The transfer up the scale is profoundly nonlinear, he says, and therefore the flap of the
butterfly‘s wing is not necessarily a small-amplitude perturbation. In the permutation graph,
we see that as the exponent gets smaller, bits from the back of the set are brought forward.
In this sense, a butterfly‘s wing flap next to a certain tree in the Amazon could be an

35 ―Quantum Reality, Complex Numbers and the Meterological Butterfly Effect‖p. 10.
 Page 15 of 22

unimaginably huge ―distance‖ away from a typhoon in Japan, but under a certain
permutation operator, it could be brought to the front of the set.

Figure 4 Fractal Trees

Figure 3 Permutation operators

Counterfactuals
Let us take the set above, (S), and define it as a meridian with longitude λ on a sphere. (Now,
S (λ) = i2λ/π , where (S) is only definable on the circle 0 when λ is a dyadic rational
multiple of π.) Because the circle involves π, it cannot be squared; hence the problem of
antiquity, and specifically in the alchemical tradition, of ―squaring the circle.‖ You can take
all the meridians that lie on rational angles of π and they will never touch the meridians that
lie on the irrational angles. No matter how ―close‖ they may be, you cannot move off the one
meridian and arrive at the other. This is how Palmer moves us from a space where all points
are possible to a granular, singular mathematical structure.
Palmer extends the consequences of this granular space into many of the mysteries
and paradoxes of quantum mechanics; we will look at only two here.
Consider the number line with rationals and irrationals.
You can ―walk‖ on infinitely many infinitely small steps from
1 to 2 and never step on an irrational number. And vice versa.
This is an aspect of the granular space Palmer is invoking.
Now in the classical functions on the circle (e.g., eiλ and ei λ-λ’ ), both S(λ) and S‘(λ) are
simultaneously defined for all angles λ. But in the granular world, the two do not have
simultaneously well-defined outcomes. They are non-commutating observables, just as with
Heisenberg‘s principle, where ħ/2 . One can extend the S with as many bit
elements as you like; there will still be no occasions when the two are connected
(simultaneously defined).
By considering the world space to be granular, we can see why we get into
interpretive troubles with counterfactuals and superposition, and the delayed choice
experiment. We conventionally assume the world is uniform, where points in space are
uniformally distributed (―dense everywhere‖). We conventionally assume that the alif is a
letter and the 1 is a number.
 Page 16 of 22

Consider the double-slit experiment.36 When a particle registers on D1

(collapses), we assume that it must have gone through Slit 1. But if the
detector were suddenly removed just after the particle passed the slits, we
would correctly say that it went through both slits, providing an interference
pattern on the wall, as waves do.
Bram Gaasbeek follows the format of the EPR paradox and notes that the formalism
does not require retrocausality and other strange explanations. What happens, as with the
example above, is that classical or conventional assumptions are put onto the formalism. The
   
state of Alice and Bob in the EPR setting is Alice〉 Bob〉 . We may consider
   
this another way: Alice〉 Bob〉 + Alice〉 Bob〉 . ―In this form,‖ he says,

it is clear that we can view the initial state as already being a superposition of two
different worlds. In each of these worlds lives a couple, Alice and Bob, but they are
ignorant of the world they are in. Only when they measure, [do] they discover which
of the two worlds they are in. This should make very clear that the relative moment
at which they do this discovery does not matter at all. Alice and Bob can choose (at
any time they want) to discover the world they are in and from this, they can infer
what the other will measure (the opposite) whenever he or she chooses to do so….The
splitting of the worlds37 is not something which happens along a spatial slice; it has
been there ‗from the beginning.‘38
As typically described, an observer in Albuquerque gets ready to measure Alice‘s
spin (up or down) at a particular angle, depending on whether the wind on Sunday in
Trivandrum is blowing East or West. The very moment Alice is measured, Bob‘s spin is
found to be the same. How did Bob ―know‖ what Alice‘s measurement angle was going to
be? How did the information go faster than light, instanteously, from Alice to Bob? What
would Bob‘s spin be if Alice‘s were measured differently? Palmer‘s granular space counters
these kinds of interpretations. He says,
These arguments counter the notion that some grossly implausible circumstances are
required to explain quantum correlations in the proposed theory. For example,
suppose it was ‗decided‘ that the direction of today‘s wind in Oxford would
determine the orientation of a Stern-Gerlach measuring apparatus. Then, from the
well-known paradigm, the measurement orientation would depend on whether or
not some butterfly in the Amazonian jungle flaps its wings some weeks earlier. One
can imagine some unbelievably large sample space, comprising all possible flaps or
non-flaps from all the butterflies in the world, at all instants in time at which a flap

