FREE WILL Under the Light of THE QURAN
Ender Tosun PhD2020, Free Will Under the Light of the Quran
visibility
…
description
838 pages
link
1 file
I examine in this book the free will according to the Quranic/ Islamic teaching, and in this context, determinism, indeterminism, reductive physicalism, soul, consciousness in detail.
FREE WILL
Under the Light of
THE QURAN
ENDER TOSUN
ISTANBUL/TURKEY
-1-
Free Will Under the Light of the QURAN1 /by Ender
TOSUN
ISBN: 978-605-63198-2-2
1.Introduction 2. General Framework of Islam Related to Free
Will 3. Free Will 4. Implications of Free Will 5. Conclusion
Copyright Information:
Copyright © 2020 by Ender TOSUN. All rights reserved. Printed
in Turkey. Except as permitted under relevant copyright laws, no
part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any
form or by any means or stored in a data base or retrieval system
or translated without the prior written permission of the author.
This book or its revised versions may be made available in
electronic format at http//:www.islamicinformationcenter.info or
at the addresses shown there. If it is available, it can be
downloaded only for personal use. Our contact information is as
follows: Ender TOSUN Merkezefendi Mah. Tercüman Sitesi
Blok: B-1 No: 38 Cevizlibağ Zeytinburnu / İstanbul - Turkey;
[email protected]; [email protected]; http://
www.islamicinformationcenter.info
1
This is the original version. Links to revised versions, translations, other
file formats will be at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CrkDwBI73AsJLolRFnzKlGvvSnpRQ
5EJzVatK_kbrmg/edit?usp=sharing
To ask questions, to share opinions visit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeWillQuran/
-2-
How to cite this book: Tosun, Ender. “Free Will Under the Light
of the Quran.” 2020. Istanbul-Turkiye
-3-
And whoever wills the reward of this world We will give
him thereof;
And whoever wills the reward of the Hereafter We will give
him thereof.
And we will recompense the thankful.
(Quran: 3/145)
-4-
He is Allah, other than whom there is no deity,
Knower of the unseen and the witnessed.
He is the Beneficent, the Merciful.
He is Allah, other than whom there is no deity,
The Sovereign, the Pure, the Peace, the Bestower of Faith,
the Overseer, the Exalted in Might, the Compeller, the
Superior.
Exalted is Allah above whatever they associate with Him.
He is Allah, the Creator, the Inventor, the Fashioner;
To Him belong the best names.
Whatever is in the heavens and earth is exalting Him.
And He is the Almighty, the Wise.
(Quran: 59/22-24)
-5-
WARNING-DISCLAIMER
And you (mankind)2 have not been given of knowledge
except a little.
(Quran: 17/85)
As human beings, we do not have and are not able to have all
knowledge. But we can reach sufficient and relevant knowledge to be
successful.
I have studied the Quran for many years. Yet, when I studied it
focusing on free will, I have been corrected and intimidated many
times by very interesting details in the Quran. I have witnessed once
again the huge guiding power of the Quran, and I bow down humbly
in front of its Author.
Can I say now that I have discovered all of the truth in the Quran
related to the free will? Absolutely not. Having needed to change
some of my earlier conclusions, by the guidance of the Quran, I will
not be surprised if I will have to correct myself again upon the
guidance of the Quran.
Yet, we are responsible for what we can do. And I feel quite
comfortable that I should share what I have got, and I think that
2 In our quotations from the Quran, square brackets
- [ ] - are used to indicate
details apparently included in the meanings of the original words of the
Quran. Such details in square brackets are not reflected in additional words in
the original text of Quran as the present words in the original text already give
those meanings. These brackets are also used to give details that exist in the
previous or following verses which are not quoted. The words in parenthesis
- ( ) - in the quotations are mostly explanatory for those who have little
knowledge about the text of the Quran.
-6-
these will add important value in understanding free will. Hopefully,
this added value will not be limited to Muslims.
Some explanations in this book relate to Allah, His relationship with
space, time, and so on. Our understanding about Allah is very
limited. So, the reader should keep in mind that the purpose of this
work is not to give information about the person of Allah, but about
free will.
And I supplicate to Allah so that He gives us a good understanding
of His words.
-7-
BRIEF TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 23
1.1 SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE ANSWERED IN THIS BOOK .................................... 25
1.2 IMPORTANCE OF FREE WILL IN PHILOSOPHY AND DAILY LIFE ............................................ 27
1.3 IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING THE QURANIC FRAMEWORK ABOUT FREE WILL..................... 32
1.4 CAN WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE FREE WILL? ............................................................. 35
1.5 OUR METHOD IN THIS WORK .............................................................................. 37
1.6 DIFFERENT VIEWS ADOPTED BY MUSLIMS .................................................................. 45
2
GENERAL FRAMEWORK OF ISLAM RELATED TO FREE WILL ................................................ 47
2.1 THE POSITION OF THE QURAN REGARDING FREE WILL: THE HUMAN AGENT HAS FREE WILL TO A
CERTAIN EXTENT ..................................................................................................... 54
2.2 ATTRIBUTES OF ALLAH .................................................................................... 101
2.3 EXISTENCE AND PHYSICAL REALITY IN ISLAM ............................................................ 153
2.4 ISLAMIC HOLISM ........................................................................................... 154
3
FREE WILL.................................................................................................. 157
3.1 DEFINITION OF FREE WILL ................................................................................ 158
3.2 THE ESSENCE OF THE WILL POWER ...................................................................... 182
3.3 LEVELS OF FWP ............................................................................................ 192
3.4 ATTRIBUTES OF WILL POWER ............................................................................. 195
3.5 PRODUCER OF THE WILL: THE AGENT ................................................................... 404
3.6 INPUTS OF FREE WILL...................................................................................... 592
3.7 OUTPUTS RELATED TO THE FREE WILL POWER .......................................................... 717
3.8 MEANS AND INFLUENCERS IN THE FORMATION OF FREE WILL.......................................... 736
4
IMPLICATIONS OF QURANIC FRAMEWORK OF FREE WILL ................................................ 802
5
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 828
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 831
-8-
DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 23
1.1 SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE ANSWERED IN THIS BOOK .................................... 25
1.2 IMPORTANCE OF FREE WILL IN PHILOSOPHY AND DAILY LIFE ............................................ 27
1.2.1
PHILOSOPHICALLY CHALLENGING CONCEPT .......................................................... 30
1.2.2
AN EXTREMELY PRACTICAL CONCEPT ................................................................. 30
1.2.2.1 COMMERCIAL LEGISLATION AND PRACTICES .......................................................... 31
1.2.2.2 CRIMINOLOGY ........................................................................................... 31
1.2.2.3 RELIGION ................................................................................................ 31
1.2.2.4 BEHAVIOR................................................................................................ 31
1.3 IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING THE QURANIC FRAMEWORK ABOUT FREE WILL..................... 32
1.4 CAN WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE FREE WILL? ............................................................. 35
1.5 OUR METHOD IN THIS WORK .............................................................................. 37
1.5.1
GENERAL METHOD ...................................................................................... 37
1.5.2
OUR METHOD AS RELATED TO THE QURANIC FRAMEWORK.......................................... 40
1.5.3
BURDEN OF PROOF ...................................................................................... 41
1.5.4
REMINDERS FOR SOME READERS........................................................................ 43
1.6 DIFFERENT VIEWS ADOPTED BY MUSLIMS .................................................................. 45
2
GENERAL FRAMEWORK OF ISLAM RELATED TO FREE WILL ................................................ 47
2.1 THE POSITION OF THE QURAN REGARDING FREE WILL: THE HUMAN AGENT HAS FREE WILL TO A
CERTAIN EXTENT ..................................................................................................... 54
2.1.1
THE QURAN CLAIMS THAT THERE IS FREE WILL ...................................................... 57
2.1.1.1 WHAT IS FREE WILL ..................................................................................... 59
2.1.1.2 THE CENTRAL PLACE OF FREE WILL IN ISLAM ......................................................... 60
2.1.1.3 THE AGENT AND THE WILL ARE REAL ................................................................. 64
2.1.1.4 THERE IS RESPONSIBILITY ............................................................................... 66
2.1.1.5 NECESSITY CANCELS RESPONSIBILITY .................................................................. 70
2.1.1.6 JUSTICE, INJUSTICE, AND MORALS ARE REAL. .......................................................... 71
2.1.1.7 ALLAH DOES NOT BEHAVE UNJUSTLY TO HIS SERVANTS ............................................. 72
-9-
2.1.1.8 THERE IS TRUTH, AND THERE IS ERROR ............................................................... 73
2.1.1.9 THERE ARE INVITATIONS TO SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVES AND OPPORTUNITIES......................... 73
2.1.1.10 TESTS AND WILLS MAKE SOME POTENTIALS ACTUAL.................................................. 74
2.1.1.11 A HUMAN BEING CAN INFLUENCE ALLAH’S WILL BY CALLING HIM TO HIS HELP................... 76
2.1.1.12 ALLAH DOES NOT FORCE INTO ONE WAY ............................................................. 77
2.1.1.13 EVEN THE MESSENGERS GUIDED BY ALLAH HAD THE POSSIBILITY TO WILL WRONG THINGS. ..... 78
2.1.1.14 THERE ARE THE MEANS TO FIND AND TO BE ON THE RIGHT PATH, AND THERE IS NO GENERAL
COERCIVE MISLEADING CAUSE. ..................................................................................... 83
2.1.2
THE HUMAN WILL IS SURROUNDED BY ALLAH ........................................................ 84
2.1.2.1 NO WILL CAN HAPPEN OUTSIDE THE PERMISSION OF ALLAH. ....................................... 85
2.1.2.2 NECESSARY ELEMENTS OF GUIDANCE AND GOING ASTRAY ORIGINATE FROM ALLAH. .............. 88
2.1.2.3 THE GUIDANCE OR MISGUIDANCE OF ALLAH IS GENERALLY BASED UPON THE WILL AND ATTITUDE
OF THE HUMAN BEING. .............................................................................................. 89
2.1.2.4 IN TERMS OF ACTION, WHAT ALLAH WILLS WILL HAPPEN. ........................................ 100
2.2 ATTRIBUTES OF ALLAH .................................................................................... 101
2.2.1
ALLAH IS ............................................................................................... 103
2.2.1.1 ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY, DEPENDENCE, AND NECESSITY ................................. 108
2.2.1.2 ARGUMENT FROM THE NON-EXISTENCE OF NOTHINGNESS ........................................ 110
2.2.1.3 ARGUMENT FROM UNITY.............................................................................. 114
2.2.1.4 ARGUMENT FROM FINE-TUNING...................................................................... 120
2.2.2
ALLAH IS ONE ......................................................................................... 123
2.2.2.1 UNITY IS BASIC ........................................................................................ 125
2.2.2.2 HOW CAN GOD BE UNDIFFERENTIATED, WHILE HE EXISTS, AND CREATES AND SUSTAINS MANY
DIFFERENT THINGS? ................................................................................................ 126
2.2.3
ALLAH IS CREATOR.................................................................................... 130
2.2.4
ALLAH HAS FULL POWER ............................................................................. 134
2.2.5
ALLAH IS FIRST AND LAST............................................................................. 135
2.2.6
ALLAH WILLS AND HE IS FREE ........................................................................ 135
2.2.7
ALLAH IS BENEFICIENT, MERCIFUL ................................................................... 141
2.2.8
ALLAH IS THE EVIDENT TRUTH AND THERE IS THE TRUTH.......................................... 143
2.2.9
ALLAH KNOWS ALL THINGS .......................................................................... 145
2.2.10
ALLAH IS AWARE ...................................................................................... 145
2.2.11
IMPLICATIONS OF CREATION ......................................................................... 147
2.2.11.1 ALLAH EXECUTES AND ESTABLISHES THE TRUTH AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. ....................... 147
2.2.11.2 ALLAH’S PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH INDIVIDUALS. ........................................... 153
2.3 EXISTENCE AND PHYSICAL REALITY IN ISLAM ............................................................ 153
-10-
2.4 ISLAMIC HOLISM ........................................................................................... 154
3
FREE WILL.................................................................................................. 157
3.1 DEFINITION OF FREE WILL ................................................................................ 158
3.1.1
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE DEFINITION OF FREE WILL ................................... 158
3.1.1.1 WILL FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES................................................................ 159
3.1.1.1.1
WILL AS AN ACT/ PROCESS....................................................................... 159
3.1.1.1.2
WILL AS A RESULT ................................................................................ 159
3.1.1.1.3
WILL AS A POWER ................................................................................ 159
3.1.1.2 FREE WILL = WILL ..................................................................................... 160
3.1.1.3 CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS AND THE DEFINITION OF FREE WILL...................................... 161
3.1.1.3.1
CAUSES AND CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS ........................................................... 161
3.1.1.3.1.1
COERCIVE CAUSES AND NON-COERCIVE CAUSES ............................................... 161
3.1.1.3.1.2
MULTIPOTENTIAL CAUSES AND UNIPOTENTIAL CAUSES ........................................ 163
3.1.1.3.1.2.1
MULTIPOTENTIAL CAUSES .................................................................... 163
3.1.1.3.1.2.2
UNIPOTENTIAL CAUSES....................................................................... 167
3.1.1.3.2
“WHAT ONE WILLS”, “MUST WILL”, AND “IS ABLE TO WILL” ARE NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL
169
3.1.1.4 A CRITICISM OF THE COMPATIBILIST DEFINITION................................................... 172
3.1.2
DEFINITION OF FREE WILL POWER (FWP) ........................................................... 173
3.2 THE ESSENCE OF THE WILL POWER ...................................................................... 182
3.3 LEVELS OF FWP ............................................................................................ 192
3.3.1
FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL ................................................................................. 192
3.3.2
PRACTICAL LEVEL ..................................................................................... 193
3.4 ATTRIBUTES OF WILL POWER ............................................................................. 195
3.4.1
WILL IS NOT DETERMINISTIC ......................................................................... 195
3.4.1.1 CONTEMPORARY PARADIGM OF DETERMINISM – INDETERMINISM AND THE RELATED QURANIC
TEACHING 196
3.4.1.2 DETERMINISM ......................................................................................... 200
3.4.1.2.1
IMPLICATIONS OF DETERMINISM REGARDING FREE WILL....................................... 203
3.4.1.2.2
DETERMINISM IS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND FALSE ................................................ 205
3.4.1.2.2.1
FALLACIES DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE SOURCES OF DETERMINISM ........................... 206
3.4.1.2.2.1.1
STATES OF THE UNIVERSE .................................................................... 207
3.4.1.2.2.1.1.1
THE INITIAL STATE ........................................................................... 207
3.4.1.2.2.1.1.2
GENERAL PROBLEMS WITH STATES........................................................... 210
3.4.1.2.2.1.2
LAWS OF NATURE ............................................................................. 211
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.1
WHO MAKES THE LAWS OF NATURE? ....................................................... 212
-11-
WHY ARE THERE NOT OTHER LAWS? ....................................................... 213
LAWS MUST HAVE TRANSCENDENT ABILITIES. .............................................. 213
AT ANY TIME-SCALE, LAWS MUST CONTAIN MORE THAN ONE STATE. ................... 215
LAWS WOULD NEED A COORDINATOR ABOVE THEM....................................... 217
LAWS MUST HAVE DELIBERATION CAPACITY ............................................... 219
LAWS CANNOT BE SELF-SUFFICIENT ......................................................... 221
CONTRADICTIONS CAUSED BY TIME AND LAWS AS DETERMINISTIC CAUSES .............. 221
LAWS OF NATURE DO NOT INVALIDATE SOVEREIGN THINGS, BEINGS, OR RELATIONSHIPS.
223
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.10 FALSITY OF REDUCTIONISM AND THE EFFECTIVE REALITY OF STRUCTURES AND ENTITIES224
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.11 INFINITE REGRESS, PROBLEM OF THE BEGINNING .......................................... 226
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.12 WHY ARE THE LAWS THE WAY THEY ARE? ................................................. 230
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.13 MULTIVERSE .................................................................................. 230
3.4.1.2.2.2
DETERMINISM IS UNSUBSTANTIATED............................................................. 233
3.4.1.2.2.2.1
THERE IS NO LOGICAL NECESSITY FOR DETERMINISM ..................................... 233
3.4.1.2.2.2.2
DETERMINISM IS AGAINST NULL HYPOTHESIS .............................................. 234
3.4.1.2.2.2.3
DETERMINISM MAKES CLAIMS ABOUT THE INACCESSIBLE .................................. 235
3.4.1.2.2.2.4
PROBLEM OF INDUCTION ..................................................................... 237
3.4.1.2.2.2.5
UNOBTAINABLE QUALITATIVE REQUIREMENTS OF DETERMINISM .......................... 238
3.4.1.2.2.2.6
UNOBTAINABLE QUANTITATIVE REQUIREMENTS TO PROVE DETERMINISM................ 238
3.4.1.2.2.2.7
QUANTUM PHYSICS MAKES DETERMINISM UNPROVABLE................................... 239
3.4.1.2.2.2.8
IMPOSSIBILITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT AN AGENT CANNOT WILL OTHERWISE. ......... 239
3.4.1.2.2.3
ONE WHO CLAIMS THAT THERE IS NO FREE WILL BASED ON FULL DETERMINISM IS REFUTING
THAT VERY CLAIM. ................................................................................................. 240
3.4.1.2.2.4
NEGATORS AGAINST DETERMINISM .............................................................. 250
3.4.1.2.2.4.1
FREE WILL POWER NEGATION ............................................................... 250
3.4.1.2.2.4.2
OUGHT TO BE TRUTH NEGATOR ............................................................ 255
3.4.1.2.2.4.3
LOGIC NEGATOR.............................................................................. 256
3.4.1.2.2.5
INFINITE REGRESS ................................................................................. 257
3.4.1.2.2.6
DETERMINISM ENTAILS THAT PAST AND FUTURE IS STATIC AS IN THE B THEORY OF TIME. .. 258
3.4.1.2.2.7
A MOMENT OF TIME CANNOT CONTAIN THE FUTURE. ......................................... 260
3.4.1.2.2.8
PHYSICALIST REDUCTIONISM IS FALSE ........................................................... 265
3.4.1.2.2.9
QUANTUM PHYSICS DISPROVES DETERMINISM .................................................. 266
3.4.1.2.2.9.1
QUANTUM PHENOMENA DISPROVE AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING SEQUENTIALITY. ............ 267
3.4.1.2.2.9.2
QUANTUM PHYSICS IS PROBABILISTIC. ...................................................... 272
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.2
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.3
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.4
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.5
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.6
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.7
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.8
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.9
-12-
3.4.1.2.2.9.3
QUANTUM PHENONEMA AS A DEMONSTRATION OF NON-UNIFORMITY OF LAWS AND
STRUCTURES
274
3.4.1.2.2.9.4
QUANTUM PHENOMENA UNDERMINE LOCALITY WHICH IS A BASIS OF DETERMINISM. .. 277
3.4.1.2.2.10 DETERMINISM IS INCONSISTENT WITH DAILY LIFE EXPERIENCES. .............................. 278
3.4.1.2.2.10.1
CONTRADICTION AND INCONSISTENCY OF THE DENIER OF FREE WILL IN TERMS OF
RESPONSIBILITY 279
3.4.1.2.2.10.2
DETERMINIST EXPERIENCES FWP WHEN HE PROPOSES REHABILITATION AS THE ONLY
REACTION AGAINST CRIMES ....................................................................................... 283
3.4.1.2.2.10.3
THE REHABILITATED WILL ASK FOR COMPENSATION, AND THE PRAISED ONES WILL HAVE TO
RETURN THEIR BENEFITS. .......................................................................................... 284
3.4.1.2.2.11 WITHOUT WILL POWERED EXISTENCE, NOTHING CAN BE DETERMINISTIC. .................. 286
3.4.1.2.2.12 WHAT DETERMINES EVENTS ARE NOT PAST EVENTS, BUT THE DISPOSITION OF THINGS. .... 287
3.4.1.2.2.13 THERE ARE THINGS BEYOND THE PHYSICAL PATTERNS SUCH AS LOGICAL LAWS AND
TRANSCENDENCE. .................................................................................................. 289
3.4.1.2.2.14 MINIMUM COMPLEXITY OF ELEMENTARY WHOLES NECESSARY FOR DETERMINISM CANNOT BE
MET.
291
3.4.1.2.2.15 LOGICAL DETERMINISM IS FALSE. ................................................................ 300
3.4.1.3 COMPATIBILISM........................................................................................ 300
3.4.2
WILL AND INDETERMINISM ........................................................................... 302
3.4.2.1 DEFINITION OF INDETERMINISM, RANDOMNESS, AND UNCERTAINTY .............................. 303
3.4.2.2 IMPLICATIONS OF INDETERMINISM REGARDING FWP ............................................... 304
3.4.2.2.1
INDETERMINISM IS NOT A SOURCE OR CAUSE OF FREE WILL POWER. ......................... 304
3.4.2.2.2
INDETERMINISM IS NOT NECESSARILY AN ARGUMENT AGAINST FREE WILL. .................. 305
3.4.2.2.3
INDETERMINISM IS PART OF A FALSE DICHOTOMY. ............................................. 306
3.4.2.2.4
A MULTIPOTENTIAL CAUSE WILL PRODUCE EVENTS OR THINGS WHICH LOOK INDETERMINISTIC.
306
3.4.2.3 THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR INDETERMINISM. ...................................................... 307
3.4.2.3.1
THE ONE WHO CLAIMS THAT THINGS ARE RANDOM UNDERMINES HIS OWN REASONABILITY.
308
3.4.2.3.2
THE ONE WHO CLAIMS UNCERTAINTY HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF. ......................... 308
3.4.2.3.3
QUANTUM PHYSICS DEMONSTRATES THAT INDETERMINISM IS UNPROVABLE. ................ 309
3.4.2.3.4
ANY WILL CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED TO BE BASED ON INDETERMINISTIC PROCESSES. .... 310
3.4.2.4 INDETERMINISM IS FALSE ............................................................................. 311
3.4.2.4.1
NEGATION TESTS.................................................................................. 311
3.4.2.4.2
THERE CANNOT BE RANDOM EVENTS. .......................................................... 311
3.4.2.4.3
THE POINTS AGAINST DETERMINISM ARE APPLICABLE FOR INDETERMINISM AS WELL. ....... 312
3.4.3
WILL IS AN IRREDUCIBLE POWER. .................................................................... 313
-13-
3.4.4
WILL POWER IS NOT FULLY COERCED/ FORCED..................................................... 313
3.4.4.1 TYPES OF LIMITATIONS ................................................................................ 318
3.4.4.2 SYSTEM OF THE LIMITATIONS ......................................................................... 320
3.4.4.3 LIMITATIONS ON FREE WILL AND THE CONTEXT.................................................... 321
3.4.4.4 SEMANTICS UNDERLYING THIS BOOK AND THE LIMITATIONS OF FREE WILL ...................... 322
3.4.4.5 LIMITATIONS DO NOT ALWAYS MEAN THAT THERE IS NECESSARILY TENSION WITH CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES ................................................................................................... 322
3.4.4.6 SOME LIMITATIONS ON THE PFW MAY BE USEFUL OR NECESSARY................................. 323
3.4.4.7 WITHIN THE RANGE OF RESPONSIBILITY THERE IS FULL FREEDOM. ................................ 323
3.4.4.8 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................... 325
3.4.4.9 IMPLICATIONS OF RECOGNIZING THE BOUNDARIES OF FREE WILL ................................. 325
3.4.5
THE WILL POWER INTERACTS WITH THE UNIVERSE. ................................................ 325
3.4.6
WILL IS A SOVEREIGN POWER. ....................................................................... 326
3.4.7
WILL IS A TRANSCENDENT POWER. .................................................................. 343
3.4.8
WILL IS A DISTINCT POWER. ......................................................................... 344
3.4.9
WILL POWER IS UNITARY. ............................................................................ 346
3.4.10
WILL POWER MAY BE VERY EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT. ............................................ 346
3.4.11
LOCATION OF THE WILL POWER ..................................................................... 351
3.4.11.1 THE CONCEPT OF LOCATION IN RESPECT TO WILL POWER......................................... 351
3.4.11.2 CAN WE DETERMINE A PART OF THE BRAIN AS THE LOCATION OF THE WILL POWER? .......... 356
3.4.12
FREE WILL POWER CAN BE PROVEN EXPERIMENTALLY. ............................................. 359
3.4.12.1 EXPERIMENTS AND PROOFS ........................................................................... 359
3.4.12.1.1
WILL POWER NEGATION EXPERIMENTS ASSUMING A DETERMINISTIC UNIVERSE ............. 364
3.4.12.1.1.1 SIMPLE NEGATION EXPERIMENT: NEGATING THE ALTERNATIVE THAT MUST BE WILLED
ACCORDING TO DETERMINISM .................................................................................... 364
3.4.12.1.1.1.1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 364
3.4.12.1.1.1.2
FREE WILL POWER NEGATION EXPERIMENT (FWPNE) .................................... 367
3.4.12.1.1.1.3
ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 376
3.4.12.1.1.2 WILL POWER NEGATION EXPERIMENT ASSUMING AN INDETERMINISTIC UNIVERSE ........... 393
3.4.12.1.2
EXPERIMENT ON REARRANGING THE WILLING BRAIN STRUCTURE ............................. 398
3.4.12.2 SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT THE EXPERIMENTS AND PROOFS......................................... 403
3.4.12.2.1
EXPERIMENTS ARE NOT THE ONLY PROOFS FOR FREE WILL .................................... 403
3.4.12.2.2
MECHANICS IN THE TESTS........................................................................ 403
3.5 PRODUCER OF THE WILL: THE AGENT ................................................................... 404
3.5.1
THE CONCEPTS RELATED TO THE AGENT IN THE QURAN REGARDING FREE WILL................ 405
3.5.1.1 AGENT (NAFS) ......................................................................................... 405
-14-
3.5.1.1.1
NAFS MEANING “THE PERSON” .................................................................. 405
3.5.1.1.2
NAFS MEANING THE ESSENCE/ THE SOUL OF THE PERSON ..................................... 406
3.5.1.1.2.1
DISTINCTNESS OF THE SOUL ..................................................................... 413
3.5.1.1.2.2
ISLAM IS NOT DUALIST............................................................................ 416
3.5.1.1.2.2.1
THERE IS NO REASON TO SEPARATE THE MENTAL AND THE PHYSICAL. ................... 417
3.5.1.1.2.2.2
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL PROPERTIES ARE NOT SEPARABLE. ................................ 419
3.5.1.1.2.2.3
THE PHYSICAL AND THE MENTAL ARE CREATED AND SUSTAINED BY ALLAH. ............ 420
3.5.1.1.2.2.4
THE PHYSICAL HAS MENTAL PROPERTIES. .................................................. 422
3.5.1.1.2.2.5
SOME MENTAL PROPERTIES NEED THE PHYSICAL. .......................................... 426
3.5.1.1.2.2.6
ALLAH DOES NOT HAVE A SEPARABLE SUBSTANCE. ........................................ 427
3.5.1.1.2.3
OTHER SOUL-LIKE THINGS ....................................................................... 428
3.5.1.2 MODULES OF THE AGENT RELATED TO THE FREE WILL POWER.................................... 434
3.5.1.2.1
HEART (QALB) .................................................................................... 435
3.5.1.2.2
HEART (FUAD) .................................................................................... 440
3.5.1.2.3
BREAST/ CHEST (SADR) ........................................................................... 443
3.5.1.2.4
LUBB ............................................................................................... 446
3.5.1.2.5
BRAIN .............................................................................................. 447
3.5.1.2.6
SPIRIT .............................................................................................. 448
3.5.2
THE WHOLES .......................................................................................... 448
3.5.3
THE SOVEREIGN WHOLES AND THEIR ESSENCES .................................................... 449
3.5.3.1 THE UNITY OF THE ESSENCE AND ITS DIFFERENTIATIONS........................................... 458
3.5.3.2 HOW DO ESSENCES INTERACT WITH THE PHYSICAL? ................................................ 464
3.5.4
HUMAN BEINGS AS SOVEREIGN WHOLES............................................................. 466
3.5.4.1 WHOLENESS OF THE HUMAN BEING THROUGH TIME............................................... 469
3.5.4.2 THE WHOLENESS OF THE AGENT THROUGH SPACE ................................................. 471
3.5.5
NATURE OF THE HUMAN BEING WHICH IS COMMON WITH OTHER BEINGS ...................... 471
3.5.6
FEATURES OF THE HUMAN BEING AS AN AGENT WITH THE WILL POWER ......................... 483
3.5.6.1 REALITY AND EFFECTIVENESS ......................................................................... 484
3.5.6.2 UNITY .................................................................................................. 487
3.5.6.3 SOVEREIGNTY .......................................................................................... 487
3.5.6.4 IRREDUCIBILITY TO THE PHYSICAL ................................................................... 490
3.5.6.4.1
REDUCTIONISM.................................................................................... 493
3.5.6.4.2
REDUCTIONISM IS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND FALSE............................................... 496
3.5.6.4.2.1
REDUCTIONISM IS UNSUBSTANTIATED. .......................................................... 499
3.5.6.4.2.2
TOP-DOWN CAUSATION IS AS TRUE AS DOWN-TOP CAUSATION............................... 499
3.5.6.4.2.3
REALITY OF NON-SPATIO-TEMPORAL CONCEPTS AND CONSIDERATIONS ...................... 502
-15-
3.5.6.4.2.4
INFINITE REGRESS PROBLEM RELATED TO EXTERNAL THINGS .................................. 504
3.5.6.4.2.5
CONSCIOUSNESS AS AN EVIDENCE OF IRREDUCIBILITY ......................................... 505
3.5.6.4.2.6
PHYSICALISM IS FALSE. ............................................................................ 506
3.5.6.4.2.6.1
WE CONCEIVE THE PHYSICAL ONLY THROUGH MIND. .................................... 514
3.5.6.4.2.6.2
FOUNDATIONS OF THE PHYSICAL ARE MIND-LIKE. ......................................... 515
3.5.6.4.2.6.3
THE AGENT, HIS CONSCIOUSNESS, AND THE MENTAL ARE REAL. ......................... 521
3.5.6.4.2.6.4
SPACE IS NOT THE ULTIMATELY FUNDAMENTAL. ........................................... 522
3.5.6.4.2.6.5
TIME IS NOT THE ULTIMATELY FUNDAMENTAL. ............................................ 529
3.5.6.4.2.6.6
THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST DETERMINISM AND INDETERMINISM ARE APPLICABLE AGAINST
PHYSICALISM.
537
3.5.6.4.2.7
ONE WHO CLAIMS THAT THERE IS NO FREE WILL BASED ON REDUCTIVE PHYSICALISM REFUTES
THAT VERY CLAIM. ................................................................................................. 537
3.5.6.4.2.8
SELF-SUFFICIENT SPATIOTEMPORAL BOTTOM ELEMENT IS AN INCOHERENT CONCEPT. ...... 540
3.5.6.4.2.8.1
PROBLEMS WITH A STRUCTURED SBE ....................................................... 542
3.5.6.4.2.8.2
THE SBES MUST BE IMPOSSIBLY SOPHISTICATED............................................ 545
3.5.6.4.2.8.3
+THE IMPOSSIBLE SIMPLICITY OF ALLEGED SBES ........................................... 546
3.5.6.4.2.8.4
SBES WOULD BE FREE. ....................................................................... 547
3.5.6.4.2.8.5
PROBLEM OF INFINITE REGRESS WITH SBES ................................................. 547
3.5.6.4.2.8.6
SBES WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ..................................................... 548
3.5.6.4.2.8.7
SBES ARE NOT NECESSARY. .................................................................. 549
3.5.6.4.2.8.8
SBES WOULD BE RELATIVE AND CIRCULAR. ................................................ 550
3.5.6.4.2.8.9
SBES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. .................................................................. 550
3.5.6.4.2.8.10
SBES CANNOT EXPLAIN THE UNITARY BEINGS AND ATTRIBUTES. ......................... 551
3.5.6.4.2.8.11
SBES WOULD BE DEFINED BY HIGHER LEVEL FEATURES IN ANY CASE. ................... 551
3.5.6.4.2.9
WITHOUT FREEDOM THERE CAN BE NO REDUCTIONISM....................................... 552
3.5.6.4.2.10 IMPOSSIBILITY OF BILLIONS OF CORRELATIONS WITHIN ILLUSIONS, REAL EVENTS, AND
STRUCTURES 553
3.5.6.4.2.11 PARTS OF THE AGENT CHANGE, WHILE HIS IDENTITY REMAINS STABLE. ...................... 554
3.5.6.4.2.12 SYSTEMATIC DISCONTINUITIES ................................................................... 555
3.5.6.4.2.13 PHYSICALIST REDUCTIONISM UNDERMINES ITSELF. ............................................. 556
3.5.6.4.2.14 BOTH DETERMINISM AND INDETERMINISM ARE FALSE. ......................................... 557
3.5.6.4.2.15 QUANTUM PHYSICS ............................................................................... 558
3.5.6.4.3
ISLAMIC HOLISM AND THE WHOLE OF THE AGENT............................................. 558
3.5.6.4.3.1
ISLAMIC HOLISM .................................................................................. 558
3.5.6.4.3.2
NON-REDUCTIVE PHYSICALISM .................................................................. 561
3.5.6.4.3.3
HOW DOES ISLAMIC HOLISM WORK?............................................................ 564
-16-
3.5.6.4.4
REDUCTIONISM AND FREE WILL POWER ......................................................... 565
3.5.6.5 VULNERABILITY OF THE AGENT, AND THE STATES TO BE AVOIDED ................................ 565
3.5.6.6 BEING SUBJECT TO CHALLENGES ..................................................................... 568
3.5.6.7 TRANSCENDENCE ...................................................................................... 570
3.5.6.8 CAPACITY .............................................................................................. 582
3.5.6.9 MOBILITY BETWEEN STATES AND DEGREES .......................................................... 582
3.6 INPUTS OF FREE WILL...................................................................................... 592
3.6.1
CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE .............................................................................. 600
3.6.1.1 CONSCIOUSNESS IS REAL AND EFFECTIVE ............................................................ 602
3.6.1.2 ASSIGNMENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS TO THINGS ....................................................... 606
3.6.1.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE SPATIOTEMPORAL ....................... 608
3.6.1.4 TRANSCENDENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH SPACE ........................................... 611
3.6.1.5 TRANSCENDENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH TIME ............................................ 612
3.6.1.6 CONSCIOUSNESS HAS UNITY. ......................................................................... 614
3.6.1.6.1
SPLIT-BRAIN PATIENTS ............................................................................ 614
3.6.1.6.2
CONSCIOUSNESS IN DREAMS ..................................................................... 614
3.6.1.6.3
UNITY OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND DIFFERENTIATION ............................................. 615
3.6.1.7 CONSCIOUSNESS AND RESPONSIBILITY ............................................................... 619
3.6.1.8 RELATIONSHIP OF CONSCIOUSNESS WITH THE SPATIOTEMPORAL .................................. 620
3.6.1.9 CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE FREEDOM OF WILL ...................................................... 623
3.6.1.9.1
IS CONSCIOUSNESS NECESSARY FOR THE FREE WILL POWER? .................................. 623
3.6.1.9.2
LIBET EXPERIMENTS AND FOLLOW-UP EXPERIMENTS ........................................... 628
3.6.1.9.2.1
THE EXPERIMENTS ................................................................................ 628
3.6.1.9.2.2
INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPERIMENTS IN RESPECT TO FREE WILL............................ 629
3.6.1.9.2.3
THE FLAWS OF THE INTERPRETATIONS OF LIBET EXPERIMENTS AGAINST FREE WILL (ILEF) . 630
3.6.1.9.2.3.1
LIBET EXPERIMENTS’ DESIGN WHICH MAKE THESE EXPERIMENTS IRRELEVANT FOR THE
EXISTENCE OF FWP ................................................................................................ 630
3.6.1.9.2.3.2
THE TEST SUBJECT IS AWARE OF THE WILLS SINCE THE BEGINNING AND BEFORE THE
READINESS POTENTIALS. ........................................................................................... 633
3.6.1.9.2.3.3
LIBET EXPERIMENTS PREVENT THE TEST SUBJECT FROM USING HIS CONSCIOUSNESS..... 633
3.6.1.9.2.3.4
INSUFFICIENT PRECISION ..................................................................... 635
3.6.1.9.2.3.5
THE ABILITY TO VETO SHOWS THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS EFFECTIVE IN WILLS. ........... 637
3.6.1.9.2.3.6
CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE IN THE FORM OF MEMORY CAN INTERACT WITH THE WILL POWER.
638
3.6.2
AGENT’S OUGHT TO BE TRUTH (OTBT) ............................................................. 639
3.6.2.1 THE NECESSITY TO USE FWP TO REACH OTBT ..................................................... 644
-17-
3.6.2.2 OTBT AND RELATED CONCEPTS ..................................................................... 647
3.6.2.2.1
OUGHT TO BE TRUTH ............................................................................ 647
3.6.2.2.1.1
ACCESSIBLE OTBT ................................................................................ 651
3.6.2.2.1.2
GENERAL OTBTS ................................................................................. 651
3.6.2.2.2
OTBT AND THE NATURE OF THE AGENT ....................................................... 656
3.6.2.2.3
OUGHT NOT TO BE TRUTH....................................................................... 656
3.6.2.2.4
OUGHT TO BE SUBJECTIVE STATE (OTBS)....................................................... 657
3.6.2.2.5
OPTIMALITY IN OTBT ............................................................................ 659
3.6.2.2.6
THE TRUTH........................................................................................ 660
3.6.2.2.6.1
THE TRUTH EXISTS................................................................................ 664
3.6.2.2.6.2
THE IMPORTANCE AND SUPERIORITY OF TRUTH ................................................ 672
3.6.2.2.6.3
THE CRITERIA TO DISTINGUISH THE TRUTH FROM THE ERROR ................................ 674
3.6.2.2.6.4
OBJECTIVE VERSUS SUBJECTIVE TRUTH .......................................................... 675
3.6.2.3 KEY ROLE OF OTBT REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY................................................... 676
3.6.2.4 KEY ROLE OF OTBT AS AN INPUT OF FREE WILL.................................................... 679
3.6.2.4.1
NEED FOR CONTINUOUS FOCUS ON THE FUNDAMENTAL OTBTS.............................. 680
3.6.2.4.2
THE PROCESSES BETWEEN OTBT AND FWP .................................................... 683
3.6.2.4.3
ASSESSING THE ALTERNATIVES’ RELEVANCE TO THE OTBT .................................... 686
3.6.2.4.4
ASSESSING AN ALTERNATIVE IN RESPECT TO THE OTBT........................................ 689
3.6.2.4.5
OTBT IS NOT A COERCIVE LIMITATION ON OUR FWP......................................... 693
3.6.2.5 FREE WILL ASSISTED WITH TRUTH ................................................................... 696
3.6.2.6 ABILITY TO KNOW OR DISCOVER THE TRUTH ....................................................... 698
3.6.2.7 IMMISCIBILITY OF TRUTH ............................................................................. 699
3.6.2.8 OTBT AND CONSCIOUSNESS ......................................................................... 701
3.6.3
REASON ................................................................................................ 702
3.6.3.1 REASONING POWER IS IRREDUCIBLE. ................................................................. 703
3.6.3.2 REASON HAS THE UNITY AS THE COMMON BACKGROUND WITH THE EXISTENCE. ............... 706
3.6.3.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSCIOUSNESS, REASON, WILL POWER, AND RESPONSIBILITY ........ 707
3.6.4
THE VERY BEING OF THE AGENT ..................................................................... 709
3.6.4.1 ENHANCING THE GENERAL STRUCTURE AND OTBT ................................................ 710
3.6.4.2 CONTROLLING EMOTIONS AND LOW DESIRES ....................................................... 711
3.6.5
ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................... 712
3.6.6
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT OTHER THINGS ................................................................ 713
3.7 OUTPUTS RELATED TO THE FREE WILL POWER .......................................................... 717
3.7.1
THE ALTERNATIVE THAT WILL BE ACTUALIZED ..................................................... 717
3.7.2
ACTION BY THE AGENT ............................................................................... 720
-18-
3.7.3
CHANGE IN THE UNIVERSE ........................................................................... 720
3.7.4
MENTAL OUTPUTS..................................................................................... 720
3.7.5
RESULTS AS ACHIEVED AND NOT ACHIEVED GOALS ................................................ 721
3.7.6
RESPONSIBILITY, CONFIRMATION, PRAISE, REGRET, PUNISHMENT, AND REWARD ................. 721
3.7.6.1 CONSISTENCY OF THE AGENT ABOUT THE RESPONSIBILITY......................................... 724
3.7.6.2 OWNERSHIP OF WILL AND RESPONSIBILITY .......................................................... 725
3.7.6.3 HEREAFTER ............................................................................................ 729
3.7.7
CHANGES FOLLOWING THE RESULTS ................................................................. 736
3.8 MEANS AND INFLUENCERS IN THE FORMATION OF FREE WILL.......................................... 736
3.8.1
ALLAH.................................................................................................. 738
3.8.1.1 NO ACT FINALIZES WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF ALLAH. .......................................... 740
3.8.1.2 OUR WILL POWER, AND THE POWER OF ALLAH ..................................................... 743
3.8.1.3 ALLAH’S GUIDANCE AND MISLEADING ............................................................... 748
3.8.1.4 DIVINE KNOWLEDGE .................................................................................. 752
3.8.1.4.1
ALLAH KNOWS OUR FUTURE ..................................................................... 752
3.8.1.4.2
THE FUTURE EXISTS WITHIN THE SIGHT OF ALLAH ............................................. 758
3.8.1.4.3
ALLAH’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUTURE DOES NOT ABORT FREE WILL......................... 763
3.8.1.4.4
DESTINY ........................................................................................... 780
3.8.1.4.4.1
DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... 781
3.8.1.4.4.2
THE REASON FOR DESTINY ....................................................................... 784
3.8.1.4.4.3
THE PROCESSES OF DESTINY...................................................................... 788
3.8.2
ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................ 798
3.8.3
EMOTIONS ............................................................................................. 800
4
IMPLICATIONS OF QURANIC FRAMEWORK OF FREE WILL ................................................ 802
4.1 ARGUMENT FOR GOD FROM FREE WILL POWER ......................................................... 802
4.1.1
METHODOLOGY ABOUT PROVING GOD.............................................................. 803
4.1.2
ARGUMENT FOR GOD FROM THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FWP ..................................... 804
4.1.3
PROOF FOR GOD FROM FWP AND NON-EXISTENCE OF PARTIAL NOTHINGNESS .................. 808
4.2 PERSONAL AND SOCIAL ACHIEVEMENT ................................................................... 808
4.3 LOGIC AND TRUTH ........................................................................................ 810
4.4 MORALS, GOOD AND EVIL ................................................................................ 812
4.4.1
TRUTH OF MORALS.................................................................................... 812
4.4.2
ACTING MORALLY WHILE THERE IS NO FREE WILL ................................................. 814
4.4.3
SANCTIONS, MORALS, AND FWP ..................................................................... 815
4.4.4
TRAINING THE FWP AND RELATED POWERS FOR MORALS ......................................... 822
4.5 LAW & SECULAR LEGAL SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 822
-19-
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
5
FORGIVENESS............................................................................................... 823
STRESS MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................... 824
PROBLEM OF EVIL AND ARGUMENT FOR THE INJUSTICE OF GOD ....................................... 825
PHYSICS .................................................................................................... 826
TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 827
POLITICS ............................................................................................... 827
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 828
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 831
-20-
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure-1: Mechanism of the will power .................................................................................. 184
Figure-2: Mechanical problem of deterministic prediction ......................................................... 252
Figure-3: Changing brain structure against deterministic prediction ........................................... 381
Figure-4: Changing brain structure against deterministic prediction ........................................... 381
Figure-5: Positions and movements of the agent between good and bad ...................................... 583
Figure-6: Weights of good and evil behaviors .......................................................................... 590
Figure-7: Relationships of the agent’s essentials and inputs related to free will power .................... 593
Figure-8:Indirect influence of the will’s results on the FWP ....................................................... 708
Figure-9: Accessibility and achievability of the knowledge and means related to FWP and responsibility
....................................................................................................................................... 718
-21-
FOREWORD
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
(Quran: 1/1)
I thank Allah, the Lord of the worlds for all His favors.
I thank Him for especially for His guidance.
I thank Him for His Prophets, and especially for making me within
the community of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon them).
I greet all of His servants who sincerely try to find out, follow, and
spread the Truth.
I thank my grand mother Hatice Ince, and I ask Allah to increase her
degrees in the paradise.
I thank my wife Naciye.
-22-
1
Introduction
-23-
Free will3 is a very important concept, and it is directly related to
many disciplines including science, philosophy, religion, law; and it
is deeply related to our daily lives.
However, there are hugely different or opposing views about it, about
whether it is a coherent concept, whether there is such a thing. So,
for many people, it is an unsolved puzzle.
An immediate implication of this situation is that hundreds of
millions of people who think differently than others are necessarily
wrong in such an important matter.
Hence, a clarification of this issue is quite valuable.
The Quran, is a unique source which helped me understand the free
will. Therefore, I thought sharing it will be very useful for all.
By carefully reading this book without any bias, you may expect to
solve the puzzle of free will. But, in any case, if at the end it is not
solved for you, you will have learnt what the holy book of one of the
top religions in the world says about free will.
My target audience is not only muslims but also non-muslims.
Since non-muslims declare loudly troubles they have in
understanding free will within their religions or world views, they
may benefit from the teaching of Quran.
The literal concept “free will” is incoherent and the Quran does not use this
wording. Yet today this wording has become very common so we will use it
for the sake of a better communication.
3
-24-
1.1 Some of The Questions That Will Be Answered in
This Book
There are interesting questions that we see in the discussions about
free will. I will mention some of them to give you an idea about what
we will talk about in this book:
How would not I have free will, seeing that I can step forward or
backward if I will?
It seems that I will, but do I will freely or are the particles in my
brain behave exactly as physical laws require? And when I say “I”, is
this “I” an illusion, is it just a group of particles, or does it have a
reality of its own? After all, if I let a rock consisting of particles, it
always falls down in a certain way.
So, what if my will is just an illusion, and it is just the particles, fields
or neurons that unconsciously move, act, or fire? Am I just feeling
what is going on in the background and feeling as if I am the willer?
What is this “I” other than these particles? Is there such an “I”? And
would I make same choices had I been born in the jungle instead of
a metropol, or vice versa, or if I was born 2000 years ago?
What is the meaning of applause upon a great performance, is the
performance just an outcome of unconscious behavior of neurons
and cells, or is it just particles moving randomly or deterministically4?
Should I feel hatred for a criminal, or not? Should we punish a
criminal, or pay him for being the victim of unconscious particles
whose behaviors are predetermined and absolutely unchangeable?
When we use terms related to “determinism” in this book, unless otherwise
specified, we mean full determinism; not any local or partial determinism.
4
-25-
How can a criminal be responsible and punished if he does not have
free will?
Should not I love my mother for all her kindness toward me? Are
her behaviors that I perceive just illusions, are they just particles
moving without any meaning?
On the other hand, if particles in my brain make me think, if particles
obey physical laws where will I locate freedom of my will? Why do I
think what I think?
If there is some uncertainty within physical events in my brain would
this uncertainty make me free in willing? If so, why would
uncertainty be sufficient for free will? If there are serious correlations
between parents with certain attributes and their children’s
behaviors, how will I say that a person may be free in willing?
Can I make a contract while accepting that the parties do not have
free will? Can I expect any applause for a great performance if I reject
free will? If I reject free will and I applause, would not I be a
hypocrite?
But if the truth is ugly by requiring us to reject free will, yet is not it
the truth?
However, can I believe in truth if I do not have the free will to believe
in it, especially if my conclusion equals particles in my brain
bumping one onto another? And can I believe in truth, if I believe
that the truth is just an illusion?
And if I do not have the freedom to believe in it, what is the truth
value of that belief? So, does not the denial of free will destroy almost
everything upon which our daily lives are built?
-26-
Or should we accept the impossibility of a satisfactory conclusion
about the existence of free will?
But yet, is not it possible that we have free will? So, should I behave
as if we have free will?
So, are all successes and failures illusions?
On the other hand, if God knows all things in the past eternity, then
how can we have free will, and how can we negate the knowledge of
God?
So, questions keep going on. All of the above questions relate to the
concept of free will.
These seem to be tough questions? Maybe they are, or maybe our
dogmas without any basis produce confusions.
1.2 Importance of Free Will in Philosophy and Daily Life
Philosophers paid big attention to the “free will”. Its importance
arises from its being very practical, theoretical, intellectual,
comprehensive in that it is relevant for everybody, for almost all
religions, sciences, jobs, immediate experiences. Its permanence as a
problem also contributes to its importance.
There are many different approaches regarding the concept of free
will. In the following I mention some of them to give you an idea
about alternative approaches. This is not an exhaustive list:
One group of approaches is centered around the claims that events,
entities, beings are reducible to physical things. Physical things
behave only according to deterministic physical laws. Therefore,
there is no room for free will, and free will is an illusion. This is
generally called hard determinism.
-27-
Same group often adds that even if there is uncertainty in the physical
realm, agents and their wills are determined by or supervenient upon
the uncertain physical events and entities; in this case, the will would
just be random. The related argument is generally called the
argument from luck.
A second approach is that we obviously can raise our hands if we
will, and nobody forces us to stop raising it. So, it is obvious that we
are free in our wills. We are not entirely bound with physical laws,
and things are not fully deterministic and reducible only to
deterministic patterns. This generally has a dualist aspect
maintaining that we have spirits which are independent than the
physical. Libertarianism which says that we have free will but within
limitations is sometimes called weak libertarianism. Within this
group there are distinctions according to agent causation and event
causation.
A third point of view says, even if everything is or would be
deterministic, this does not/ would not require the non-existence of
free will. For them, whatever is the definition of free will, in any case
its elements would exist even in a fully deterministic universe. This
is generally called compatibilism.
A fourth point of view is that nobody and nothing has free will, and
nothing and nobody can have it. These are generally called
impossibilists.
A fifth point of view is an agnostic approach which says that we do
not know and/or cannot know whether we have free will. A version
of this approach says that we have to behave assuming that we have
free will.
Some within all groups claim that because of practical reasons, we
have to behave as if we have free will.
-28-
Hard determinism, and libertarianism are also grouped together
under the name of incompatibilism as they claim that determinism
and free will are not compatible. According to incompatibilists, if
determinism is true, then free will is false; and if free will is true then
determinism is false.
The free will has direct implications in regards to a key concept in
this book: Responsibility. In our context, by responsibility we
essentially mean retrospective responsibility that relates to praise and
blame.
The first approach above, claims that as we cannot will anything
except what we actually will, we are not responsible, yet we can take
measures to prevent the harms of those who are harmful. The second
and third approaches say that we are responsible.
There are different versions of the above points of view and also there
are other points of view which may not be considered under the
above. But for the purpose of this book the above outline will be
sufficient though we will touch other approaches whenever it is
necessary. Also note that the Quran does not endorse the above
classifications and they do not conform well to the framework of the
Quran, we will explain why in the following parts of this work.
You may have adopted one of the above approaches. You may have
thought little and one may be appealing and convincing to you in
the first instance. Or you may have thought for years, and came to a
certain conclusion about one of the above views. Yet most probably,
once you are presented with an opposing argument to yours’, you
may feel some dissatisfaction with your counter argument. Or
consequently, you may be yet unconvinced for any of the above. If
your situation is one of these, it shows to you that none of the above
approaches is without at least one important deficiency. This is
because without a sufficiently complete grasp of the existential
-29-
fundamentals, it is not possible to produce a complete and consistent
system of free will.
The above are essentially considerations that do not take into account
religion. When we take religion into account, one may come up with
other important questions: If God is Knower, and knows things
before they have happened, then how can we have free will? If God
is the originator of all, how can we have free will? If there is destiny,
how can there be free will?
Regarding these questions, there have been different approaches in
different religions, including Islam. Some rejected freedom of will,
some rejected some orthodox claims and qualifications of God. In
this book, we will address these points as well.
1.2.1 Philosophically Challenging Concept
For centuries, philosophers and others tried to tackle the free willresponsibility paradox. Up to now there has not been a progress
toward a consensus about it.
1.2.2 An Extremely Practical Concept
The importance of free will does not arise only because it is a
challenging philosophical question. It is also a very practical subject:
It is directly related to the concept of responsibility which is of top
importance to human beings in every aspect of our lives.
Saying there is no free will destroys almost everything upon which
our daily lives are built. And also, free will is directly related to the
concept of responsibility which is of top importance to human
beings.
In the following we briefly mention some areas where free will has
key implications:
-30-
1.2.2.1 Commercial Legislation and Practices
Can you make a contract while accepting that the parties do not have
free will? What can you say to a dog who prints its paw on the
contract, and which does not have a relevant free will, when it does
not abide by it?
1.2.2.2 Criminology
What would be the basis to punish agents if they are in fact no more
than robots who cannot do other than what they do?
Of course, these ideas did not stay within the boundaries of
philosophical discussions and people practically put them into
practical use: For example, many criminals say in courts I did not
have free will for that crime.
And naturally a lawmaker’s conclusion about free will will directly
influence him while he is shaping a related norm.
1.2.2.3 Religion
Many religious people advance that the evil wills are the wills of
servants. Many atheists say we do not have free will so if God is, the
evil is the product of God.
1.2.2.4 Behavior
Scientific studies show obviously that belief in the existence or nonexistence of free will has considerable effect on one’s wills and
actions. For example, in some tests, persons who are required to read
texts that maintain the non-existence of free will cheated more
compared to the group who was not exposed to such texts.
-31-
On the other hand, can you expect any applause for a great
performance if you reject free will? How can I talk of responsibility
if you suffer for or enjoy the results of your actions, and yet your
actions are just related to particles’ actions and your wills and choices
are just illusions?
1.3 Importance of Understanding
Framework About Free Will
the
Quranic
And whoever wills the reward of this world We will give him
thereof; and whoever wills the reward of the Hereafter We
will give him thereof. And we will recompense the thankful.
(Quran: 3/145)
The Quran is the holy book of Islam, and it claims to be the final
message of God to mankind. It was revealed approximately 14
centuries ago to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH5) within 23 years, a
book with approximately 600 pages.
One of the most important concepts in the Quran is responsibility.
Probably there is no other book on earth which emphasizes positive
and negative responsibility as the Quran. And in this respect, there
are also many verses that are relevant to free will, though there is no
literal mention of “free will”. The non-occurrence of literal “free will”
is quite wise as “free will” is not essentially a very coherent term, as
explained in part 2.
Being a book from God, the Quran has a lot to say about foundations
of existence, attributes of God, His knowledge, His relationship with
His creation, His acts, past, present, future, time, space, good, evil,
values, ethics, particles, life forms, consciousness, biological-physicalmental, material-spiritual, belief, disbelief, freedom, reward,
punishment, blame, praise, regret, causality, parts, wholes, truth,
5
Peace be upon him
-32-
error, knowledge, thought, observation, ignorance, known-unknown,
local-transcendent, science-dogma, micro-macro, determinism,
uncertainty, existence, non-existence, divine-worldly…
Free will-responsibility paradox relates to these fundamentals about
which opinions differ widely and about which there is not even
convergence.
There are very different conceptions and definitions of free will, and
even as to these definitions there is great divergence. These show that
there are some real problems about the understanding of its
fundamentals. Thus, the Quranic framework which sheds light upon
those fundamentals in a systematic way will be helpful in
understanding free will.
I should note that the real reason for the power of this paradox is the
separatist approach which keeps creating artificial and false distances.
For example, a physicalist reductionist approach reduces things to
many things and considers those things as distances between things;
so, for example, space is considered as a distance. Also, it rejects the
wholes that unite things or gives them secondary position or even
considers them as illusions. Because of those distances and related
dogmas, reconciling our wills and their reality with what we observe
becomes naturally impossible. Again, false distances between physical
and conscious, God and creation, discrete and concrete, patterns and
uncertainty make the question more and more unsolvable.
Interestingly, we do not see much correlation between the
approaches to free will and philosophical schools or
religions/ideologies. There are different approaches within each
major religion or world view.
-33-
So, the Quran as a foremost book that emphasizes the concept of
“unity” will be helpful in solving easily the paradox of free willresponsibility by helping us eliminate such artificial barriers.
It sheds light upon fundamentals so that we can detect dogmas which
disable us from reaching a good understanding about our
environment, about ourselves, and of course about free willresponsibility. On the other hand, the Quran opens a path that we
will not be blocked by dualism, determinism or uncertainty.
Without a sufficient understanding of the foundations of existence,
it will be difficult to understand free will. In physics, when we find
out an equation which overlaps with a physical pattern we cheer up,
and consider that we learnt something considerable. However, it is
no real knowledge than the understanding about electronics of a
toddler who can play with a mobile. Free will does not give us the
opportunity for a fake cheer-up. Any aspect of free will joins us with
the fundamental and unsolved questions as consciousness, truth,
space, time, past, future, causality…
So, we will explain the foundations of existence first under the light
of the Quran. Of course, we do not have fully complete knowledge
about existence as said in the Quran. But what we have been given
is sufficient as relevant knowledge so that we can find our way.
Based on an insufficient understanding of the fundamentals, it is not
possible to understand free will. For example, the starting point for
physicalism is the physical yet, what the physical is not clear. Can
physicalism explain the physical? As we will see later, it cannot,
because it just has the contingent tools, hence, it does not have the
necessary tools to explain what the physical is.
However, the Quran assumes the mission to explain all that is
relevant for us: From the beginning to the end, from the micro to the
-34-
macro, from the truth to the error, … Therefore, the Quranic
emphasis on human responsibility and knowledge about the great
will power bestowed upon human beings with which he excels over
many of the creation will be important items within the intellectual
assets of any human being.
1.4 Can We Know That We Have Free Will?
He has not laid upon you in religion any hardship. (Quran:
22/78)6
The message of the Quran is not a message just to philosophers, but
it is a message to all human beings and more. And a sufficient
understanding about will is necessary for a good understanding about
responsibility. And since people other than philosophers are also
responsible, the question must not be too difficult.
Indeed, there are many people who say, look I can see the alternatives
that I can will, for example, I can will to raise my arms if I will, or I
can will to let them as they are, and there is nothing that prevents
me from raising it, or willing to raise it, or not. And nobody can say
to me that it is impossible for me to will to raise them or let them
where they are. So, I have free will. That is it. Quite easy.
And there are those who say, look, there are deterministic physical
laws, and things behave according to them, and we can test those
laws. These laws apply also to your will processes. You do not have
a being separate than your parts. So, your feeling of freedom of will
is just an illusion. And even if some events are uncertain, uncertain
physical events would not give us free will. And therefore, we do not
have free will. That is it. Quite easy.
6
(The-Holy-Quran .)
-35-
There are also some who say that the question is not an easy one
even though they reach a certain conclusion about the reality of free
will.
And there are those who do not reach a conclusion about its reality,
and think that both sides have some truth in what they say, and say
that the question is not an easy one. This happens especially when
one is presented the opposite arguments.
Yet, the obvious fact is that we either have free will or not. Whichever
is the case, the following obvious fact is that the opposing argument
is false, fallacious, and unsubstantiated. And since we are the
immediate experiencer of the truth or illusion of free will, we may
say that some make an unsubstantiated and avoidable error.
But it is obvious that there is also a task to show whether it is an easy
challenge or not.
And easiness of things depends upon how we define and from where
we look. If we look from an airplane, we can see the shape of the
jungle more easily than looking from inside the jungle. If we try to
comprehend a small part of the jungle, we may need to be inside it.
So, what we mean by “free will” is important. And the difficulty
seems to be in determining what we mean by “free will”.
Because of this, I organized this book as an explanation of free will.
And you (mankind) have not been given of knowledge except
a little.
(Quran: 17/85)
Maybe we do not know everything about a thing yet this does not
mean that we necessarily do not have any knowledge about it. We
have not been given all knowledge, but we have been given some
-36-
knowledge. And if this knowledge is true, relevant, accessible, and
sufficient, then it makes us responsible.
Islam does not claim to explain irrelevant things. As things and
systems are contingent there are many ways universes may be
constructed. So, science that deals with our universe is important in
practical terms and in terms of showing the power and certain
attributes of Allah. Yet among the kinds of universes that Allah can
create, our universe is infinetisimally small. And however big is our
knowledge about the contingent aspects of our universe, it will not
be a considerable knowledge within the entire knowledge of God. So,
lots of contingent knowledge cannot replace one fundamental
knowledge. To get the correct conclusion about a matter, instead of
lots of information, relevant information, balanced focus, and healthy
judgment may be more useful. Hence, a person who lived hundreds
of years ago may have the same opportunity to find the truth
compared to someone in his future who has more information in
quantity if the first considers more relevant info. So, we must not say
that there must be necessarily new scientific findings so that we can
find out about some truth.
Do we have to take what the Quran says and not to think about it?
On the contrary, the Quran says that it is for being thought upon
and understood.
1.5 Our Method in This Work
1.5.1 General Method
In this book, I will explain free will in accordance with the Quranic
framework. The emphasis in the question of free will is on the
question of whether will can be free. To understand whether “will”
can be free, we need to understand first what “will” is. Therefore, the
-37-
book will be centered around the question of what will is, and the
freedom of will will be dealt with in its relationship to what will is.
We will study in this book the will and its elements from the
perspective of free will and justified responsibility. So, we will not get
into aspects of will that are not related to the concept of free will.
As in our context, free will is closely related to its results, results’
ownership, results’ implications for the willer, and results’ fairness
and justness, in other words the concept of responsibility, we will
also consider responsibility. The elements of responsibility are closely
related and the elements of will have implications for the concept and
elements of responsibility. So, throughout our study of free will, we
will also make a parallel study of responsibility as a secondary topic.
But “will” will be prior in order since it is the main topic of this book
and since responsibility is the result of will.
Regarding the will power, our explanations will relate to its agent,
influencers, inputs, outputs, processes, scientific implications,
neurological findings, daily life issues, and relationship to
responsibility. And this way, we will analyze all elements so that we
can understand how free will is built from scratch.
I will try to save space and be concise, and to this end we will abstain
from mentioning or quoting tons of literature about the topic. But I
will try to address all meaningful questions about it. Yet, I will try to
offer also the Quranic system in its relation to “will” which will be
very functional in understanding the issue easily.
We will also enter into technical details whenever necessary7.
7
I give some brief explanations of technical terms to help the non-expert
reader. These explanations may reflect one part of the term or one view of it
-38-
On the other hand, as the topic raises many questions and objections
in many ways, we will address clearly the possible questions and
objections under related headings. Objections and questions covered
in this book are not only actual objections, I address potential
objections as well. And we will see many issues in the form of
questions and answers in order to facilitate the understanding. Some
questions that can occur to the reader are explained under questions
and answers under related sections. Questions are generally integral
to the text. They are used to emphasize important points that may
raise questions or objections. So, the reader normally should not skip
them. Sometimes they are used to separate technical issues. In such
cases they can be skipped.
We will not only put forth what is according to the Quran, but also
explain relevant implications according to current concepts and
current science.
As this book is written from the perspective of Islam, there may be
some psychological pressures as cognitive dissonance on the reader
who adheres to another religion or view. Hence, it is obvious that to
understand what we tell here, the reader must put aside his/her
beliefs or lack of beliefs that he has not substantiated strongly.
There are many who claim there is free will or there is no free will.
We will try to make a difference in this respect with strong logic and
by combining it with clear thought experiments.
Our empirical knowledge on some points is limited. We have and
will have limited means to measure whether the smallest details of
because there is seldom only one understanding of such terms and generally
there are variances. And we do not want to fill the book with more than
necessary technical explanations which can be easily found on the internet.
So, in occurrences where such variations are key for the reader, he is suggested
to have sufficient further reading.
-39-
events are probabilistic or determininstic; whether there is an
ultimate fundamental level; whether we influence the matter or the
matter influences us, or both. In cases where we do not know which
alternative is true, we will consider all relevant alternatives and their
implications. We will analyze the possible results of many thought
experiments.
According to the Quran, the truth is sufficiently accessible for us; and
according to logic, it is sufficiently accessible since we are responsible
only within the boundaries of our capacity.
1.5.2 Our Method as Related to The Quranic Framework
Studying the freedom of the will, we will benefit from the tools that
the Quranic teaching provides us with and I will abide by the
Quranic framework. Naturally, there may be some muslims who
disagree with our conclusions. Therefore, I will give the related verses
as much as possible.
And whenever I mention verses from the Quran, the non-muslim
reader should not assume that we present them as proofs8. He should
consider them as descriptions of the Quranic framework. Of course,
empirical and logical arguments and proofs that I will present and
which are in parallel with the verses may help the reader better
understand the free will.
The free will framework of the Quran is mostly stand-alone model:
It does not necessarily require one to be convinced about all the
8
Though we do not present the Quran as a proof by itself, it should be noted
that the only knowledge beyond our reach, that has the potential to be a true
knowledge, would be a knowledge within a Holy Book confirmed by logic and
observation.
-40-
components of all Quranic belief essentials in order to understand it
as a coherent model of free will.
Some elements of quranic framework may overlap with some theories
in some respects. But in many respects, it has a different systematic.
And as Islam is a whole system, then in any case, it will be
fundamentally different from all other models.
We give the Quranic framework and its analysis in the context of
recent considerations, and scientific findings. For example, we will
explain related implications of the Quranic framework about free will
as related to quantum physics.
1.5.3 Burden of Proof
Those who associated with Allah will say, "If Allah had willed,
we would not have associated [anything] and neither would
our fathers, nor would we have prohibited anything."
Likewise, did those before deny until they tasted Our
punishment. Say, "Do you have any knowledge that you can
produce for us? You follow not except assumption, and you
are not but falsifying."
Say: Then Allah’s is the conclusive argument; so, if He had
pleased, He would have guided you all.
(Quran: 6/148-149)
Is the proponent or the opponent of free will entitled to say, “my
position is the default position, you are the one to prove your claim,
you have the burden of proof, not me”?
The one who defends free will may say: “Look I can will to eat the
red candy or the white candy and eat it. You tell me I cannot eat one
of them. Tell me which one I cannot eat! And prove it.” The other
-41-
one may say: “Whatever happens has a cause, prove to me that your
choice happens without a cause.”
Most empirical and immediate experience is for the existence of free
will. However large is the information about the state of the universe
prior to the will, nobody can say to the agent who is in a normal
conscious state, “you will not will to eat the red candy”.
The opponent of free will has an implicit claim that things are
reducible to the physical. One cannot say without substantiation 'we
do not experience free will’. There is the implicit claim that the act
of the agent is either deterministic and/or random.
Furthermore, the opponent of free will wills certain wills, and also,
he reacts strongly to some wills of some people in the daily life.
Therefore, we can say that the burden of proof is essentially on the
opponent of free will.
However, the opponent of free will also brings an argument. And he
will claim that his point is more fundamental. Hence, the discussion
does not end on the side of the proponent of free will saying that he
is not convinced by the argument of the opponent of free will. And
the discussion did not actually end this way up to now.
If the opponent of free will extends it so as to say that God does not
or cannot have free will either, then the burden of proof and null
hypothesis become more meaningful: Why would the will of God be
always with a coercive bias in a specific direction? For example, why
would not God be able to create another kind of universe? God could
have willed or done otherwise.
We can also easily imagine a conscious being who is not coerced by
anything in a specific direction. He needs to will a or b. Can he will
one of them? Of course. He can also define a and b. Claiming the
-42-
opposite requires some proof. The default is the non-existence of a
coercion in a certain direction.
The claim that there will always be a cause for willing each feasible
alternative is unsubstantiated. In a case where there is no coercive
cause for a certain will, the subject may will that will at least just to
show the freedom of whis will.
The opponent of free will must show first that there cannot be such
a power and secondly that the human being does not have such a
power.
However, from another point of view, the burden of proof is on
anyone who is influenced by the trueness or falsity of a claim. There
may be people who deny the free will, and commit more crimes
because they believe they are not responsible as they do not have free
will. This will influence the proponents of free will as well. So, in any
case the proponents of free will must bring their proofs for free will.
The explanations in this book will also show how the opponent of
free will has the burden of proof, and that what he claims to be the
default position is not the default position.
1.5.4 Reminders for Some Readers
The readers of this book will be muslims and non-muslims.
The non-muslim reader should keep in mind that I write this book
as a believer. Yet I never expect that my statements to be accepted
dogmatically. When a statement of the Quran is presented, the nonmuslim should take it as a description rather than as a proof.
Sometimes you will see generalizations: For example, I may say that
a certain world view postulates x. The reader should not take such
statements literally. Especially on a subject like free will, there may
-43-
be many sub-groups who differ in their opinion from the general
world-view.
The muslim reader should know that if the verse of the Quran
corresponds to the very truth in an event in the laboratory, our words
correspond to our limited understanding.
Question 1.
How can the Quran as a book which came from the mouth of a
person who did not know reading, who never went to any school, as
a book which orders killing the apostates, or supports slavery and sex
slaves guide us in these deep issues?
Answer 1.
The Quran does not order to kill the apostates, nor supports slavery
and sex slaves. All those claims have their answers which are not the
subject of this book. In order to benefit from this book, I recommend
the readers to put aside such prejudices, emotions, and
misinformation.
Along with misinformation, throughout ages, the arrogance and
emotions have been important impediments against finding the
truth. Many people even some who lived thousands of years ago had
pride in having lived after those who lived in their past, and they
have been arrogant for being more developed than their past
generations.
And when Our verses are recited to them, they say, "We have
heard. If we willed, we could say [something] like this. This
is not but legends of the former peoples."
(Quran: 8/31)
-44-
But if they do not respond to you then know that they only
follow their [own] low desires. And who is more astray than
one who follows his low desires without guidance from Allah?
Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.
(Quran: 28/50)
Surely, those who argue against GOD's revelations without
proof are exposing the arrogance that is hidden inside their
chests, and they are not even aware of it. Therefore, seek
refuge in God; He is the Hearer, the Seer.
(Quran: 40/56)
1.6 Different Views Adopted by Muslims
Almost within each religion or world view, there are people adopting
differing approaches. These may be due to different social
environments, exposure to different educations, lack of knowledge,
bad reasoning, political manipulation, and so on.
Muslim community is not different in this respect, so within the
muslim community, there are or there have been different marginal
approaches. What we present in this book is the orthodox approach,
yet there have been those who claimed non-existence of free will, and
also those who claimed that a person is wholly free and that God
does not know all things and does not have control over things.
As of now, we should note that there are two marginal groups in this
respect:
1. The “jabriyyah” that is the “group advocating the coercion”,
maintain that there is no free will because we have to will
what we will, hence who mostly maintain that there is no
responsibility: They adopt a version of fatalism, they follow
-45-
verses where Allah emphasizes His Power, and they omit
verses where Allah shows the agent as the origin of his evil
wills and deeds.
2. The “qadariyyah”, that is “the group who says that agents
form their destiny”, maintain that we form our destiny, and
essentially there is no involvement of God in what we will
and produce.
I will not deal directly with their claims in this book; but the
sources and explanations about the orthodox view will refute
their claims sufficiently.
-46-
2
General Framework of Islam Related to Free Will
-47-
So, if they deny you, [O Muhammad], say, "Your Lord is the
possessor of vast mercy; but His punishment cannot be
repelled from the people who are criminals."
Those who associated [partners] with Allah will say, "If Allah
had willed, we would not have associated [anything] and
neither would our fathers9, nor would we have prohibited
anything." Likewise did those before deny until they tasted
Our punishment10. Say, "Do you have any knowledge that
you can produce for us? You follow not except assumption,
and you are not but falsifying."
Say, "With Allah is the far-reaching argument. If He11 had
willed, He would have guided you all."
Say, [O Muhammad], "Bring forward your witnesses who will
testify that Allah has prohibited this." And if they testify, do
not testify with them. And do not follow the low desires of
9
This is a common argument by atheists even today. Many atheists keep
saying things as “If God wanted me to follow a religion, then He would know
what would convince me, or He would rewire my brain”. Somehow, they have
difficulty in admitting the possibility that God may give free will, and the
opportunity to display what a person chooses and make people bear relevant
consequences.
10 Do they will to get the punishment? No. Does Allah or determinism or
uncertainty make them “not will it”? If yes, then their will is as if non-existent,
and their will is an illusion. But they claim that they do not will it and they
expect that their “will” is respected, and they also maintain that many things
happen although they do not “will” them and that they do not approve many
things, as if their will is existent. If no, then this means that their wills are
true, and issue from their own selves.
11 Allah does not have any gender. However, for Him we use the pronoun He,
which is a special use for God with capital H so as to include the genderless.
Likewise, the usage of “Him” or “His” as used for God, do not reflect any
gender.
-48-
those who deny Our verses and those who do not believe in
the Hereafter, while they equate [others] with their Lord.
Say, "Let me tell you about what your Lord has commanded:
Do not consider anything equal to God; Be kind to your
parents; Do not murder your children out of fear of poverty,
for We give sustenance to you and to them. Do not even
approach indecency either in public or in private. Take not a
life which God has made sacred except by way of justice and
law. Thus, does He command you that you may learn
wisdom.
And do not approach the orphan's property except in a way
that is best until he reaches maturity. And give full measure
and weight in justice. We do not charge any soul except [with
that within] its capacity. And when you testify, be just, even
if [it concerns] a near relative. And the covenant of Allah
fulfill. This has He instructed you that you may take heed.
And, [moreover], this is My path, which is straight, so follow
it; and do not follow [other] ways, for you will be separated
from His way. This has He instructed you that you may guard
yourselves (against evil).
Then We gave Moses the Scripture, making complete [Our
favor] upon the one who did good and as a detailed
explanation of all things and as guidance and mercy that
perhaps in [the matter of] the meeting with their Lord they
would believe.
And this [Quran] is a Book We have revealed [which is]
blessed, so follow it and fear Allah that you may receive
mercy.
-49-
[We revealed it] lest you say, "The Scripture was only sent
down to two groups before us, but we were of their study
unaware,"
Or lest you say, "If only the Scripture had been revealed to
us, we would have been better guided than they." So, there
has [now] come to you a clear evidence from your Lord and
a guidance and mercy. Then who is more unjust than one
who denies the verses of Allah and turns away from them?
We will recompense those who turn away from Our verses
with the worst of punishment for their having turned away.
(Quran: 6/147 – 157)
Indeed, we offered the Trust to the heavens and the earth and
the mountains, and they declined to bear it and feared it; but
man [undertook to] bear it. Indeed, he was unjust and
ignorant.
(Quran: 33/72)
As we noted earlier, “free will” is not literally mentioned in the
Quran. But the “will” power is used as an effective power of the
agent. In the Islamic context, the sovereignty of the agent and hence
the sovereign free will is emphasized. In other words, instead of
partial or whole non-existence of external influences12, freedom of
will is based on the distinct power of the agent who is a “whole”.
This whole, though containing its parts, has a distinct reality from
them. This whole has been given some sovereignty by God. And the
will of this whole has sovereignty in reference to this whole.
Therefore, this agent firstly has a positive will power of his own, and
secondly, this power may override some external influences, or may
be influenced by the outside influences. In other words, it interacts
12
External influences include also the influences of the agent’s parts or past.
-50-
with the other beings and entities. But under normal conditions, if
not coerced or fully manipulated, it has a true potential range of
freedom of will. In the next section I will explain what “will power”
is.
Say, O Allah, Owner of Sovereignty, You give sovereignty to
whom You will and You take sovereignty away from whom
You will. You honor whom You will and You humble whom
You will. In Your hand is [all] good. Indeed, You are over all
things competent.
(Quran: 3/26)
O my people, sovereignty is yours today, [your being]
dominant in the land. But who would protect us from the
punishment of Allah if it came to us?" Pharaoh said, "I do
not show you except what I see, and I do not guide you except
to the way of right conduct."
(Quran: 40/29)
The word “sovereign” which is a key attribute as it relates to the
sovereignty13 of agents, is used in this book according to the
following explanations:
The origin of the word “sovereign” is as follows: “Middle English:
from Old French souverain, based on Latin super ‘above’. The change
in the ending was due to association with reign”14. Some of its
definitions appropriate in our context are “Possessing supreme or
In the original text of the Quran, the word “mulk” is of the same origin as
“malik” which means king.
14 (Oxford-Dictionaries 2020)
13
-51-
ultimate power”15, “efficacious; potent”16, “one that exercises
supreme authority within a limited sphere”17.
The appropriate definitions of “sovereignty” in our context are as
follows: “A self-governing state”18, “controlling influence”,
“autonomy”19.
The Quran teaches a positive, existent, and effective agent and will
power. Note that this is in contrast to approaches which try to define
free will based on the non-existence of partial, or full influence, or
control of the agent upon it. The agent is sovereign, real, and his will
has sovereignty, which can suppress or cancel external influences to
some extent. He can also interact with the influencers.
Based on this, scholars of Islam have used the following classification
regarding will power: (1) Supreme, full will power “Kullee iraadah”
which is the will power of Allah. He is able to assign sovereignty to
His creation. His will interacts with the wills of His creation. He
determines the conditions of His creation. And, nothing can happen
outside His permission. (2) Small, partial will “Juz’ee Iradah”: The
will power of the creation. This power runs within the conditions
and environment created by God. Though limited, it is real and
effective. There is a sphere within which this will power can be
exercised. And the agent has power to enlarge this sphere to some
extent.
Though the Quran emphasizes the reality and effectiveness of will
power, to facilitate understanding I will use also the “free will”
wording. “Free will” will be used to represent the will power unless
15
16
17
18
19
(Oxford-Dictionaries 2020)
(Dictionary.com 2020)
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
(Oxford-Dictionaries 2020)
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
-52-
stated or implied otherwise. The reader should keep in mind that
when I use “free” in this context, this is closer to “sovereign”.
I also think that the Quranic presentation of the will power is more
appropriate than “free will” wording. Because “free will” essentially
as an act of the agent, is an incoherent expression. The will power
itself, as an act or as a power of the agent, by definition cannot be
free. But we see that “willing” is mentioned in many occasions in the
Quran. And according to the definition of the will in accordance with
the Quran, the will which is essentially an intrinsic power of the
agent, contains freedom.
If there is no element of freedom intrinsic to the will power, then we
can just talk of a process called will that either is a follow up of prior
deterministic or indeterministic processes, or an illusion, or an
epiphenomenon. In this case, the agent would be nothing but its
parts, and could distinctly produce nothing new.
Before making a technical definition of will, we will consider the
foundations of Islam that relate to will.
Free will is a small part of the whole system. So, foundations and the
whole system are important. It is not possible to have a correct
understanding of free will while the entire system of existence is
conceived in a wrong way. In Islam everything constitutes a system
as everything is logically and empirically linked. Hence nothing
within our limited universe20 can be understood and can mean
anything by itself as an isolated thing.
So, in this part I will try to explain the general teachings of the Quran
that relate to free will, and then we will go into the details of will.
The “limited universe” is used in this book for the universe or multiverse
other than God.
20
-53-
This part will constitute a roadmap as well so that the remainder is
better understood.
2.1 The Position of The Quran Regarding Free Will: The
Human Agent Has Free Will to A Certain Extent
And Allah created the heavens and earth in truth and so that
every soul may be recompensed for what it has earned, and
they will not be wronged.
(Quran: 45/22)
Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its
capacity. It will have [the consequence of] what [good] it has
gained, and it will bear [the consequence of] what [evil] it has
earned.
(Quran: 2/286)
And leave what is apparent of sin and what is concealed
thereof. Indeed, those who earn [blame for] sin will be
recompensed for that which they used to commit.
(Quran: 6/120)
No event is necessary/ fully deterministic and no event is random.
Every event is ultimately an outcome of free will. This free will may
be the direct free will of Allah, or the free will of something which is
created and sustained by Allah. A stone falls according to a certain
pattern which is an element of design.
There are two main positions against free will. These positions are in
parallel with certain world views.
The first world view in this respect is physicalism. Sub-categories
under physicalism related to free will are reductionism, determinism,
-54-
and indeterminism. Reductive physicalists maintain that everything
is reducible to the spatiotemporal. Here, though physics corresponds
etymologically to “physica” which means natural science, today it is
mostly understood as “a science that deals with matter and energy
and their interactions”21. And specifically, physicalism means “a
thesis that the descriptive terms of scientific language are reducible
to terms which refer to spatiotemporal things or events or to their
properties”22. For physicalists then the “physical” is understood so as
to have an even narrower meaning that is based on “spatiotemporal”,
hence on “distance”. Therefore, for the physicalist, consciousness,
qualia, and their effects go out of the window at the very beginning.
Or if they stay, they stay as illusions. They are reducible to the
spatiotemporal, and they are supervenient upon it. For the
physicalist, the only effective causes are thus “narrowly physical23”
causes, whether they are deterministic or indeterministic.
The second position against free will relates to religions and a specific
understanding of God where God knows all in advance, and where
there is unipotential24 causal relationship from the knowledge of God
to what happens. Accordingly, since God knows all in advance,
nobody can behave against this knowledge. In this approach, time is
also considered to be a barrier for God.
21
22
23
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
Because of the monist teaching of the Quran, an absolute division of the
existence as physical and non-physical is not coherent. However, I need to use
terms as the physical, or physicalist. When I use them, they are used as
“narrowly physical” so as to represent the approaches of the physicalists who
differentiate the physical as a distinct and prime thing as opposed to other
things.
24 See part 3.1.1.3.1.2 for the explanations about the unipotential and
multipotential causes.
-55-
Some combine this approach with determinism: Here, God’s perfect
knowledge in the past about the future, entails all the future events
being fixed before they have happened. In this approach time is a
barrier for God, the only way for God to have control over His
creation, is by setting initial states, and deterministic causal
relationships. In another version of this approach, as laws are fixed
and can only be deterministic, the only variable for God is the initial
states. And God cannot interfere with the events.
In Islam, God can create originators of new events or wills. A creation
may have an influence in a down-top, or top-down direction. The
influence may be pattern-like, but it is not necessary that it is patternlike and fixed.
Allah creates the requirements of the will such as the agent, the
environment, the infrastructure of the will, and the agent; and the
agent earns his wills and acts. And there is an interaction between
any agent and God.
Allah creates us, gives us the powers to hear, to see, to think, to feel…
And there is the human being who sees, hears, thinks, feels… By
being created, we become new beings which are not reducible to
those faculties.
For example, He shows us the fire, and teaches us that it burns, and
that we are vulnerable. He teaches us the causal relationships. We
see the alternative results within causality chains, and we choose. We
are responsible for the results that we can foresee. We are responsible
for the results of not trying to find out the possible results as well.
Hence, if we foresee a result toward which we chose to proceed, or if
we chose not to search the possible results, then we are responsible.
If later we say we did not want that result, then we risk being
dishonest.
-56-
On the other hand, willing things freely everyday, and then claiming
that we do not have free will, either because of physicalism or because
of God’s knowledge or power may not be very consistent.
In this part I will describe some key points regarding what should
one believe about free will according to the Quran. These I give here
so that the reader may have an idea about the broad picture, so here
I will not give arguments and details.
The answer to the question of free will is sought while assuming the
truth of one or more of the following: Physicalism, determinism,
indeterminism, reductionism. However, all of these are fallacious.
Question 2.
Why is the Quran taken as basis in this work?
Answer 2.
We took the Quran as a basis because firstly for the muslim reader,
it is the message of God for muslims. Secondly, it is a book that
received big acceptance as a book which claims to be built on logical
and empirical evidence and not on mystery. Hence, its arguments are
worth considering for both muslims and non-muslims.
2.1.1 The Quran Claims That There Is Free Will
And they said: "If it had been the Will of the Most Beneficent
(Allah), we should not have worshipped them (false deities)."
They have no knowledge whatsoever of that. They only lie.
(Quran: 43/20)
At this point it is important to clarify that the Quran claims that
there is free will power. Though marginal, there are some muslims
-57-
who reject free will. And there are some muslims who are not clear
about whether the Quran claims free will or not.
The non-muslim reader should note that the points in this part are
not presented for them as proofs of free will. But for them it will be
useful in learning the teaching of the Quran about whether free will
power is true or not.
In the above verse, the disbelievers claim no responsibility based on
freedom. There may be two assumptions behind this claim. (1) Had
Allah willed them not to worship false deities, then He would prevent
them from worshipping the false deities. (2) Allah causes them to
worship the false deities. However, Allah says that their claim is false.