36 See David Ellerman [2011] A very common fallacy in quantum mechanics: superposition,
delayed choice, quantum erasers, retrocausality, and all that, arXiv:1112.4522v1 [quant-ph] 16 Dec
2011.
37 That is, Everett‘s explanation ―that the macroscopic difference between the device states

UP〉 and DOWN〉 implies that they cannot interfere with each other anymore in the future.
Effectively, they are ‗disconnected‘ parts of the total wave function. This means that they are like
separated worlds.‖ Gaasbeek [2010].
38 Bram Gaasbeek [2010] Demystifying the Delayed Choice Experiments, arXiv:1007.3977v1

[quant-ph] 22 Jul 2010.

 Page 17 of 22

could affect today‘s wind direction in Oxford. Only a tiny fraction of elements in this
sample space will give a wind direction consistent with the qubit‘s spin state.
However, the proposed theory suggests that no such unimaginably large sample
space eixsts from which such a measure of improbability can be defined. The actual
cosmos evolves from an initial state in I0 giving rise to a particular set of flas and
non-flaps. Based on the discussion above, a hypothetical perturbation leading to
some other putative set of flaps and non-flaps, leaving the underlying qubit
unchanged, has no dynamical correspondence to a perturbation within I0.39
The actual cosmos, lying on an invariant set of fractal dimension, has a string of bit
elements that connect some unimaginably insignificant flap of a butterfly‘s wing to a storm
that rages years later and many miles distant. You cannot stand on a meridian of rational
fractions of π (a butterfly‘s flap) and move over to the irrational meridians (its non-flap), no
matter how close they may be. There are no counterfactuals. Would Bob measure x if Alice
measured y? Would the storm had been so devasting if the butterfly had turned left around
the ninetieth branch of the little tree? The answer is, Undecidable. The world we have lies on
I0 and if you ask about the world if such and such had happened or not happened, where p
is not an element of I, you are in the undecidable realm. As Ibn `Arabi says, ―An occurrence
different from the maʿlūm is impossible.‖ We construct a world based on D, our ideas of how
things should be, based on a conventional geometry where alif is a letter and 1 is a number.
But, I is primitive, or first and prior, not D. In the passage below, Ibn `Arabi is telling us that
there is an I which is prior—it is the maʿlūm. And there is our construction of D, which we
think should be prior. We should instead consider that the I is defined by kindness. All one
needs to see it this way is ―His word, Kind One settled on the Throne.40 When Kind One
settled on the Throne encompassing all the parts of the cosmos, then anything which would
oppose Kindness or would lift it off, from among the divine names and attributes, is
temporary, with no foundation everlasting, because the final determination belongs to the
one who has taken possession (of the Throne)—He is Kind One, and to Him returns the
matter, all of it.41‖42 We could take the pain and suffering as D, and decide that if there is an
I, it must have the same geometry that we use for D and be equally ―imperfect.‖ Or we
could recognize that Kind One has taken possession of the Throne and interpret D
accordingly. Here is how Ibn `Arabi says it.
If the word had not gone out before—and an occurrence different from what is (pre-)
known [maʿlūm] is impossible—not one speck in the universe would suffer. But the
word did go out, but then there is the bias toward the Kindness that encompasses
everything. He is in the world feeding despite ingratitude; He heals, He shows
kindness; so how much more so to someone grateful, with awareness of the next

39 Palmer [2004] 1053.

40 Cosmologically, the highest and most comprehensive place looking out over the universe.
The audience is directed to consider the significance and consequences of al-Rahman (Kind One) being
the one that settles here, (and not another divine name such as Avenger).
41 hud 11:123.
42 Futuhat, Chapter 179, 2:403.
 Page 18 of 22

world through unveiling, just as one was when the progeny were grasped?43 Their
difficulties and their torments are their purifications and cleanse them, as with
illnesses with the believers and the things that try them in the world, the trials and
tribulations, and calamity befalling them despite their belief. Then, some of the
people of enormous sin will enter the Fire, despite their belief and their profession of
One God, until they are removed by intercession. Then, True One will remove from
the Fire one who didn‘t do a single good thing, at which point the inhabitants of
Jahannam44 will have in there a condition that they will find sweet;45 and because of
this, the `adhāb46 is so called.