It is not possible for a soul to believe except by permission of Allah
as mentioned in the following verse:
And it is not for a soul to believe except by permission of
Allah, and He will place defilement upon those who do not
use their reason.
(Quran: 10/100)
However, since their claim is said to be false, we understand that
their worshipping false deities is not because of the will of Allah, or
because of lack of God’s permission for them to believe correctly.
Otherwise, they would not be falsifying. Hence, both assumptions
are false.
Allah does not force to believe:
And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have
believed all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad] would
you compel the people in order that they become believers?
(Quran: 10/99)
-58-
Also, if reductive physicalism, determinism, or indeterminism were
true, Allah would know that they could not will and they could not
do otherwise.
And when they commit an immorality, they say, "We found
our fathers doing it, and Allah has ordered us to do it." Say,
"Indeed, Allah does not order immorality. Do you say about
Allah that which you do not know?"
(Quran: 7/28)
Allah does not even order immorality; why would He force to it?
Allah has the power to guide or mislead by force as mentioned in the
above verses. But He does not have the will to force them. If Allah
would want to make people do something by coercion, either with
direct forcing of God, or with deterministic or indeterministic
processes, with no free will, then certainly, He could make them
believe. But He does not have the will to force.
In the following sub-sections we will see the verses of the Quran that
relate to the existence of free will.
2.1.1.1 What Is Free Will
I will give a technical detailed definition of free will later in part 3.1.2
as it requires some background information that I will give till that
part. Below, I give a summary about what free will is so that you may
follow the points until we come to the related technical definition.
The free will power (FWP) is briefly the power of the irreducible and
sovereign agent to determine equally a set of alternatives between
multiple sets of alternatives.
FWP may work when there are two sets of alternatives as long as
they are distinguishable from each other, even though none of them
has any superiority in any respect.
-59-
It can also navigate through alternatives, truth statements, and
produce wills. It can will intellectual powers as knowledge power and
reasoning power to process certain things, and it can will hence
originate respective commands for them. If these powers are healthy
and powerful enough, they may proceed toward a specific direction
in harmony with the truth of the agent.
The FWP may override or overcome the influencers which exert
influences to divert the essence of the agent from the OTBT toward
other directions which are less than optimal for the agent.
It may give the agent the capacity to take the optimal route. Yet, an
existent FWP may be exercised or not for the good of the agent. It
can be exercised for evil as well. It can be governed by the wrong
influencers which divert the essence of the agent from its pure
trajectory. The agent may choose a wrong direction with his FWP,
he may freely enter under the control of the wrong influencers. The
agent who has FWP and other necessary powers is responsible, and
if he does not exercise his FWP appropriately, this means that he is
to be blamed or punished if applicable.
2.1.1.2 The Central Place of Free Will in Islam
Allah bears witness that there is no god but He, and (so do)
the angels and those possessed of knowledge, maintaining
justice. There is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise.
(Quran: 3/18)
So, observe the effects of the mercy of Allah how He gives life
to the earth after its lifelessness. Indeed, that [same one] will
give life to the dead, and He is over all things competent.
(Quran: 30/50)
-60-
Free will is very central in Islam. It relates to the purpose of God in
creating the human being and the universe.
Allah gives favors, and watches in His creation the traces of His
mercy, His guidance and His truth. Allah loves His servant's acts and
attributes that are based on his free will that He shares and loves, like
His servant’s kindness, justice, good deeds. And He loves the truth
which is freely adopted and shared by His servant.
So, rely upon Allah; indeed, you are upon the clear truth.
(Quran: 27/79)
He loves His righteous servants, and they love Him:
He loves them and they love Him.
(Quran: 5/54)
Allah is satisfied with them, and they are satisfied with Him:
Allah is well-pleased with them and they are well-pleased
Him. That is the great success.
(Quran: 5/119)
On the judgment day the servant is pleased with God not only
because He saved him from fire, but also because He has been good,
just, truthful, thankful...
And to David We gave Solomon. An excellent servant, indeed
he was one repeatedly turning back [to Allah].
(Quran: 38/30)
[We said], "And take in your hand a bunch [of grass] and
strike with it and do not break your oath." Indeed, We found
him patient, an excellent servant. Indeed, he was one
repeatedly turning back [to Allah].
-61-
(Quran: 38/44)
There are also His servants who have diverted from the truth and
with whom Allah has not been pleased.
They swear to you so that you might be satisfied with them.
But if you should be satisfied with them indeed, Allah is not
satisfied with a defiantly disobedient people.
(Quran: 9/96)
If you are thankless, yet Allah is Independent of you, though
He is not pleased with thanklessness for His bondmen; and
if you are thankful, He is pleased therewith for you. No laden
soul will bear another's load. Then unto your Lord is your
return; and He will tell you what you used to do. Lo! He
knows what is in the breasts (of men).
(Quran: 39/7)
And such servants will regret what they did, and they will bear
witness that they were upon error, and that the truth is the truth
even if they have negated.
Do they just wait for the final fulfilment of the event? On the
day the event is finally fulfilled, those who disregarded it
before will say: "The messengers of our Lord did indeed bring
true (tidings). Have we no intercessors now to intercede on
our behalf? Or could we be sent back? Then should we behave
differently from our behaviour in the past." In fact, they will
have lost their souls, and the things they invented will leave
them in the lurch.
(Quran: 7/53)
Allah does not see the effects of His mercy and sharing of the truth
only in human beings but also in all His creation in many ways.
-62-
God is pleased and satisfied with certain things and persons, and He
is not pleased and satisfied with certain things and persons. But even
if He is not satisfied with some part, the entirety of what happens
and the balance within the total of what happens, is satisfactory and
pleasing to God.
On the other hand, in a way, as a favor from God, the servant is
given the opportunity to impress God within the potentials already
known to God25.
A disbeliever actualizes the potential evils that are already known by
God; he may even insult God, though this will and act is among the
potentials given to him and are sanctioned at least in the hereafter.
These evil acts are also under the control of God, in that they are
known and permitted by God though it is the servant who chooses
to do them. He does a potential alternative that God dislikes and that
has a bad consequence. A believer tries to do something again within
potentials known to God but that may please God. These good wills
and acts are also in any case under His permission.
And Allah is predominant over His affair, but most of the
people do not know.
(Quran: 12/21)
Hence free will is key in reaching the ultimate goal and biggest
success of life which is to satisfy God and be satisfied by Him, to love
God and be loved by Him.
Divine love is an important benchmark in that it is not misled as our
love may sometimes be. We can love something bad or evil. But Allah
25
God also knows the potentials that will be actualized. But this knowledge
depends on the will of the servant. This is explained in the relevant parts of
this book.
-63-
loves only the good and He has full knowledge on what is really good
and what is not.
2.1.1.3 The Agent and The Will Are Real
Whoever should will the immediate, We hasten for him from
it what We will to whom We intend. Then We have made for
him Hell, which he will enter, censured and banished.
But whoever wills the Hereafter and exerts the effort due to
it while he is a believer it is those whose effort is ever
appreciated [by Allah].
All do We aid -these as well as those- out of the bounty of
your Lord, and the bounty of your Lord is not confined.
(Quran: 17/18-20)
We seized all of them for their sinfulness: against some We
sent a violent tornado full of stones, some were seized by a
mighty blast, some were swallowed up by the earth, and yet
some We drowned. It was not Allah Who was unjust to them,
but they were unjust to their own souls.
(Quran: 29/40)
And Satan will say when the matter has been concluded,
"Indeed, Allah had promised you the promise of truth. And I
promised you, but I betrayed you.
But I had no authority over you except that I invited you, and
you responded to me.
So do not blame me; but blame yourselves. I cannot be called
to your aid, nor can you be called to my aid. Indeed, I deny
-64-
your association of me [with Allah] before. Indeed, for the
wrongdoers is a painful punishment."
(Quran: 14/22)
And leave those who have taken their religion for a play and
an idle sport, and whom this world's life has deceived, and
remind (them) thereby lest a soul should be given up to
destruction for what it has earned; it shall not have besides
Allah any guardian nor an intercessor, and if it should seek
to give every compensation, it shall not be accepted from it;
these are they who shall be given up to destruction for what
they earned; they shall have a drink of boiling water and a
painful chastisement because they disbelieved.
(Quran: 6/70)
The ones who prefer the worldly life over the Hereafter and
avert [people] from the way of Allah, seeking to make it
(seem) deviant. Those are in extreme error.
(Quran: 14/3)
In Islam the agent has a certain autonomy upon his future and his
wills are real, and produce results.
Otherwise, Allah would be unjust, and the servant would not be
unjust. But as seen in the verses, Allah does not accept to be unjust;
and He says that the servants who have been subject to punishment
are unjust.
Had Allah willed to force human beings, he could have made them
just one community. But Allah did not will this. There are two
alternatives:
-65-
(1) Either Allah willed the disbelievers to go astray
deterministically or probabilistically or by directly making
them go astray with His powers,
(2) Or, He left them free.
If He willed them go astray, then He would not have invited them to
truth. Because in this case He would have invited them to something
impossible, and He would have contradicted Himself. But as Allah is
wise, and is not unjust, then (1) is impossible.
So, the only conclusion is that He set them free.
Hence, injustice and its source which is the will belongs to the
servant.
Please note that generally when we talk of free will, freedom
essentially corresponds to the limited freedom of the agent, since the
will necessarily depends on the agent.
Qualifying as unjust or evil requires ability to have power over one's
wills.
2.1.1.4 There Is Responsibility
"If you do good, you do good for yourselves; and if you do
evil, [you do it] to yourselves."
(Quran: 17/7)
Then, on that day, you will be questioned about the bounties
(of God).
(Quran: 102/8)
He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be
questioned.
-66-
(Quran: 21/23)
Follow, [O Muhammad], what has been revealed to you from
your Lord - there is no deity except Him - and turn away
from those who associate others with Allah.
But if Allah had willed, they would not have associated. And
We have not appointed you over them as a guardian, nor are
you a manager over them.
(Quran: 6/106-107)
Paradise is not [obtained] by your wishful thinking nor by
that of the People of the Scripture26. Whoever does a wrong
will be recompensed for it, and he will not find besides Allah
a protector or a helper.
And whoever does righteous deeds, whether male or female,
while being a believer those will enter Paradise and will not
be wronged, [even as much as] the speck on a date seed.
(Quran: 4/123-124)
And when you look there [in Paradise], you will see pleasure
and great dominion.
Upon the inhabitants will be green garments of fine silk and
brocade. And they will be adorned with bracelets of silver,
and their Lord will give them a purifying drink.
[And it will be said], "Indeed, this is for you a reward, and
your effort has been appreciated."
(Quran: 76/20-22)
26
People of the scripture denotes mainly Jews and Christians.
-67-
Twisting his neck [in arrogance] to mislead [people] from the
way of Allah. For him in the world is disgrace, and We will
make him taste on the Day of Resurrection the punishment
of the Burning Fire [while it is said],
That is for what your hands have put forth and because Allah
is not ever unjust to [His] servants.
(Quran: 22/9-10)
And from [part of] the night, pray with it as additional
[worship] for you; it is expected that your Lord will resurrect
you to a praised station.
(Quran: 17/79)
But he (Pharaoh) turned away with his supporters and said,"
(Moses is) A magician or a madman."
So, We took him and his soldiers and cast them into the sea,
and he was blameworthy.
(Quran: 51/39-40)
That is from what your Lord has revealed to you, [O
Muhammad], of wisdom. And, [O mankind], do not make
[as equal] with Allah another deity, lest you be thrown into
Hell, blamed and banished.
(Quran: 17/39)
Responsibility and free will are closely related; and responsibility is a
fundamental concept in Islam.
In the Quran, responsibility is real, and its results are ultimately
empirically testable, since everybody will see the consequences of
their good and evil deeds. And also, when someone does a good
-68-
performance, we applause; and when someone robs, we say that he
is responsible for what he willed and did.
So, when the Quran claims the existence of responsibility, and also
recommends the ways that will help make good choices that will give
the consequences of positive responsibility, one may conclude that
the Quran claims the existence of freedom of will. Without freedom
there can be no responsibility.
Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its
capacity.
(Quran: 2/286)
Can someone who cannot will anything other than what he wills be
held responsible? The above verse says he cannot.
The Quran emphasizes responsibility as we saw in many quotes from
the Quran. So, when a determinist is questioned “why did you do
this?”, he would reply “Because I was determined, so not because of
me, as I am reducible to particles.” Hence nobody would be
responsible under determinism except under compatibilism,
however, compatibilism is not rational as we will explain in part
3.4.1.3.
The Quran starts with hinting to the vulnerability of the human
being:
This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who
guard (against evil).
(Quran: 2/2)
Allah gives favors in degrees. One such degree, is giving the
opportunity to own the available favors.
-69-
To each [category] We extend to these and to those from the
gift of your Lord. And never has the gift of your Lord been
restricted.
Look how We have favored [in provision] some of them over
others. But the Hereafter is greater in degrees [of difference]
and greater in distinction.
(Quran: 17/20-21)
As human beings, we are empowered and given freedom to do good
things on our own and with the help of Allah. We are entrusted some
duties. God does not create just puppets. A person or group can be
empowered to have a nuclear weapon. Or a wealth to spend in the
right way.
For this kind of responsibility, we have been given also other
capacities such as knowledge, foreseeing the future, and so on.
Hence, positive and negative responsibility is a key issue in respect
to the origin of the favor of free will.
We will go into further details of responsibility in its relationship
with the free will in part 3.7.6.
2.1.1.5 Necessity Cancels Responsibility
Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul.
And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of
burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would
We punish until We sent a messenger.
(Quran: 17/15)
He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he
who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith,
-70-
but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the
wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement.
(Quran: 16/106)
And let there be [arising] from you a nation inviting to [all
that is] good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is
wrong, and those will be the successful.
(Quran: 3/104)
In many verses, we see that necessity or coercion at some levels cancel
responsibility. Yet there is responsibility. Hence, the free will is valid
outside necessity and coercion.
There are lots of orders in the Quran. These orders require muslims,
human beings to behave a certain way. If there was no possibility of
changing one’s direction and will, then these orders would be
irrational, redundant, and inconsistent with the systematic of the
Quran. Hence these orders also show the freedom of will according
to the Quran.
On the other hand, there are consequences of obeying and not
obeying the orders. If there was no possibility to change one's will or
act then the consequences would be unjust. But Allah says that He is
not unjust.
2.1.1.6 Justice, Injustice, and Morals Are Real.
That is for what your hands have put forth [of evil] and
because Allah is not ever unjust to His servants.
(Quran: 8/51)
-71-
Shall We treat those who believe and do good like the
mischief-makers in the earth? Or shall We make those who
guard (against evil) like the wicked?
(Quran: 38/28)
Indeed, We guided him to the way, be he grateful or be he
ungrateful.
(Quran: 76/3)
Allah says that the wrongdoers are unjust toward themselves. So, they
are at least a partial origin of their own end.
Quran emphasizes justice. Also, the use of attributes such as grateful,
ungrateful, wicked, truthful, patient, humble, and so on for human
beings assumes and claims that the agents act as persons, not as
particles.
2.1.1.7 Allah Does Not Behave Unjustly to His Servants
They do not wait aught but that the angels should come to
them or that the commandment of your Lord should come to
pass. Thus did those before them; and Allah was not unjust
to them, but they were unjust to themselves.
(Quran: 16/33)
Shall We treat those who believe and work deeds of
righteousness, the same as those who do mischief on earth?
Shall We treat those who guard against evil, the same as those
who turn aside from the right?
(Quran: 38/28)
And it is clearly stated in the Quran that Allah is not unjust. Hence,
freedom of the agent and will to a certain extent and will power is
-72-
recognized. Allah’s word as that He does not behave unjustly to His
creation, also shows that free will is recognized by the Quran. If there
was no free will, then Allah would need to emphasize that He is just
to His servants.
2.1.1.8 There Is Truth, And There Is Error
And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills let
him believe; and whoever wills let him disbelieve." Indeed,
We have prepared for the wrongdoers a fire whose walls will
surround them. And if they call for relief, they will be relieved
with water like murky oil, which scalds [their] faces.
Wretched is the drink, and evil is the resting place.
(Quran: 18/29)
And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger, these are with
those upon whom Allah has bestowed favors from among the
prophets and the truthful and the martyrs and the good, and
a goodly company are they!
(Quran: 4/69)
The agent and the will are not reducible to narrow physical entities
and/or events. Truth and error are real. There are some who claim
that they cannot have free will power because they are not but
particles bumping one onto another. Such people cannot claim that
their claims have any truth value, because after all they are just
particles which cannot transcend concepts, relationships, the true,
and the false.
2.1.1.9 There Are Invitations to Specific Alternatives and
Opportunities
Surely this is a reminder, so whoever pleases takes to his Lord
a way.
-73-
(Quran: 76/29)
(It is) for the poor who fled their homes and their possessions,
seeking grace of Allah and (His) pleasure, and assisting Allah
and His Messenger: these it is that are the truthful.
(Quran: 59/8)
Your Lord who causes the ships to sail on the sea so that you
may seek His bounty is certainly All-merciful to you.
(Quran: 17/66)
And when the prayer has been concluded, disperse within the
land and seek from the bounty of Allah, and remember Allah
often that you may succeed.
(Quran: 62/10)
O you who have believed, fear Allah and seek the means [of
nearness] to Him and strive in His cause that you may
succeed.
(Quran: 5/35)
The essence of the Quran and Islam is an invitation to the right path.
Hence, this is only possible with the truth of freedom to will. Also,
there are many invitations in the Quran to numerous opportunites.
2.1.1.10
Tests and Wills Make Some Potentials Actual.
[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of
you is best in deed and He is the Exalted in Might, the
Forgiving
(Quran: 67/2)
-74-
And it is He who has made the night and the day in
succession for whoever desires to remember or desires
gratitude.
(Quran: 25/62)
An agent has the potentials of being good or being evil. And many
circumstances constitute tests whereby the potentials actualize, and
the agent determines whether he is good or not.
For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out
way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one
community. But that He may try you by that which He hath
given you (He hath made you as ye are). So, vie one with
another in good works. Unto Allah you will all return, and
He will then inform you of that wherein you differ.
(Quran: 5/48)
And when it is said to them, "Spend from that which Allah
has provided for you," those who disbelieve say to those who
believe, "Should we feed one whom, if Allah had willed, He
would have fed? You are not but in clear error."
(Quran: 36/47)
Allah can empower someone to feed a person with his own will. This
empowerment may create and demonstrate a beauty which cannot
happen without that empowerment. However, the disbelievers in the
above verse do not see the fact that even if they had fed the poor, it
would be again Allah who ultimately fed them. But they would also
get high degrees in the sight of Allah.
So, is one who pursues the pleasure of Allah like one who
brings upon himself the anger of Allah and whose refuge is
Hell? And wretched is the destination.
-75-
They are [varying] degrees in the sight of Allah, and Allah is
Seeing of whatever they do.
(Quran: 3/162-163)
And for all are degrees from what they have done. And your
Lord is not unaware of what they do.
(Quran: 6/132)
Allah is not necessarily obliged to put everyone at the same degree,
or not to give such opportunities to anyone. There are many degrees
as opposed to the same degree (of zero) where everything is forced
by God, or where nobody needs any help, and where there is no
possibility and freedom to do a certain act or to will it.
If not measured or tested then the state is in suspension and not
clear. If not tested then an agent is neither good nor evil. But Allah
can create the good and the evil which have as an important
ingredient the freedom of will.
2.1.1.11
A Human Being Can Influence Allah’s Will by
Calling Him to His Help.
Call unto your Sustainer humbly, and in the secrecy of your
hearts. Verily, He loves not those who transgress the bounds
of what is right.
(Quran: 7/55)
The most beautiful names belong to Allah: so, call on him by
them; but shun such men as use profanity in his names: for
what they do, they will soon be requited.
(Quran: 7/180)
-76-
And [there is a share for] those who came after them, saying,
"Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in
faith and put not in our hearts [any] resentment toward those
who have believed. Our Lord, indeed You are Kind and
Merciful."
(Quran: 59/10)
In many verses the believers are required or recommended to invoke
Allah for help. Hence God’s will and human beings’ wills can interact
up to a certain extent. And a human being can influence the will of
Allah.
Especially in the last verse above, we see a supplication in order to
have correct feelings.
2.1.1.12
Allah Does Not Force into One Way
Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation
[united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He
has given you; so, race to [all that is] good.
(Quran: 5/48)
Had Allah willed, they had not been idolatrous. We have not
set you as a keeper over them, nor are you responsible for
them.
(Quran: 6/107)
And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have
believed all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would
you compel the people in order that they become believers?
(Quran: 10/99)
-77-
Had Allah chosen a way to force people in the best way, then He
would make everybody on the right path. But regarding the human
beings, this is not His method.
2.1.1.13
Even the Messengers Guided by Allah Had the
Possibility to Will Wrong Things.
And [some] among their fathers and their descendants and
their brothers - and We chose them and We guided them to
a straight path.
That is the guidance of Allah by which He guides whomever
He wills of His servants. But if they had associated others
with Allah, then worthless for them would be whatever they
were doing.
(Quran: 6/87-88)
So be patient, [O Muhammad]. Indeed, the promise of Allah
is truth. And ask forgiveness for your sin and exalt [Allah]
with praise of your Lord in the evening and the morning.
(Quran: 40/55)
And [mention] the man of the fish27, when he went off in
anger and thought that We would not decree [anything] upon
him. And he called out within the darknesses, “there is no
deity except You; exalted are You. Indeed, I have been of the
wrongdoers”.
(Quran: 21/87)
And if We had not strengthened you, you would have almost
inclined to them a little.
27
Prophet Jonah (PBUH)
-78-
Then [if you had], We would have made you taste double
[punishment in] life and double [after] death. Then you
would not find for yourself against Us a helper.
(Quran: 17/74-75)
And if he (Muhammad) had made up about Us some [false]
sayings,
We would have seized him by the right hand;
Then We would have cut from him the aorta.
And there is no one of you who could prevent [Us] from him.
(Quran: 69/44-47)
Allah has pardoned you (O Muhammad): why did you give
them permission (to stay behind), before you could
distinguish those who are truthful from the liars?
(Quran: 9/43)
And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by
his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [Allah] said,
"Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people." [Abraham]
said, "And of my descendants?" [Allah] said, "My covenant
does not include the wrongdoers."
(Quran: 2/124)
Allah rejects the supplication of Prophet Abraham (PBUH) regarding
the unjust, when he asks that his offspring be made leaders to
mankind. Things which are obvious such as being just or unjust are
left to the servant to be followed or not. The will of Allah is not to
-79-
interfere with the fundamental will of the servant, as long as he does
not ask for help.
In the following verse, we see an example where Allah orders His
messenger to do some things. If there was no free will then He would
not have ordered him. Because he would already be doing what Allah
willed in any case. Especially if we consider that he is a prophet, this
becomes more striking. For all orders of Allah to His servants,
revelations are like this. They could disobey God, as we see in the
example of Jonas (PBUH) who later repented.
And indeed, Jonah was among the messengers.
[Mention] when he ran away to the laden ship.
And he drew lots and was among the losers.
Then the fish swallowed him, while he was blameworthy.
(Quran: 37/139-142)
Question 3.
If prophets were chosen by God, how could they go astray? If a
chosen person went astray, then would not this mean that God have
chosen wrong person?
Answer 3.
The persons have been chosen for a certain duty. This choice does
not mean that they had to be perfect or infallible. Choosing and
assigning a person to a post, does not mean a guarantee of having
chosen a necessarily successful person. If the chosen person fails, it
is not necessarily a failure of the chooser, it may be the failure of the
chosen person.
-80-
They were given a duty, and they could go astray, but Allah had
guided them, helped them. They were exactly like other human
beings. They had free will, yet they had a pure nature. But they were
challenged with challenges as everybody. For example, Allah says in
the Quran that he had chosen children of Israel, and Allah also says
that most of them failed on many occasions.
If the prophets did not have free will, then their performances would
not be praiseworthy. An important aspect of prophets is their being
like anybody else in their human nature.
Some prophets sometimes disobeyed Allah. So, they are not like
robots. They even in their relationships with Allah, are exercising
their free will. An example of this is Prophet Yunus (Jonas) (PBUH).
Question 4.
Does a prophet have FWP while decreeing on a certain matter as a
prophet?
Answer 4.
O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you
from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not
conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the
people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.
(Quran: 5/67)
Or do they say, "He has invented about Allah a lie"? But if
Allah willed, He could seal over your heart. And Allah
eliminates falsehood and establishes the truth by His words.
Indeed, He is Knowing of that within the breasts.
(Quran: 42/24)
-81-
Upon you is only the [duty of] notification, and upon Us is
the account.
(Quran: 13/40)
Allah knows the heart of a prophet. So, He trusts in him and
empowers him. He knows his alternatives and can guide or give
necessary info. If he makes a mistake, He can correct him. He has
chosen him. He is good but this does not mean that he cannot go
astray.
Regarding the knowledge directly given by Allah, as a human being
he can declare or not what Allah has taught; or he can alter it or not.
But if he does this, or tries this, then Allah says how He will react
and stop him.
Yet, knowing the prophet’s good will and above average level of
ethics and judgment capacity, Allah may empower him so that what
the prophet chooses, or orders with pure heart is considered
acceptable or even required; even though Allah did not directly
decree a certain thing He may allow it to be the way the Prophet
decreed. This would imply that what the Prophet has decreed on a
specific matter must be that way, yet, there may be other acceptable
alternatives regarding that matter. However, regarding the daily
prayer for example, there are teachings of the Prophet which if not
taken as basis, would make the daily prayers invalid. Because some
of the teachings of a prophet may be direct teachings by Allah or His
angels, even though they are not explained in detail in the Holy
Book. But other than such things, there may be decrees or behaviors
of the Prophet which are not the only truth. These are often
understood through the clarification of a prophet about how strongly
required is a specific issue.
-82-
2.1.1.14
There Are the Means to Find and To Be on The
Right Path, And There Is No General Coercive
Misleading Cause.
He [Iblees (Satan)] said," My Lord, then reprieve me until
the Day they are resurrected."
[Allah] said, "So indeed, you are of those reprieved
Until the Day of the time well-known."
[Iblees] said, "My Lord, because You have put me in error, I
will surely make [disobedience] attractive to them on earth,
and I will mislead them all
Except, among them, Your sincere servants."
[Allah] said, "This is a path [of return] to Me [that is]
straight.
Indeed, My servants no authority will you have over them,
except those who follow you of the deviators.
(Quran: 15:36-42)
Or has he not been informed of what was in the scriptures of
Moses
And [of] Abraham, who fulfilled [his obligations]
That no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another
And that there is not for man except that [good] for which
he strives
(Quran: 53/36-39)
-83-
And [by] the soul and He who proportioned it
And inspired it [with discernment of] its wickedness and its
righteousness,
He has succeeded who purifies it,
And he has failed who buries it [in corruption].
(Quran: 91/7-10)
A person can change his state which is not pure, and can purify
himself from the diseases, problems. If these problems are objectively
incurable, then the person is not considered responsible. The person
has powers which is bigger than the noise which causes him
problems. For example, the biological balance of the body may be
spoiled so that the person wills to smoke. But his reasoning power
may show him the way to proceed. And the guidance of Allah is an
important tool in this respect.
We will go into further details of this point in part 3.6.2 about OTBT.
2.1.2 The Human Will Is Surrounded by Allah
Unto Allah belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and
whatsoever is in the earth. Allah ever surrounds all things.
(Quran: 4/126)
And he said, "O my sons, do not enter from one gate but
enter from different gates; and I cannot avail you against [the
decree of] Allah at all. The decision is only for Allah; upon
Him I have relied, and upon Him let those who would rely
[indeed] rely."
(Quran: 12/67)
-84-
Allah has full power over His affairs, though most people do
not know.
(Quran: 12/21)
They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ,
the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if
He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his
mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the
dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is
between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all
things competent.
(Quran: 5/17)
And there is no creature on earth but that upon Allah is its
provision, and He knows its place of dwelling and place of
storage. All is in a clear register.
(Quran: 11/6)
Full power belongs only to Allah. We know what we know, we do
not know that which we do not know. But since Allah is the
Originator and Creator of whatever is created, He knows all that is.
For us the future is unknowable.
We are many and we limit each other.
There can be no will that limits the will of Allah.
2.1.2.1 No Will Can Happen Outside the Permission of
Allah.
It is not for any soul to believe save by the leave of Allah; and
He lays abomination upon those who do not use their reason.
(Quran: 10/100)
-85-
Around us there are lots of factors which influence our wills: There
are barriers between us and the good deeds, such as worldly
pleasures, health problems, monetary problems…
And there are factors which help us will or do good deeds such as
guidance of God, His messengers, knowledge, education, signs of
God in the universe…
We are influenced by these things and they are all created by God.
The ultimate source of all is Allah. However, the human being and
his will are also real. So, the direct origin of the wills and results of
the human being from his perspective is mostly himself.
In this respect, there are sufficient conditions for responsibility. One
of them is mentioned in the above verse: Understanding or reasoning
capacity which must be used appropriately. Some other important
conditions mentioned in the Quran are the knowledge given by God,
and the power and freedom of the agent to follow the way which is
in accordance with a good reasoning. These are real and subject to
the permission of Allah as mentioned in the above verse.
A human being may say: “I will believe and enter the paradise
whether God wills my entrance therein or not. As Allah promised
the paradise for the believers, He cannot prevent me from entering
there. Otherwise, He will have broken His promise or He will be
unjust.” Such a person if he has sufficient reasoning power to
continue his daily life, has clearly put aside his reasoning power.
Since, it does not require huge reasoning capacity to find out that a
creation cannot challenge God like this and force Allah to do a
certain thing.
Such a person will not have believed with a true submission to Allah
and his belief would not be a real belief. As he has understanding
-86-
capacity but has put aside this capacity and moves with his emotions,
his belief may be made impossible and prevented by Allah.
Wherever you may be, death will overtake you, even if you
should be within towers of lofty construction. But if good
comes to them, they say: This is from Allah; and if evil befalls
them, they say: This is from you. Say: All is from Allah, but
what is [the matter] with those people that they can hardly
understand any statement?
What comes to you of good is from Allah, but what comes to
you of evil, [O man], is from yourself. And We have sent you,
[O Muhammad], to the people as a messenger, and sufficient
is Allah as Witness.
(Quran: 4/78-79)
The wills of people exist; yet everything is as approved by God’s will.
The agent may will the good or may will the evil. Yet, the will power
is given by Allah. The knowledge that the agent can use, the
guidance, and the truth are from Allah, therefore the goods are from
Allah. Misleading things are also ultimately from Allah, but if an evil
comes, this means that the agent did not exercise the FWP and other
powers that Allah gave him.
And among them are those who listen to you, but We have
placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and
in their ears deafness. And if they should see every sign, they
will not believe in it. Even when they come to you arguing
with you, those who disbelieve say, "This is not but legends
of the former peoples."
(Quran: 6/25)
-87-
There are mechanisms and conditions by which the permission of
Allah and the lack thereof is executed. We will see them in the
following parts.
2.1.2.2 Necessary Elements of Guidance and Going Astray
Originate from Allah.
And We have not made the wardens of the fire others than
angels, and We have not made their number but as a trial for
those who disbelieve, that those who have been given the
book may be certain and those who believe may increase in
faith, and those who have been given the book and the
believers may not doubt, and that those in whose hearts is a
disease and the unbelievers may say: What does Allah mean
by this parable?
Thus, does Allah make err whom He pleases, and He guides
whom He pleases, and none knows the hosts of your Lord
but He Himself; and this is naught but a reminder to
humanity.
(Quran: 74/31)
Is not Allah sufficient for His Servant [Prophet Muhammad]?
And [yet], they threaten you with those [they worship] other
than Him.
And whoever Allah leaves astray for him there is no guide.
And whoever Allah guides for him there is no misleader. Is
not Allah Exalted in Might and Owner of Retribution?
(Quran: 39/36-37)
-88-
And We will have removed whatever is within their breasts
of resentment, [while] flowing beneath them are rivers. And
they will say, "Praise to Allah, who has guided us to this; and
we would never have been guided if Allah had not guided us.
Certainly, the messengers of our Lord had come with the
truth." And they will be called, "This is Paradise, which you
have been made to inherit for what you used to do."
(Quran: 7/143)
Since there is no god other than Allah, everything necessary for
guidance or going astray originate from Allah. This does not mean
that these requirements are always coercive causes.
2.1.2.3 The Guidance or Misguidance of Allah Is
Generally Based Upon the Will and Attitude of The
Human Being.
And those who strive for Us We will surely guide them to
Our ways. And indeed, Allah is with the doers of good.
(Quran: 29/69)
Surely Allah does not change the condition of a people until
they change their own condition; and when Allah intends evil
to a people, there is no averting it, and besides Him they have
no protector.
(Quran: 13/11)
And [mention, O Muhammad], when Moses said to his
people, "O my people, why do you harm me while you
certainly know that I am the messenger of Allah to you?"
And when they deviated, Allah caused their hearts to deviate.
-89-
And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people.
(Quran: 61/5)
And Allah sends astray the wrongdoers. And Allah does what
He wills.
(Quran: 14/27)
I will turn away from My signs those who are unjustly
arrogant in the land, (so that) even if they see each and every
sign, they will not believe in it.
If they see the Right Way before them, they will not follow
it; but if they see a crooked way, they will follow it; this is
because they denied Our revelations and were heedless of
them.
(Quran: 7/146)
Only they believe in Our communications who, when they
are reminded of them, fall down in prostration and celebrate
the praise of their Lord, and they are not proud.
(Quran: 32/15)
And certainly, Joseph came to you before with clear
arguments, but you ever remained in doubt as to what he
brought; until when he died, you said: Allah will never raise
a messenger after him. Thus, does Allah cause him to err who
is extravagant, a doubter.
(Quran: 40/34)
And when a sign comes to them, they say, "Never will we
believe until we are given like that which was given to the
-90-
messengers of Allah." Allah is most knowing of where He
places His message. There will afflict those who committed
crimes debasement before Allah and severe punishment for
what they used to conspire.
So, whoever Allah wants to guide - He expands his breast to
[contain] Islam; and whoever He wants to misguide - He
makes his breast tight and constricted as though he were
climbing into the sky. Thus, does Allah place defilement upon
those who do not believe.
And this is the path of your Lord, (a) right (path); indeed,
We have made the communications clear for a people who
mind.
For them will be the Home of Peace with their Lord. And He
will be their protecting friend because of what they used to
do.
(Quran: 6/124-127)
If the agent purifies himself, then, he can be open and eligible to
receive the guidance of Allah. Otherwise, he becomes a mixture of
good and evil or full of evil. Beyond a certain degree of evilness, he
becomes ineligible to the guidance of Allah.
A person who is unjust, arrogant, and defiantly disobedient is
ineligible for the Divine guidance. To be guided, an agent must open
himself to the guidance.
Each person has his ability to protect himself. If objectively he does
not have this ability, he is not responsible.
So, in cases where he is responsible and he chooses the path of evil,
God may directly or indirectly through mechanisms created by Him
cause him to go further astray:
-91-
Allah does not permit a truly evil person believe. This is not injustice
from the side of Allah. As that person has been arrogant and unjust,
he has been unjust toward himself. And ultimately his disbelief
originates from himself.
As we see in the above verse, the will of God is real, and the will of
the human being is also real. They interact.
In the following verse, we see that the example causes them to go
astray, yet it is said that Allah is the one who misleads:
Indeed, Allah is not timid to present an example that of a
mosquito or what is smaller than it. And those who have
believed know that it is the truth from their Lord. But as for
those who disbelieve, they say, "What did Allah intend by
this as an example?" He misleads many thereby and guides
many thereby.
And He misleads not except the defiantly disobedient.
(Quran: 2/26)
Likewise, any factor around us which misleads us may actually be a
tool through which Allah misleads. This shows that the things
mislead, but their misleading is in the same time, actually a function
of our evilness. Hence, there is the interaction between these tools,
us, and God. If we are evil, then our evilness is reflected upon us by
God through those tools.
There are those who reject God though they do not have any
argument or evidence against God. They do not have any evidence
about the non-existence of evidence for God. Yet they easily
challenge or may even insult God. These attitudes are emotional, and
such deny God according to their arrogance. And as such, warnings
have no effect on them as noted in the following verse:
-92-
Indeed, those who reject faith it is all the same for them
whether you warn them or do not warn them they do not
believe.
Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing,
and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great
punishment.
(Quran: 2/6-7)
The thieves know well that being robbed is not a good thing, yet they
see robbing fine as long as they are not the robbed ones. When they
rob, they take the risk, and if their robbery is successful, they will
enjoy what they have robbed. This is the real cause. If it is OK for
them to hurt someone, then if they say it is not OK that they are
hurt themselves, then of course they are lying, and they are
inconsistent. They knowingly choose their evil path. Allah does not
need to force them to another path.
A person like this, who does not care for consistency and
understanding will probably behave in a similar manner toward God.
And in this state, not recognizing the God who created him, not
giving due credit to God in this respect originates from their putting
aside their reasoning power. Hence while they reject God and while
they are within this state, the rejectors’ hearts are sealed and they
cannot believe.
But if they get rid of their arrogance, defiantly disobedience,
ungratefulness, and inconsistency then they can be open to belief and
guidance. With openness to truth, justice, humility, thankfulness,
they can open the channels through which they can receive the
Divine guidance.
On the other hand, if there was no free will what would Allah seal
and why would He not permit them to believe? Since the beginning,
-93-
all would be as He wished and if there was no will He would be
sealing His own decision and will.
Leave alone those who take their religion to be mere play and
amusement, and are deceived by the life of this world. But
proclaim (to them) this (truth): that every soul delivers itself
to ruin by its own acts: it will find for itself no protector or
intercessor except Allah: if it offered every ransom, (or
reparation), none will be accepted: such is (the end of) those
who deliver themselves to ruin by their own acts: they will
have for drink (only) boiling water, and for punishment, one
most grievous: for they persisted in rejecting Allah.
(Quran: 6/70)
To be willfully evil is a matter of choice, not a matter of being
constrained or forced.
In their (hypocrites’) hearts is disease, so Allah has increased
their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because
they [habitually] used to lie.
(Quran: 2/10)
This disease is like the health problem of an addict. If he admits this
problem, then he can take the necessary steps. But if he does not
admit, then he cannot proceed in the correct way. He just rejects the
correct path, maybe knowingly. Such reject the good at the very
bottom of their souls, unless they themselves want to be upon the
truth.
And if they had intended to go forth, they would have
prepared for it [some] preparation. But Allah disliked their
being sent, so He kept them back, and they were told,
"Remain [behind] with those who remain."
-94-
Had they gone forth with you, they would not have added to
you aught save corruption, and they would certainly have
hurried about among you seeking (to sow) dissension among
you, and among you there are those who hearken for their
sake; and Allah knows the unjust.
(Quran: 9/46-47)
The misleading or guidance of Allah are for reasons. Had Allah
guided or allowed those who are unjust to acceptable belief or to
certain actions, or into certain groups, or into paradise, then they
would cause disorder in a way that is unacceptable for God.
Allah might cause them to be good by removing their free will to a
great extent, but then this would not be their goodness. Allah fully
by Himself, might also cause them to be good by not removing their
free will power, but then they would not have contributed again to
their own goodness.
If an extremely bad person who killed millions of people and did not
sincerely regret what he did, entered paradise, then he would cause
problem in paradise or he would be forced to behave a certain way
in the paradise.
And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the
Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the
Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, "This
is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. And they speak
untruth about Allah while they know.
(Quran: 3/78)
Indeed, this is a reminder, so he who wills may take to his
Lord a way.
-95-
But you will not unless God wills; surely Allah is ever Allknowing, All-wise.
He admits whom He wills into His mercy; but the
wrongdoers He has prepared for them a painful punishment.
(Quran: 76/29-31)
Certainly We sent Our messengers with clear arguments, and
sent down with them the Book and the balance that men may
conduct themselves with equity; and We have made the iron,
wherein is great violence and advantages to men, and that
Allah may know who helps Him and His messengers in the
secret; surely Allah is Strong, Mighty.
(Quran: 57/25)
O you who believe! save yourselves and your families from a
fire whose fuel is men and stones; over it are angels stern and
strong, they do not disobey Allah in what He commands
them, and do as they are commanded.
(Quran: 66/6)
He created world of angels who do not disobey God. And world of
human beings who may choose to disobey and see consequences. At
the end in any case the good rules.
And so those who were given knowledge may know that it is
the truth from your Lord and [therefore] believe in it, and
their hearts humbly submit to it. And indeed, is Allah the
Guide of those who have believed to a straight path.
(Quran: 22/54)
Allah guides the believers by His words and by other means to the
right path. Due to the interaction of belief of the believer and the
-96-
guidance of Allah, those who have not been guided are not probably
believers.
There are common points for everyone, such as vulnerability of each
human being, obvious ends, causal links, and some obvious truths
perceived and comprehended by everyone. These are taught by God
to responsible human beings. Those who are not able to comprehend
them objectively are not responsible. These are the foundations of
responsibility: A person may not say I was disadvantaged in this
respect, because I did not know that fire would burn or harm me.
Any person who knows this, can not say if he jumps into the fire, I
am not responsible for jumping in the fire, so why I got burnt. This
is the seed of responsibility, and nobody can claim lack of freedom
in this respect, since nobody is forced to jump into the fire, if not
openly coerced. If someone manipulated his brain, so that he jumped
without having any freedom, then he is not responsible. And this
reality surpasses the neuron. For the neuron, it does not make any
difference to fire or not so as to make the subject enter the fire. The
influence is top-down oriented. If the top chooses to jump into the
fire, therefore, the top cannot blame the down.
Question 5.
In the verse of the Quran 2/6, it is said that it is equal whether the
Prophet (PBUH) warns or does not warn, they will not believe. And
in the following verse, it is said that Allah has sealed their hearts. So,
how can Allah take them as responsible, since they cannot will to
believe?
Answer 5.
And Moses said, "Our Lord, indeed You have given Pharaoh
and his establishment splendor and wealth in the worldly life,
our Lord, that they may lead [men] astray from Your way.
-97-
Our Lord, obliterate their wealth and harden their hearts so
that they will not believe until they see the painful
punishment."
[Allah] said, "Your supplication has been answered. So,
remain on a right course and follow not the way of those who
do not know."