Squaring the Circle

Part of the divine vastness is that God gives each thing its character, and
distinguishes everything in the universe by some matter, and that matter is what
distinguishes it from others; it is the oneness (ahadiyyah) of every thing. No two
things combine in one [that is, the same] mixture. Abu al-`Atahiyyah said, In
everything there is a sign indicating that it/He is one. It is nothing but the oneness of
everything, and two never combine, ever, that which makes them distinguishable. If
there were sharing of that, they would not be distinguishable, but they are
distinguishable; (we know this) by intellect and by kashf. Part of this level in this
topic is knowing the flow of the big to the small and the widening of the narrow,
without the wide getting narrow or the narrow getting wide, that is, nothing changes
from its state. But not in the way the intellectuals among the theologians speak of it,
and the philosophers, about that, because they argue for the two (big, small; wide,
narrow) coming together by definition and essence, not bodily (jarmiyyah,
physically).47
Ibn `Arabi is saying that the ―intellectuals‖ and philosophers accept this strange concept, the
flowing of the big into the small without the small getting bigger or the bigger getting
smaller, but only by definition or by essence. It is interesting to note that the Banach-Tarski
paradox, colloquially described as ―a pea can be chopped up and reassembled into the Sun,‖
is true ―intellectually‖ (to use Ibn `Arabi‘s phrase) but not physically. If we are to accept Ibn
`Arabi‘s insistence that the strange concept be physical, we will be pushed off of the Real
number line into a ―space‖ which is not conventional, not simply connected, not Euclidean,
not everywhere dense. We are in Palmer‘s granular world.

43 To fill in the context: when the progeny of Adam (all human beings, past, present, and
future) were grasped up and asked, Am I not your Lord? they replied, Yes! [a`raf 7:172], implying the
utmost proximity to and harmony with the divine.
44 Gehenna.
45yasta`dhibu, tenth form of `.dh.b., ―find sweet.‖
46 The inhabitants of Fire will experience the `adhāb, conventionally understood as The

Punishment. The word, however, contains the meanings of sweetness (`adhab) as well as punishment
(`adhāb).
47 Futuhat, Chapter 24, 1:206 (Bulaq).
 Page 19 of 22

This granular world is constructed using a feature of transcendental numbers;

Palmer builds it from π and
from Champernowne‘s
number. The feature is that
these numbers ―are not the
root of any integer
polynomial, meaning that it
is not an algebraic number
of any degree.‖48 ―Their
investigation provided the
first proof that circle
squaring, one of the
geometric problems of
antiquity that had baffled

mathematicians for more than 2000 years was, in fact, insoluble.‖49 There are,
however, ―places‖ where the circle may be squared. In hyperbolic space, for
example, the circle may be squared.
Another place seems to be the Invariant Set, which, as we
saw, lies in a fractal dimensional space. Its points are on or off, and
no matter how close a point may be, if it is off, it is off. There is no
continuum.
In this space, it is ―possible‖ to see what is impossible in
conventional geometries. Ibn `Arabi says,
And with this topic there is too the statement of Abu Sa`id al-Kharraz, God is only
recognized by the combination of two opposites; then he recited, He is the First and
the Last, the Outward and the Inward, (ḥadīd 57:3), meaning from a single perspective,
not from different reference points, as the intellectuals (ahl al-naẓar) believe, among
the superficial `ulama.50
It is fairly easy to accept that something can be different depending on perspective. If we
take a line of sight to something and see ―first‖ or ―red,‖ we can accept that taking another
line of sight to the same thing might yield ―last‖ or ―black.‖ The intellectuals are using
different reference points (nasab mukhtalifah). His audience, however, is told that Abu Sa`id is
talking about wajh wahid, meaning one perspective (face). So, looking at something with one
line of sight and finding ―first‖ and ―last‖ at the same time and same angle of sight—that is
the combination of opposites. It is that combination by which, Abu Sa`id is saying, one
recognizes God. What kind of ―space‖ would accommodate such a sight, given that the
conventional metric space cannot? Ibn `Arabi is taught about such a space from a mysterious
visitor. In this passage, Ibn `Arabi has just described his encounter with Ibn Rushd. He had
come with his father at Ibn Rushd‘s beckoning. It seems that Ibn `Arabi, who was young and