(Quran: 10/88-89)
A person has the freedom to be good or not with the freedom given
by Allah. Allah provides us with signs that show us the truth, and
the superiority of divine values, and of being good. He says that He
misleads only those with certain bad attributes, and He does not
permit them to believe.
Belief is also a favor of God. In this sense, disbelief is a punishment,
a curse. For example, in the above quoted two verses, Moses (PBUH)
asks Allah to increase the wealth of Pharaoh and his companions,
and make them disbelieve until they see the punishment of Allah.
The reason for this was that Pharaoh was evil, unjust, arrogant, he
was torturing people, he was being unjust against them. Torturing
people, being arrogant upon the earth is not a good attitude
compliant with the truth. This is clear to everybody since whoever is
the victim of such an attitude knows that this is not good; and a
person with a mental capacity to continue his daily life can perceive
this fact. Pharaoh also can perceive this. Yet, he committed his acts
knowing that what he did was not good; he would not want that
what he did to others was done to him. He behaved like that while
he knew the evilness of his acts thanks to the faculties Allah gave
him. He chose to be evil. He chose to be arrogant. Therefore, he did
not deserve to be a believer, and enter paradise. Hence, Allah did not
guide him, maybe He prevented his belief. But the origin of his
disbelief was his choice of being evil.
-98-
Question 6.
If Allah hardens the heart of Pharaoh, then why would he be
responsible?
Answer 6.
Note that in the verse, Allah hardens the heart of Pharaoh because
he was very evil prior to the hardening. Certain acts demonstrate that
the essence of the actor has become totally evil, and buried under bad
qualifications. Pharaoh has proven that whatever potential of evil he
had, he would use it to the full extent for his arrogance and
oppression. He did not sincerely ask for the help of Allah. Whenever
he asked and was helped, he turned away.
Allah’s rule is that He misleads and does not guide the arrogant.
Pharaoh with his evil whole, which he chose to be has been subject
to that rule. Pharaoh destroyed and suppressed his pure essence to
satisfy his low desires. He did not care for his OTBT. He did not
exercise his FWP and related powers appropriately.
Therefore, though Allah hardened his heart, the cause of this
hardening was his own wills and acts.
We should note that all evidence was in fact encouraging him to
follow Moses and Allah’s guidance. So, if he had headed for the right
way, this would be essentially because of Allah. However, despite
evidence, he let his low desires govern him. Hence, his error
originated from himself. So, he is responsible.
The guidance of Allah has been encouraging him toward the truth.
This was in compliance with the norm in the following verse:
What comes to you of good is from Allah, but what comes to
you of evil, [O man], is from yourself.
-99-
(Quran: 4/79)
2.1.2.4 In Terms of Action, What Allah Wills Will
Happen.
Then after distress, He sent down upon you security [in the
form of] drowsiness, overcoming a faction of you, while
another faction worried about themselves, thinking of Allah
other than the truth, the thought of ignorance, saying, "Is
there anything for us [to have done] in this matter?" Say,
"Indeed, the matter belongs completely to Allah." They
conceal within themselves what they will not reveal to you.
They say, "If there was anything we could have done in the
matter, some of us would not have been killed right here."
Say, even if you had been inside your houses, those decreed
to be killed would have come out to their death beds." [It
was] so that Allah might test what is in your breasts and
purify what is in your hearts. And Allah is Knowing of that
within the breasts.
(Quran: 3/154)
Indeed, the time [set by] Allah, when it comes, will not be
delayed; if you only knew.
(Quran: 71/4)
Allah is the designer of physical laws, structures, constants, initial
positions and so on. On the other hand, even though these are set,
there is also unpredictability for us and buffer wherein Allah may
change everything whichever way He wants: A photon may be used
to trigger a nuclear bomb, or to stop it. As made clear in the chaos
theory, a slightest change in any initial position may produce huge
outcomes.
-100-
In this respect, Allah may also change the setting in which a person
exercises his free will, even though He may let that person free in
exercising his free will within a range.
2.2 Attributes of Allah
He is Allah besides Whom there is no god; the Knower of the
unseen and the seen; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful
He is Allah, besides Whom there is no god; the King, the
Holy, the Giver of peace, the Granter of security, Guardian
over all, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of every
greatness; Glory be to Allah from what they set up (with
Him).
He is Allah the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner; His are
the most excellent names; whatever is in the heavens and the
earth declares His glory; and He is the Mighty, the Wise.
(Quran: 59/22-24)
In Islam, the origin of all things ultimately is Allah.
That is Allah, your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the
Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of
all things.
(Quran: 6/102)
In Islam, everything relates to Allah. Allah is the name of the one
God. God is the ultimate cause of any creation. The attributes of
Allah have key implications not only regarding the creation, but also
regarding the acts and wills of the creation. Therefore, I will explain
in this section the attributes of Allah and how they relate to “will
power” and “the freedom of the will power”. A good understanding
about the attributes of Allah is necessary for understanding the
Quranic framework of free will.
-101-
Firstly, we have to understand what a free will power without any
limitations (as opposed to the limited will power of human beings)
essentially is. This will help us understand what free will in our
context is. It would be impossible to understand whether we have
free will if we do not know what freedom of will is in its simplest
form. So here, to have some idea about the free will of God is crucial
in this respect. Because it gives us a true and basic understanding of
free will. It will also give us a good understanding about how a power
of freedom is different in kind from other powers.
Also, to exercise the will power, we have to have certain other powers.
These other powers and the will power cannot be explained by and
cannot originate from the spatiotemporal relationships. Hence, they
need an Originator, a Creator who may give them to us. If all things
including free will are reducible ultimately to point-like interactions
of point-like things, then free will will go out of the window just from
the beginning. Therefore, in order to understand free will and
whether it exists or not, it is very important to understand Allah, the
Originator of all things, His transcendence and His unity.
As God is One, He has the absolute knowledge of being God and all
truths relating to that, as there is no other place where that
knowledge can reside. And as God is related to all things in a huge
extent, we will never have satisfactory knowledge about anything
without having some knowledge about God. Knowledge about God
constitutes a large part of knowledge of the reality other than God.
So, having sufficient knowledge about some attributes of Allah other
than His free will is also necessary to comprehend free will.
According to the Quran, it is not possible to sufficiently explain
anything without God. The Self-Sufficient Allah is the Sustainer of
all and nothing can exist without God. Everything has the attribute
of being sustained by the unity, power and knowledge of God.
Therefore, free will power and things related to it cannot be
-102-
understood without God. So, in the following parts I will explain the
attributes of Allah.
Question 7.
We are limited and relative, and whatever we can conceive of, is of
our nature, relative, limited, and can be reduced or increased. So how
can we make conclusions about the unlimited God?
Answer 7.
Can we know all about God? No. Can we make no conclusion about
Him? Certainly, we can make some conclusions about God, since
things are related to God and they are created and sustained by God
as explained in relevant parts of this book, and in the related
resources. We need to reach only conclusions about Him which are
relevant for us.
2.2.1 Allah Is
Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me.
(Quran: 20/14)
Allah is the Eternal, Transcendent, Aware, Self-Sufficient, One,
Multipotential28 Cause, Originator, Designer, Sustainer, Guide of all
creation.
Without having an understanding about the One God, it is unlikely
to be able to have a sufficient understanding about free will in Islam.
And without believing in One God as in the first paragraph above, it
is difficult to fully believe in the existence of a true free will power.
28
The multipotentiality is explained in part 3.1.1.3.1.2.
-103-
Because belief in FWP requires the belief in the unitary and
transcendent essence of the agent, and unitary and transcendent
FWP. Unlike alleged point-like instantiations within the brain of the
agent, the alternatives must be transcendentally united within the
unitary essence of the agent. Furthermore, this essence must have an
effect on the elements of the brain so that they behave in a holistic
way, and differently than what the wholes of the parts entail.
The acceptance of such an essence and such a power requires a
unitary locality29 within them and outside them. Because, on one
hand, such a power will dominate the parts of the agent and of the
agent’s brain, and on the other, such unitary essences must be
distinguished from other such essences and also related with other
such essences. Also, these essences must be combined with the
elements that are allegedly spatiotemporal. In Islam all these
distinctions and combinations are done and sustained by the
Fundamental Unitary Power through creating and sustaining
activity.
Without the One God, we will have to explain the agent, his will
power, and “everything” of the agent and of his will power with
things which are not transcendent, which do not have knowledge,
which do not originate the truth, which are not sovereign, which are
not one. These things which lack these properties, cannot give such
properties to other things. Hence, the agent will be just an
29
Especially based on some quantum phenomena, non-locality is accepted by
many. Here, the denial of locality is because of the observed facts that there
are no distances as absolute barriers. However, as explained in the related
parts, alleged distances are not and cannot be absolute distances in the first
place. They are elements of design, transcendence, and of unity. So, locality
does not necessarily entail absolute distance. Hence, according to Islam,
instead of an expression as “non-locality” which embodies the two errors of
recognizing distances as absolute and then denying them entirely, the
expression of “unitary-locality” which recognizes both locality and its
distances’ unitary-binding function is more plausible. For this reason I prefer
using the expression “unitary-locality” instead of “non-locality”.
-104-
epiphenomenal event, without any distinct effective causal power and
therefore without any distinct will power.
In Islam, belief in Allah is mainly through evidence and reasoning.
Attributes of Allah relevant for us are sufficiently accessible. Blind
faith or mysteries have no key place in Islam. Since we are responsible
as human beings, Allah enabled us to distinguish the truth with our
own capacities and with the present evidence.
Allah is not a specific person within the history, Allah is not a god
of a specific nation, Allah is not a limited object, Allah is not an
animal. Hence, many counter arguments brought against god
concepts which contain subjective human elements, around the
question “how do you know that your god is true as opposed to
another god” are not applicable against Allah.
Proofs for Allah according to the Quran follow the following
elements: Everything in the universe is evidence for Allah. An
electron, an atom, a cell, an animal, a stone, a human being, an eye,
a star, a moon, the space, numbers, …
Say, "This is my path: I invite to Allah, on the basis of clear
proof, and so do those who follow me. Allah be glorified. I
am not an idol worshiper."
(Quran: 12/108)
Among His proofs is that you see the land still, then, as soon
as we shower it with water, it vibrates with life. Surely, the
One who revived it can revive the dead. He is Omnipotent.
(Quran: 41/39)
-105-
Those who disbelieve in the signs of Allah and kill the
prophets without right and kill those who order justice from
among the people, give them tidings of a painful punishment.
(Quran: 3/21)
Hence, the denial of the evidence/ signs/ proofs30 of Allah is not
separable from the denial of Allah.
When we observe the universe, we see many events and entities. But
we also see that none of them has the power of its own to behave the
way they do. A rock falls down, but it does not have the power to
notice what is down and what is up. The same applies for its
molecules, atoms, electrons, and so on. Or if we explain its fall with
spacetime curvature, the same applies to the parts of the spacetime.
The rock or its components do not have the power on their own to
coordinate with the planets and stars. But it cannot reach the ground
while falling ceteris paribus unless the earth rotates a certain angle.
These show us that what we see through our eyeballs is a limited part
of the existence. We have to use our eyes of intelligence in order to
see more completely.
Upon such reasoning, human beings conclude that either God or
god-like things exist. Some of us believe in God. Some say that there
are equations which kind of make the rock fall. Some say it is a
spacetime curvature which makes it.
The Quran says that all things other than the true God, needs God.
No multiple thing can be the true cause of the universe.
30
The word corresponding to sign/ proof/ evidence used in the Quran is
generally “ayah” in Arabic.
-106-
The fall of the rock needs a Being who is transcendent and aware of
the entire universe. The movements of things need a Powerful who
will give them energy.
In this respect, each attribute of Allah is effective. And each of them
is an evidence for God.
So, as part of the argument for free will, I need to give briefly some
arguments for God. This way, we will also have seen some
information about who or what Allah is. The following arguments
for God are very relevant to FWP. Because, the system in this book
which entails the existence of the FWP is partially built on the
rejection of determinism, indeterminism, reductive physicalism for a
more satisfactory, consistent, and complete alternative. This
alternative is a system which is sustained by Allah. Therefore, I will
give some proofs about Allah. Yet, as a detailed presentation of these
proofs here would necessitate too big a size for this book, I will limit
the space allocated to these proofs.
The attributes of Allah that are not specifically explained in the
following as arguments for the existence of Allah can also be bases
for arguments for the existence of Allah similarly to the following.
The attributes of Allah relate to the empirical world. Hence, they are
not only logical arguments, but also empirical ones.
Note that these arguments are given because they are closely related
to the existence of the free will power. These arguments are also very
important because their details are essential in understanding how
free will power works.
I will not go through each attribute of Allah as evidence for the
existence of Allah, this is beyond the scope of this work, but you can
easily try to develop the arguments according to the following.
-107-
2.2.1.1 Argument from Contingency, Dependence, and
Necessity
Allah is the Self-Sufficient.
(Quran: 112/2)
If everything depended on other things, then there would be no
existence. Because, in this case, there would be either infinite regress,
or circularity.
If a woman W1 depended on her mother M1, if M1 depended on her
mother M2, if M2 depended on her mother M3 so on and so on in
an infinite regress, then this chain of mothers would not exist since
none in the chain has any self-sufficient power to exist in the first
place.
This problem does not only exist sequentially; it can exist in many
other directions: For example, if a stone depends on its molecules, if
the molecules depend on the atoms, if the atoms depend on the
protons and so on in order to exist, then none of them would exist
either. I explain the problems and contradictions with bottom selfsufficient particles/ fields in the part 3.5.6.4.2.8.
Again, if in order to move under gravity, a stone needed some
guiding particles to detect its direction, speed and acceleration, or if
for such it needed spacetime curvature, and if spacetime curvature
needed its components to be curved, and its components needed to
be curved correctly because of other components, so on and so on,
there would be infinite regress as well.
Hence, everything cannot be dependent on other things, there needs
to be one self-sufficient and necessary cause.
How can we know that the necessary being is sentient and has free
will power? As will be explained in this book, truth, transcendence,
-108-
consciousness, and some other attributes of human beings are not
reducible to spatiotemporal events or entities. Hence, for the above
reasons, they also need to be caused by the necessary being. For
example, my awareness of my beautiful flower depends on the
existence of that flower. But the flower needs my care. Hence, if my
awareness is an effective element in this entire existence, and if it is
contingent, and irreducible to the spatiotemporal, then it cannot be
caused by a necessary cause which causes only spatiotemporal events
and entities. The necessity for unity applies in this case as well.
Therefore, the necessary cause must be sentient as well.
Hence, it is obvious that if “everything” depended on other things,
there would be no existence and no basis for existence. Therefore, we
can safely conclude that there is one self-sufficient thing/being.
Furthermore, if the null hypothesis requires that there is no necessity
for the universe to be the way it is, then we can conclude that the
necessary being has the free will power. Because although He could
design it otherwise, He designed it the way we observe.
Moreover, I will demonstrate our free will power in the coming parts.
In line with the above points, this will show that the necessary being
must also be the origin of our free will power.
How do we know that there is only one necessary cause?
We can understand this when we examine the circularity aspect of
the contingency/ dependency argument. Regarding circularity, if the
point P1 in space is defined based on point P2, and if P2 is defined
based on point P3, and so on and in total if P2 is defined based on
P1, then no point would have a real basis. Likewise, if the speed of
the object O1 is in its relation to object O2, and if the speed of O2 is
in its relation to O1, then none of the two speeds is self-sufficient.
This shows us that the necessary Being is one. Otherwise, allegedly
-109-
multiple necessary beings would be dependent upon other necessary
beings and they would also be limited.
Ibn-I Sina (Avicenna) argued for the unity of God in the following
way: If there is more than one self-sufficient being, then there would
be a contradiction. Because then there would be at least one element
that distinguishes one from the other and that factor would be needed
for both of the allegedly self-sufficient beings. Hence, these allegedly
self-sufficient beings would not be self-sufficient. Therefore, there can
be only one self-sufficient being.
Question 8.
Is God a requirement for free will? Can we have a complete and
consistent model for free will without God?
Answer 8.
No, in Islam, God is necessary for understanding sufficiently all
things. However, for example a physicalist who believes that
spatiotemporal things are self-sufficient may also improve his
understanding about free will by learning the Islamic framework,
even if he does not believe in it.
2.2.1.2 Argument from The Non-Existence of Nothingness
He is the First and the Last, the Ascendant and the Intimate,
and He is, of all things, Knowing.
(Quran: 57/3)
I will explain this based on a question: If there can be no infinite
regress, and if God created things, then who or what created God?
-110-
This question is extremely important. Because it is built on the most
important false belief that nothingness is the all-encompassing,
simplest, and default reality.
This question assumes that the default or the rule is nothingness. It
assumes that there was nothing, then God appeared, so who or what
made God appear.
Actually, nothingness is not the default or the rule.
When we look at the sky in the night, we see that it is mostly black,
and here and there are stars and/or galaxies… This is just a wrong
impression. The black that we see is not nothingness.
By definition nothingness does not and cannot exist. If we can show
nothingness, then it is not nothingness since we can show it and give
it certain attributes. If it has an extension, it is not nothingness. If it
has any effect, it is not nothingness.
So, nothingness cannot exist as a general nothing. But also, it cannot
exist as a partial nothing31. Hence, something cannot be surrounded
by partial nothingness either.
The default, the rule is full power.
One may ask: Well, maybe this nothingness does not exist, but this
does not mean that full power exist. Is not it possible that
“something” exists instead of full power and nothingness?
Something would be “something which is surrounded by partial
nothingness”. But partial nothingness cannot exist exactly for the
same reason for the impossibility of general nothingness.
31
(Tosun 2012)
-111-
“Something” in the latter question assumes the existence of partial
nothingness: There is a thing, but that thing is not full power, like
we see in the specific amount of energy within the present universe
or within a certain volume of space. What is beyond that energy
level? Beyond a speed? Beyond an acceleration? Beyond a size?
Beyond a consciousness level? Is there a partial nothing beyond
them? Is it that which holds them at what they are? Does it constitute
their boundaries? Partial nothingness does not exist and cannot exist
for many reasons. Hence, a logical necessity for the existence of
“something” is not possible. So, as neither general nothingness nor
partial nothingness are possible, the rule is full power and full
knowledge. In Islam the Eternal and All-Encompassing Being is
called Allah.
The existent cannot be surrounded by nothingness. Relatively to us
and from our perspective we can say that the rule is non-existence of
nothingness and existence of full power.
If there is one ultimate power as we observe empirically and if a
partial nothingness around it which would constitute limits around
it is impossible, then that power is a full power.
There is no nothingness either which would divide this full power
into parts. We say that the handle of the door is a part of the door,
because we can separate the handle from the door and then there can
be a distance between the handle and the other part of the door. But
the distance is not nothingness; nothingness cannot separate any two
things. Distance is also an implication of the full power. A point of
space is not separated from the adjacent point by nothingness.
If the existence of something is claimed as opposed to the existence
of full power, parts of this something are again within a unity and
connected by a power.
-112-
If considered applicable, the null hypothesis also requires the nonexistence of a coercive bias.
Non-existence of general and partial nothingness is very important
in that it is an answer to why there is full power rather than
nothingness. It also answers why there is something. But
furthermore, together with the other two arguments in this part, it
also gives an idea about the basis of creation.
As there is no distance because of non-existence of nothingness, there
is a fully homogeneous full power. And this full power in his creating
power, has the potentials of all things. These potentials are not
creatable out of nothingness. They exist under the Creative Power of
this full power. This power actualizes whatever He want to create.
The following verse alludes to this:
His command is only when He intends a thing, that He says
to it, "Be," and it is.
(Quran: 36/82)
He it is who gives life and causes death; and when He decrees
a matter, He but says to it, "Be," and it is.
(Quran: 40/68)
Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a
matter, He only says to it, "Be," and it is.
(Quran: 2/117)
Some examples which may show us that this would not be impossible
would be some of our abilities given and sustained by God, such as
our consciousness and free will power: When we will a certain thing,
we connect it into the flow of certain chains so as it is executed. Our
essence connects things transcendentally, and we have new
-113-
conceptions in our consciousness. Also, our essence can reorganize
some spatiotemporal structures.
In part 3.6.1 and other related parts, I will go into further details
about this point.
2.2.1.3 Argument from Unity
And your god is one God. There is no deity [worthy of
worship] except Him, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
(Quran: 2/163)
If there had been in them[, heavens and the earth,] any gods
except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state
of disorder; therefore, glory be to Allah, the Lord of the
dominion, above what they attribute (to Him).
(Quran: 21/22)
Argument from necessity relates to the impossibility of infinite
regress and circularity within all that actually exist.
Argument from unity focuses on the unity observed within the
multiple things. For example, remember our falling rock example
above. It cannot reach the ground unless the earth rotates a specific
angle. If the rock reaches the ground very slowly ceteris paribus, what
would be the basis to say that there is something wrong in its fall in
terms of time?
And each time we make a similar experiment, ceteris paribus, we
observe similar relationships. Similar relationship is also true
between the rock and the movement of the sun. The rock, and the
earth do not design that relationship, and do not know the entire
universe, and do not have any control about other things. Yet what
we observe is true. This shows that there is one power above all
-114-
things. Such things are impossible unless there is One Power over all
things.
Many who reject God, see the matter as that which is sufficient
without God. The reason for this is that the matter is not questioned,
it is generally conceived by senses. But thinking about it will lead us
to different conclusions. In the explanations about physicalism,
determinism, space, time, it will be made clear that matter is not a
self-sufficient thing. And it needs to be questioned. It has multiplicity
and it does not have features for being a basis for the existence.
Above, it is explained why the matter has circularity, does not have
the transcendence necessary for the unities we observe.
The matter is claimed to be observed generally as waves and particles.
What is a wave? Wave propagates in a medium, as a sound or the
waves of a sea. So, it is consecutive shapes of the medium. Yet there
are also things like photons which are waves, but which also are
quanta. There are different theories about these. But essentially,
waves are specific changes in a medium. If a wave is the movement
within a medium, this means that the medium itself has
differentiations within it. So, while a wave is defined as a change
within a medium, the medium also is defined by change.
A particle is also defined by change: For example, it has boundaries.
So, the matter which in any case is defined by change is not by itself
and by its intrinsic properties a final explanation for the existence,
whatever is its shape.
The elements of change are defined by each other; therefore, the basis
cannot be the change itself. The basis must be a power with a unity
unlike that which we imagine.
Question 9.
How can God know that He is the only God?
-115-
Answer 9.
If an alleged self-sufficient cause (SSC)32 has multiplicity within His
essence, this would mean that it is not SSC: Because it would need a
cause which is One as explained in the following syllogism33:
# FROM
AXIOM-CONCLUSION
1 OBSERVATION Point34 a defines point b, and
point b defines point a35.
2 OBSERVATION Point a and point b are limited36.
3 OBSERVATION 1 and 2 apply to the constituents
of dimensions as well.
32 Self-sufficient cause or more specifically Allah. For further details see (Tosun
2012).
33 This syllogism applies for SSC in that it shows that SSC does not have parts
or divisions; this applies to effect causes (EC) and its parts. An effect cause, is
an effect of something else and as such it also causes effects; in essence, it is
an effect, not an absolute cause. But as EC does not have a permanent and
self-sufficient essence, in terms of EC its value is in its demonstration of the
sustaining unity of the SSC regarding EC.
We use the word “point” to make the syllogism general, which may be
replaced part, object, and element etc. according to the context.
35 Point b can be defined by point a, point be can be defined by point a.
For example, the size of a tree is defined by meter, and the meter is
defined by the distance taken by light in a certain time. There is no reason for
the speed of an entity to be relatable/ comparable to the speed in another
location or in another time.
36 For example, a four-meter-long tree does not extend 100 meters.
34
-116-
4 OBSERVATION The dimension of the object can
be related to what extends beyond
that object in that dimension.
5 LOGIC
1 is circular and impossible, when
considered within only the
testable universe.
6 1
This circularity applies to the parts
of a and to the parts of b.
7 5 and 6
Point a and point b are not defined
each within itself37.
8 2
One of them (a and b) cannot
contain any information (/initial
and absolute defining capacity)
about the other.
9 7 and 8
They are defined from/within
outside of them38
10 1
They are unified
11 2 and 9
They cannot unify themselves
12 4
There is a higher level in which
they can be related and which will
unify them.
37
38
Otherwise nothing would be relatable to something else.
This applies for the amounts of extension (What is within it, such as the
amount of extension in units) as well (as the limitations). (From 3 and 9)
-117-
13 10, 11 and 12
They need ONE power to unify
them
Let us give a simple example of a universe that consists of stone S1,
the smaller one, and stone S2, the bigger one. If we say S2 is bigger
than S1, the bigness of S2 depends upon the smallness of S1, and
vice versa. The size of a stone does not mean anything except if it is
linked to the size of another stone, or to a unit within another object
externally. Internally, the size of any stone relates to the structure
and behavior of its sub-parts which behave according to a certain
unit. These units cannot be inherent to any object, because any unit
relating to ONLY any object is not a unit, is not meaningful, and
cannot produce any consequences. And therefore, S1 does not define
itself, and it cannot define S2; since S2 would be defined by S1, and
vice versa. So, they need one cause, which has unity and which has
power on all that exists so that each stone may have any value.
The variation of the units according to certain systems requires other
kinds of units according to which the previous units change. Thus,
relativity theory or physical transformations according to different
geometries do not affect the above analysis in a negative way.
Thus, SSC can only be one39.
We do not need to assume that God is of the same nature as the
creation. God’s unity and being is unique and different than what we
observe in the limited world. In this world we see things that seem
to be separate; there is generally systematic discontinuity, in other
words we do not see the same structures/relationships at all levels.
Everything that exists is not of the same nature. Even in this universe
as well things are not reducible to other things in a homogeneous
39 The answer to this
2012).
-118-
question until this point is taken essentially from (Tosun
way. For example, Newton’s relationships do not apply at the
quantum level.
Based on the three arguments above we can conclude that the
fundamental unitary power exists.
Question 10.
Is not the idea of God of gaps fading away with the development of
science, and since things are explained more and more and without
any reference to God, how much is it reasonable to explain free will
in its relationship to God?
Answer 10.
This argument against the idea of God called god of gaps is not
defensible against Islam, since in Islam nothing other than God is
self-sufficient and everything other than Him needs Him. From this
perspective, according to Islam, there is no self-sufficient part of the
“wall” in the first place, therefore we cannot speak of a “gap” filled
by God. Nothing is fully explained, and no thing other than Allah
has any attribute relevant and meaningful so as to make that thing
candidate as a fundamental cause of what we observe, even partially.
For example, if gravity might be explained fully so as it is selfsufficient, then one might say god of gaps argument against God is
valid. But as things depend on each other, there is circularity in the
limited world since things are explained by things that they cause or
by things that need causes or in other circular ways. There is no
possibility to explain the limited universe or its parts by their own
selves or by their components. So, there is no possibility to say that
“this thing is explained fully, so it narrowed down the need for God,
let us fill the next gap”.
-119-
2.2.1.4 Argument from Fine-Tuning
Almost everybody including many atheists agree that there are very
precise relationships in our observable universe which make it exist
as it is. For example, if the cosmological constant was different than
its actual value by even ±10-115 percent, then neither the stars, nor the
atoms would exist. Furthermore, we do not have any argument to
say that it cannot be different than its actual value by 10+100 percent
or infinitely more. This is just one of the numerous examples. Hence,
the theist says that the components of the universe are related in a
specific way by a Designer.
The atheists argue against this line of thought as follows: (1) If a
Designer designed this, who or what designed the Designer? Hence,
the Designer explanation leads to an infinite regress and special
pleading. (2) If the universe is just one of the many universes, then
the seemingly small likelihood of the occurrence of these
relationships will not be so small. According to the anthropic
principle, human beings would naturally be in a successful universe.
(3) If the Designer is all-Powerful, then He would not need to obtain
these precise relationships in order to create human beings or any
other creation. (4) Most of the universe is not hospitable to life.
According to Islam we can address these points very strongly,
because, Islam does not have some artificial limitations of some other
religions:
Regarding (1), (2), Allah is not in the image of the human beings.
He is the default full power. Allah is a logical necessity because of
the argument from non-existence of nothingness and because of the
other arguments above. Also, He is an empirical necessity because of
the first and second arguments above.
This full power and His attributes are logical necessities without any
restrictive time component. This power intrinsicly has all powers.
-120-
Anything necessary for the being of this power necessarily exists by
default within His unity.
If the atheists would claim that this Designer should have
components that are connected in specific ways so that He can be a
designer, then these components would also be existing and
connected by default and by necessity, since there is no nothingness
to limit any attribute, or prevent any connection. The existence of
just one component and non-existence of other components would
not be possible since the existent component cannot be surrounded
by nothingness. However, note that God does not have parts
according to Islam and logic, because then the parts would be
interdependent and not necessary.
This full power contains the potentials of the components of all
things in His creative power. His creative activity may be understood
in a similitude of connecting the dots with a qualified unity. This
unity may be related to the actuals and to the potentials. Our free
will also has some similarities to this: When we will an alternative,
we connect it to the actual data, and to the modules of our brain
which produce the future states.
In fact, the multiverse which is the only presentable argument of
atheists resembles God in that the atheists see it as eternal. However,
it cannot address many points that God addresses:
For example, the multiverse would have a shape in any case, and why
it is the way it is is not answered, since the atheists would not
recognize a willing power for the multiverse. The multiverse would
not address the consciousness and transcendence we experience and
the unity which underlies them. It does not address the sovereign
wholes40 that we explain in part 3.5.3. It does not address the points
40
A sovereign whole is broadly a whole whose distinct behavior cannot be
predicted even if we have full knowledge about the wholes which are its parts
-121-
in the necessity argument, non-existence of partial nothingness
argument, it does not address the unity argument.
One may ask, how a unitary power operates over things. As explained
regarding unity, and change, above and in other parts, even change
and differentiation needs unity. This unitary and unlimited power is
very different than what we are used to. Our consciousness and our
free will give us an idea and constitute a small example about how
such a unity may be operational.
We must not be so arrogant as to expect that everything would be
fully knowable, understandable, and conceivable by our limited
minds, even though we can understand all things that are relevant
for us as confirmed in the Quran. Someone who thinks without
evidence that everything would be fully knowable to him, would be
confirming his ignorance, arrogance, irrationality, and emotionality.
Yet, as ordered by the Quran, we must always be looking for useful
knowledge and wisdom as much as possible.
For further details about multiverse see part 3.4.1.2.2.1.2.13.
(3) The third point of the skeptics is quite arbitrary and is not based
on any compelling logical or empirical grounds. Unity and
transcendence underlie creation. Also, we understand that parsimony
is important for God. We also learn from the Quran that Allah works
mostly through His commands; commands require definitions of
objects and relationships, procedures. Additionally, beauty,
symmetry are important elements. There may be many other things
related to the patterns and balance that we observe in the universe.
In any case, we cannot say that God had not to create these
relationships. Each element of design is an additional unity, an
and about the wholes which contain that sovereign whole. Unless otherwise
noted or understood from the context, the word “whole” alone also should be
understood as “sovereign whole”. We will have a section about the sovereign
wholes when we explain the agent.
-122-
additional beauty, an additional art, and an additional evidence for
us. Their creation is no limitation for Allah.
(4) The human being is not extremely special in Islam as in some
other religions.
The creation of the heavens and earth is greater than the
creation of mankind, but most of the people do not know.
(Quran: 40/57)
A galaxy, a star, a black hole are also the servants of Allah. Hence,
the 4th counter-argument against fine-tuning is not applicable to
Islam. Because, Allah does not have any shape of any human being
or of any other worldly life form. Every place of the universe does
not need to be hospitable for human life. Other things are also
valuable and have their missions.
2.2.2 Allah Is One
Therefore, know that there is no god but Allah.
(Quran: 47/19)
Allah has testified to the fact that there is no god but Him
and so do the angels and those who are well grounded in
knowledge standing firm on justice; there is no god but He,
the Mighty, the Wise.
(Quran: 3/18)
The unity of Allah is important for free will power (FWP). Because,
if there is no source of consistency in the universe, then the
requirements for FWP cannot be obtained: For example, we cannot
have a strong basis to say that two alternatives are different though
this difference is a requirement for FWP.
-123-
In Islam God is absolutely one. Allah does not have any father, son,
partner, part… which can negate His unity. There are no internal
divisions, internal different divinities, persons within God; and there
are no external divinities. There are no divinities before Him, and
there are no divinities after Him. There is no before Him, there is no
after Him. He is the First and He is the Last. Allah is not born; He
does not reproduce. His divinity is not divided or shared by anyone.
This unity is a logical necessity. There is only one ultimate source of
power. This source of power is not bound or limited by any
compulsory restrictions and boundaries. Therefore, the default
situation is freedom of will at the level of God. Also, the null
hypothesis is non-existence of any coercive bias that influences in a
compulsory way this divine will power.
Everything that exists needs Allah in order to exist, in order to
influence anything. Other things do not have self-sufficient existence.
Beings other than Himself cannot be caused ultimately by anything
other than Allah. In this sense, there is no absolute determinism.
Things can be determined as long as designed by Allah, within the
limitations of Allah’s choice. Yet, beings created and sustained by
Allah are able to act under the control and power of Allah.
In respect to the above, there may be overlapping points between
Islam and other religions. There are some other religions which say
that God is one. However, many religions which say that God is one,
will claim that God has internal differentiations as seen in trinity of
contemporary mainstream christianity. Or God has children, or
behaves like a human being with human limitations as having face,
shape, spatiotemporal limitations, having some rest in some periods,
and things going on while He rests, and so on. Hence mainstream
judeo-christian religions’ perceptions of God that differ from Islam’s
teachings will not allow a good understanding of free will. But of
course, in their original forms they are essentially Islam.
-124-
Religions which conceive God as limited in time cannot have an
understanding as described in this book.
Religions other than Islam, Judaism and Christianity have mostly
polytheistic teachings where god(s) are internally or externally
differentiated and limited. Hence according to their frameworks, it is
hard to conceive one power which is not limited, forced and which
is ascertained to be the sole absolute originator of its/ his/ her wills.
Once the possibility of more than one God or more than one part of
God is admitted, then there is no reason to put an upper boundary
to the number of gods. And hence these gods will lose their status of
divinity as their multiplicity conflicts with an unlimited real God.
Hence for these religions it is not possible to conceive of an absolute
free will. Without reaching a positive conclusion about the unity of
God, it is not possible to reach a positive and solid conclusion about
the existence of free will.
The same is applicable for some approaches which are not considered
by some as “religion”, such as physicalism, pantheism, atheism.
These generally reduce the agent and free will power to many
unconnected, and randomly or deterministicly behaving things.
Hence, it is not possible to obtain any real free will power that may
comply with these world views.
2.2.2.1 Unity Is Basic
Say: Shall I take a guardian besides Allah, the Originator of
the heavens and the earth, and He feeds (others) and is not
(Himself) fed.
(Quran: 6/14)
When we observe the universe, we see unity and multiplicity
together: I have arms, eyes, cells…, and yet I say “I” and recognize
myself as one being. I as one agent, conceive many things.
-125-
Is unity prior to multiplicity, or is the reverse true? Is unity source of
multiplicity, or is multiplicity the source of unity? Or, is it wrong to
classify the “one” and the “many”? Or are these many things
encompassed and sustained by the “One”? If we do not classify as
such, then should we see things as one or as many?
For multiplicity, the multiple things must be defined first, and for
this there needs to be the relationships which can only be based on
unity. Unity can be without multiplicity, but multiplicity cannot be
without unity.
As Allah is one in the entire existence and nobody like Him has
power in His domain, an agent’s consciousness and will power are in
His domain and nothing else like God has full power over them.
Things build up in unities and not separations. A unity seems like
difference but in whole it is another layer of unity.
2.2.2.2 How Can God Be Undifferentiated, While He
Exists, And Creates and Sustains Many Different
Things?
The difficulty in conceiving such a unity with no separation or
differentiation arises because of the limitations in our perceptions.
Because we have limitations, we can encompass only a limited range.
So, when we conceive of what “is”, we cannot conceive of what “is
not” to be the aspects of the same thing. So, we conceive change in
terms of that which is and that which is not. However, “that which
is not” is not existent ontologically and epistemologically. Yet, we
give a big place to nothingness in the background of our minds and
in between things. If something dies, we think that nothingness
replaced it; if something is born, we think that it replaced
nothingness. If something moves, we think that nothingness replaced
its previous position, and its newer position replaced nothingness.
-126-
Attributes that relate to distance between parts, or to differences are
not absolute. They are relative and they can be defined only based
on the fundamental unity power. For example, there is no absolute
reference frame related to space or time or spacetime. Hence, the
latter do not constitute any absolute distance or differentiation. They
are just aspects of the design of Allah, related also to the design of
the means of our perception. For example, when I see a cat, by seeing
it, I do not perceive its entire reality. Its entire reality has some
connection with God. But what I perceive is related to the design of
God in terms of its relation to me with the limitations and design of
a human being.
Hence, we should not try to confine God within our limited
perception. Any differentiation we observe within the creation does
not have a corresponding differentiation within God, on the contrary,
no differentiation can be without the unity that sustains it.
What we conceive consists of unities, not separation. Separation, or
distance does not exist other than as links, connections, unities.
Separation or distance does not exist as nothingness, since, as
explained in part 2.2.1.2 nothingness does not and cannot exist. We
perceive unity x, unity y, unity z; and they are united in unity k. For
example, we perceive spatial distance between the cat and her kittens.
But the distance is a part of the cat and part of the kittens. And it is
a common element of all of them. If we say unity x is separate than
unity y, that separation is not in fact a separation, it is also another
unity. Furthermore, there is also a relationship between the cat and
its Creator and Sustainer. This is also another kind of unity. The
distances we see when we look in a limited way are just distances on
the skins of things, observed through our eyeballs. If we look using
also our reasoning power, we will notice that there is not and there
cannot be real divisions.
-127-
Question 11.
If God is One and undifferentiated wholly, and if He is the origin of
things, then how things can be differentiated?
Answer 11.
Differentiating does not mean making distances. Differentiation
rather means creating unities in the first place. Different unities are
also united. When we say “different”, this word also means essentially
united, because different requires beforehand relationships, which are
built on unity.
We as human beings see differences as distances because of our
limitations. We are not able to reach an object 10 meters away
without certain activities and without spending some energy; we need
those activities, hence we are prone to consider distances prior to
unity aspect of things.. We have to see things from another
perspective.
Our laws of thought also sometimes mislead us, and maybe we need
new laws of thought: For example, based on law of noncontradiction, we say “if it is true that x is y, it is not true that x is
not y”. However, though these are true, prior to these, there is
another truth which is that x and y are built on a unity which defines
them.
Therefore, to create differentiated things, God does not need to be
differentiated or complex. Likewise, when we talk of a whole as a
human being, prior to differentiated parts, we need to see the whole
and the very being of it as one. The unity that underlies the particles
of the human being, underlies also the spacetime that underlies the
particles and the related physical laws. Hence the very living being
of the agent is an additional layer of unity that constitutes an element
of the parts of the agent under certain conditions while he is alive.
-128-
Same applies for the agent’s will power. Ability to see, to hear, to
understand, and so on are also similar layers of unity.
The agent may choose anything. To make something exist, is very
similar to make that thing instantiated within a unity. This way, that
thing is limited: If we create a word, its letters are limited into a
certain sequence. Yet, this limitation does not mean that that word
ends in nothingness; rather, what seems like the start of nothingness
is in fact what makes that word exist, be defined, and have a value.
If Allah creates a spacetime, then its points are not absolutely separate
elements of another spacetime or of another coordinate system. God
may choose anything and limit it so that to make it exist.
The agent also was given such a power, so if he had power over a
homogeneous thing, he could make it differentiated by uniting the
relevant elements. So, the will power of the agent is an example of
undifferentiated power or agent. Such unifications look like
limitations to us, because the outside of us seems inaccessible to us
and separate since we are limited in terms of spatiotemporal; and we
apply and extend our limitations to all that is beyond us, and finally
we have difficulty in accessing the unity that surrounds all.
However, the reality of things cannot be contained within our limited
encompassing power, but it can be encompassed within the God’s
complete encompassing power. I can say that I was born at time t1,
before t1 I was not, hence, my ontological existence was not
connected to what was before t1. Within my abilities, I cannot define
myself in my relationship to what is before t1, since, within my
limitations, before t1, I was not. Yet, within the knowledge of God
and His effective power, t1 is my birth time hence my reality has a
unity with what is before t1. And through the all-encompassing unity
and power of God, I can connect myself with what is before t1 and
have some reality that extends before t1 in the knowledge of God.
-129-
A meaningful example about this may be the information: The same
information can be written by mountains or by atoms. The
information is same. The apparent distances between the mountains
or atoms do not constitute any distances regarding the unitary
meaning of the information.
2.2.3 Allah Is Creator
Allah creates what He wills. Indeed, Allah is over all things
competent.
(Quran: 24/45)
And Allah created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop;
then He made you mates. And no female conceives nor does
she give birth except with His knowledge. And no aged
person is granted [additional] life nor is his lifespan lessened
but that it is in a register. Indeed, that for Allah is easy.
(Quran: 35/11)
The creation and resurrection of all of you is the same as that
of one person. Allah is Hearer, Seer.
(Quran: 31/28)
He replied: 'It shall be so; your Lord says: "It is easy for Me,
indeed, I created you before when you were not a thing."
(Quran: 19/9)
And He it is Who made for you the ears and the eyes and the
hearts. Little it is that you give thanks!
(Quran: 23/78)
-130-
"While Allah has created you and what you make!"
(Quran: 37/96)
Creating power of Allah is important in our context. As I will explain
in the following parts, an important error related to free will is
material reductionism. Many people knowingly or unknowingly may
assume material reductionism. They think that things are reducible
to fundamental particles or fields or laws and therefore the will power
or the agent is just illusory or epiphenomenal.
Once we recognize Allah as a Creator, then we can have a basis for
the distinct reality of the agent and his powers.
According to the Quran, no layer within the limited world has
creating power of its own, no layer in it is self-sufficient. All is
sustained by Allah. Things can only exist thanks to the creating
power of Allah. As explained in the previous parts, unity of Allah
relates to His creating power in that nothing can have any value or
meaning without being encompassed by the unity of Allah.
Different layers of creation or things within different stages of
creation are also real: When Allah creates, the dust becomes real, the
sperm becomes real, and the human being becomes real. Our ears
are real, our eyes are real, and we are real. We are as real as our eyes,
cells, particles or fields contained in our bodies. All of them need the
creating power of Allah, and none of them is self-sufficient. None of
them is equal to Allah.
If God created a triangle then is the triangle reducible to God and is
it illusory and epiphenomenal? Is it supervenient upon Allah? No.
The triangle is real, though it is sustained by Allah. It is not Allah; it
is not part of Allah. And, if it was not real, then God would be
creating nothing. But Allah creates things. His Being, and His Powers
-131-
are not equal to what He creates and what He sustains. What He
creates are not illusions.
On the other hand, the triangle has its existence and if its structure
is or can be related to consciousness, then it can also be conscious.
So, the Quranic teaching entails not only the denial of physical
reductionism but also the rejection of general reductionism. That is
why it is said in the Quran “there is no god but Allah” and not “there
is nothing but Allah”. In part 3.5.6.1 I will further discuss physicalist
reductionism in detail.
He can create beings who have awareness, knowledge, power. Yet
beings who have these attributes and their abilities are sustained by
God.
When we observe the universe, we see that knowledge, awareness,
powers are facts. However, we also see that they are not selfsufficient. So, from an empirical point of view, these are surrounded
and sustained by a Self-Sufficient Creator and Sustainer.
Question 12.
If things are sustained by God, how can they have their own powers?
Answer 12.
If I have an energy, I can transfer that energy to another thing. If I
raise a ball, I give it some potential energy. This is a similitude.
As explained in the argument for God from non-existence of
nothingness, the default is the full power of Allah. This power also
contains the potential to create beings, spaces, structures. And Allah
may give some powers to such beings. Nevertheless, His act here is
not like us, because when we give energy, our energy goes down as
-132-
it is transferred. But God’s power does not go down since the
structure is surrounded by Allah in any case.
We empirically observe that there is the power, knowledge, and
awareness; we witness their reality. And due to irreducibility, we can
see that these and their owners are real. So even if conceiving exactly
how God assigns this power to other beings, this power is a fact that
we witness. Things change relatively to other things. But if they
change relatively to other things, then this means that there is one
power in a layer of unity which is above all relative things. Otherwise
we could not relate and measure that which changes and the changes
since there would be neither common point nor any unit to define
or measure any change.
The Creator and the creation are different, but they have also some
common points.
Question 13.
You generally present reductive physicalism as the main view which
opposes free will. But there are non-reductive physicalism and other
views as well which oppose free will. Why do not you give them equal
weight?
Answer 13.
I consider other main views as well in this book. However, I argue
that the views which are not built on the absolute unity of the Creator
will be understood somehow, that they are equal to reductive
physicalism in the final analysis. They will also have many common
points with it.
The remaining alternative after reductionism and Islam, is the claim
that the irreducible acts of the agents and particles coincide by
chance. However, this is not very convincing.
-133-
2.2.4 Allah Has Full Power
Blessed is He in Whose hand is the kingdom, and He has
power over all things.
(Quran: 67/1)
There is none to be a guardian for them besides Him, and He
does not make any one His associate in His Judgment.
(Quran: 18/26)
And never say of anything, "Indeed, I will do that tomorrow,"
Except [when adding], "If Allah wills." And remember your
Lord when you forget [it] and say, "Perhaps my Lord will
guide me to what is nearer than this to right conduct."
(Quran: 18/23-24)
The power of Allah has implications regarding our will power. There
is an interaction between our wills and Allah’s wills and actions.
Therefore, our will power is not unlimited. On the other hand, there
is a range in which we have freedom through the permission of Allah.
Allah is powerful, and He does what He wills. He can authorize
beings to do or will things under His control. He also knows the
possibilities when He decrees a thing.
A contingent thing is sustained and surrounded by that which is
absolutely and ultimately active. Its unity is contained within the
absolutely active's unity. It has unity but its unity is sustained by the
absolutely One's unity.
Some angels are given the duty to implement some of God's wills in
the limited world. This may be related to what we call laws of nature.
-134-
2.2.5 Allah Is First and Last
He is the First and the Last, the Ascendant and the Intimate,
and He is, of all things, Knowing.
(Quran: 57/3)
And there is not a thing but with Us are the treasures of it,
and We do not send it down but in a known measure.
(Quran: 15/21)
The relationship of Allah to time and the nature of are very important
regarding the free will. Allah is not confined within time brackets,
and time does not have such a restrictive nature for Allah. We cannot
say “Allah is on the earth or inside this spatial region” either.
Allah’s being the First and the Last, the Ascendant and the Imminent
is important regarding all of His attributes. There are sequential or
structural relationships between things. Yet the basis of all these
relationships and definitions is the unity and being of Allah, the One
God.
As we will see later, this point is especially important about the
relationship between the free will and omniscience of Allah.
2.2.6 Allah Wills and He Is Free
Honorable Owner of the Throne,
Doer of what He wills.
(Quran: 85/15-16)
Never say of anything "I will certainly do it
tomorrow"without adding: "If Allah wills!"
-135-
And if you forget to say this, then call your Lord to mind and
say: "I hope that my Lord shall guide me and bring me ever
closer than this to the Right Way."
(Quran: 18/23-24)
But you will not unless God wills; surely God is ever Allknowing, All-wise.
(Quran: 76/30)
All that is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Allah; and
He is the Mighty, the Wise.
His is the dominion of the heavens and earth. He gives life
and causes death, and He is over all things competent.
He is the First and the Last, the Ascendant and the Intimate,
and He is, of all things, Knowing.
(Quran: 57/1-3)
Verily, Allah does what He wills.
(Quran: 22/14)
There is not any deity except Allah, the One, the Prevailing.
(Quran: 38/65)
Surely, He has power over all things
(Quran: 41/39)
-136-
Your Lord is most knowing of you. If He wills, He will have
mercy upon you; or if He wills, He will punish you. And We
have not sent you, [O Muhammad], over them as a manager.
(Quran: 17/54)
Then, do they not look at what is before them and what is
behind them of the heaven and earth? If We should will, We
could cause the earth to swallow them
Or
[could] let fall upon them fragments from the sky. Indeed, in
that is a sign for every servant turning back [to Allah].
(Quran: 34/9)
Allah is over all things competent, so nothing forces Allah to
anything.
There is no before Him and there is no after Him. So, nothing can
compel him sequentially.
Allah’s will is real, and everything is surrounded by the will of Allah.
Allah and Allah’s will are not reducible to other things.
Hence, no pattern is necessary except for His values and ways. So,
whatever happens is the result of will. Allah is willer. Things originate
either from the will of Allah or from willers that Allah created and
permitted or both.
Freedom is at the bottom of everything, since there is no absolute
direction unless Allah gives a direction to anything.
As we see in the following verse, in terms of will, things were free by
default even to disobey Him. But this does not prevent Him from
determining partial or all-encompassing patterns:
-137-
Moreover, He comprehended in His design the sky, and it
had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come
ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do
come (together), in willing obedience."
(Quran: 41/11)
Allah is the Default Power, other than whom there is no power,
creator or initiator. Therefore, the default in terms of will, is free will.
In other words, the null hypothesis in terms of will, is the freedom
of will and non-existence of any coercive bias. And of course, Allah
has free will, since there is nothing other than Him who can affect
or constrain His willing power or who can cause any coercive bias
within, against or before His will. Secondly, any creation with “will
power” that He creates, by default, does not have any coercive bias
for any will, until or unless Allah designs or wills a certain pattern or
structure for that creation. His attributes are the origin of morals, yet
these are not personal since there is nothing above Him and there is
nothing more general which would render His attributes limited.
Say to those who remained behind of the bedouins, "You will
be called to [face] a people of great military might; you will
either have to fight them, or they will submit. So, if you obey,
Allah will give you a good reward; but if you turn away as
you turned away before, He will punish you with a painful
punishment."
(Quran: 48/16)
But He can be influenced, though this influence originates from Him,
is predictable for Him, subject to His plan, values, and is based on
His permission and is not coercive for Him.
Anything other than Allah is free as long as Allah does not force one
to will a certain thing. Because there is no other fundamental power
center/source.
-138-
Due to the unity of God, He is not questioned about anything.
He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be
questioned.
(Quran: 21/23)
This is the default state for Him. Hence, the default state is the
freedom of will. This is an important point regarding those who claim
that free will is impossible.
And yet though He is not questioned and though He is free, He
decreed upon Himself mercy.
Say, "To whom belongs whatever is in the heavens and
earth?" Say, "To Allah." He has decreed upon Himself mercy.
(Quran: 6/12)
This is a true indicator of His goodness. Hence, He is the source of
ethics by His will and choice.
Question 14.
Cannot we say that God will not will to heal a specific amputee in a
certain time?
Answer 14.
God might have created a world where an amputed human being
would be healable by himself. But He designed a universe or part of
a universe in whose systems human amputees cannot be healed by
themselves. God also willed to make the universe predictable in this
respect. Therefore, as of now, what we can predict is that God does
not heal amputees in accordance with the actual patterns He
designed, at least up to a certain time.
-139-
Question 15.
If God has no bias, then how can we say that He is good instead of
evil, and that He prefers goodness instead of evil?
Answer 15.
And the heaven He raised and imposed the balance
That you not transgress within the balance.
(Quran: 55/7-8)
If a person helps poor people often, this does not mean that he is
forced to help the poor. Had he been forced to do it, then we would
not consider him as a good person for that behavior. So, by bias I
mean a coercive bias.
Furthermore, the no-bias regarding God relates to the concept of
balance as well. And the concept of balance relates to goodness. So,
for example justice, truthfulness, thankfulness, and other values that
God loves relate to this balance. Our injustice, arrogance, jealousy,
oppression arise because of our fears and our weaknesses. Hence, His
Power, Knowledge and that there is nothing that He fears, may give
Him certain preferences in the direction of those values.
The following verse relates to such a preference and decree:
And when those come to you who believe in Our verses, say,
"Peace be upon you. Your Lord has decreed upon Himself
mercy: that any of you who does wrong out of ignorance and
then repents after that and corrects himself - indeed, He is
Forgiving and Merciful."
(Quran: 6/54)
By contrast, God does not love injustice, oppression, wasting… These
relate to lack of balance. Of course, we are not in a place to declare
-140-
things regarding the person of God. However, we can conclude these
based on some teachings in the Quran. Allah knows the best.
2.2.7 Allah Is Beneficient, Merciful
He has decreed that mercy is His attribute. (Quran: 6/12)
Surely, He is the Benign, the Merciful.
(Quran: 52/28)
Shall We treat those who believe and do good like the
mischief-makers in the earth? Or shall We make those who
guard (against evil) like the wicked?
(Quran: 38/28)
Is the reward of goodness aught but goodness?
(Quran: 55/60)
If there is no good or evil, then talking about freedom of will would
be redundant: What difference would make to have free will or not
if there is no good or better? The results of our acts would have same
value, or no value at all. Suppose that one killed an innocent person,
or that he saved him. Independently of his freedom of will, the will
would be neither blameworthy, nor praiseworthy. No alternative
would have a different value in terms of goodness and preference in
any case. All alternatives would have same value, in other words,
according to the criteria of goodness all alternatives would be same.
Some opponents of free will claim the following: Pity, thankfulness,
honesty have no intrinsic value and intrinsic influence on the world.
They are secondary and just illusory. It is only the particles that rule.
The spatio-temporal is fundamental. Higher level organizations are
only derivatives and passive. They supervene on low level
supervenience bases. Lower level organizations do not depend on
-141-
higher level organizations. One who does something for justice is
illusioned. We can fully define the above values with reference to
physical events or entities – like atoms, hormones, electrons… -. We
would be just deceiving ourselves if we say that good or evil are
effective; it would be like saying that the fall of the rock in this
location is just, its fall in that location is unjust. There is no effective
law of justice preference which has influence on low level things. If
there is such law it could not change low level physical relationships.
Probabilistic relationships are not influenced either by laws as in legal
systems or values as justice.
For some other opponents of free will, higher level relationships exist
but are not subject to the agent. The agent does not exist as an
influencer. It does not have any reality except for the reality of its
fundamental elements which are totally of different nature.
On the other hand, some compatibilists also think like the above
opponents of free will regarding the non-existence of the above
values. For them also goodness, evilness, pity, arrogance are just
illusions. Everything is reducible to spatiotemporal relationships.
In Islam good, evil, and consciousness are existent. The above points
of opponents of free will and compatibilists are not acceptable. Values
are not inferior to spatiotemporal relationships. And God makes a
choice in this respect, and He has ordered good deeds, values, and
being good. He might have chosen the evil. But He did not. Hence
at the very fundamental level, good and evil are existent as real and
effective concepts and qualifications. That Allah has chosen with His
free will the good shows that in the essence of God goodness is real.
In parallel with these, love, justice, patience, humility, and so on are
also real as values.
-142-
Question 16.
If we consider the incompleteness of our knowledge, how can we
know reliably goodness, evilness, and that they are true?
Answer 16.
This relates fundamentally to unity. We see that things converge into
facts. In any setup, there will be such truths: For example, 2+2=4. We
know how statements like 2+2=5 will be rejected and things will boil
down to 2+2=4. In our daily lives as well, there are things that
everybody would prefer, and things that people would not prefer.
Saying no knowledge is true is a claim and it is either true or false.
And based on the arguments for the One God, we can know that
there is a power who knows whether that claim is true or false.
2.2.8 Allah Is the Evident Truth and There Is the Truth.
On that day Allah will pay back to them in full their just due,
and they shall know that Allah is the evident Truth.
(Quran: 24/25)
Truth is very important regarding the exercise of free will power
(FWP). I will go in the details of truth in part 3.6.2.2.6. Briefly, a
doubt about the truth, would undermine the reality of the agent, and
the reality of the alternatives.
Here lets just see some aspects of truth in regards to Allah.
If I say “there is a normal elephant on my desk”, is this statement
true or false? It is false, because based on the unity of the Creator
and Sustainer of all, there are and there must be many coherent
implications of an elephant being on my desk, with the rest of the
-143-
existence. Also, there are connections of each word in that statement
with the rest of the existence as well.
Because of the necessary and default unity of Allah and the
relationship of this unity to whatever we observe, we can talk of a
transcendent truth.
If I imagine a triangle, it has its own reality. It is not fully reducible
to the cells in my brain41. It may be needing them and my
consciousness in order to be that triangle. However, it has a reality
of its own. Within the cells there may be no corresponding and clear
triangle shape.
Likewise, when Allah creates a thing it has its own reality. It has its
own effects. Though it needs God in order to be, it is real. It has its
own attributes as not being self-sufficient, or in its being limited. Its
reality is closely related to the unity of Allah who surrounds all
because this causes all to be united and not fundamentally separated
and this way for example a triangle formed by three balls is real
because though the balls seem to be separated in space, in fact space
is a structure created by the Creator, and hence, they are one in being
surrounded and comprised by Allah due to His attribute of unity.
If things that depend on other things were not real then nothing
would be real. If I was not real as a human being, then my cells or
particles in my body would not be real either.
Hence, though we depend on Allah in order to be, we are true. And
we are true because Allah in His unity sustains us.
41 Cells of my brain are not different from that triangle in regards to their very
being. Nothing is separable in this context.
-144-
In this respect, the most obvious truth is Allah and His unity; and
these are the basis of all truth.
On the other hand, our free will power is an evidence of our distinct
and effective truth. Our free will power demonstrates that we are not
merely reducible to our parts. This will be demonstrated clearly in
the relevant sections of this book.
2.2.9 Allah Knows All Things
He is Allah, other than whom there is no deity, Knower of
the unseen and the witnessed. He is the Beneficent, the
Merciful.
(Quran: 59/22)
The unlimited knowledge of Allah is closely related to the discussions
about free will. Especially it is asked: If Allah knows all since past
eternal, how can we will something different than what Allah knows?
I will explain this in part 3.8.1.4.3.
I will just note here that the infinity that escapes us whenever we try
to grasp, does not escape Allah.
2.2.10
Allah Is Aware
No vision can grasp Him while He grasps all visions. He is
the Subtle, the Aware.
(Quran: 6/103)
But those who disbelieved their deeds are like a mirage in a
lowland which a thirsty one thinks is water until, when he
comes to it, he finds it is not aught but finds Allah before
Him, and He will pay him in full his due; and Allah is swift
in account.
(Quran: 24/39)
-145-
"This is the Fire which you used to deny.
Then is this magic, or do you not see?
(Quran: 52/14-15)
Allah is Aware. He sees, He hears, He knows, He loves, He dislikes,
He is Thankful, He is Merciful. Hence, in Islam, at the level of the
Originator of the universe, there is the consciousness and related
truth.
As we will see later, consciousness is important in regards to the
concept of free will. And there are some who reject the reality and
effectiveness of consciousness and maintain that consciousness is
epiphenomenal, illusory, and unreal.
Consciousness is real according to the Quran. It is our first and most
fundamental experience, and empirical fact we witness. I will give
further details about consciousness in the context of free will in the
relevant parts.
Things cannot be surrounded by nothingness in regards to their
power of consciousness since such a partial nothingness does not and
cannot exist as explained earlier. In terms of the argument from
unity, differences in qualia require a power of unity in terms of
consciousness that will make them comparable, real, and meaningful.
Hence, our empirical observations about consciousness shows us the
existence of One Power who is Conscious.
“The specific way the universe is” also reflects a choice within the
unity of the Creator.
Hence based on our consciousness, we conclude that the one absolute
power is conscious and is the source of consciousness. Therefore, at
-146-
the origin of all, there is the unitary power with consciousness, who
can originate consciousness for what He wills.
2.2.11
2.2.11.1
Implications of Creation
Allah Executes and Establishes the Truth 42 and
Its Consequences.
And Allah created the heavens and earth in truth and so that
every soul may be recompensed for what it has earned, and
they will not be wronged.
(Quran: 45/22)
And Allah will establish the truth by His words, even if the
criminals dislike it.
(Quran: 10/82)
And Allah eliminates falsehood and establishes the truth by
His words.
(Quran: 42/24)
And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills let
him believe; and whoever wills let him disbelieve." Indeed,
We have prepared for the wrongdoers a fire whose walls will
surround them. And if they call for relief, they will be relieved
with water like murky oil, which scalds [their] faces.
Wretched is the drink, and evil is the resting place.
(Quran: 18/29)
42
Allah is the Obvious Truth. Based on His creating power, things also have
the general attribute of being true and truth.
-147-
That will be the Day of the Truth. Therefore, whoso will, let
him take a (straight) return to his Lord.
(Quran: 78/39)
Indeed, this is a reminder, so whoever wills may take to his
Lord a way.
(Quran: 73/19)
Indeed, the Fire is of the greatest [afflictions]
As a warning to humanity
To whoever wills among you to proceed or stay behind.
(Quran: 74/35-37)
In accordance with the previous explanations about the unity and
coherence underlying the existence, all that exists will be harmonious
and balanced at the end. Allah has the power to create the truly good
who chooses the good way on his own; and He has the power to
create the evil who chooses the evil way on his own. He has the
power to show each the paths and let them go through the way they
will.
Allah can create an environment where His creation may have free
will and own their deeds to some extent. In this free environment,
there may naturally be evil agents. These evil agents may choose to
let themselves be just the outcome of statistical distributions, may
choose the short-term joys instead of permanent joys, may choose to
be evil instead of being good. Essentially all agents may be good. Or
all may be evil. Or an agent may be good or evil.
For this reason, he gives freedom to choose so that every body is
recompensed by what he/she did.
-148-
This way, the evil potentials may be actualized, and the good may be
actualized in accordance with the will of Allah. And no evil will go
unpunished, no good will be unrewarded. Hence, the truth of all
things and potentials will produce coherent implications in
accordance with their truth and the unity that surrounds all.
Allah is not a God who just has powers, knowledge, values and does
not put these into effect. He is not unable to give will power, He is
not unable to punish or reward.
The implication of free will power in religion is not only punishment
and establishing the truth, but also that the agent may reach high
degrees in the sight of Allah. This is true not only regarding the
affairs that relate to hereafter, but also in worldly affairs to some
extent.
Also, this way God cooperates with His servants, though He does not
need their help. He gives them this opportunity. We understand that
God enjoys this cooperation:
O you who have believed, if you support Allah, He will
support you and plant firmly your feet.
(Quran: 47/7)
Question 17.
Is not it a hypocrisy that a servant knowing that Allah just could do
anything He wants, tries to help Him?
Answer 17.
Help is not given only in situations where the person who is helped
is not able to do something. In some cases, the person who asks for
help asks it although he is also able to do it by himself. For example,
-149-
a father may ask for the help of his child though he can do it; and
this way he also sees how helpful his child is and improves his child.
This way Allah performs some of His goals through cooperation, and
gives His servants the opportunity to cooperate with Him and to
improve themselves:
And We will remove whatever of ill-feeling is in their breasts;
the rivers shall flow beneath them and they shall say: All
praise is due to Allah Who guided us to this, and we would
not have found the way had it not been that Allah had guided
us; certainly the messengers of our Lord brought the truth;
and it shall be cried out to them that this is the garden of
which you are made heirs for what you did.
(Quran: 7/43)
And thus, we have made you a just community that you will
be witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a
witness over you.
(Quran: 2/143)
Allah may cause certain events as the results of responsibility of His
servants:
And who does greater evil than he who forges against God a
lie? Those shall be presented before their Lord, and the
witnesses will say, 'Those are they who lied against their
Lord.' Surely the curse of God shall rest upon the evildoers.
(Quran: 11/18)
And they have made the angels, who are servants of the Most
Merciful, females. Did they witness their creation? Their
testimony will be recorded, and they will be questioned.
-150-
(Quran: 43/19)
And those who are guided He increases them in guidance and
gives them their righteousness.
(Quran: 47/17)
On the other hand, Allah improves the servants with their
involvement, and makes them intellectually competent:
We sent those Messengers with clear signs and scriptures; and
now We have sent down the reminder to you (O
Muhammad), so that you may explain clearly to mankind as
to what was sent to them so that they may think about it.
(Quran: 16/44)
Thus, does Allah make clear to you the communications that
you may understand.
(Quran: 24/61)
Also, Allah created an environment where the good and evil are
differentiated, and made obvious.
But they differed, and some of them believed and some of
them disbelieved.
(Quran: 2/253)
And to Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever
is in the earth that He may recompense those who do evil
with [the penalty of] what they have done and recompense
those who do good with the best [reward]
(Quran: 53/31)
-151-
[Allah] said, "Get out of Paradise, reproached and expelled.
Whoever follows you among them I will surely fill Hell with
you, all together."
(Quran: 7/18)
All might be good. However, Allah knows the future and He knew
that there will be so many people as to be sufficient to fill the hell.
Evil is a reality, and there will be evil people who will choose it.
And the good people will try to benefit from opportunities presented
to them for improving themselves with the help and guidance of
Allah, like great students who are trained by a great trainer.
Question 18.
Why would God care for the wills of human beings, since we are like
a point within this big universe?
Answer 18.
Because of our limited capacity, when we conceive a bigger whole,
we have less knowledge and encompassing and conception power
about the parts. So, for example when we see only our solar system,
we can conceive better details about it compared to the situation
when we see it in a photo of our galaxy. And when we conceive the
entire universe, even our earth seems small, like a point.
This is just the result of our limited capacity to conceive and to
evaluate. But to say that this limitation applies also to God would be
a faulty generalization.
For God, knowing more does not cause him to give up any details
and lose focus. He knows each of us fully whether He knows in the
same time our universe or numerous universes.
-152-
And not absent from your Lord is any [part] of an atom's
weight within the earth or within the heaven or [anything]
smaller than that or greater but that it is in a clear register.
(Quran: 10/61)
2.2.11.2
Allah’s
Individuals.
Personal
Relationships
with
He loves them and they love Him.
Quran: 5/54
Say, I do not ask of you for it any payment only that whoever
wills might take to his Lord a way.
(Quran: 25/57)
But they denied him and hamstrung her. So, their Lord
brought down upon them destruction for their sin and made
it equal [upon all of them].
And He does not fear the consequence thereof.
(Quran: 91/14-15)
God can interact with His servants. Allah loves, and enjoys His
servants who choose the good, though His such attributes are not
exactly like ours.
2.3 Existence and Physical Reality in Islam
In islam everything is related and displays unity. Therefore, to
understand free will it is important to understand correctly the
physical world.
In Islam, everything is created and sustained by the One God.
Essentially and at the ontological level, physical and non-physical are
-153-
not separable, they constitute a whole. We cannot say this is physical,
this is not physical.
Rather, we can distinguish between that which relates to the limited
world, and that which relates to God.
Hence, in Islam, we can talk of unlimited monism.
Physical effects do not just spread through points but have
implications in a transcendental way and unity. And they are related
to truth.
In the relevant parts, I will explain physicalism, reductionism,
determinism, indeterminism, space, and time as they relate to free
will.
2.4 Islamic Holism
Is it then other than Allah's religion that they seek (to follow),
and to Him submits whoever is in the heavens and the earth,
willingly or unwillingly, and to Him shall they be returned.
(Quran: 3/83)
Do you not see that to Allah prostrates whoever is in the
heavens and whoever is on the earth and the sun, the moon,
the stars, the mountains, the trees, the moving creatures and
many of the people? But upon many the punishment has
been justified. And he whom Allah humiliates for him there
is no bestower of honor. Indeed, Allah does what He wills.
(Quran: 22/18)
An objection against free will is the claim that things are essentially
physical, and any effects of the agents, are just supervenient upon the
physical entities and physical relationships. However, in Islam, there
-154-
is not just bottom-up causation, and there is holism. This means that
there are also some sovereign wholes which are real and distinct, and
they have effects upon their parts. On the other hand, things in Islam
are fundamentally non-separable. All is sustained by God. And
spatio-temporal distances are also elements of the wholes.
Those who reject free will, generally deny the wholeness and reality
of the agent, and see the agent as reducible to particles. However, in
Islam in the hierarchy of existence there are wholes at different layers
which have their distinct realities and wholenesses.
Islam does not consider things as having only bottom-up oriented
causality. Things are holistic and any sovereign whole at any level
has its reality. Each part of space for example is related to other parts
and needs a unitary power for this relation.
According to physicalism, space or spacetime is compartmentalized.
So, each region of spacetime is seen as final, in other words, they do
not need a unifying power above them. However, if each region of
spacetime has implications regarding another region, then each
spacetime region is not final, because there needs to be a further layer
for the definition of these regions. We cannot get rid of infinite
regress if we see the nature of spacetime as fundamental or if we see
the ultimate basis spacetime-like. Relationships between these
regions cannot be explained by space or spacetime-like explanations,
since each region will require an explainer in turn.
So, the basic truth or explainer cannot be compartmentalized. A
unitary and transcendent truth is necessary. So, though there is
difference between created things, this difference is encompassed by
the unity of God.
We will go into the specifics of holism regarding free will in part
3.5.6.4.3.
-155-
-156-
3
Free Will
In the previous two sections, we made an introduction and we saw
the general framework of Islam related to free will.
In this section, we will examine the definition, essence, levels,
attributes, producer, inputs, outputs, and influencers of free will.
-157-
3.1 Definition of Free Will
3.1.1 General Considerations on The Definition of Free
Will
Indeed, We created man from a sperm-drop mixture that We
may try him; and We made him hearing and seeing.
Indeed, We guided him to the way, be he grateful or be he
ungrateful.
(Quran: 76/2-3)
Human being is created from entities, cells, organs which are at a
lower level than human beings. And there are consequences that are
good or not for the very agent in accordance with its nature and
truth.
The main question in our context is not whether determinism, or
indeterminism is true or not. But rather whether there is any distinct
power called “will power” which may cause change in the world.
There are lots of discussions about “free will” yet there is no clear or
agreed upon definition or description of it. There are also very
different conceptions and definitions of free will, and even as to the
definitions there is great divergence. Therefore, firstly we will define
and describe what free will is.
In order to do that, we will first consider what “will” is, and then
what “free” means in the context of will. This is because when we
say free will, the prime essence that we try to understand is the “will”
and secondly its freedom which is its attribute. Freedom of the will
depends upon the essence related to will and its constituents/
influencers. We cannot have a good understanding about the
freedom of will if we do not have a good understanding of will.
-158-
3.1.1.1 Will from Different Perspectives
In our context, there are three main dictionary definitions of will.
They are all related. Before the technical definition, let us go through
these definitions:
3.1.1.1.1 Will as An Act/ Process
Will can be defined as “the act, process, or experience of willing:
volition”43. As this refers to an act, in normal usage it is often related
to the verb “to will”. For example, if I say “he willed to eat the
chocolate”, I mean that he went through a process of willing.
3.1.1.1.2 Will as A Result
Those who believe and do not dress their belief with
wrongdoing; they will have security, and they are rightly
guided.
(Quran: 6/82)
The will as a result, can also be defined as “something desired”44. In
the above example, the chocolate has been the will of the agent.
3.1.1.1.3 Will as A Power
It is also defined as “mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing,
desiring, or intending”45. In the above example, the agent exercised
his “will power” when he willed.
There are overlapping aspects among the above definitions.
43
44
45
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
-159-
All of these three definitions relate to the same thing in terms of the
power, or act of the power, or the result produced by that power.
When we ask “Do I have free will”, obviously, this relates to the third
definition.
Hence, in our context, we focus on the definition of the will as a
power to will. In the following parts, whenever I use the word “will”,
it will be used with the meaning “will power” unless otherwise noted
or clearly implied by the context.
3.1.1.2 Free Will = Will
As will be explained in the following sections, will is a distinct and
irreducible power. Hence, it interacts with the universe, and it makes
a difference in the universe. According to these features, the reality
of the will power contains freedom. Therefore, free is redundant in
the concept of “free will”.
Also, as the will is exercised by the whole and essence46 of the agent,
will depends on the agent, hence, the wording “free will” contains a
contradiction. The same applies if the will is taken as a process
exercised by and dependent upon the will power, and the whole of
the agent. Again, the same contradiction happens if the will is
considered as a result which depends upon the will power, will
process, and the whole of the agent. This may be a reason for the
absence of the wording “free will” in the Quran for the will. But the
will is often used as a concept containing freedom in the Quran.
However, I will use the wording “free will” to facilitate the
communication.
46
The essence of the agent is like the leader/ manager/ center/
representative of the whole of the agent. The details will be given in the
following parts about the sovereign wholes.
-160-
3.1.1.3 Causal Relationships and The Definition of Free
Will
A definition of free will inconsistent with any alleged framework of
causality will not be understandable. Therefore, here I will present a
framework of causality which is in harmony with the definition that
will be presented.
Here I will not present any evidences for this causality framework.
But the evidences and arguments that will be presented for free will
and against determinism, indeterminism, physicalism, and
reductionism, will be clarifying also this causality framework.
3.1.1.3.1 Causes and Causal Relationships
In this part we will examine some types of causes that are relevant to
free will and responsibility.
3.1.1.3.1.1 Coercive Causes and Non-Coercive Causes
Some causes are coercive, and some are non-coercive.
If a beggar begs a person, and he gives him money, then normally,
the beggar is not a coercive cause for the act of the person who gave
him money.
If an earthquake makes a building collapse upon a person who is not
able to escape, the earthquake is normally a coercive cause of the
death of that person. The agent does not have the ability to not die
when the building collapses upon him.
But in the previous example, the agent has the power to resist the
beggar.
-161-
He also can will not to give that money. One may argue against this
claim saying that if he gave him the money, then he could not have
willed and done otherwise. The explanations about free will will
prove this claim. Now it is sufficient to give this classification so that
the reader may understand what we mean when I use the term
“coercive cause”.
There are also conditions that are relevant in this context:
In order to be able to will or to do the good deeds, we have to try to
satisfy the necessary conditions as much as possible. In order to
prevent ourselves from willing or doing the bad deeds, we have to
remove their conditions as much as possible.
The absence of a condition may disable an agent from willing a will;
but the existence of a condition may not necessarily force the agent
to will a specific will. So, the states about conditions may be coercive
or non-coercive about wills.
Let us suppose that it is week-end, and a father asks his son where
to go. The son says after a little thinking “let us go to the Kilyos
beach”, how did this occur to the son? Maybe he heard the day before
from his friend that he went there. But if he wanted to cite the
alternatives, he could mention many more places to go in Istanbul.
In this example, having heard of that location is a condition for
saying that place. Having heard of that place is necessary for the son
to recommend that place, but having heard of it does not necessitate
that he recommends that place. Hence, that he heard his friend talk
about it, does not limit the freedom of will of that agent. But if the
son had not heard of any place, then he could not recommend a
place. But if he heard of a place, this does not require that he
recommends that place.
-162-
A person may have heard of 10 different places the day before he is
asked by his father for a recommendation. This does not require that
he is obliged to recommend all of those places. It is not even
necessary that the agent recommends a place even if he knows only
one place to go. Imagine a child who knows the animals, but refuses
to pick the name of any animal. Claiming that he had to pick that
animal's name when he actually chose it, is unjustified
presupposition and wishful thinking.
Food is a condition for living. But does not necessitate living.
Sighting the new moon necessitates fasting, it is a cause which
necessarily produces some implications. But ablution does not
necessitate prayer, it is a condition for the validity of the prayer. Offer
and acceptance cause hence necessitate transfer of ownership. But
maturity or sanity do not; they are only conditions.
3.1.1.3.1.2 Multipotential
Causes
Causes
and
Unipotential
Some causes may produce only a specific and precise set of effects
S1. These causes, all else being same, do not have any equal power
to cause either set of effects S1 “or” set of effects S2. They can cause
only one set of effects altogether. I call such a cause a “unipotential
cause”. I call the related effects the “unipotential effects”.
Some causes, all else being same, have the power to produce a set of
effects S1 or a set of effects S2. These I call “multipotential causes”.
The related effects are called “multipotential effects”.
Let us see each one of these types in further detail:
3.1.1.3.1.2.1 Multipotential Causes
O you who wraps himself [in clothing],
-163-
Arise [to pray in] the night, except for a little,
Half of it or subtract from it a little,
Or a little more; and recite the Quran (aloud) in a slow,
(pleasant tone and) style.
(Quran: 73/1-4)
In the above verses, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is considered
by God as a multipotential causal agent. Allah orders the Prophet
(PBUH) to do a certain act, or another act, or another act. He gives
him options. In this context, Allah is also a multipotential cause; even
though he has full control of permission over all potential choices of
the Prophet (PBUH) and how these would unfold.
If there was just one possible course of action, and the other courses
were not possible, Allah would not mention the other courses as if
the other courses were also possible.
However, note that the multipotentiality here is relatively to each one
of the alternatives. There may be situations where one of the 3
alternatives will be caused by the cause in any case, even though
which one of the three will be caused depends on the cause which
may cause equally any one of the three. In this situation, relatively to
the whole set, the agent is a unipotential cause since he has to will in
any case one of the three alternatives. However, relatively to each one
of the three alternatives, he is a multipotential cause, because he can
choose any one of the alternatives equally.
Leucippus says that nothing happens “in vain” but everything from
logos and by “necessity”47. “In vain” is also translated as “at random”.
This sentence is important in that it displays the reasoning which
underlies determinism. And it denies any room for sovereignty and
47
(Berryman 2016)
-164-
freedom. Necessity as used by Leucippus, is not acceptable for the
reasons I give in part 3.4.1.2.2 about determinism. Regarding the
randomness, I agree with Leucippus; I give the reasons against
indeterminism in part 3.4.2.
We have to make a distinction between (1) “Everything must be
caused” and (2) “Everything must be caused to be a certain way.”
And there is no reason to claim the second statement.
Multipotential cause does not mean merely that this can cause more
than one event. It means that under same circumstances, it has the
potential to cause equally a set of effects S1, or a set of effects S2, or
one of other sets of events.
Unipotential cause does not mean that it causes just one event in a
certain instance. If a cause has the potential to cause only one set of
events under same circumstances, then it is a unipotential cause.
Whether a cause is multipotential depends also on the context: For
example, a human being which is a multipotential cause, in the case
of a fire may run out through the only available door. This context
does not change the multipotential causal nature of the agent.
In actuality, a multipotential cause will produce only one set of events
or wills, even though it has potential for many sets of events.
Laws48 of nature do not necessitate that the multipotential causality
would be a breach of conservation of energy. If we consider laws as
ways that things follow being fueled by energy, there may be many
ways that can be selected. Yet, in principle there is no ultimate
conclusion about the conservation of energy. Also, because of the
findings about uncertainty, a claim for such a breach can never be
48
In the part about determinism, we will see the limited aspects of laws of
nature according to the Islamic framework.
-165-
substantiated. On the other hand, quantum phenomena show that
laws are probabilistic.
Multipotential cause also chooses one path. But the important
distinction is that its not choosing another path is not because of
disability, but because of preference. This preference may be related
to OTBT or just an exercise of sovereignty. In part 3.5.3 further
details about the sovereignty will be given.
But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon
them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great
punishment;
That is because they preferred the worldly life over the
Hereafter and that Allah does not guide the disbelieving
people.
(Quran: 16/106-107)
And as for Thamud, We guided them, but they preferred
blindness over guidance, so the thunderbolt of humiliating
punishment seized them for what they used to earn.
(Quran: 41/17)
Generally, and by default, many directions are possible in causality,
since Allah is able to do all things. On the other hand, the nullhypothesis requires non necessity of any specific direction as a basic
assumption unless otherwise proven.
Regarding our multipotential causal power, there are many courses
of action equally possible according to the physical and we cause one
of them happen. Before actualization, there was already within us
equal representations of the alternatives that we transcended. After
actualization, we can also transcend what we transcended as possible
alternatives.
-166-
Within our conceiving power, the actualized and the potential are
and have been equally present. If there was a corresponding coercive
differentiation within us then we would not be causing it, it would
be caused automatically and reducibly by that differentiation. Hence
there would be infinite regress and other problems explained in part
3.4.1.2.2.
Multipotential causes cause things in a transcendent, and sovereign
way.
Question 19.
If we trace back a will backwards, we will see that there is a cause. If
a person wills to have ice cream instead of chocolate, is not it likely
that he has been subject to hot weather for example?
Answer 19.
If we trace it back, we will see the agent, and if we go further back,
we can see some inputs that influence the will of the agent. However,
when we trace back, we cannot pass through the agent as if he is
ineffective; this would be assuming the consequent. The agent is real.
The agent is a multipotential cause. That the agent willed a specific
will does not mean that he could not will another will. That his brain
was in a specific state, does not mean that necessarily it could not be
in another state. In the following parts I will give many reasons for
these.
3.1.1.3.1.2.2 Unipotential Causes
Unipotential cause is a cause which is bound by a coercive cause, or
reason that will produce a predictable single set of alternatives. The
reason may be the effect of other cause(s) which already produced its
effect in a certain direction.
-167-
For example, a human being may be eating as a unipotential cause
since he will necessarily eat something.
There is no logical or empirical necessity to consider every cause as
unipotential.
Question 20.
There are situations where tumors are discovered to be the cause of
some criminal activity. When these tumors were removed from the
brain, the persons would behave normally, when these tumors grew
again, they returned to criminal behavior. One of such cases is known
as the Whitman case. So, do not these cases show that there is a
deterministic relationship between the wills and the physical
conditions? Do not these cases show that there are only unipotential
causes related to the will power?
Answer 20.
There are situations where there are such strong causal relationships;
but this does not mean that all wills are like this. There may be
physical states which prevent certain wills or cause certain wills, and
there are physical states which do not. Rejecting these latter
situations based on some cases or types of events is a fallacy and a
faulty generalization. It is like saying “Cats have four feet. Cats are
animals. Therefore, animals have four feet.”
There may be cases where there is no return, due to physical or nonphysical causes. This is recognized in the Quran: Firstly, if there is
no possibility to prevent the cause and the result then there is no
FWP and there is no responsibility; for example, if there is a health
issue that causes big problems if someone fasts, then, that person is
not required to fast as long as this health issue continues. Secondly,
such a case may be caused by the agent, as in the sealing of hearts by
God. In such situation the servant is responsible for what caused the
-168-
sealing. And there is the possibility of repentance and forgiveness,
since there can be situations where it is not possible to change the
past.
But also, there are situations where there is cure. For example, if
Charles Whitman went to a doctor and he learnt what was in his
brain then he could undergo a surgery and get rid of the tumor and
the wills caused by it.
Certainly, he had sanity and knew that there was a “problem” with
him, since he wanted his brain to be searched. He was aware of the
normal, and of the abnormal. Yet he did not stick to his reasoning
power and OTBT; he followed his low desires. That even he was
aware of the normal and of the abnormal demonstrates that the
normal processing of a brain is different than its abnormal
processing. And there are many checks and controls that can serve
the will process.
The existence of the normal relationships, gives us the opportunity
to find out physical causes/ means that need to be removed in order
to produce a correct set of wills or will structure. This gives us also
the opportunity to find out other physical states that will produce
any desirable kind of will and prevent any undesirable kind of will.
Hence, the agent has normally the capacity to transcend a bad
process and a good process, and the capacity to suppress a bad
process or a good process. Therefore, the agent is normally a
multipotential cause.
3.1.1.3.2 “What One Wills”, “Must Will”, And “Is Able to
Will” Are Not Necessarily Equal
And whoever desires the reward of this world We will give
him thereof; and whoever desires the reward of the Hereafter
We will give him thereof. And we will reward the grateful.
-169-
(Quran: 3/145)
And man supplicates for evil as he supplicates for good, and
man is ever hasty.
(Quran: 17/11)
In the above verses, we see the contrast between willing the
permanent life, which is what the agent needs, and willing the reward
of this temporary world. Indeed, a person does not always will the
good as also we see in the examples of smokers. Hence the agent is
not coerced fully with the optimal good that his nature requires. This
is an evidence for the sovereignty of the agent against the OTBT,
within a certain range.
According to determinism or indeterminism, what the agent “must
will”, what he “does will”, and what he is “able to will” are equal in
every specific situation: Because if he did something, then according
to the past state of the universe, or according to the random behavior
of fields or particles, he had to do it. For the same reason, if he willed
something, then he could not have willed something else.
To be compelled or to have to do some thing and to be able to do
that thing are totally different. The agent’s ability to do it may be
possible, but the agent’s intention to do it may be a totally different
issue. The agent may be able to do something, but may choose not
to do it. The agent does not do all things that he is able to do.