48 http://mathworld.wolfram.com/transcendentalnumber.html
49 Ibid.
50 1:206.
 Page 20 of 22

beardless at the time, had just finished a spiritual retreat and was the talk of the town. He
narrates this story to distinguish intellectual knowledge, in which Ibn Rushd (Averroes) was
(and this is still universally recognized) one of the greatest, from divinely gifted knowledge.
He says that when Ibn Rushd died, his books were placed on one side of the donkey and his
body on the other for the funeral procession. A bystander remarked poetically, ―This is the
master, and this is his work; how I wish I knew whether he got what he hoped for (in the
next world).‖51 Ibn Rushd‘s typological opposite is introduced here as the Pole (qutb)
Mudawi al-Kulum (―the healer of injuries‖). Ibn `Arabi says this figure ―brought out a
mystery of the orbit‘s movement, that if it were in other than this shape that it came out as, it
would not be so that something would be generated in the wujūd (existence, what is found
in the cosmos) that is under its circumspection. He explained the divine wisdom in that so
that the ones of the kernal would know God in things, and that He is to everything its
Knower, no god but Him, Knowing, Determining. By knowledge of Essence and Attributes
is recognized what this Pole is pointing to.‖
If it moved other-than-circularly, the emptiness would not have been populated by
its movement, and many volumes would have stayed in the emptiness, and not all
the matter would be generated by this movement, and the amount that would be
lacking is the amount lacking from a populating of these volumes by the movement.
That is by the will of God and the flowing grace52 of His wisdom.
He speaks of bands orbiting in a circle and describes a strange feature.
Each section [of the circling band] at each circumference
confronts what is above and below it with its self, and one
does not exceed the other in any way, even if the first is wide
and the next is narrow.
Then, he links this to the strange concept we considered before.
This is an example of the outflow of the big to the small or the expansion of the
constricted, without the constricted becoming expanded or the expanded becoming
constricted.
We are finding many connections here: Mudawi al-Kulum is associated with Idris,
teaching Ibn `Arabi the truth of the letters (e.g., alif) and numbers (e.g., 1); Idris is associated
with Hermes, and Hermes is the teacher of alchemy; and the goal of alchemy is to square the
circle. We are looking at non-Euclidean space, off the Real numbers, transcendental and non-
algebraic, and non-algorithmic. The Mandelbrot (Julia) sets are
not in the usual metric space where coordinates can tell us
―where‖ they are. There is no algorithmic (that is, repetitive
computation) process that can determine whether a point is on
or off the set. A rigorously mathematical study of this situation
is summed up as follows:

The quotes are from the passage 1:271.11 to 1:272.9.

51

The phrase is hikmatihi al-jariyah, for which word Lisan al-`arab has: al-jariyah, the ni`mah of
52

God on His creatures.

 Page 21 of 22

Similarly, ―most‖ Julia sets are not decidable over ℜ since, from the theory of
complex analytic dynamical systems, we know that most Julia sets have fractional
Hausdorff dimension. But one of the consequences of Theorem 1 is that halting sets
must have integral Hausdorff dimension.53
This makes for nondifferential functions and requires a quantized calculus.54 Palmer finds in
the physical origin of ‗uncertainty‘ ―the intrinsic ambiguity in the recursive representation of
the non-computable real-number quantum state at some p ∈ S , for different measurement
orientations.‖55 An event is on a string line, or meridian, or if it falls off, it falls into the
undecidable set. As with a point on the Mandelbrot set,
the irregularity of r implies that there is no algorithm (e.g., based on convergence of
Cauchy sequences) that can determine r on a meridian whose longitude is an
irrational multiple of π, given the values of r on all the ‗rational‘ meridians. In this
sense, the proposed theory embodies, in some sense, the notion of ‗non-
computability‘ which Penrose proposed as being central to a realistic theory of
quantum physics.‖56