The opponents of free will power say that all that the agent does are
all that he must do, and all that the agent does are all that he is able
to do. Likewise, they claim that what the agent wills, must will, and
is able to will are necessarily equal in every specific situation.
These are unsubstantiated and irrational claims.
What the agent does, must do, and is able to do are not necessarily
equal in every specific situation.
-170-
Let us give an example with two hypothetical situations: (1) If a
person is offered 100USD for a specific work, he may choose to do
it, and if he is offered 10USD for the same specific work, he may
choose not to do it. Assuming that his cost is trivial in both cases, he
is able to do it, if in any one of them he is able do it. (2) Similarly,
one may do the same thing if he is required to do it, and not to do
the same thing if he is not required to do it.
In the situation (1), if he does not do the work for 10USD, then we
cannot say that he could not do the work. He could, since we accept
that he would do it for 100USD.
Can we say that he could not do a healthy evaluation for 10USD,
and that he was not able to do a good evaluation about it? No, the
freedom applies here as well. He might be offered 1000USD to do a
good evaluation about it.
However, cost/ benefit analysis is not applicable here because, our
question is very fundamental, and if it works in a specific case, then
it proves that free will power is true. For example, in case of belief in
God, and paradise, and the claims about the origin of the universe,
the stake is much bigger than 1000USD.
In the above example, as giving 100USD does not add to the free will
power of the agent, not giving 100USD would not diminish anything
from the free will power of the agent49.
49 Deniers of free will power sometimes give examples as follows: Pick a name.
Why did you pick that name? Because either you met someone with that name
recently, or …
These are examples that relate to influence, not sovereignty of will power. It
is important to make a distinction between an influence and a coercive causal
effect. Not all influences are coercive. If an agent picks the name “Mike” from
among 10 possible names, this does not require the agent to have a certain
-171-
On the other hand, it should be noted that “must will”, “able to will”,
“actual will” are not fully exclusive. They are like different
dimensions of will: For example, the child may be forced to study.
But on the one hand, he is willing to study, and he is actually
studying and in the same time, he may be willing to watch soccer.
Furthermore, above I mentioned “must will” situations instead of
should be or ought to be situations. This is to show that even in more
restraining “must will” situations, ability to will and actual will do
not overlap fully or that they are not exclusive. For “should be” or
“ought to be” situations, the non-exclusivity is more obvious.
3.1.1.4 A Criticism of The Compatibilist Definition
The compabilists that one has free will if he can do what he wills. It
does not deal much with the ability to will. If there is no impediment
to do what one wills, then the person is considered to have the ability
of free will. But note that this is not in fact an ability to will, this is
an ability to do.
The compabilitists say that even if full determinism is true, the agent
may have free will. The compatibilists consider that the free will is or
may be supervenient or epiphenomenal, yet even it is so, they see
this no problem against freedom of will or responsibility. In other
words, even if the agent’s will power is reducible to spatiotemporal
events, it is considered free. For example, if an agent is not tightly
chained and there are no such coercive impediments, he is considered
free in willing to walk. The agent is considered to have free will even
will regarding Mike. For example, if someone tells the agent that he has to
will to pick Mike, or he has to will to marry him, or he has to will to give him
a ride, the agent may will a different will, or someone else. This ability
demonstrates that the agent has the power to pick any other name even though
he has chosen Mike and though he has chosen a certain decision method from
among many methods that he could choose.
-172-
if the agent cannot will anything other than what the deterministic
movements of atoms and other particles and laws of nature require.
According to the Quran, a condition which disables the agent from
willing something other than the actual will destroys the freedom of
will.
So, in compatibilism, even if there is no will power, free will may
exist. Because compatibilists argue that the whole of the agent does
not have any distinct power of its own to change the flow of
deterministic events50. Therefore, we can say that compatibilists
adopt a definition of free will as an act or result of an act, but not as
a power.
Compatibilists often say one is free when there is no physical
constraint. This is irrelevant. If there is physical constraint one may
keep willing against that physical constraint. And if the agent’s will
is reducible to his particles, then we cannot say that his will is free
from physical contraints. Further details about compatibilism are
given in part 3.4.1.3.
3.1.2 Definition of Free Will Power (FWP)
They will51 to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths,
but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the
disbelievers dislike it.
(Quran: 9/32)
In the Quran, the “will” is recognized as a real, irreducible,
standalone, and interactive power within a certain range. In this
respect, semantically “will” equals “free will” as I will explain in the
50
Some compatibilists are agnostic about this. But all compatibilists say that
even if there is full determinism, the free will would exist.
51 The word literally corresponds to the word “will”.
-173-
following sections. Hence, the definition of will or free will in
accordance with the Quran will be as follows.
The definition of FWP: The irreducible, non-deterministic, nonrandom, sovereign, distinct power of the whole of the agent to
determine equally and without being coerced within a certain range,
any one of the sets of alternatives as the one to be actualized.
To clarify the definition, let me give a brief explanation on some
expressions within the definition of FWP – further details are given
in the related parts –:
Power: FWP is a power rather than an act or a result or a chosen
alternative. It is a power that is usable. If it is not exercised, it does
not mean that the agent does not have this power. Here the word
power means a capacity, an ability to make a change in the universe52.
This power belongs to and may or may not be exercised by the
distinct essence of the agent which has a close relationship with the
whole of the agent. This power is also interactive in that it interacts
with other wholes, entities, and their acts. The “essence” and how it
uses this free will power will be explained in detail in part 3.2. This
power belongs also to the whole of the agent who is irreducible,
transcendent, and real.
To determine: This means to arrange the related modules so that the
alternative which is subject to this act of determination is taken into
the agenda of things to be actualized and the other alternatives be
removed from consideration. The act of determination entails also
directing and influencing the environment toward that set of states if
possible, in accordance with the willed alternative. This
“determining” does not include necessarily the comparison according
52Note
that this power in a human being is not essentially much different in
kind than the will power of another sovereign whole. Another sovereign whole
may even be an atom, an electron, …
-174-
to preferences. The awareness that one alternative is different from
the other is sufficient. The consciousness, transcendence, and
reasoning may be minimally accessed and used just to make this
distinction.
Equally: This means that the will power is exercised as a
multipotential cause. In other words, this power could choose just
another alternative instead of the determined alternative. Note that
here the issue is not an issue of indifference regarding the
alternatives. Rather, in FWP the preferences are not necessarily taken
into consideration. It may also be a mere power to select based on
any difference between the alternatives. Any difference between the
alternatives which indicates the difference of the alternatives is
sufficient.
Without being coerced within a certain range: This clarifies that the
power is not an unlimited power. That it is or that it may be obtained
within a limited range is sufficient for its existence.
Irreducible: This clarifies that the power is irreducible to the
neurons’, or atoms’, or electrons’ acts… This and other attributes of
the power mentioned in the definition FWP will be explained in
detail in the following parts.
Sovereign: Sovereignty is explained in part 3.5.3.
Distinct: This power is structurally, organizationally, potentially
distinct. In other words, though it can use other components of the
agent or essence of the agent, it has some effects which cannot be
explained based on the effects of the parts of the agent. These effects
cannot be explained either by reactions of the parts of the agent to
the conditions that may be obtained by coming together of the parts
of the agent within the whole of the agent.
-175-
The sets of alternatives: Note that the sets of alternatives are
transcended by the agent. Alternatives may also be developed by
FWP through cooperation with other powers of the whole of the
agent. Alternatives include the intellectual, external, and other
resources that may be accessed by FWP in order to produce a will.
The whole of the agent: The agent as a distinct whole is an important
element of the definition of FWP. As explained in the relevant parts,
the agent is a sovereign whole. However, the agent has sub-modules
which may have their own FWPs which present to the agent different
kinds of alternatives, including the low desires. So, when I mention
the FWP, this is the FWP at the top layer of the agent related to his
whole and his essence. Nevertheless, it is also possible that if an agent
does not control these sub-FWPs, his essential FWP may be under
the control of or equal to his sub-FWPs in different contexts.
Actualized: This means “to be made in a specific state” as opposed to
other states. Here, the word “state” is used as a broad term. For
example, to be chosen, to be determined, to be indicated, to be had
in mind for anything may also be considered within the word “state”.
Question 21.
If free will power means an ability to will any of two alternatives
equally, then how does it relate to reason?
Answer 21.
Prior to navigating through alternatives while assigning them values
of ought to be truth (OTBT)53, what is necessary for FWP is the
This is the objective and optimal ought to be truth of the agent, like “being
healthy”. Furthermore, OTBT of the agent does not mean only the ought to
be truth that is directly related to the agent. For example, let us suppose that
53
-176-
ability to navigate through the alternatives and to be finally
exercisable on one of the alternatives, no matter what their
implication for the OTBT of the agent is. This ability is the essence
of free will. Once the agent has this power, the assessment of
alternatives in respect to OTBT will be meaningful. FWP can also be
run upon the preferences of the agent. However, in any case, the
agent has and has to have the power to override at least some of the
implications of some OTBTs.
Note that OTBT is not without cost:
Whoever desires to meet his Lord should strive righteously
and should worship no one besides Him.
(Quran: 18/110)
Hence, following OTBT requires something like a trade. The agent
is not forced to buy OTBT against the price. He can buy it, or he can
choose not to buy it:
Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and
their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise.
They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed.
[It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and
the Gospel and the Quran. And who is truer to his covenant
than Allah? So, rejoice in your trade which you have
contracted. And it is that which is the great success.
(Quran: 9/111)
Reason relates to the correctness of the course of action. So, it is
important in terms of taking the right course of action. However, if
the agent sent some money to the needy people in another continent, whom
he never met. If it is ultimately known to be good by Allah, then, he will have
done something which is in accordance with his OTBT. Further details are
explained in part 3.6.2.
-177-
the agent cannot shift his direction from one way to another, then
the rightness or wrongness of the course of action becomes
meaningless. Hence, without having this freedom to shift or
determine direction, we can talk neither of a real freedom, nor of
responsibility.
For example, the ability to merely turn the steering wheel is different
and immiscible from the ability to turn it to the right or to the left
according to the consequences of turning to the right or to the left.
The latter depends also on the consciousness, structure, reasoning
power of the agent, and external structure/conditions. If there is a
cliff to the left, the agent may be unwilling to turn the steering wheel
to left but this is not a disability to turn it to the left. For instance, if
the cliff was to the right the same agent would not -not would not be
able to- turn it to the right. Our freedom of will is like this, it is
independent of conditions except if there is something directly
canceling the will power.
The ability to merely turn the steering wheel does not require
responsibility by itself, because by this, the will is not necessarily
accompanied with powers that relate to the OTBT. So, if the agent
turns it to the right, he has not willed a specific result. So, the
responsibility conditions have not been formed without the presence
of the reasoning, knowledge, and some other intellectual powers
besides some other conditions.
As FWP is able to choose among alternatives equally, the essence of
the agent that exercises this power also has the capacity to navigate
through mental and other resources, determine what resources to
access and get relevant feedback. If someone is about to buy a car,
his FWP navigates54 through his memory about his budget, look at
the relevant points of the car, ask an expert about it, and so on. Yet,
The statements like “FWP navigates”, must be understood as “the essence
of the whole of the agent that exercises the FWP navigates”.
54
-178-
whatever is the feedback, FWP can will to evaluate the situation
further, or will what the reasoning module proposes, or will to
overlook whatever is necessitated by any expert’s recommendations.
A person may be under tight budget but his FWP may will to borrow
money, and buy an expensive car knowing the problems this will
bring.
So, this power rules over the implications of reason. However, FWP
is tightly connected to the consciousness. Hence, the essence of the
agent which is the owner of these powers, will bear the consequences
of a good outcome or bad outcome of the exercise of his FWP and
other intellectual powers. Consequently, although the control of
FWP is independent of the directions evoked by these powers, the
essence which runs them may suffer indirectly if the wills entail bad
situations. As there is time difference between the exercise of the
FWP and their implications upon the essence, FWP has larger
freedom. At the time of the exercise of the FWP, the implications of
the specific will may not be present. So, FWP may tend to produce a
will W1 in the absence of its implication I1 in the near future; and it
may tend not to produce W1 in the near presence of its implication
I1. In this setup, the essence of the agent will be able to expose how
good or evil he actually is, since, his acts are not eclipsed by the
presence of the implications of his wills against himself. Likewise, the
small likelihood of some results may also facilitate the exposure of
how the agent really is: For example, a criminal may give little
likelihood to his being caught upon committing a crime, and expose
how he is by committing that crime; however, if the likelihood of
being caught was high, he might choose not to expose how he really
is.
Therefore, fundamentally FWP is independent from reasoning power
and other mental powers. It has a big sovereignty over them. An
important control over it is upon the essence which exercises FWP
who will sooner or later bear the consequences of how it exercises
-179-
FWP. For those who believe in the truth and divine values, being
among the good and among the evil are included in those
consequences.
Question 22.
Is Islamic free will libertarian free will?
Answer 22.
As explained in this book, Islamic free will is distinct from other
conceptions of free will in certain respects. When all of its attributes
are considered, we cannot say that it is a libertarian free will though
it has some aspects that comply with it. Islamic free will is quite
sophisticated when compared to other types of free will.
Question 23.
Could not we define freedom of will saying “A will is free to the
extent that it makes the related agent responsible”?
Answer 23.
Sometimes it is said: “If there is no free will, then if someone kills
your mother, you cannot blame him. But obviously he is responsible.
Therefore, there must be free will.” This approach is not acceptable.
If the killer does not have freedom of will he will not be responsible.
Responsibility depends on freedom of will, but freedom does not
depend on responsibility. A person may be free on a certain occasion,
but not responsible.
Freedom of will is a condition of responsibility. So, it is true that if
we somehow find out ultimately whether a person is responsible, he
must have been free to commit that act. But, in order to find out
-180-
whether the person is responsible, we have to find out whether the
person was free.
If we say responsibility depends on the freedom of will, and freedom
of will depends on responsibility, then there will be circular
reasoning. This will lead us nowhere. The freedom of will must be
determined prior to the determination of responsibility.
Question 24.
Robert O. Doyle and William James propose two stage free will
models, and there are also models based on two orders of desires. Are
not these models useful to explain the relationship between the FWP
and reason?
Answer 24.
The two-stage model presented by Robert O. Doyle is based on both
indeterminism in the sense of randomness, and determinism. He
says: “Random noise in neurobiology of animals allows for the
generation of alternative possibilities for action” and “But event
acausality somewhere is a prerequisite for any kind of agent causality
that is not predetermined”. And crediting William James, Doyle says:
“In the second stage, the agent evaluates the options in a determined
way, but not one that was predetermined from the time before the
new possibilities were generated.” And one of these possibilities is
“chosen for adequately determined reasons, motives, or desires”.
There are also such models which combine the same things in order
to obtain the free will power. The models like this contain the
problems of both determinism and indeterminism. The reasons and
so on are considered as the deterministic causes of the will, and
obviously, if deterministic, they remove the freedom of will; and the
prior allegedly indeterministic processes cannot provide us with any
explanation for free will.
-181-
Quranic teaching is totally different than the above approaches.
According to Quranic teaching, neither determinism nor randomness
is true. In the Islamic teaching there are no two stages. There is
sovereignty of the agent. Unpredictability is only an outcome of
sovereignty and multipotential causes. Indeterminacy as randomness
does not exist.
The model based on the second order desires presented by Harry
Frankfurt does not contribute to solve the issue of freedom. It says:
If a person wills to not smoke, this relates to the second order desire
of being healthy; so, not to smoke is not an outcome of determinism
or randomness. It relocates the cause of wills to the agent’s second
order desires saying that these second order desires are inherent to
the agent. But it does not go deep enough so as to bring a solution
outside determinism or randomness as to the origin of these second
order desires. Even though the source desires are of second or higher
order, yet they are desires; hence, essentially, they are wills which
require an explanation that is not given in that model.
Any model which proposes a true free will and does not recognize
the transcendent, multipotential, unitary causal power of the
sovereign wholes will fail.
3.2 The Essence of The Will Power
And the heaven He raised and imposed the balance.
(Quran: 55/7)
And within the land are neighboring plots and gardens of
grapevines and crops and palm trees, [growing] several from
a root or otherwise, watered with one water; but We make
some of them exceed others in [quality of] fruit. Indeed, in
that are signs for a people who reason.
-182-
(Quran: 13/4)
And not alike are the two bodies of water. One is fresh and
sweet, palatable for drinking, and one is salty and bitter. And
from each you eat tender meat and extract ornaments which
you wear, and you see the ships plowing through [them] that
you might seek of His bounty; and perhaps you will be
grateful.
(Quran: 35/12)
As the will power makes a change in the universe, what is it?
The will power is like a power that makes the wave function of a
particle in a superposition, collapse in a certain direction: There may
be no need in fact for any or considerable additional energy for the
direction, and there is no need to breach the laws of thermodynamics.
The energy to collapse is already in the particle. Also, since the energy
is a scalar, not a vector, it does not contain the coercive influence for
a specific direction by default.
In this similitude55, the free will power may determine in which state
it will collapse. This is like a command. Hence, the interaction
between the whole of the agent and between the particle/ wave is
between the transcendent component of the agent and the
transcendent component of the particle in the superposition.
Within any sovereign whole, it is likely that there are some parts,
regions and related mechanisms which are as in the above similitude.
These regions would give the sovereign whole the power to steer the
parts in accordance with the free will power.
55
Note that I present a specific interpretation of the wave function collapse as
a similitude. Not as a model for free will power. However, it is very likely that
free will power is directly related to such aspects of the quantum physics,
though there should be very complex quantum structures.
-183-
In the following, I will try to explain the system of the free will power:
The A and B in the following setup represent the ends of two
electrical circuits. The copper bar in the middle may rotate clockwise
or counter-clockwise and close one the circuits and cause a specific
kind of light.
FIGURE-1: MECHANISM OF THE WILL POWER
The multipotential application of the will power is like some
phenomena in quantum physics: The bar in the center in the above
illustration, is as if it is in superposed states to close any of the
circuits, but it will not be effective until it collapses. The
multipotential causal power of the free will power can make it
collapse in one of the specific states, either to close the circuit A or
the circuit B.
-184-
The behavior of the copper bar is not a follow-up state in a chain of
unipotential events. It is not a supervenience basis of the behavior of
the agent. The distinct whole of the agent is real, can collect data
through his sensory organs, through his memory, and it can make
the bar collapse in a state that it wills, hence making the will be
finalized.
Electrons in a rock move according electromagnetic relationships yet
the rock falls with its electrons according to gravity. We see that more
than one relationship or power may run simultaneously. We are not
entitled to claim that there are no buffer-like dimensions which may
create slacks for the operation of multiple free will-like powers.
When the essence gives a direction to the superposed thing, it does
not transfer energy through transfer by contact. It is a transcendent
transfer of command, in accordance with unitary locality.
The sovereign wholes may interact within different layers in a
hierarchical way: If a whole is active in a universe with N dimensions,
and it has a N+1th dimension extension, then it can be directed in its
N+1th dimension aspect by another whole and its essence which is in
the N+1th dimension.
So, for example, the parts move in many ways relatively to many
wholes: The same part may move up as part of a whole, may move
down as part of another whole, and left as part of another whole, and
in the same time. An electron may move in a direction D1 as part of
a bird which goes up, and in direction D2 as part of the rotating
earth. Likewise, different parts of different nature may act in
harmony for the same whole.
However, if the essence encompassing the N+1 dimensions
disappears or becomes inactive in a certain range, then some of its
parts in that range may be free again. The essence active in the N
dimension may be aware or not of that N+1th dimension capabilities
-185-
of these parts. The essences may appear or disappear. They give like
info and command56 to the others; these commands may also be like
the laws of nature. And they may be connected.
On the other hand, certain events have different implications for
different wholes. For example, from our perspective, burning does
not have any positive or negative implication for a carbon atom. But
it has such an implication for a man.
Essences of sovereign wholes establish connections with their parts.
The connections may be between layers and/or between times. So, a
new creature or molecule may be created. Essences may be connected
with the relevant parts if the necessary conditions are obtained. Since
the creation of things is based on commands, it is likely that these
connections are like communication connections.
Essences govern a certain energy which is the total available energy
of its parts. But the essence’s connection with the parts is not
permanent. This connection is like a line of communication and
command. The parts with their steering ranges57 may continue their
existence and may get under the command of other essences. The
56These commands and commanded things may take different forms like laws,
forces, and so on. For example, a form of energy related to the wave-function
of a superposed particle may be defined in a command-obeying way. Like “if
… then…”. “if a command x comes from whole W1 of configuration T1
collapse in the form F.”
57 The steering range means the aspects, the components, slacks in the patternlike behaviors of a whole which is usable by higher level wholes and their
essences. For example, our brains act in accordance with gravity. But also they
have some aspects and components maybe like the quantum superposition
components’ aspects explained above. These aspects and components will
serve the essence and whole of the agent to use the brain which is a lower level
whole in order to produce will power consistently.
-186-
steering range58 within a whole which is usable by a higher or lower
level wholes and their essences may constitute different percentages
of the whole.
These steering ranges in accordance with the features of the related
wholes, open room for the different systems at different layers. These
ranges which may also be considered as slacks and buffers for those
systems, make those systems real and distinct like the other systems.
Hence, systems which are not epiphenomenal can realize: For
example, this way, there is a system of economics and its rules are
able to work while the patterns of physics, and patterns of brains also
able to work without any clash.
Question 25.
While exercising the will power, is a unipotential energy transformed
into multipotential energy?
Answer 25.
Not necessarily, since energy is a scalar.
58
Steering ranges remind the collapse caused by the conscious observer in
quantum physics. Mechanisms related to such collapses may be a general
mechanism used by sovereign wholes. There may be such ranges within every
or some kind of particles, and sovereign wholes that are allocated to the use
of sovereign wholes as their connection/ communication/ formation centers/
points. Sovereign wholes may be making them collapse like we may be making
collapse systematically the steering ranges within our wholes through a
mechanism that we do not know, as an animals does not know which muscles
to activate when it runs. On the other hand, human beings or animals are not
the only sovereign wholes. See part 3.5.3 about sovereign wholes.
-187-
Question 26.
Is the multipotential cause here getting its influencing power from a
unipotential energy?
Answer 26.
It is not correct to consider the energy as unipotential in itself.
Because, it depends on the related sovereign wholes. The related
multipotential sovereign wholes regarding a specific energy package
may be many.
Question 27.
Does the change related to the free will power happen at a point in
time?
Answer 27.
A moment with zero extension in time does not define anything. So,
the change related to the production and effect of the will of the agent
or its initiation happens in a bracket in time not a moment. But note
that time brackets are not isolated. The same is true structurally as
well: change cannot happen only at the level of protons, neutrons,
electrons… So, the change in this respect relates to many design
elements of related sovereign wholes and other related things.
Question 28.
Is will power a form of energy?
Answer 28.
If my brain has sufficient or more than sufficient energy, but if I am
dead and missing the necessary features, then any energy within the
body will be useless. We will discuss this in the next part.
-188-
Question 29.
According to the above, should we say that every sovereign whole
has a kind of will power?
Answer 29.
And He completed them as seven heavens within two days
and inspired in each heaven its command.
(Quran: 41/12)
When we consider that Allah gives commands to beings other than
the human beings, this means that things other than human beings
may have will power.
The will power may be of many different kinds. For example, a living
organism like paramecium which has no brain, may have a will
power. Or a chicken may have a will module. Likewise, a galaxy may
have a will module.
Question 30.
How meaningful to the free will power are “could have willed
otherwise” and “could have done otherwise”?
Answer 30.
It is important to clarify the question:
If “could have willed otherwise”59 corresponds to “equally” in the
definition of FWP presented in this book, then there is no tension
I consider the act done in “could have done otherwise” to be the “act of
willing”, and I will not go into the implications of being able to perform the
will which is not directly related to the question.
59
-189-
between this statement and this definition. Because, then it means “I
had the sovereign FWP to will the other alternative.”
The following verses are related to “could have done” or “could have
willed” otherwise:
And if they had said [instead], We hear and obey" and "Wait
for us [to understand], "it would have been better for them
and more suitable. But Allah has cursed them for their
disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.
(Quran: 4/46)
And if only they upheld [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel,
and what has been revealed to them from their Lord, they
would have consumed [provision] from above them and from
beneath their feet. Among them are a moderate community,
but many of them evil is that which they do.
(Quran: 5/66)
And if only the people of the cities had believed and feared
Allah, We would have opened upon them blessings from the
heaven and the earth; but they denied [the messengers], so
We seized them for what they were earning."
(Quran: 7/96)
And they will confide regret when they see the punishment;
and they will be judged in justice, and they will not be
wronged.
(Quran: 10/54)
However, sometimes the statement “could have willed otherwise” is
considered as “I could have willed otherwise if we rewinded the time
-190-
to when I willed.” If it is presented like this, then it becomes
irrelevant to the FWP: If we rewinded the time everything would be
the same.
Then if determinism is true, “I could not have willed otherwise”.
If indeterminism is true as in the Copenhagen interpretation of some
quantum phenomena, then in appearance, “I could have willed
otherwise”. Because some things in the quantum realm might turn
out to be different, though everything else was same. But then again,
we had to discuss whether this “I” exists as a distinct or
epiphenomenal being. So, even if we rewinded the time back and
willed otherwise, this would not demonstrate the free will power.
It is also important to note that saying that someone “could have
willed otherwise” does not necessarily mean that he “would” have
willed otherwise. According to the following verses, some people
would choose to do the same even if they could have done or willed
otherwise:
If you could but see when they are made to stand before the
Fire and will say, "Oh, would that we could be returned [to
life on earth] and not deny the signs of our Lord and be
among the believers."
But what they concealed before has [now] appeared to them.
And even if they were returned, they would return to that
which they were forbidden; and indeed, they are liars.
(Quran: 6/27-28)
This is related to the unity and transcendence of the agent. Some
attributes of people depend on how they behave while they have free
will power.
-191-
Question 31.
As in John Locke and Harry Frankfurt’s examples, someone may
have no ability to do otherwise, but he may be unaware of this fact.
So, would he be considered to have free will power in such a
situation?
Answer 31.
That something prevents the execution of free will, does not entail
the absence of free will.
3.3 Levels of FWP
Let assume that there are just two exactly symmetrical points in a
fully homogeneous space with exactly same implications. The
structure of the agent is also exactly symmetrical in respect to the
two points and all other things. The FWP of the agent exercised for
one of the points as opposed to the other corresponds to fundamental
level of FWP. The ability to distinguish one point from the other is
necessary for this level.
If these points have different implications for the agent, then the
exercise of FWP may be at a practical level. The ability to distinguish
the points in terms of their implications for the success of the agent
is necessary for this level.
Let us see some further details about these:
3.3.1 Fundamental Level
A driver has the power and freedom to turn the steering wheel to the
right or to the left when the car is not moving. This power
corresponds to the fundamental level of free will power.
-192-
But if there is a cliff to the left and if the car is moving, it is likely
that he will not exercise his power to turn it to the left.
So, while moving while the cliff is on the left, does not he have the
free will power to turn the steering wheel to the left? He has. But in
that situation, “he does not turn it to the left”. We do not say here
“his power to turn the steering wheel to the left has vanished”.
In the exercise of FWP, at its simplest level, it is sufficient for the
agent to know that alternative A1 is different than alternative A2. For
example, that the white candy is different than the red candy is
sufficient to exercise FWP in terms of input. FWP does not even
require a consideration that the agent is indifferent to the values of
each candy in regards to the OTBT of the agent. For example, if he
has the alternatives of taking as gift a precious ring and an ugly ring,
he will have exercised his FWP if he wills to take even the ugly ring
as long as he is simply aware that they are different alternatives.
3.3.2 Practical Level
However, when the FWP navigates through mental resources,
supposing that the precious ring contributes to his net well-being to
a great extent compared to the other ring, it may produce a different
will.
The fire burns, the stone falls, the photon goes at a certain speed, a
bird flies, a fish swims, a planet rotates, a human being wills to be
safe. Similarly, things may have different implications for an agent
based on his/ its creation, truth, and features.
A human being wills to be safe, be in prosperity and peace. He sees
preferable what he wills. He wills the object of his will, and he wants
to reach it.
-193-
Though the person wills prosperity there are other influencers. If he
wills and enjoys smoking while he also wills to be healthy, then there
is tension and two inconsistent things. And the essence of the agent
as the exerciser of FWP may navigate through the consciousness
experiences, reasoning power’s outputs… and will a certain will.
It is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the
religion of truth to manifest it over all religion. And sufficient
is Allah as Witness.
(Quran: 48/28)
There are factors that push away from the correct path. Reasoning
power and FWP are means to come back onto the correct path.
On the other hand, if a person does not see how his free will power
works, he cannot be really effective? Not only believing in FWP but
also knowing how it works is important for benefiting from it.
The lightning almost snatches away their sight. Every time it
lights [the way] for them, they walk therein; but when
darkness comes over them, they stand [still]. And if Allah had
willed, He could have taken away their hearing and their
sight. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent.
(Quran: 2/20)
Freedom requires the existence of correct coordinates and goals. If
the location where one is going without being free is no different
than where he would go when he is not free, then what would be the
value of being free? So, in the existence of such coordinates and goals
and sufficient access to them, then the agent is considered to have
FWP at the practical level as well. However, he may exercise his
power or may not.
In the hereafter, the free will power is eclipsed by the intensity of the
presence of punishment and reward. The free will power can be used
-194-
only when there is no coercion. When it sees the hell, then a likely
change will be because of the hell or paradise. To be counted, his
goodness must be above a degree and his evilness must be below a
degree, so as he would change without seeing the hell.
3.4 Attributes of Will Power
In this part we will examine the attributes of will power.
3.4.1 Will Is Not Deterministic
A mere debate about whether the universe is fully deterministic or
indeterministic will not give a sufficient result on whether FWP
exists. Because, as long as a will power is reducible to deterministic
or indeterministic spatiotemporal events, there will be no FWP.
However, within a fully deterministic universe, FWP would be
impossible. Hence, to reach a correct conclusion about determinism
is necessary in our context.
Also, if the only alternative left other than full determinism is a fully
or partially indeterministic universe, then again, we have to discard
FWP.
So, it is necessary to have a sound conclusion about whether these
are true. But if both are false, then we will have to accept that there
is a different basis underlying the universe.
In this part I will demonstrate with numerous arguments why full
determinism is false. Later, I will also demonstrate that fully or
partially indeterministic universe is impossible as well.
Note that if FWP is true, then we should expect to see events which
look unpredictable. Also, if FWP is true, it is also possible to see some
events that look deterministic in some ranges. For example, a
-195-
sovereign agent may choose to brush his teeth every day, and he may
also will to skip brushing his teeth on some days. But, also to use
sovereignty, and reason, there needs to be some patterns.
In part 3.5.6.4.2 we will also see why the reductionism and
physicalism are false.
3.4.1.1 Contemporary Paradigm of Determinism –
Indeterminism and The Related Quranic Teaching
The definition of determinism in our context is: “Determinism is the
philosophical belief that all events are determined completely by
previously existing causes.”60 Determinism is claimed without full
empirical access to the micro and macro, to distant entities and events
within our universe. Therefore, it can be considered as a principlebased claim for the entire existence.
Indeterminism is considered generally the opposite of determinism
and the etymology of the word implies this meaning. So,
indeterminism is that at least some events are not determined by
"previous causes".
That some events are indeterministic suffices to make the entire
universe indeterministic. Because in this case indeterminacy would
be a possible feature of anything and also because just one
indeterministic event will make everything unpredictable through
many relationships.
A problem presented by the determinist is this: “If events are not
caused by the previous events or by causes that have been existing
prior to the event, then what causes them?”
Determinism and indeterminism are actually the outcome of
reductive physicalism which says: Events, entities, and beings do not
60
(Encyclopaedia-Britannica-Editors, Determinism 2020)
-196-
have a reality of their own as causal things, and they are reducible to
past or other layers of events, states/ entities.
The free will paradox is not a problem issuing from the essence of
free will power of the agents. It is an alleged paradox because of the
attempts to reconcile free will with the irrational contemporary
paradigm of determinism – indeterminism. There is no free will
paradox, and the formulation of causality in accordance with
determinism – indeterminism is wrong.
Because of the obvious irrationalities of both determinism and
indeterminism, they should be discarded and replaced by what I call
multipotential causality. This framework may be a remedy for many
other problems of science and philosophy because it offers a
consistent, complete, and flexible framework.
A higher order necessary thing cannot be replaced by many lower
order things. The God cannot be replaced by the divided and
contingent spatiotemporal things.
According to determinism, a cause must be unipotential. In other
words, it can have the potential to cause something only in one
direction, it can cause only one will. For example, if we suppose that
an agent has the options of the red candy or the white candy, he
cannot have a multipotential causal power to will red candy or white
candy. Even one million years ago, he was determined to will just a
specific one of the two. Or a photon can land only on one spot of the
screen, hence, double slit experiments look very counter-intuitive for
the determinist.
The reason for this deterministic claim of unipotentiality of causes is
this: If I have the will power and freedom to will the red candy or
white candy multipotentially, and if I actually willed the white candy,
this means that all of the previous causes and states would not be
sufficient to predict my actual will for the white candy. Furthermore,
-197-
there would be a cause which would cause something on its own
without any need for the direction of his will any physical cause. In
other words, there would be a cause on top of the spatiotemporal.
The recognition of such a causal power, would undermine
physicalism. This is related to the beliefs of people.
The indeterminist physicalist will not adopt multipotential cause for
similar reasons.
According to Islam, alternatives as the causes of what we observe
around us in this limited world must be questioned. If they are
coherent in their answers, then they can be adopted. If not, they must
be discarded. The Quran also warns us against following a dubious
way; and it encourages to follow the way of certainty. It is noteworthy
that in the very introductory verses of the Quran there is reference
to doubt and certainty. And the Quran says that it is possible to reach
the clear truth which is relevant for us.
As explained in the previous and following sections of this book,
physicalism, physicalist reductionism, determinism, indeterminism
as defined in this book are false for numerous obvious reasons. On
the other hand, the universe that we observe is true: The sun, the
moon, the human beings, our organs, the animals, the atoms, the
molecules, the numerous relationships between them are daily
observed and confirmed daily. So, if determinism and indeterminism
are false, and if there are caused things, then it is clear that there is a
true transcendent and multipotential cause above the totality of all
contingent things. If a multipotential cause is true in actuality then
other multipotential causes also are possible. And as it is
demonstrated in negation tests in part 3.4.12.1, at least the human
beings have this kind of power. The contingency and coherence of
relationships and the findings of quantum physics on the other hand
demonstrate that this multipotential power is not limited to human
-198-
beings. Other things have this power as well. Space and time are to
be reconsidered in this respect.
In Islam, space and time are not absolutely and relationally separative
realities. On the contrary, they are unifying features/ units. Spatial
or temporal relationships are like relationships of specific equations.
A purpose may be the cause of an event through the related agent if
there is sufficient and relevant transcendence and multipotential
causal power. One of the transcended alternatives may be willed for
the transcended goal.
Multipotential causes may cause other multipotential causes: For
example, when a couple have a child, they have caused a
multipotential cause.
According to the Quran, multipotential causes are accompanied with
commands and with permissions. Therefore, the multipotential
causes act as elements of design within certain patterns. Nothing that
Allah does not will can happen, since Guided Multipotential Causes
(GMC) can behave freely within the borders of probabilities that
Allah determined.
He said, Our Lord is He who gave each thing its form and then
guided [it].
(Quran: 20/50)
All sovereign wholes have multipotentiality as a principle. But
designs, OTBTs, commands, limits of borders of permission,
conditions, may make some causal actors unipotential in actuality
and within certain ranges. Even the conception of a single alternative
requires a transcendence and multipotentiality regarding the parts
and different aspects of that alternative. For example, one may have
only one way of running away from fire through just one door by
causing the door being opened. But yet there may be a range of
-199-
freedom in a different perspective like opening the door with a key
or with right hand or left hand or both. So, going through which way
may be unipotential, but opening it a certain way may happen within
a range of freedom. Entangled particles also behave as one and as if
they are transcending things like in double slit and Bell's inequality
experiments.
Freedom of will relates to multipotentiality. So, a question may be
whether the agent as a willer is a unipotential or multipotential cause.
Under the assumption or conditions of unipotentiality, free will
power will be absent. If the agent is unipotential, then he will not be
able to conceive more than one alternative. However, it is obvious
that we can easily conceive of more than one potential under normal
conditions. Multipotentiality is the feature of a human being. In
multipotential causality, in a prevous state, there is no definite
specific prediction.
Some beings or entities may theoretically have unipotential will
power. In some cases, there may be a possibility to predict a future
event based on a past event. But it is ultimately unlikely for us to
predict certainly the future events in most cases.
Instead of unipotential causality, and non-causality a paradigm based
on multipotential and unipotential causality and a spectrum in
between would be better.
3.4.1.2 Determinism
Allah has power over all things.
(Quran: 48/21)
Say, "Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One,
the Prevailing."
-200-
(Quran: 13/16)
He is Supreme over His creatures. He is the Wise, the
Cognizant.
(Quran: 6/18)
When we observe the universe, we see that there is a unity within all
things. We let a stone fall; it falls down in a specific way. And we can
discover even equations which are applicable to numerous physical
events. Upon that, we conclude that there is some commonality and
kind of unity within all things.
Consequently, some conclude that there is a God above all things
who designed things and assigned physical, logical, psychological,
and so on powers and abilities to things, and patterns.
And some conclude that there are many gods who behave like that
in certain regions or functions.
And some conclude that space, time or spatiotemporal features are
the basis of unity; that there are laws at the top which govern things
or which are common within things.
Within the latter group there are those who conclude that everything
happens because of spatiotemporal effects. There is no transcendence
within anything so as it encompasses things and exercises some
sovereign power over other things. Hence, nothing happens except
if it has a cause which is sufficient in quality and in quantity to
explain what happens based on its effects.
This approach does not see a big problem with the source of the
patterns, why they are the way that they are, what causes the
execution, what makes things have info about the states they are in,
what enables things communicate with other things, and many other
-201-
issues. Those who are not deep in philosophical aspects of these, and
the layman who adopts this deterministic view, think generally that
we observe a specific pattern, so this means that that pattern is
necessary. So, they do not see any need for a sovereign power; hence,
there is no way that things may be other than what they actually are.
According to the Quran, patterns depend on the design and
commands of Allah. They are not necessary, self-sufficient, absolute.
Also, according to the Quran, agents, beings, and other creation of
God, responsibility, His values, plans are also as real as patterns. So,
according to Quran determinism-indeterminism is not a key
distinction; and they are not the only two alternatives among which
we can choose.
Determinism61 says that every event, including the acts and wills of
human beings are the results of laws of nature and previous states of
the universe. So, hard determinists claim that if for example there
was a being who one thousand years ago knew all details of the state
of the universe and all physical laws at that time, it could predict
whatever would happen until the end of the universe.
So, indeed, if any will of an agent today depended on the state of the
universe as of one thousand years ago and on the physical laws, then
we could not say that the agent has any freedom; neither the freedom
of will, nor freedom of any other action. He could do only what he
has actually done. He could will only what he has actually willed.
61
Unless otherwise specified, or made clear in the specific context, by
determinism I mean a full determinism. By full determinism, I mean a
determinism which considers every event or entity or being fully and only the
result of patterns and any past states. Again, by determinism, I mean a
physicalist kind of determinism that is proposed in the context of physical
states and laws of nature; I do not mean a determinism that may be claimed
in the context of religion.
-202-
Hence, it is important to reach a correct conclusion about full
determinism. On the other hand, the reality of freedom of will does
not require that there is no pattern at all.
3.4.1.2.1 Implications of Determinism Regarding Free Will
If determinism is true, then we as the humanity have no effect upon
anything. We generally cannot will and produce willed results
directly. But we can will ways and organize things. We are limited;
but, we will a certain act within ourselves and with this act produce
a small effect in the world. We reason and choose this effect so that
it can produce a bigger effect. And we choose this bigger effect to
produce a bigger effect. We bring together our small powers, so we
reach billions of trillions of times of the effects that we can produce
within our bodies. For these, we have to have tools, we have to have
connections between tools, we need to have patterns in order to
devise, plan, and organize, and get big results. We have this capacity
as explained in the following verse:
Have you not seen that God has made all that is in the
heavens and the earth, subservient to you (human beings),
and has extended and perfected for you His apparent and
unseen bounties? Some people argue about God without
knowledge, guidance, or an enlightening book.
(Quran: 31/20)
If determinism is true, not only we do not have free will, but also, we
are unable to change anything at all. So, according to determinism,
we are just epiphenomenal; in one way, just like an illusion.
If determinism would be true, there is not just the impossibility of
will and action in another way than what actually happens in the
future, but conceiving such another way is not possible either for the
subject, since there can be no truth outside physical laws. Because
-203-
infinitesimally small spatiotemporal elements of our brains would
contain the spatiotemporal data about themselves. One of them
would not have a room for containing knowledge about what is
irrelevant for itself. What is relevant for another infinitesimal part
would be contained in that infinitesimal part.
If determinism was true, then not only what happens, but the features
and structure of the agent also would be happening based on
deterministic patterns. And changing oneself would not be possible.
If determinism is true, then there is no way to will except one
deterministic state and therefore unwilling something has no truth
value.
On the other hand, if determinism is true, there cannot be the ought
to be truth (OTBT) of the agent. Since, whatever happens is what
has to happen. Things that seem to be negating our feelings, can only
be considered as things that negate illusions.
Determinism is a false criterion against the existence of free will as a
general principle. Because in any case, there may be a Creator with
free will who wanted things to behave in deterministic manner. If it
was demonstrated as a logical principle or necessity, then we might
say that human beings do not have free will. But it is clear that it
cannot be demonstrated as a general principle.
Non-existence of full determinism is necessary for the existence of
free will power, but not sufficient. If reductive physicalism is true,
then to debunk free will, determinism is not even necessary. In other
words, if there is no will power except as an epiphenomenal thing or
as a weakly emergent thing, if it does not have impact upon the
physical then there is no freedom of will even if there is full or partial
indeterminism.
-204-
And if the impact of the will is predictable it does not mean
necessarily that it is not free. The will may be chosen by the agent to
be predictable, or in harmony with the environment.
Since Allah has power over all things, it is clear that determinism is
false according to Islam.
So, in the following section, we will examine whether determinism is
true or false.