Spiritual Geometry: non-linear, discontinuous, non-commutative

The superset of the spiritual tradition in Islam cannot be evaluated by the subset‘s
conventional geometry of linearity and continuity. There is a thread in the superset‘s history
of describing the two sets as opposed, even violently opposed, when the sufis find
themselves in danger for their views. But in the Futuhat, especially in the extended section
on fiqh in chapters 66-72, we find what James Morris describes as ―almost certainly the most
detailed and exacting phenomenology of spiritual experience in the Islamic tradition,
presented in terms of an irenic reconciliation of contrasting legal interpretations of the basic
ritual practices of Islam (purification, prayer, fasting, etc.).‖57 Here, we find that in order to
understand our reality, our world, correctly, we must use the superset. The subset, in this
view, simply does not work and is unsatisfactory at all levels.

In a spiritual geometry, things that seem trivial, little, or insignificant rapidly cascade
upwardly to become a defining moment, even a moment of salvation. From Abu Hurayrah,
who said,
‫إَ إ ه ب ي من ب ايا بني‬ ‫َال ِول إلله لى إلله َليه و ِلم بينما كلب ي يف بۡكية َ كاد يَ له إل‬
58
‫إِۡإئي فنزَت موَها فاِ َت له به فَِ ه إياه ف فۡ لها به‬

53 Lenore Blum, Felipe Cucker, Michael Shub, Steve Smale [1997] Complexity and Real

Computation, New York: Springer, page 45.

54 See Alain Connes‘ work on Noncommutative Geometry.

http://www.alainconnes.org/docs/book94bigpdf.pdf
55 T. N. Palmer [2 Jan 2001] Formulation of Quantum Theory Using Computatable and Non-

Computatable Real Numbers, arXiv:quant-ph/0101007v1, page 15.

56 Palmer [2004] 1054.
57 James Morris, Introduction to The Meccan Revelations,

http://www.ibnarabisociety.org/articles/mr_introduction.html
58 Sahih Muslim, book 39 (al-salam), chapter 41, #155 (2245), Dar al-hadith 1997/1418, volume

4, page 65.
 Page 22 of 22

Messenger said, Once a dog circled a well, almost dead from thirst, when a
prostitute, one of the prostitutes of the Banu Isra‘il, slid off her shoe, to bring water to
the dog, and she brought water to the dog, and she was forgiven thereby.

These stories are treasured and retold throughout the Muslim world, challenging as they do
a conventional geometry of continuous, accumulating actions with a discontinous, sudden,
present defining moment. They create, as the parables in the New Testament do, a different
algebra and geometry, where the widow‘s mite is of utmost value and where the prodigal
son is feted. The desire to be in such a moment provides the name of the sufi: one is a child
of the moment (ibnu ‘l-waqt). Muslims universally have maintained the pre-modern
appreciation of the granularity of the world, with the oft-heard God-willing. Too, the primacy
of the moment is recognized with the concept of husnu ‘l-zann (Good Opinion) we find here:

The strangest thing in this issue is that I am commanded to have a Good Opinion of
people, forbidden from having a poor opinion of people. I saw someone who to my
knowledge was deviant washing for prayers, so why should I put on him the name
deviant while he was worshiping? Where is the Good Opinion with respect to the
poor opinion of someone in that? The future for him, I do not know; with the past, I
cannot see what God did with him then; so the ruling force is on a moment of
obedience which he is in, which he is wrapped up in. The Good Opinion is prior, for
we creatures, since we are, certainly, less than perfect.59

We may ask ourselves, what kind of geometry do we believe in? What kind of algebra do we
practice?

‫ب ا ْل َعالَِمي‬
ِ ‫د لِلَِه َر‬
ُ ‫ا ْل َح ْم‬
Eric Winkel

59 Futuhat, Chapter 72, Osman Yahia edition, 10:341.10-342.4.