3.4.1.2.2 Determinism Is Unsubstantiated and False
A will can only happen with the permission of Allah. If determinism
was true, then any will would be the outcome of deterministic
processes over which Allah had no power. Hence according to Islam
there is no determinism. In the previous parts, other reasons for
inacceptability of determinism according to Islam have been
explained.
In the following we will present the evidences and arguments which
demonstrate objectively that determinism is not rational.
When we talk in the following parts about the impossibility of
determinism, I do not only mean that full determinism is not present
in our universe, but I also mean that it is not even possible in theory,
and it is impossible in principle. So, some of our counter arguments
against determinism apply against the determinism in our universe,
and some of them prove that it is impossible in principle.
Non-existence of determinism or non-existence of indeterminism
does not result in the existence of free will. But existence of full
determinism or full indeterminism or that everything is reducible to
a combination of them would undermine free will. That is why for a
sufficient understanting of free will, it is necessary to understand why
the above are not possible.
-205-
An important question is, can determinism be demonstrated
empirically? An empirical demonstration of determinism requires full
knowledge about the entire existence. If there is a single electron
which behaves outside of determinism, then determinism would be
refuted. Can we have full knowledge about every action of every
electron in the universe? Obviously not. This impossibility is not only
because of our lack of means, but also because of the necessary
attributes of our measurement processes. Any measurement requires
changing what is measured, and what is used to measure. Hence, as
of now, it is clear that in principle, determinism is not demonstrable
empirically.
Please note that determinism is closely related to indeterminism.
Certainly, if we consider whether the outcomes of throwing dice are
indeterministic, we have to have the dice first, with definite numbers
on each side. In other words, indeterminism requires some
determinism if the only alternatives are determinism and
indeterminism. So, when we present arguments against determinism,
note that they are mostly applicable against indeterminism as well.
So, a good understanding of the following arguments will help you
understand our points regarding indeterminism, although I will
present arguments against indeterminism in a separate section.
3.4.1.2.2.1 Fallacies Directly Related to The Sources of
Determinism
According to determinism, a future state of the universe, has a token
dependence upon any previous state of the universe and the laws of
nature. Hence, if a state of the universe, and laws of nature are
known, then any future state can be predicted and (according to
many) past state can be known.
So, here there are two important elements: (1) A state of the universe,
(2) The laws of nature underlying determinism.
-206-
If some laws of nature are subject to change, then according to
determinism there would be also laws that determine these changes.
So, when we say laws of nature, we mean both the changing laws,
and the laws upon which the changing laws depend.
Many physicalist physicists and laymen consider that laws are pushy
explainers. In accordance with reductive physicalism, things must be
reducible to self-sufficient spatiotemporal bottom elements (SBE),
and the effective conditions would be at that level. So, at that level,
things would be like billiard balls. If they are pushy explainers toward
the future, then they must be pully explainers toward the past. The
laws should be very simple, allowing both future oriented and past
oriented prediction and determinism. If they are complex, then, there
has to be further lower layers which would enable that layer to be
sufficiently differentiated. Upper layers would be just
epiphenomenal.
3.4.1.2.2.1.1 States of The Universe
According to determinism, a future state is the outcome of a past
state plus the laws of nature. In this part we will see that the past
states as part of this formulation cannot be a starting point or a basis
at all.
Let us assume that there is one body or mass in the universe and this
body moves with a certain velocity. According to determinism, if we
have a perfect scan of this universe, and all laws of nature, then we
can predict any future state.
3.4.1.2.2.1.1.1 The Initial State
One issue with the initial state is, whether this state is also the
outcome of laws of nature.
-207-
Is there any initial state that does not depend on the laws of nature?
(1) If there is no such state, this means that essentially the laws (or
something else) produce the initial state. Can a law exist without any
substance, any state, upon which it acts?
If there are laws that produce initial states, do they produce these
states in a deterministic way? If this is the case, the laws themselves
would be within certain states as they have to be in a specific state
and predictable. If they do not, then do they produce these states in
a random way? In this situation, the laws would have a random
aspect, not even related to probabilistic patterns. But then, the
concept of law collapses.
Is there an initial unbiased and unspecific state upon which the laws
act and shape that state? This is quite unlikely because since the
present universe’s states have quite specific features, if determinism
is true, then the initial state must also have some specifics. On the
other hand, it is not possible to conceive of a totally undefined
physical state, especially if future states would be predictable based
upon any state. In any case it will have some features.
(2) If there is an initial state which does not depend on the laws of
nature, this means that it was not the outcome of determinism. If it
was not the outcome of deterministic process, then the future states
are based on a state which is not the outcome of a deterministic
process. According to determinism, any state must depend on the
physical laws. Laws cannot produce a state from an initial state no
matter what that initial state is. The laws cannot produce the present
state from an initial state that does not depend on the laws. Also, if
that state does not depend on the laws, this means that there is at
least one state independent of the laws, hence, laws are not laws,
hence, there is something that is above the laws.
-208-
Another problem is in the scenario where there is no backward
infinite regress, where there is no differentiation within the initial
state.
If there is differentiation in the initial state, then we will ask for the
cause of the differentiation, since, such a differentiation would be
contingent, in that it could be otherwise, but it has been this way.
One may say that it is a brute fact, and there is no reason to ask why
it has been the way it is, it would progress into a state in any case. I
think it is not a good approach not to question why it is that way.
So, as long as it is contingent, we need to find an answer to this
question. The Islamic answer is that there is a choice behind the
differentiations, broadly similar to our choices. A transcendent being
who has transcendent knowledge and power over all possibilities,
may exercise His will and actualize any possible state.
If there is no differentiation in the initial state, but then the
differentiation arises from it, then we will need to ask for the reason
of transition from no differentiation to differentiation. The result of
this reasoning will be similar to the above line of thinking. If this
non-differentiated stage continues backwards, then a similar
reasoning will be applicable.
If determinism does not explain the initial state, then it does not
explain anything. Because the initial state contains the info of the
entire events.
The above points show that the idea of an initial state creates
inconsistencies for determinism, no matter whether it depends on the
laws of nature or not.
-209-
3.4.1.2.2.1.1.2 General Problems with States
There are also issues with the fundamental elements and attributes
of a state: If we think of a state of the universe, this means that there
are some differentiations within it. Do these differentiations depend
on each differentiated elements’ own attributes, or is there a unity
that transcends all these elements and gives them their attributes?
What makes them be contained within a single framework/
coordinate system? Why they do not have each its own coordinate
system being incomparable to the other elements? If they are within
the same system, then what are the units and patterns of comparison
and transition from one point to another? What determines those
units? For example, if we say one region is larger than the other
region, where does the unit of comparison come from, and how does
it transcend all of the regions? Are there laws again which do such
things?
The latter point does not apply only to an alleged initial state, but to
any state that can be used as a basis for determinism.
Note also that the state in terms of space is also relative and passive.
Hence, as the laws are used to connect the states in different times,
there should be laws that connect different points in terms of space
or anything that corresponds to space which is the background of the
distributions within that background.
States depend on the positions and other attributes of parts. But the
positions of parts depend on the whole; including the points of space,
if we assume that it exists in and of itself: A point x, must have values
based on its neighbor or other points; or a point-like particle/ part
must be defined based on the space or based on other point-like
particles.
-210-
Therefore, a state prior to laws or coexisting with the laws at all times
is contradictory.
In the next part we will see the problems with the laws such as
whether the laws can be prior to states, or coexisting with them at all
stages.
3.4.1.2.2.1.2 Laws of Nature
Do they not see the birds controlled in the atmosphere of the
sky? None holds them up except Allah. Indeed, in that are
signs for a people who believe.
(Quran: 16/79)
Reading the above verse, some will say that there is no need for God
for the flight of the birds, there is the law of gravity, there are
electromagnetic and other forces related to the atoms and molecules
of the air. These forces and laws also govern the atoms in the brains
of the birds. So, they fly with no need for any god. If we dogmatically
accept the laws, maybe we can say those things. But let us question
them:
Where do those laws come from? Who executes the patterns? Who
controls them? Where are the laws located? Why are they the way
they are? Why are they in harmony with the related substance…
The laws are not generally sufficiently questioned. They look very
much like the false multiple gods of old times. They do not have in
the first-place attributes different than what they are used to explain.
This lack of questioning may be related to their successful use in
applied sciences and their weaknesses to stand against any
questioning. But after all, a crow uses gravity to drop and crack a
walnut without any need to recognize gravity as an ultimate
-211-
explanation for anything. Hence, these laws mostly are accepted
dogmatically as the very basis of what we observe.
Below, I will note important issues and questions about these laws.
Each of the following question demonstrates that these laws are not
and cannot be what they are assumed to be. Hence, undermining
them, will also undermine determinism.
As we explained in the section about states, note that under
determinism, the states should normally be the outcome of the laws.
He said: Our Lord is He Who gave unto everything its nature, then
guided it aright.
(Quran: 20/50)
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.1 Who Makes the Laws of Nature?
When we have laws, we also have law maker, law enforcement... but
laws of nature are considered by some exempt from these with no
reason.
What makes the laws of nature? Why are they the way they are? Are
they necessary? What/who makes and sustains the coordinate system
necessary for those laws and determinism?
There is no proof for a claim that the laws of nature are necessary. If
there is no logical necessity for the existence of laws of nature, then
there is no reason to assume that they are self-existent, hence that
they are the most fundamental.
Therefore, a claim that “all that exists must be under the control of
deterministic laws of nature” is unsubstantiated. So, there is no
-212-
reason to say that there is no free will because of determinism and
deterministic laws of nature.
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.2 Why Are There Not Other Laws?
Either there are other laws which interrupt the above kind of laws or
there are no laws at all. If there are interrupting laws/ fundamental
forces it is obvious that they do not interrupt chaotically. If such
orderly laws appear, then why would there not appear chaotic laws
which would make the universe not understandable at all?
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.3 Laws Must Have Transcendent Abilities.
Can we say under different realms different laws apply as pushy
explainers which distinguish each kind of object, their sizes, and
other distinct attributes while lacking transcendent abilities? E.g. in
the micro realm electromagnetism, in macro realm gravity? This does
not sound plausible, since parts of things in the macro realm, are
parts of micro realm. On the other hand, a distinction based on the
realms would require further transcendent powers to communicate
and cooperate. On the other hand, the lack of One designing,
executive, and transcendent Power in the numerous laws-based
model, makes this model unplausible.
Although a uniform law above requires transcendence, other kinds
of laws require transcendence of higher degrees.
He brings the living out of the dead and brings the dead out
of the living and brings to life the earth after its lifelessness.
And thus, will you be brought out.
(Quran: 30/19)
-213-
Of course, the multiple bodies and additional dimensions will require
the laws to transcend more things: For example, let us suppose that
an object hits an object in direction D1 which requires it to be in
position P1 at time T1. Another object hits it in another direction
which requires it to be in position P2 at time T1. But the object is at
P3 at time T1. The law calculates P3. So, it is aware of these two
influences. And determines where it has to be at T1. Same applies
for other laws. To determine S3, the law must encompass S1 and S2
simultaneosly. It must encompass/ transcend all things states.
If a law acts on parts distinguishing each one from the others, then
it causes changes based on the relationship of that particle with the
related dimension, if that dimension is ontologically real. It is as if
that law moves that particle in the space. In this case, the space has
a status similar to the law, because, the object is subject to both the
law, and to the space. Therefore, in this case, the law must be
encompassing/ transcending and considering the space as much as
the object.
If there is a law then this must apply to all layers unless it is able to
distinguish between the layers. For example, strong nuclear force
which acts on the parts of the nucleus of the atom, would also
normally act on the parts of an electron -this is important especially
when we consider the need for self-sufficient spatiotemporal elements
under determinism and physicalism-. Or it must be able to
distinguish the layers. But if it acts on any whole then it must be
acting one way or the other on that whole's parts. But if the laws
distinguish the layers, conditions, and act differently on each layer
then they are very similar to a god who deliberates according to
specific situations.
-214-
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.4 At Any Time-Scale, Laws Must Contain More
Than One State.
In being laws, they contain the very attributes of what they are
supposed to cause, and they are caused by what they cause. If a law
will transform the state S1 into state S2, then the definitions related
to S1 and S2 must necessarily be contained within a law, whatever
that law is.
In any case, laws contain within themselves the elements and
definitions of more than one time slice simultaneously. Therefore, at
least more than one states under the allegedly actual effect of a law,
coexist in the same time bracket.
The alleged deterministic nature of laws makes them inconsistent and
incoherent, and also incompatible with determinism in other ways.
A law contains the elements of future, present, and the past. Hence,
the laws do not explain anything, because the laws contain already
the time extensions of events within their internal mechanisms.
Therefore, the laws given as an answer by the determinist to the
question “what causes the future” are not answers, but rewording of
the same question. Hence, the laws do not have a nature to be an
answer to that question. Laws cannot explain the future. Because the
elements of the future are assumed to be contained within the laws:
For example, if the law or force of gravity makes my pen move from
position P1 to position P2, this means that any time this law detects
my pen to be in P1, it will cause it to shift it to P2. So, if the
determinist answers my question “how does my pen go from P1 to
P2?” as “because of the law of gravity”, I will say “how P1 and P2
within the law of gravity are the way they are?” This means that the
answer of the determinist is no answer.
-215-
Futhermore, what is the width of the law’s internal extension in terms
of time? Is the law like an equation of first degree, or like an equation
of more degrees? Also, if we consider that any state cannot be taken
as a moment with zero time width, but rather as a range no matter
what the time scale is, we will conclude the following: If we predict
events in the time range TR3 while we are at time range TR2, we
should admit that the law depends on the events TR2, and TR1.
Hence, the dynamics of the state before change, during the change,
and after the change must be transcended by the law. Therefore, at
any stage, the law must transcend more than one existent states. So,
necessarily there are at least some consecutive states that are not the
product of the laws. These apply no matter what the model of the
law is: For example, if the gravity is explained by gravitons, or
spacetime curvature, the same thing applies since there will be in any
case the above differentiations in respect to time.
Also, the same law encompasses the past states as well as the future
states beyond the present state unless each moment is considered to
have different law. Yet, if each moment is run by a different law, then
there would be a higher-level law which would simultaneously
encompass all states.
And, this means that laws cannot explain the future, because the
future which is inside the law in the infinitesimal framework, is
influencing the laws. Imagine like you are moving the pen with your
hand. To move it, you must contain the power on the initial state,
on the transition process, and on the final process. If the law has
these powers, then, within this law, simultaneously states of change
exist, even before the change has been made by it. If there is such a
differentiation within the law itself, then, either there is infinite
regress, because any such differentiation at any layer will be caused
by another layer. Or, these differentiations are not absolute/
necessary; and they are contingent. This point demonstrates that
determinism is false.
-216-
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.5 Laws Would Need a Coordinator Above
Them.
The multiplicity of laws would create lots of other problems:
Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides
Allah, they both would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah,
Lord of the Throne, above what they describe.
(Quran: 21/22)
When there is another law it destroys the lawness of the former law.
Hence, there will be a need for a top principle or law which governs
the submissive laws. Yet, can a top and fixed principle devoid of
deliberation and flexibility be sufficient to remove the clashes and
sustain numerous laws and structures at different layers?
If there are multiple laws that affect same thing, then there would be
some kind of conflict between these laws. While one law/ force, for
example gravity may require that thing to be in position A, another
law/ force for example electromagnetic force, may require it to be in
position B. Which one will happen? An average? One of them will
have priority under some conditions? Who calculates? Who sets the
principles? Are calculations subject to other laws? Or will there be a
manifold or universe wherein sufficient dimensions are added/ exist
so that both laws happen simultaneously? Or a part/ representation/
feature of that particle occurs in one position according to law A, and
another part/ feature occurs at point B? Who or what coordinates
among them? If there is a hierarchy, who defined this hierarchy? Are
they the effects of matter? Does the matter have an effect on laws?
Or do they interact?
If laws depend on other laws is there circularity and infinite regress?
If they are necessary what is the principle or cause of necessity? How
do laws coordinate and cooperate?
-217-
Are the laws changing or are they unchanging? If they are changing
according to patterns or according to higher level laws, this means
that the above problem applies: Laws as laws are not the cause of
anything, because they are run partially or wholly by other laws. A
law would cause some attributes of another law; a law would be
reducible to another law; the existence of a contingent law is not
meaningful, and its interaction with another law in the non-existence
of anything else is not meaningful either. If there are no higher-level
laws/ patterns for their changes, this means that they and their
interactions are arbitrary, and that they are not laws in fact.
If they are unchanging, then they must be fundamentally eternal and
same in every possible universe. But there is no reason and no
empirical evidence to claim that they have to be the way they are.
Logically it will never be possible to prove that they cannot be
otherwise in another universe, in the far-past, or in the future. And,
as many prominent physicists confirm, in the non-existence of the
precise values of constants that relate to laws and forces of nature,
this universe would not be existing.
Are laws reducible to other laws? Or to a big law, like in the idea of
a theory of everything? Physics proceed in the opposite direction.
There are thousands of different relationships at different layers, in
different entities, in different regions, new particles or anti-particles
that behave differently, and so on.
We cannot speak of laws in the absence of the structures or entities
upon which laws allegedly act. If each entity acts in harmony with
patterns by coincidence, this brings about a big probability problem.
Why would so many things behave in the same way though they are
separate entities, structures? Do we see just a realization of tiny
probability?
If there is infinitesimality in this respect, in other words, if there is
no final smallest level, then parts are not real as they are conceived
-218-
and there are just relationships. But what connects the relationships,
such as the relationship between point a and point b. But even if
point b is point-like, then it is already defined by relationships: In
other words, whatever distinguishes it from another point is a
relationship. But a relationship is also defined by points. And the
relationship between point c and point d is also related to the
relationship between point a and point b. Hence relationship cannot
be explained by relationship but with something of a different nature.
In this sense, the relationship between the spatiotemporal
components of a law would also need a higher unity to define the
law and its internal relationships.
An electron is subject to both electromagnetic force and gravity. So,
if there are separate laws then there must be a kind of a higher degree
law which regulates and harmonizes them. If there are not separate
laws, but one law does all these things by itself, then it is not only a
law which surrounds things, but also it distinguishes, comprises some
things and excludes some things. If it or the higher-level law selects
and is differentiated in its effects and if this differentiation originates
from this law then we cannot claim any determinism, because
deliberation would be at the root of the laws as well. And we have to
put aside reductionism because there is no unique principle or layer
to which things can be reduced.
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.6 Laws Must Have Deliberation Capacity
Another issue is the application of the laws in different layers. For
example, gravity and electromagnetic force can apply on the same
particle, but in a relationship of task division. If there are different
laws for different layers, this means that the laws apply some kind of
deliberation, and that reductionism is false. But this also shows again
that they are not absolute and that they are subject to higher levels
of relationships. Hence, the observed laws are not necessary, they are
-219-
contingent. This contingency cancels the possibility of determinism
in principle. If the hierarchy of laws does not end up in a necessity,
then it will end up in infinite regress. But it cannot end up in
necessity, since they are limited, many, and contingent. Therefore,
the alleged self-sufficient relationships between laws and their
components are just whims. Additionally, the obvious contingency
demonstrates a sovereign will power which originates these
contingent laws and their products.
If the law has the power to change the position of the object from P1
to P2, from time T1 to T2 respectively, this would require that the
law must have the power to produce the effect in the opposite
direction as well, if there is no coercive constraint above the law. If
for example the momentum of the object before T1 is such a
constraint, then the constraint would be arising from the same law,
hence in this case it would not be a constraint above it. But if it is
not subject to a constraint above itself, then either within the law
there is such a necessity, or there is a kind of deliberation within the
law which causes the events in the order we observe consistently. We
cannot say that it contains any biased behavior can have such
necessity. If the states of things constitute constraints, then this
means that the law does not drive states, but it interacts with the
states. In this case, there has to be additional laws which define the
terms of interaction between them; which in turn would require
additional laws to arrange the relationships between the new laws
and earlier laws and states; and this would lead to infinite regress.
Also, this would mean that the states are of the same nature as the
laws. If there is no constraint upon the law, then the law would have
some kind of deliberation power. Hence, laws as understood by
determinism are not possible.
Some argue that the increase in entropy is what determines the
direction of time. This might be argued in a lawless universe. But in
a lawful universe where deterministic laws allegedly direct things, the
-220-
increase in entropy is superseded by these laws. Furthermore, in such
a universe, all of the future states would be contained within the
initial state. There is a strict connection between all states and they
constitute a whole as in a block time where there is no change. There
is nothing new. Also, the Maxwell’s demon is a good argument
against the direction of the time based on increase in entropy. So,
there should not be any constraint upon the deterministic laws, but
this in turn necessitates a freedom of will for the laws which
obviously produces contradiction.
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.7 Laws Cannot Be Self-Sufficient
Based on the above explanations maybe we should say that the laws
are just attributes of things. But things are limited and relative as
explained in part 2.2.1.1 about the argument from necessity. If we
say that a certain thing has a certain size, this size is relative. It does
not mean anything by itself. It means something only relatively to
another thing. Hence, it depends on another thing which also
depends on that very thing. So, they are not self-sufficient. So, they
cannot be the source of an alleged determinism. The contingent
things cannot be the source of an alleged determinism.
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.8 Contradictions Caused by Time and Laws as
Deterministic Causes
Is time a constraint on the law, or is it a product of the law? Time
would depend on the functioning of the law, since we do not even
experience any distinct benchmark for time. The act on the states
must be as we observe are within harmony. If it is the law which
pushes things, then it is pushing them in harmony. So, the law is not
constrained by time, it is producing time. So, how events spread
within time should be determined by the law(s). As explained above
-221-
and in part that relates to time, the past, present and future
considered separately from the beings and their acts, are just
subjective things. And the law(s) must contain past, present and
future simultaneously. Remember that the law must not be stuck
within a zero-width time slice. And if it transcends state S1 and state
S2 without being bound by time, then it must also transcend equally
S2 and state S3. This will entail that it transcends S1-S2-S3-Sn with
no time distance.
Hence, this will lead to a result of the existence of block time. This
will mean that everything exists simultaneously, and nothing other
than laws has any effect of its own. But if the latter is true, then there
is no effective law since there is no need to produce something based
on another thing, since everything that we consider to be in the past
and in the future exists simultaneously.
A limited and/or passive being or entity may have limitation in
proceeding in one direction; but if determinism is true, then a law
must be able to encompass all directions. If a law has a control upon
the entities or fields, then it must encompass the past and future. But
if it encompasses with no bias, then what would cause it to act within
a certain direction? Then the claim of determinism that the future is
predictable based on a previous state and a law is not valid. The law
becomes something that does not take any specific state and
transform it or build from it another state, but something that
determines the entire whole like a block-time universe.
A similar argument is applicable against a claim that the laws are
intrinsic to/ within the entities, where the laws are not external to
the entities. In this framework, then the entities must be aware of
what is around and would be transcendent, and they would be
encompassing the past and the future.
Are there laws that surround states and direct them? Or are laws
contained within the entities/ particles which are transcendent, all
-222-
encompassing, which behave in accordance with the laws that they
contain? The first seems to be less plausible since it assumes that even
in the absence of any real essence, there are laws “somewhere”. The
latter is also implausible as depicted above since it requires that an
any entity is inherently and self-sufficiently transcendent, and that it
contains patterns that relate to and in harmony with other things’
patterns.
All of the essential problems under physicalist and hard deterministic
approach above persist and undermine determinism. The laws by
their very nature are not suited to produce what the physicalists and
determinists expect.
However, according to the Islamic teaching, Allah is the being who
has transcendence, knowledge, power and will; therefore, He has the
attributes that can give things certain abilities.
As explained above, the laws directing atoms are very unlikely. It is
also very unlikely that a law gives abilities so as they would be
behaving as if they are aware of a wide range of regions. Or a law
cannot enable an object so as it would know a meter in front of it or
a second in front of it; or to enable it behave in accordance with
gravity according to Newtonian model, in an action at a distance, to
act like in laws. Accepting that a law does these things, entails that
these laws are like God except for the difference of their
contingencies, non-transcendence, multiplicities, inconsistencies, and
their deficient attributes.
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.9 Laws of Nature Do Not Invalidate Sovereign
Things, Beings, or Relationships.
Patterns or laws may coexist with sovereign entities unless a
deterministic universe is true. And there is no valid reason to believe
that the universe must be fully deterministic.
-223-
Do physical laws necessarily encompass all things that relate to
consciousness and will?
Laws are not exclusive. Discovery of a new law does not always
require abandonment of a previous law. A falling magnet keeps
pushing the same pole upward if appropriately positioned, while
falling. So, a sovereign thing can simultaneously exist while some
laws of nature apply to it. So, laws can coexist and interact with
sovereignty.
If you ask a person why a stone falls, according to my experience
generally he will say because of gravity. According to many, laws of
nature are pushy causes62. If laws are supervenient upon the structure
of things then a problem of action at a distance appears: How does
the stone know the distance of the falling stone to the center of
gravity of the earth and its implications? Because of gravity waves?
Or because of gravitons? How the regions of these waves, or
gravitons know their locations’ implications? Within the physicalist
and determinist paradigm, same questions will be left crucially
unanswered in any case. Also, when a stone reacts to or change the
direction of an object same problems apply. A secular will overlook
these problems with a hope that they will be explained; but without
any reason, they expect the explanation to be within the narrow
spatiotemporal paradigm.
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.10 Falsity of Reductionism and The
Effective Reality of Structures and Entities
Say, "Is the blind equivalent to the seeing?”
(Quran: 13/16)
62
(Hoefer 2016)
-224-
Science essentially explains things with wholes that are explanatory
by their irreducible structures and features which are contingent. For
example, biology explains some things with eyes. But eyes happen
only if some organization exists. This organization is not selfsufficient, in other words it depends on things. So, determining
things ultimately by eyes does not work, since it is not an ultimate
explanation.
Chemistry is similar in that it is based on structures of atoms,
molecules, and so on.
Physics explain things based on the relationships between space,
time, energy.
Space, time, energy, reason, and mathematics are in turn explained
by all-encompassing unity. This is the area where our eyes and
measuring devices are not able to encompass.
We are not justified in believing that when we explain something
with a mass or with a law we are done, and that that law and mass
are self-sufficient and unquestionable. But as beyond the
spatiotemporal our measuring and controlling devices do not work,
it is tempting to believe that what we cannot measure and control
can be legitimately omitted.
Here is the point where the problem surfaces: Many sciences build
themselves on the unknowns beyond physics, but for many, physics
unjustly claims its kingdom based upon the contingent laws and
generally says there is no clear guiding science beyond physics.
Recognizing physics unjustly as the ultimate real science entails
rejecting the reality of the objects of other sciences. At the end, the
human being and its distinct attributes as the will power are tried to
be explained in terms of the behaviors of the atoms and other
particles.
-225-
We also hear some holist voices which say that there are things which
are not reducible to those particles, that there are the cells, the
animals and other things which are non-separable. Though they seem
to reject reductionism, as long as they are not able to see the unique
power above all things, they are not able to get rid of being the victim
of reductionism in a convincing way. I argue that without proceeding
beyond physics, one cannot see beyond what can be perceived
through one’s eyeballs.
According to reductionism, any belavior of any human being or any
animal can be explained completely by the behavior of smallest
particles or fields. Hence, the will power, consciousness, or anything
that we think we do is epiphemonal, ineffective in terms of causality.
So, as atoms and fields are not considered having any transcendent
abilities, they cannot be multipotential causes. Therefore, according
to reductionist determinists, determinism can be the only acceptable
way if indeterminism is discarded. But even if it is not discarded, as
long as indeterminism is true, there is no free will.
But are not the smallest things wholes also reducible?
I explained the irrationalities of reductionism in part 3.5.6.4.2.
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.11 Infinite Regress, Problem of The
Beginning
Determinism entails the infinite regress regarding causality, and it
causes other problems with the beginning of the universe.
If determinism is true, then the increase in entropy is no explanation
for the direction of time. Because, all future states are contained
within the past states. And there is no reason to say that a disorderly
distribution of things is absolutely more probable than another
distribution, hence the more disorderly state is the future state, the
-226-
more orderly state is the past state. Because, whatever state happens,
it is what had to happen with hundred percent probability according
to an initial state if there is any. If there is infinite regress in the
preceeding states, the reasoning will not change. So, there is no basis
according to determinism for the direction of time.
On the other hand, the beginning state cannot be understood as a
moment with zero extension within time, since a moment with zero
time-width would not contain the direction of events within time. So,
it necessarily contains a progress within time, and within that state,
past elements depend on the future elements, and future elements
depend on the past elements within it. Therefore, an alleged
beginning state with a zero extension in time cannot be the cause of
future events.
As there is change in this world it must have a beginning. Because
either it has a beginning or there is infinite regress or both.
If there is an unchanging beginning within this limited universe, then
starting becomes impossible; but starting is necessary if it is a
deterministic cause of existence for a limited universe.
According to determinism, any state Sn depends on state Sn-1.
However, then we will have infinite regress, since no state is sufficient
by itself to indicate the future states, because it depends on the past
state(s), if determinism is true.
Either any state Sn needs state ‘Sn-1 plus law’ or ‘only law’. If it
requires the former then there is infinite regress. If there is an initial
state which does not need a previous state, this means that this state
happened with no need of law and the law started to interact with
that state at a certain stage before which it was not interacting with
it. But if it started to interact with it this means that there was a
previous state in which it was not interacting with it. This means that
-227-
the state needs a previous state where there was no interaction. In
this situation determinism would be false.
Question 32.
Although there is always change, there is also always the matter
which undergoes the change. So, why would there be a problem of
infinite regress since the matter upon which the changes occur is
present at all stages? A change may be happening because of previous
change, but there is matter that existed before and after the change.
Why would infinite regress be a problem while everything is in
change? There is matter which is stable although changes keep
happening. A change may be happening because of previous change
but there is matter that existed before and after the change. So, this
matter may have an existence of its own which does not need any
other thing, which may be self-sufficient. So, why would the
argument that “if every state depends on a previous state then no
state will have any effect of its own, hence the whole process is with
no basis” be applicable, since there is the stable matter upon which
all changes happen?
Answer 32.
If the matter undergoes change, this means that it is differentiated
and limited, so that the differentiation is an inherent attribute of the
matter. Otherwise, it would be considered as something that is not
differentiated but causes changes in another medium. Hence, it
would be past and future eternal causing consciousness, qualia, and
all other events, and therefore it would be exactly like God. In this
situation, the difference between a physicalism and monotheistic
religion would be just a difference in terminology and names.
The eternal matter as mentioned in the question is very much like a
concept of god.
-228-
Is it the matter without any shape which transcendentally causes the
change or is it the matter which has a specific shape at each stage
and causes a specific change together with its shape? What is matter
with no shape?
Then, in the language of the determinist, it is the shape and the
differentiation which has effective, falsifiable, and measurable causal
power, not the matter. If it is the matter which causes these changes
without changing itself, then it can cause any change hence it is not
bound with the shape. In this case, matter would be assumed to have
free will power. Again, if we accept these, then matter becomes not
much different than a conscious god.
In any case, according to determinism, if there is any shape or state
of the matter at a certain point in time, then we can determine the
past and future states, no matter what the substance of the matter is,
since, a future state would be depending on the differentiation within
the matter in its previous states. If the matter is distinct from the
changes, and cannot be measured based upon changes, this means
that what matters in terms of prediction is the changes relative to
each other, not relative to the matter which cannot be linked to the
changes.
On the other hand, if shape is an inherent feature of the matter, then
the space would have the causal power, because, it would be the shape
which has effective causal power, not the matter; and because the
shape would in any case depend on the structure of the space.
In any case, either the shapes would be dependent upon the previous
shapes, or the matter or the space would be sovereignly causing the
shapes. If the shapes would be dependent upon the previous shapes,
then the problems of determinism I explained would apply.
Also, if the noticeable things were only the shapes at any scale, then
only the relative proportions of the shapes would be detectable, and
-229-
an absolute density or value of the matter would be non-detectable
and non-measurable. This is also reminiscent of a god-like matter.
Hence, the role assigned to the matter in the question is not
compatible with determinism. Also, for the above resons, it is
irrelevant to determinism.
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.12
Why Are the Laws the Way They Are?
The laws are important alleged reasons for determinism. However,
since they are very specific, this question arises: Why they are the
way they are.
So, is there a power behind them upon which they depend? And
since these laws seem to be necessary for the formation of our
universe, is the most fundamental a sovereign power rather than
deterministic laws?
According to current evidences and data, the laws are contingent. In
other words, there is no reason for them to be deterministic,
necessary, or fundamental. Therefore, there is no evidence for
claiming that at the very fundamental level the universe has a
deterministic ultimate basis.
In part 2.2.1.4 about fine-tuning there are further details about this
point.
3.4.1.2.2.1.2.13
Multiverse
An argument to support why the laws of our universe are the way
they are, is the multiverse. Some claim that it is unlikely and weird
that the only actual universe has laws which are so as to enable the
formation of galaxies, stars, atoms, electrons, life, and so on. But if
there are many universes, then, it will be plausible to find ourselves
-230-
within one which enables the formation of the above things and of
the human beings.
Hence, the aspects of the laws which look fine-tuned, push many
people towards the acceptance of a multiverse, although there is no
evidence for it from a physicalist perspective.
Multiverse works against determinism: If there are many universes
where the laws of nature are different, this means that there is no
deterministic principle which requires the laws and their functions to
be fixed or absolute or deterministic. The same applies for a claim
which says that the laws of nature are changing through the stages
of our universe or past and future stages of our universe.
On the other hand, if all universes have some same fundamental
particles/laws, then they are more fine-tuned since they are so as to
produce not only different atoms/DNAs but also different universes.
Additionally, if no common physical law or relationship is necessary
in accordance with a multiverse, and things happen by chance, then
there is no basis for logic, since for most physicalists, outside the
physical, there is nothing.
Multiverse brings more problems than solutions to a physicalist since
it brings in additional conditions to be met: The existence of an
additional atom or any other distinct whole outside our universe
means that additional conditions have been met, additional energy
became existent.
Multiverse is brought in similarly to increasing the number of dice
rolls so as to have a more acceptable probability of getting very
specific numbers. But dice rolls require in the first place some
sustainable systems; hence, in any case multiverse would be an
incomplete solution.
-231-
In any case, there is no empirical evidence for a multiverse as
conceived by its physicalist proponents.
Question 33.
Does not the explanation of God postpone the answer about the
unknowns merely one step backward? Would not we ask where does
God come from?
Answer 33.
Laws even if true as they are presented, do not have sufficient features
so as to answer the fundamental questions. They are not claimed to
be so as to satisfy anyone about why they are the way they are, where
do they come from. Hence, they are not any different than what they
are used to answer; they are irrelevant as answers to the question
“what is the ultimate and real cause of what we observe?”. This is
because they are in any case partial, and biased within their features
and they are contingent.
However, the God according to Islam, who is the Self-Sufficient, the
Default/First and Last, the Eternal is relevant for the above question.
Nothingness can exist neither as a partial nothingness nor as a
general nothingness. Both types of nothingness constitute a
contradiction in terms. Does “nothing” exist as a partial or as a
general nothingness? If it exists, it is not nothing. So, as Parmenides
put it, “that which is” is, “that which is not” is not. So, a very
fundamental and undeniable result of sound logic is that there is an
unbiased, unlimited, absolute “Being” who encompasses all things
and all absolute attributes. Part 2.2.1 explains some further
arguments for God. It is obvious that through our eyeballs we
perceive only limited aspects of things. We see many facts through
the eyes of our reasoning power.
-232-
So, deterministic laws paradigm has too many inconsistencies and
incoherences to be taken seriously as a basis for determinism.
3.4.1.2.2.2 Determinism Is Unsubstantiated
Although determinism is sufficiently refuted in the following parts,
it should be underlined first that any attempt to prove or substantiate
determinism will fail.
We should note here that determinism has the burden of proof; if it
is not proven, we should not assume its truth:
The determinist claims that everything, including the agents, the
alleged self-sufficient spatiotemporal bottom elements (SBE), the
alleged initial beginning state of the universe and the elements of that
state are all deterministic, and all elements of an allegedly eternal
universe are/ were/ will be necessarily deterministic. This claim
creates a burden of proof upon the person who claims it. Because,
the default is non existence of an unsurmountable, necessary bias
toward any direction unless such a bias is proven. And the patterns
that we observe do not constitute a proof for such a necessity, since,
they can also arise from freedom.
Some of the arguments which show that determinism cannot be
substantiated are as follows:
3.4.1.2.2.2.1 There Is No Logical Necessity for Determinism
As we have and will have limited empirical knowledge about the
existence, in order to claim that full determinism is true, we need to
have a logical necessity for it.
Determinism cannot prove empirically its truth. It relates to
infinitesimally small, infinitesimally big, spatiotemporal, and other
relationships. Therefore, a claim for determinism requires a complete
-233-
knowledge about them. We do not have it as of now. And claiming
ownership of such a knowledge at any time will be contradictory,
since it will imply that we know that which is beyond us. Also,
quantum physics, the nature of space and time, and many other
considerations show clearly that there are clear limitations around
our knowledge and measurement abilities.
Logically there is no necessity for determinism. Let us imagine a
universe consisting of limited and/or multiple things, where events
and entities happen in a deterministic way. This determinism would
only be partial. Because, the events included in that universe would
be in any case relative, and not-self-sufficient. That those things have
been part of the same universe, that there is movement which needs
to be measured in units defined in terms of many things would be
proofs that this universe and its contents are contingent. And it
would show that none of its contents is necessary and self-sufficient,
and that they are built upon “units”, “relationships” which require
transcendence and unity. Therefore, the creation would be only a
product of transcendent design, and choice. For further related issues
see part 3.4.1.2.2.5 and other parts about the infinite regress.
3.4.1.2.2.2.2 Determinism Is Against Null Hypothesis
Before making a will, we conceive of alternatives. Like eating the red
candy or white candy. At the end, we will one of them. These are
common points between all parties that discuss free will. The
determinist claims that regarding any will, there is also a cause
beyond the agent that the agent cannot override. He claims that
whatever is the actual will and whatever is the overall case, there was
a necessity for that actual will.
The null hypothesis is that things are the same as each other, or the
same as a theoretical expectation. Normally, one would expect that
-234-
the offspring of chicken would consist of equal number of male and
female chickens, which is the null hypothesis.
If you claim that feeding chocolate to chicken with your method, you
got a higher number of female offspring compared to the male,
people who will invest in your method will need to be convinced that
the deviation from the null hypothsesis is not just a matter of chance.
The burden of proof will be on you.63
So, from a scientific point of view, the determinist will have to prove
that there is always a necessity for a specific alternative. And since
the hard determinist claims that there is not even a limited free will
power, the deterministic claim must be proven for all situations.
3.4.1.2.2.2.3 Determinism Makes Claims About the
Inaccessible
At the root of determinism, there is a faulty generalization as follows:
“Some features of some things are deterministic, so, everything is
deterministic.” This generalization has no logical or empirical basis.
However, if something, if some region, or some layer in the universe
is unpredictable, then the argument of determinism against free will
collapses. Because, if such a thing or layer is possible, then it is also
possible that some agents’ wills are related to this.
A rational person cannot claim to know an inaccessible knowledge.
And it is obvious that we are not in a position to know all layers in
all regions of the universe including our region.
63
(McDonald 2014)
-235-
Furthermore, a rational person cannot claim either that a
deterministic universe is not creatable by a power who is not subject
to deterministic rules.
Additionally, it is not rational to claim that the universe is not
contingent; and if it is contingent then it is not necessary and it may
be made by a Creator who is not subject to determinism. Hence, in
principle free will would be possible.
Determinism, especially regarding the behavior of a physical entity
in the brain, is logically and empirically not proven. And uncertainty
within the quantum realm, empirically disproves that a physical
entity, especially in brain, must behave in a certain way.
Determinism by its nature, must answer the question whether free
will exists or not with a yes or no, without something in between. So,
it claims that there is not even %10-100 free will. If there is even only
such a tiny free will, the principle of determinism collapses.
We do not have any ways to confirm determinism. Hence, in the first
place, there is no reason to accept it. But we have ways to debunk it
some of which are explained in the related parts of this book.
Question 34.
The experiments show that there are laws/ forces that govern the
universe such as gravity, electromagnetic force. And they behave
according to deterministic laws. So, why would not they be proof that
the universe is deterministic?
Answer 34.
These patterns are partial elements of the universe. They apply within
their specific regions and contexts. There are also regions and layers
where we observe unpredictable features, such as seen in the double
-236-
slit experiment. Hence, such patterns are not sufficient to believe that
everything is deterministic.
3.4.1.2.2.2.4 Problem of Induction
Simply put, if we observe that a rock falls with a certain acceleration,
does this mean that it will always fall with that acceleration? Is there
such a necessity? Are our observations in the past about its fall
sufficient evidence to establish a necessary relationship?
Certainly, there is no reason to claim that the repeated events
establish a necessary relationship.
We can empirically observe that establishing a necessity based on
past repeated events is fallacious. For example, we can repeat things,
we can have a machine repeat things, and then we can stop. And we
can clearly see that the repetition does not give us any proof to
establish a logical or empirical necessity for the observed pattern.
Also, we observe that things that behave in a certain pattern within
a certain set of conditions may behave in a different pattern in
another set of conditions. Or as observed in quantum physics,
something that appears to behave in a pattern may behave with no
deterministic pattern under certain setups.
There is no necessity for patterns even if we go to the root of things.
For example, we can observe the waves in an ocean, then we can
observe the behavior of water molecules, and atoms… Even if we see
repeated behavior at an alleged SBEs/ fields, this does not constitute
an evidence that they will behave that way eternally.
Hence, the problem of induction is an important argument against
determinism which has the laws of nature as a key component. If
considered contingent, these laws, are important in being very
-237-
instrumental in developing technology and benefiting from the
universe. They are also important as elements of a contingent design.
But considering them as necessary, hence as a basis for a determinism
is going too far and being fallacious.
3.4.1.2.2.2.5 Unobtainable Qualitative Requirements of
Determinism
Even if we have determined that all particles and fields behave in a
deterministic way, this will not give us sufficient reason to believe in
determinism. Because, a deterministic behavior requires
transcendence in any case:
The fall of a rock on the earth requires an information about the
location of the earth. If the earth’s location changes, then the rocks’
fall will be adjusted. But how does the rock, its atoms, or gravitons,
or gravitational waves, or regions of curved spacetime reach that
information? Why does it fall under some conditions, rather than
rotate around it? Hence, there are alternative regions, alternative
ways for things to happen in any case. And what actually happens is
just one of them.
Hence, even if we observe all physical things behave in patterns, we
will reserve a room for a selective process beyond the spatiotemporal.
3.4.1.2.2.2.6 Unobtainable Quantitative Requirements to
Prove Determinism
If 99% of the universe behaved according to patterns, and only 1%
behaved indeterministically, then most implications of determinism
including predictability would be undermined. Also, if only one atom
in the universe behaved unpredictably, any philosophical justification
-238-
for determinism would be undermined. And many quantum physics
experiments already demonstrate that there are unpredictable events.
3.4.1.2.2.2.7 Quantum Physics
Unprovable.
Makes
Determinism
Determinism cannot be proven because of quantum processes and
quantum physics. Quantum physics and quantum world
demonstrates that there are limitations in measurement that cannot
be overcome. Furthermore, according to very popular interpretations
on quantum phenomena, this impossibility is caused not only
because of the deficiency of our tools, but also because of the
fundamental structure of things.
Question 35.
Even though quantum physics show that determinism cannot be
proven, does not it also show that free will cannot be proven?
Answer 35.
The above issues related to quantum physics are not presented to
prove free will. Free will is demonstrated through other ways.
But determinism is much based on physics. Hence, the above
findings of quantum physics are applicable against determinism.
3.4.1.2.2.2.8 Impossibility to Demonstrate That an Agent
Cannot Will Otherwise.
I may be able to will an alternative, but I may choose not to will it.
If I do not will an alternative, this does not entail that I was not able
to will it. I may be not willing an alternative, because I am able to
not will it. That I may will an alternative does not necessitate that I
-239-
have to will it. That I do not will something does not mean that I
cannot will it. There are many alternatives so I may will any of them.
But I do not have to. If one claims that I had to will an alternative
that I willed, he has to substantiate, but he cannot. He cannot tell me
that I will will to eat the red candy while there is no clear obstruction
for the white one.
3.4.1.2.2.3 One Who Claims That There Is No Free Will
Based on Full Determinism Is Refuting That
Very Claim.
Or do you have a clear proof?
(Quran:37/156)
If determinism is true, then the claim of the proponent of
determinism for determinism has no superior power compared to the
claim of the indeterminist. Because both claims are simply the
outcomes of particles/ fields which do not have any conception of
truth. These claims are just illusions as claims. If there is full
determinism, then a person does not have the ability to assess the
alternatives, and choose that which is closer to the truth. The claim
or any argument related to it is reducible to the movement of particles
and fields which have nothing to do with a real consideration of the
truth or truth values.
A claim of truth requires encompassing what is true and what is false;
it requires a comparison of the true and false; it requires freely
navigating through them. However, in a deterministic realm,
everything that happens is what has to happen. Nothing that must
not be happens, nothing that must not be can happen.
The basis and the producer of the brain processes of someone who
believes that the earth is flat are same with the basis and producer of
the brain processes of someone who believes that the earth rotates. If
-240-
we argue, “the brain processes of someone who believes that the earth
rotates is substantiated with evidence”, according to determinism,
our argument has no superiority related to any criterion of truth as
well. In a fully deterministic universe, a truth claim is nothing but an
illusion.
If determinism is true, then there is neither freedom nor possibility
to reorganize something, or some idea, or some claim, or some
potentials, or self-reorganize in a better way as opposed to a worse
structure. There is no such active agent or power. Any power, is the
slave of the previous and/or undergoing spatiotemporal causes/
processes.
If determinism is true, then there is no transcendent power which
can observe beyond an illusion, the effect of a cause on multiple
things, and which can make deductions.
Also, if determinism is true, then there is no reason, logic, design,
purpose, transcendent unity, absolute or relative truth64 underlying
what we observe in the physical world other than illusions. Hence,
in this environment, if a determinist makes a reference to reason,
logic, purpose, right and wrong, these have no implications. They are
epiphenomal with no concrete implication, but with just an illusory
feeling65. Therefore, if a determinist claims that what he says is
superior, he will also be acting dishonestly and he will be defending
what he does not believe in. If he truly believes in what he says, then
he is inconsistent.
The claim of the determinist would be assuming that everything
happens not because of reason, but because of physical patterns,
64
If there is no truth underlying what we observe, then what we observe is
likely an illusion. Maybe we can only have the truth of an illusion.
65 For downward causation see part 3.5.6.4.2.6.
-241-
which do not have anything to do with consciousness, concepts,
reason, or freedom.
For the above reasons, the rejection of free will based on
determinism, is a non starter as an idea. The one who denies free will
based on determinism is like someone who says “my claims are
unsubstantiated”. If they do not have free will they should stop
arguing, because such argumentation is just something
deterministic66. You may see a meaningful sentence on the screen, or
a static; they should have the same truth value for a determinist, since
they are the outcome of no unity. On that static, there may appear
things that look like some animals here and there. Even some of them
may appear as if they are running after a pray. However, we should
not assign any truth, goodness, evilness, or any meaning to it. For a
determinist who claims to be consistent, they are just the outcomes
of physical patterns, and their actual, allegedly logical claims should
be no different.
A concept, a meaning, or a truth value can exist only in its
relationship to other things, within unity and related transcendence.
Considering oneself as authorized to evaluate and be superior to a
physical law is contradictory with saying that everything consists of
physical laws and entities. Because then the evaluation is just
something epiphenomenal and illusory.
As opposed to the above, Islam teaches that there are laws/ patterns,
and dimensions are not restricted to the patterns and some
dimensions. Hence, there is room for freedom, truth, and so on
wherein the agents can have judgments overriding some patterns,
66
If it was indeterministic, the same would also apply. At a higher level, the
problem here pertains to physicalism and physicalists as well.
-242-
and can navigate through the more reasonable and less reasonable,
and are free to choose the more reasonable.
By the way, in terms of decision making, responsibility, and risk
management there is a noteworthy point especially for those who
care about truth and are not decided about determinism and
existence of free will: If one believes in free will but he is wrong, then
he is not in bad situation for a determinist, because determinism
caused him to believe that way. If a person believes in determinism
but in fact, he is free then he does not have any excuse. This is like
Pascal's wager. So, if none is knowable, belief in free will is more
rational and safer in terms of responsibility. Lack of knowledge of
free will requires that we behave as if we have free will.
Question 36.
Is not it possible that through evolution and natural selection strong
reasoning processes may have developed? Because selection would
allow and favor the survival of the fittest and the organizations/ life
forms with best reasoning processes.
Answer 36.
In determinism things must be what they have been.
There are four important points here:
Firstly, the particles had to move how they moved according to laws
of physics. So, no species and no process would add anything to what
happens. An atom within a dog had to behave the way it does
whether it is part of a dog or part of a rock. Even if the legs of the
dogs get stronger, under determinism, this is no distinct addition. It
is like a random shape in a cloud. The dog is just an epiphenomenal
thing. The strengthening of its legs may equally trigger a process
which will cause its extinction. This behavior is traceable starting
-243-
from the big bang. According to determinism, if we were able to scan
all the fields of the big bang, we could project all the shapes that
would unfold from that initial specific state. Whatever dog would be
born with whatever features was already encoded within the
components and internal differentiations of that initial state.
In determinism there are states and laws of nature as effective causes.
Since microscopic particles cannot negate physical laws, DNAs
cannot but occur or disappear as their subparticles require in
accordance with physical laws. Whether they occur within a cat or
not, does not matter for them. If a group of particles constitute a
computer, there is no basis to say that it is superior to another group
which does not constitute a laptop. We say now that there is
difference between the two. But we say that because explicitly or
implicitly we assume the reality of our distinct transcendence.
According to determinism, our transcendence is an anomaly and an
illusion.
If only the time was reversed as of now, then living things would
devolve, and everything would go back ending up in the primordial
soup. So, according to determinism evolution is only epiphenomenal,
in other words, it is not effective. As such, according to determinism,
it cannot add any rationality to anything.
If we assume that we are just a bunch of particles in parallel with
determinism, what we say cannot be assigned a distinct truth value.
When we say atoms in a laptop or organized as a laptop produce
better results, we speak as an agent who transcends both groups of
particles and who is able to make a comparison by encompassing
transcendentally the things that we compare. But in determinism we
cannot make this claim; if we make it, it is without any effect, without
any use. Our particles are bumping one onto another and this illusion
happens. So, by this claim a determinist would be negating himself.
-244-
Let us take the example of rocks near the top of a mountain.
According to determinism and evolution, in the course of time, the
rock rolls, and when it rolls, it becomes rounder, and if/ when it
becomes rounder it rolls further. Each rolling makes some changes
on its surface that corresponds to data. And as it rolls more and
collects more data, maybe theoretically it can be predictable that it
will become rounder and more prone to rolling. So, it is more
preferable to roll more relatively to the goal of surviving more as a
rolling rock. Yet the rock does not have any means to change
anything about itself or its rolling. And as there is no consciousness,
more rolling cannot be a more preferred state as opposed to nonrolling state, since the rock may never say “this is the willable/
preferable state /feeling” or this is “unpreferable/ unwillable state”.
It cannot say or develop in a being which can say “I will what I willed
not, or I will not what I have willed, or this must/must not happen”.
No paradox of free will/ responsibility may arise from the rock. If
there is not willable or unwillable situation, then responsibility is not
imaginable. According to physicalist determinism, there is no law
that relates to consciousness, which will equal physical laws, or which
will be superior to or exert power on physical laws, or which will
have “must be” or “ought to be” predicates which will make physical
laws unpredictable. Even if there are laws which connect the mental
with the physical, they can only be laws so that the spatiotemporal
affects the mental; the conscious would not affect the spatiotemporal.
So, did the fittest develop as an outcome of determinism, or was it
already present within the “random” state of the universe just a
second after the big bang?
Under determinism, there is token/ exact correspondence between
what happens billions of years later, and the physical state of the
universe right after the big bang. Events happening billions of years
later, or alleged processes of selection add nothing new and useful to
the state of the universe which was present just a second after the big
-245-
bang. So, how would each individual particle move billions of years
later, was also contained at that instant. Whether the movement was
in a “reasoning process” of a conscious being who conceived concepts
and logic, or flowing of a river does not differ. The particle behaves
what the laws of nature require in the specific condition. Hence, what
appears to us as reasoning processes just corresponds to the somehow
existing state of the universe at that instant. And a determinist,
cannot even call it a reasoning process; since reasoning process is a
transcendent concept which contains elements that cannot be
separated by space, time, anything else. It should be noted that even
if some elements were random, this would not add any relevant and
valuable reasonability to the deterministic processes.
According to determinism what survives depends entirely on the
initial state, not how competitive is any epiphenomenal being. The
sub-particles are assumed to behave in accordance with physical laws,
though there is no reason to postulate the physical laws as the
ultimate ones. That particles/ fields constitute a shape of a human
being is just a coincidence of which neither the particles nor any
other being are aware. If there is some awareness about such a thing,
then this is an illusion. If the determinism is true, then the shapes
cannot have any additional causal effect. If the initial state was
different, then what survived in the actuality could not survive, and
would not be good.
A behavior that would cause a survival according to that initial state,
could cause destruction according to another initial state. If a human
being had not survived, maybe, much better human beings would
survive. If a thought had not occurred, maybe, much better thoughts
might have occurred. So, according to determinism the survival of
any specific being and its features have nothing to do with its
nearness to the truth.
-246-
So, if we claim the truth of determinism, we cannot say that the
human beings developed through a selective process and therefore
what they claim to be true and must overlap with the ontological
reality.
Secondly, when the above implications of determinism are not taken
into account, the natural selection process is fundamentally based on
the destruction of the unfit rather than the selection of the fittest,
since it does not explain well how the fit comes up. But for the
survival of the fit first the fit must appear and then secondly it must
survive. Evolution does not say anything about the first but focuses
on the second which is less relevant. Hence, we cannot say that the
evolution adds something in terms of reasonability.
Thirdly, there are multiple widely held opposing views, religions and
so on some of which necessarily must be false, even though they are
all claimed by evolutionists to be the outcomes of natural selection.
This means that the alleged physicalist evolution67 does not
distinguish between the true and the false.
Fourth, is survival an indicator of truth? If it is an indicator, what
amount of it is sufficient? And what does survival mean objectively?
Is it the continuation of a set of conscious activities? Or rather, since
consciousness does not fit as a really effective thing, does survival
equal to the continuation of a specific structure? Is the average of
some years of the continuation of a structure sufficient to show that
the being has proven its efficiency, or truth of his acts? So, for
example, it may be said that planets survive more, especially if
consciousness is considered as illusory. And therefore, according to
determinism, the rationality and its alleged outcome of better survival
67
Note that there is also an Islamic kind of evolution with no hard
determinism and as a consequence of the all-inclusive design and guidance of
God combined with His other methods of creation. We will not go into its
details, since it is beyond the scope of this book.
-247-
advantage would be irrelevant? By the way, why would not physical
size be a criterion for being superior; hence, since reason does not
make things bigger should not it be considered as something less
useful in terms of evolution? This questions cannot be answered by
determinism in a satisfactory way.
Determinism undermines concepts as “truth”, “better”, “worse”, and
so on. Survival advantage and natural selection cannot be proposed
rationally as a basis for the “better” and “worse”. If point-like
spatiotemporal interactions produce some shapes at larger scales,
these shapes have no reality and implication in terms of allegedly real
and concrete point-like realm.
According to Islam, since there is God, and since God is sentient,
Designer, and absolute, and since He has assigned consequences to
good and to evil, these concepts have a sound basis and clear
outcomes.
Moreover, let us assume for a moment that evolution is true and not
epiphenomenal upon the physical processes upon which the feelings
of beauty, pain… appeared, survived. Beings wanted to keep enjoying
the beauties, and flee from hunters, and these helped these structures
to continue more. This means that some elements of future also exist
in the present structures, since they want to maintain their joy, and
not to suffer in the future. Hence, evolution would be a strong
argument against determinism, and purpose would be also a part of
the universe. This is what is observed empirically at least by human
beings, though some determinists will claim that this observation is
illusory. Yet, they take their such illusory outcomes as the basis of
their claim that this observation is illusory.
Hence, in any case, time and space are transcended by some beings.
Since time is transcended by some beings, this means that at least in
some regions/ instances, there is no sequential causality. If alternative
states can coexist within the mind of the agent, and if this is real,
-248-
then there must be ontologically corresponding elements in the
related dimensions. Some states are equally feasible or willable by the
agent. Some states are equally feasible if there is a challenge against
their equal feasibility as in the tests in part 3.4.12.1. Other influences
of other things may prevail in the absence of a challenge whose effect
is bigger than the effect of other influencers.
Therefore, transcendence is an important aspect of the agent, which
has no relevance to determinism and related reductionism. The
alleged survival advantage of the alleged deterministic process of
evolution is incompatible with this transcendence, hence with any
reasonability of the agent that issues from this transcendence.
What “must” happen for the survival of the agent is incompatible
with determinism. In determinism, we cannot talk of what must
happen; we can talk only of what happens after a certain state.
Therefore, claims and related arguments of an agent about what must
happen cannot be the outcome of a deterministic evolutionary
process. Hence, the agent who claims to be rational regarding what
must happen, because of being an outcome of a selective evolutionary
process, is inconsistent.
The agent does not have an existence distinct from the underlying
physical processes, and he does not have a distinct effect, and he does
not have distinct ought to be truths (OTBT). However, a key aspect
of reasoning and truth is what must happen. Any one of his claims
about what is good for an agent, will have no superiority of being
correct, if he is to be consistent as a determinist. We will explain the
details of OTBT in part 3.6.2.
Logically it is impossible to say that we do not have free will, because
when we say this, we admit free will. It is like writing “I cannot
write”. Saying “I do not have free will”, is like saying “I cannot reach
a conclusion”. When I say the latter which is a conclusion, in fact I
-249-
confirm that I reached a conclusion. Thus, I will be contradicting
myself. It is like saying “I willed to say that I cannot will”, because
he certainly willed to say that. If he did not will to say that, then he
said that without any intention. So, a claim of a determinist is exactly
like the fall of a rock.
If it is like the fall of a rock, then it does not have any truth value,
since the fall of a rock is something contingent, and as such, without
any consideration, he has to admit that the one who says the opposite
is equally true. Thus, this leads to a contradiction, and he is not in a
position to make any claim. Thus, the determinist cannot say
anything about any evil, or any justice, or blame or praise; about their
existence or non-existence. Similar arguments are also applicable for
the reductive physicalist.
3.4.1.2.2.4 Negators Against Determinism
Indeed, Allah [alone] has knowledge of the Hour and sends
down the rain and knows what is in the wombs. And no soul
perceives what it will earn tomorrow, and no soul perceives
in what land it will die. Indeed, Allah is Knower and Aware.
(Quran: 31/34)
There are three facts that negate the deterministic processes: (1) Free
will power negation, (2) ought to be truth (3) logic. These contain
elements that negate or can negate some deterministic processes.
3.4.1.2.2.4.1 Free Will Power Negation
In part 3.4.12.1 I explain in the FWP negation tests that if the
universe was deterministic, then its implications could be negated. In
this part, I will give a small summary of the broad picture.
-250-
If we know the predictions about some future states, we can change
some predictions. In this respect, determinism is something which
produces a contradiction.
If I know that x will happen, and I do not want it then I may do y to
prevent it. If I know all causes and I can forecast what I will do then
I can negate that. So, if determinism is true, then its opposite is
possible as well, hence, there is a contradiction. Hence, determinism
is impossible.
Let us give another example based on a simple universe. In this
universe, there is a simple law/ first degree formula for the trajectory
of a rock; and its initial position is known. The rock will fall in a
specific region68. At a prior time well before the stone approaches a
specific setup, there is a prediction about on which region the rock
will land. And there is also a switch and a machine connected to it.
If the rock is predicted to fall onto region R1, the machine changes
the position of its plate to position P1 from position P0 so as to
change the direction of the rock to make it land onto region R2; and
if it is predicted to fall onto R2, the machine changes the position of
the plate from position P0 to position P2 so as to make the rock fall
to R1. This mechanism is depicted in the following:
68 Note that we do not claim that the negation can happen in all situations. In
some structures, the prediction may be prevented, in some situations not. The
same applies for the agent as well. For example, if a big meteor will hit the
earth, and there will be no possibility to do/ will a certain act, then there is no
free will power. But if there is no limitation in the means, this also can be
negated.
-251-
FIGURE-2: MECHANICAL PROBLEM OF DETERMINISTIC
PREDICTION
So, a true prediction that cannot be negated by the machine is
impossible69. And this is so, even though this universe is as
deterministic as our imagination allows. The mechanism of the
machine also will be taken into account in the prediction. The reason
is that whatever may be the prediction, the machine will reverse it.
An important problem causing this is that two moments’
implications are tried to fit in one moment, in other words, two
opposing states are tried to fit into one state. However, a more
fundamental problem behind this, is that these multiple momentary
states constitute one whole. The states of different moments do not
only define each other, rather, they constitute a new whole. The
prediction would combine to contradictory events: The rock will land
on R1, and the rock will not land on R1, since any prediction is
followed by its negation.
Can we say that the setup cannot have a prediction since it does not
have access to all of its particles? Access to such details is irrelevant.
Since, the setup has access to the previous trajectory of the rock, and
69
This is not necessarily because of a conscious agent, since a similar setup
may in principle appear without conscious agents.
-252-
it is well confirmed that whatever is the trajectory of the rock, the
setup can be changed accordingly. For example, if the access to all of
its particles produces a prediction that the rock will fall on R1, then
the setup will change its position to position P1.
Is it a good counter-argument to say that if the setup did not have
access to the prediction, then it could not negate it? Let us suppose
that the setup is ready, and the rock is approaching the setup. Let us
assume that someone outside this universe observes it without
influencing it. He predicts before the rock reaches the setup what will
happen. But the setup does not have access to his prediction. Then,
the prediction would not be negated. Determinism claims that always
and in principle future states are predictable based on previous states
and the laws. This does not contain a condition of inaccessibility of
the prediction. There is no necessity that the prediction would not
be connected to the setup. Furthermore, if the setup can negate the
prediction when the prediction is known, then it has the capacity to
negate it when it is not known. Knowing the prediction does not
have any influence in reducing the power of the negator since the
negator cannot get out of determinism. Knowing the prediction, has
an influence of reducing the power of the prediction. Therefore, if
while having access to the prediction the setup can negate the
prediction, cancelling the setup’s access to the prediction has no
effect to reduce its potential power to negate the prediction had it
had access to that information.
This example has implications against reductionism as well: The
setup with its sensors detects at time T1 where the rock is headed.
The universe does not have any complexity to disable any knowledge.
But the setup will also consider its own structure to get the prediction
and to negate the prediction contained within that universe. If it takes
its structure as well into account, then to find a prediction that it
cannot negate, it has to deny itself. Because otherwise, whatever is a
prediction, its negation is combined with it. Particles are not all that
-253-
have effective causal power. The setup is also a distinct reality. Setup
is an effective part of the prediction. Here, we come to the irrational
influence of reductionism: If we reduce the setup to its smallest
elements, how do we know that these smallest elements are not
reducible? Any such smallest elements would be explained in terms
of other things as well. Hence, this example shows that the
predictability as claimed by determinists is impossible -unless there
is a power who has some control over all things-. But more
importantly, it shows this impossibility based on the reality of wholes
who can have overriding power over their parts.
The conclusion is that there are situations where deterministic
prediction is impossible in principle and must be discarded in favor
of the negators. Since there are human beings, this impossibility is
actual as well. Also, even if there were no human or other
transcendent beings, there is no rational basis to claim that setups
similar to the above are not possible.
In determinism, every cause that produced a will, is considered as
being a coercive cause: If a beggar asked a person 'would you give
me one dollar' and if the person gives it then it is assumed that the
request of the beggar compelled him to give that money -of course
the beggar was also compelled to beg by previous events-. According
to opponents of free will, if the person gave, he did not have any
other choice; if he did not give, again he did not have any other
choice. But in fact, some choices are compelling some are only
influencing and not compelling. The above deterministic
presuppositions for the non-existence of free will power are
unjustified.
As underlined in the last quoted verse above, the rule is
unpredictability except for God who is One.
If I knew not only deterministic things, but uncertain things, then I
could change them as well, as explained in the following parts.
-254-
There are some implications of free will power negation:
1.
It does not affect only the predictability which relates to
future, but also the very interaction of will with the so-called laws of
nature.
2.
At least in some situations, there is no law or no combination
of laws which causes one will a certain thing.
3.
A human being may negate the requirements of his own
truth, since they (the things that MUST BE -as not smoking-) can be
the components of deterministic processes.
Question 37.
One can know that he will go to work the next day. Does not this
show that things can be predicted?
Answer 37.
Nobody can give the guarantee that he will go to work the next day.
And note that some things are and must be predictable to some
extent in order to exercise free will power effectively. But only Allah
encompasses the future. The future is encompassable. But not
through determinism.
I will present very detailed FWP negation experiments related to the
free will power in part 3.4.12.1.
3.4.1.2.2.4.2 Ought to Be Truth Negator
The determinist says that a rock must fall, or that a photon must
proceed a certain way. And these are considered to be effective laws.
-255-
But they do not recognize the requirements of agents as effective. An
agent does not will to enter fire, this relates to the ought to be truth70
(OTBT) of the agent. We often say “I must do this”, “I must go
there”, “I must not fail in the exam”, “you must not use drugs”, “this
had not to happen”.
However, in an allegedly deterministic universe where everything is
supervenient upon fields and laws, what can be the cause of these
preferred or “must be” future states? Why do consciousness and
qualia appear in such a universe? Why would they be considered
ineffective?
There is no reason to make a distinction between these two types of
events so as to consider some as totally ineffective. Hence, there are
things that should happen in a certain way according to our wholes
and our qualia. And as the law that we name which implies that the
stone must fall a certain way, our very qualia which require things to
be a certain way are also real. Likewise, our free will power to act
according to any kind of patterns or qualia or truth is also real. And
there is no reason to claim that they can never oppose others or
interact with them.
Hence, the FWP negation experiments can be done against the laws
of nature in favor of our ought to be truths and wholes.
3.4.1.2.2.4.3 Logic Negator
In a deterministic universe are we entitled to say that we are being
logical? Or are we entitled to claim that our argument complies with
the truth? Is our claim that our argument complies with the truth,
an outcome of particles bumping one onto another deterministically
or indeterministically? When we say “this premise is wrong”, what
70
OTBT is explained in detail in part 3.6.2.2.
-256-
do we mean by “this premise”? If it is a syntax or sequence of symbols
that occurred through deterministic processes, what do we reject/
negate, and what is that which negates? Are these negations only
illusions? What is the difference between an illusion and any qualia
or conclusion which is not an illusion?
Obviously, for many things, when we say this is true, or this is false,
we believe that our statement is not an illusion. Hence, again, the
deterministic processes are negated in another layer. And these
negations have implications in the real world, in other words, in the
layers which allegedly run under the control of deterministic or
probabilistic laws of nature.
Therefore, we cannot say that determinism is a fundamental principle
unless we reject our potential for logic and consistency. If we claim
that a claim has a truth value and “must be” implication, and can be
used so as to make a difference in the universe, then we believe that
the allegedly deterministic laws of nature can be superseded by our
intellectual powers.
3.4.1.2.2.5 Infinite Regress
If a girl is caused by her mother, and her mother is caused by her
grand-mother… until infinity, does any mother fully explain the
existence of the chain or of any person in the chain? No.
Even if the causes are of different kind, the same issue applies as long
as they are all non-self-sufficient, and/or contingent.
If determinism is true, then there is infinite regress, and nothing has
any effect over anything. Because everything and every act fully
depends on the past. But if everything depends on its past, then there
is nothing that has any effective influence, since there will be no stage
which is self-sufficient.
-257-
The infinite regress does not only relate to the above sequential
aspect of determinism. It also relates to its mechanisms and
structures: If the law is like a processor that processes state S1, and
gets state S2; then processes S2, and gets state S3, these would happen
according to which procedure contained in the law? So, there must
be a transcendent principle in it, if it is a law. But if there is a
deterministic principle in it, then this principle will require a higherlevel principle which will relate its internal relationships. This will
require a further higher principle for the similar reason, and so on.
Hence, this will lead to an infinite regress of a different kind.
Moreover, determinism requires reductionism as explained in part
3.4.1.2.2.8. If this is the case, then any whole is just reducible to parts.
Parts acting and having values only relatively to each other requires
that all parts constitute a unity, and depend on a holistic connection.
So, if things behave relatively to other things, this means that they
behave as a whole, hence the act of each item relatively to the whole
is meaningful, and, we should consider the events as the action of a
whole. This is another aspect of infinite regress of determinism.
3.4.1.2.2.6 Determinism Entails That Past and Future Is
Static as in the B Theory of Time.
According to determinism, in every moment, the laws are also
contained. Hence, the information and energy of the entire states is
contained within any moment, since any past state and its laws are
sufficient to produce all future states. So, no moment’s state produces
a new information, or any change in the information. Therefore, no
act of a human being is influenced/ caused by any past event, since
no past event produces any change.
If we imagine a block universe in a B-theory of time, what we mean
will become clearer: Imagine that every event is present and frozen
as in a 4D framework. Which part will cause another part? No part
-258-
has any effect. Actually, relativity theory also complies with this,
hence facing similar problems among others.
So, for example, if determinism is true then evolution is false as an
effective process. Because every future life form already exists within
any one of the previous moments. There is no survival effort, since
there is no need for any effort, there is no real effort. Whatever
happens would necessarily happen.
Whatever caused any initial state and its details, has also caused all
states. In that initial state, not only any species that would appear
were necessitated, but also, what a specific member of that species
would eat at a specific second was fixed.
On the other hand, no state has caused another state according to
determinism, since any state must be a predictable result of past
states. If any state appeared out of randomness, then determinism
would be debunked since we will have to admit processes outside
determinism. Hence, determinism must submit to either randomness
or infinite regress, any of which requires the rejection of
determinism.
A determinist may say “let us assume that randomness happened at
the initial state”. However, randomness would not be a remedy for
the problem. Because in order to obtain randomness, first that which
became or is random must exist. In order to have a random pair of
numbers, first we must have the dice or things that correspond to
dice. Supposing that a state with a time slice of zero width is sufficient
to start the deterministic chain, then in that time slice there must be
elements that appear out of nowhere, in a specific region, with
necessary attributes and connections.
-259-
3.4.1.2.2.7 A Moment of Time Cannot Contain the
Future.
Determinism says that the future may be determined based on a past
state and applicable physical laws. How much does this state extend
in time?
If it extends for more than one moment, in a time bracket whose
width is more than zero, then we can conclude that there is a range
in which determinism does not apply: Because inside this simple
range which has an extension in time, there is a relative future which
does not depend and which is not explainable based on the past
contained within that range. In this range, the past and future must
not be separated in order to define any movement. Note that the
same will apply for that past within that range.
In other words, if the time width of a non-separable state is more
than zero, then within that width there would be no causal
connection and determinism would not be applicable within it, hence
full determinism would be discarded for the reasons explained above.
If a state is in non-separable relationship with a state beyond its
immediate vicinity, then there will be no deterministic relationship,
since this relationship is non-separable. If a state directly interacts
with another state which is distant in the future or in the past, which
is separated by other states in between, then we cannot talk of
determinism since, the states in between will not be sufficient to
predict that future state.
If the time width of a non-separable state was more than zero, then
there would be a fundamental direction which cannot be reversed.
This situation in the microscopic scale would correspond to the
direction of light signals from the lamp to the book and through
nerve cells to the memory cells. The reductive physicalist has hard
-260-
time answering why the opposite process does not happen. But
determinism would require for the reasons in this part, that there is
at least a minimally small state in which there must be such
irreversible processes.
Also, if we assume the existence of the applicable law in each
moment, the definition of a law and its equation requires the
simultaneous existence of more than one moments.
Imagine three objects which move each in a trajectory from past
infinity to future, and which do not intersect. Can their past be
ontologically separable from their future? Is one moment with zero
extension in time sufficient to explain what is going on “in that
moment” for example with a falling stone and its direction? Or do
we need two points in time to have at least a simple vector to define
a movement? Or do we need more than two points in time in order
to define it or more complex movements? Obviously, only in
theoretical situations two points in time might be sufficient to
understand what is going on in a present specific moment. A
movement cannot fit into and defined by a moment of zero-width. If
it is the law that which provides the direction of the movement in
terms of time, then the law must contain this range. Hence to define
any moment or event we need more than one non-separable points
in time.
If this is true, then in any case, a set of past and future that are nonseparable as causing and defining one another, is necessary in order
to define a movement, an event, or a state. A moment of zero-width
in time cannot be contained in another moment like this.
Therefore, a state cannot be reduced to the contents of one moment.
So, there is at least one past to which, “what is going on now” is not
reducible; there is at least one past which is non-separable from its
immediate future, which constitute a unity, which does not have any
-261-
sequential causal effect on its non-separable future. These past and
future of that minimal time-slice, are so that its internal future is not
reducible to its internal past, and they are complementary for a whole
and they are non-separable.
Now, another question is this: Are two points in time sufficient to
define a movement? If this movement of one object is represented by
an equation of a first degree, then theoretically it can be possible. But
if this equation is of second or more degrees, then two points in time
will not be sufficient to define this movement. And if there are
multiple objects which influence the trajectories of other objects, and
which start and end into other trajectories, and if we do not know
the degree of the equation of each object, then there will be no limit
to the number of the moments and to the extent of the range which
are necessary for the existence, and definition of these movements
necessary to define a state, and hence to predict a future state.
For sufficient precision of what is going on, we need a range for this
that is constituted probably from an infinity of instances.
So, what is the minimum range of movement or of events that would
be sufficient in order to predict the future? Assuming that there will
be such a minimum range, requires many presuppositions including
that the laws are unchangeable, that the degree of the related
equations are sufficiently limited, and that we have infinitely precise
information about infinitesimally small points within a certain range.
Above we have seen that at least a set of two non-separable points in
time are necessarily to be combined outside causality in order to have
and to define a movement/ an event. Now, if determinism is true,
the past state within this smallest set will be non-separably connected
to at least one other state of a previous moment with a minimal and
non-zero-width time-slice. From another perspective, it is
indispensable to see that the other sets are not and cannot be
-262-
separated from other such sets: Because each state does not consist
of a single point/ particle which moves, and all minimal moments
related to each particle are intertwined.
Therefore, as opposed to determinism, we understand that the states
cannot be separated in order to build one upon the other.
There is a need for an explanation for the whole because there is no
necessity, possibility, or justification to separate any part of the entire
patterns/ states from the others. On the other hand, if one part is
explained by a past part, then it is not any explanation because past
part is also a future part for an older past part.
Hence each moment would be necessary in order to know the future
where there is a circularity and from where we conclude that each
moment has a distinct contribution in the development of the system.
Ergo each moment and its contents have effective causal power.
Actually, the above is in harmony with our consciousness, will power,
experience, and their transcendence: I perceive the future, and I
shape the present in accordance with the potentials in the future. If
I transcend time in a way to be above it and to create negating
scenarios then this means that I am in a higher dimension that
encompasses the time and states in a unity. Sovereign wholes who
transcend moments are sustained by the One Power, and they can
interact with other sovereign wholes.
But if there is this higher, more real, and more effective dimension,
then other things and time as well must be defined, connected, and
operating in accordance with it. So, whatever the number of allegedly
deterministic dimensions or relationships, there is also a dimension
where these allegedly deterministic dimension sets can be controlled
and managed. Unilocality observed in quantum physics demonstrate
that the allegedly deterministic relationships are just parts of bigger
reality that we can perceive with some of our limited capacities.
-263-
Interpretations in favor of retrocausality in quantum physics also
support this.
Another point related to the above is whether a state can appear out
of nothing: Each state is a reality combined with its applicable laws.
If according to determinism, the future is something new, produced
by the past state, then where does it come from? It “was not”, but
“now” it is? What increases the number of states through time?
Because a past state and future state have the same nature. The past
state does not have a production capacity of its own superior to the
future state; it is allegedly a result of the past states. According to
determinism, neither the past state can contain the future state, nor
the future state can contain the past state since they are extended in
time. Within the same coordinate system if every region is selfcontained, then there may be no relationship, and no region or point
can be defined, except if they are connected within a higher
dimension.
Under the light of the above explanation, another contradiction of
determinism appears: we conclude that if determinism is true, then
prediction is impossible. Firstly, because if determinism is true, the
overlapping of the prediction with what happens in the future can
only be a coincidence. Again, negating a prediction would also be a
coincidence because what will the negator do is not connected to the
predictor. They are determined separately. Secondly, because
prediction means instantiation of a moment in another moment, in
other words, the future state is instantiated earlier within the
prediction. However, if determinism is true then no two moments
can fit in a moment. Because, if two moments can fit in one moment,
then, negation would also be possible and there would be
contradiction. So, determinism is a self-contradicting concept in
many dimensions.
-264-
3.4.1.2.2.8 Physicalist Reductionism Is False
The unsubstantiated claim that everything is reducible to
spatiotemporal entities and relationships is at the basis of
determinism. The line of thought that connects physical
reductionism and determinism is as follows: The human being is seen
as reducible to his atoms, electrons, fields… Hence, if we explain their
behaviors, then allegedly, we will have explained how a human being
behaves and wills. Those things behave in accordance with
deterministic or probabilistic laws. But the latter laws may be
probabilistic just because of our lack of means to determine their
precise course of action. In any case, it is unlikely that something
behaves in a certain way with no reason. Therefore, determinism is
the only clear and plausible approach.
So, the refutation of reductive physicalism will also show why
determinism is false. More specifically, for example, if my will power
is not reducible to the behavior of my atoms and so on, then
determinism will be shown to be false.
Part 3.5.6.4.2 refutes reductionism with obvious strong reasons. The
falsity of physical reductionism demonstrates that human beings,
animals, qualia, and preferences are as real as the atoms, electrons,
and their patterns.
Once, a will is not reducible to the deterministic entities and
relationships, then there will be a need for strong arguments against
our immediate experience of sovereignty which are clearly
demonstrated in tests in part 3.4.12.1. And in the absence of such
arguments, there will be no reason to accept determinism.
Note that among the arguments against reductionism, I put also the
falsity of determinism. The falsity of each supports the falsity of the
other. However, there is no circularity here, since there are many
-265-
reasons for the falsity of each which are different than the reasons
for the falsity of the other.
3.4.1.2.2.9 Quantum Physics Disproves Determinism
Determinism requires separated sequence of unidirectional causes.
On the other hand, it requires uniformity of laws and indirectly a
uniformity of structures. However, superposed states, non-separable
parts, totally different mechanisms related to quantum phenomena
and quantum physics framework demonstrate that neither a
sequentiality based on separability, nor the presumed unity of laws
required for determinism are possible.
Question 38.
Even if there is uncertainty in quantum physics, there are also
probabilistic patterns. Does not this imply that there is a determinism
underlying uncertainty?
Answer 38.
When there is uncertainty, this overrides patterns because though
there is a pattern on the screen, the order of positions, or each
position in the sequence is unpredictable. Hence, the behavior of
each particle is unpredictable even though there are some predictable
aspects.
The points for uncertainty must be understood in our context only
as some auxiliary explanations in favor of FWP.
On the other hand, note that the findings of quantum physics are
used in this book only to disprove determinism, not to prove
uncertainty or indeterminism. As explained in part 3.4.2, uncertainty
or indeterminism defined briefly as events with no cause is also to be
discarded according to the Quranic teaching.
-266-
3.4.1.2.2.9.1 Quantum Phenomena Disprove an AllEncompassing Sequentiality.
Before explaining the implications of quantum physics regarding
determinism, let us underline some important aspects of determinism
that are relevant to this section:
Determinism implies that an event at time T2 is determined based
on another event at time T1: If the first one influences a second thing
which is in another “spatial” region, the second is influenced with no
power to influence the first in the same “spacetime” region. An object
O1 in location L1 influences an object O2 in location L2
unipotentially, and O2 may influence O1 in L1. But when for
example O2 is influenced, it is allegedly influenced at time T2, which
is different than the time T1 of the origination of the influence by
O1. So, in terms of spacetime, O2 in spacetime location SL2 is only
dependent in spacetime location SL1 and can never influence O1 in
spacetime location SL1. So, each position is strictly and distinctly
separated from the other. Therefore, spatial separation is
indispensable in determinism, and it is the basis of the sequentiality.
Past-future relationship is a function of space and the alleged distance
between the past present and future is because of speed which is a
function of spatial distance. So, the state two of the universe is
claimed to be separate because it takes time for all objects and waves
to change their locations.
However, the time that things take is a function of space and speed
of things. And speed is defined based on relative change in space.
Time is a measure built on unification of spatial change. Time is
reducible to space in terms of physics, if we put aside consciousness
and so on.
-267-
And if space is no distance as shown in quantum physics then there
is no room for determinism. Certain quantum phenomena
demonstrate that locality is false, therefore, space is not an
insurpassable absolute or relative distance.
The need for the tests about certain quantum phenomena arose
because of the difficulty to determine the position and momentum of
a particle at the same time. Because, in order to determine them they
needed to be changed. When we fire a photon to a particle, to detect
where it is, we change the position of the particle significantly. And
as of now, there is no observatory tool, -such as a particle small
enough to get information from a photon for example without
affecting its position or velocity- which will not change the measured
attributes significantly.
This difficulty produced a solution based on determining different
features of different entangled particles which have interacted, and
combining their data in order to determine both the position and the
momentum of a particle. So, determining the position of one, and
the momentum of the other would give the wanted answers. But to
do this, all data about one of the entangled photons must not be
influenced by the measurement of the other photon. If the
measurement of one of the entangled photons influences the other
entangled photon, then the goal would not be achieved. Because, it
would be like firing at the same particle and changing what we
wanted to measure.
Since these phenomena are very different than what we generally
experience, they may be difficult to understand for some. So, I will
give a simple example first: Imagine that Ali and John are in very
distant locations; and they have been given envelopes, and in each
envelope, there is a paper with a shape of either a triangle, or a
rectangle, or a circle. After mixing all envelopes sufficiently, first, they
number the closed envelopes in order as 1, 2, 3… and open the
-268-
envelopes simultaneously for each number, and they share what came
out from both persons’ envelopes. They check whether there is any
correlation between the shapes for each number, they analyze the
shapes perfectly and conclude correctly that they are without any
order or pattern.
Then, while they are in their locations, they are asked to write down
a guess for the shape that will come out of each envelope, and after
that to open each envelope for the remainder of envelopes. And they
have also to write down what shape came out of the envelope for
each number. They do the second stage for sufficient number of
envelopes. Then they are shared what the other wrote down for each
same numbered envelope as a guess and as the observation.
They analyze again, and they find out that for each same numbered
envelope, whenever both guessed the same shape, either the same
shape was observed by both of them, or none of the two observations
overlapped with any one of the two guesses. This was weird, because
it is as if any paper P whenever observed to have the same shape with
the guess of both observers, informs the other paper with same
number to change its shape into the shape of P. So, if they both
guessed “triangle” for 532nd envelope, either both observe “triangle”
coming out of the envelope, or none observe “triangle” coming out
of the envelope.
At the third round, they agreed to write down as guess only circle for
the remainder of the envelopes. Other than that, they go through the
same procedure. And this time, when they shared the outcomes, they
see that for each pair of same numbers, either both observations were
circle, or none of the two observations were circle. This confirmed
definitely the weird conclusion of the second round.
Note that here, first they made sure that the envelopes were well
mixed, and that for numerous envelopes in the first round, they made
-269-
sure that the envelopes were fair, in other words, they contained these
shapes with no pattern. But when they ran the second round,
whenever they wrote same shape say circle as guesses, it never
happened so that one had circle and the other had rectangle, or one
had circle and the other had triangle. How was this possible?
In the quantum world, the same corresponding outcome happened
in every experiment. In some quantum experiments, the polarization
angle of each photon was used instead of shapes. So, for example, in
each of two different and sufficiently distant locations, there are three
measurement devices: one of them has an angle A1 and checks
whether an incoming photon has the angle A1, the second does the
same for angle A2, and the third for angle A3. The measurement
devices are shifted randomly to make the measurement for incoming
entangled photon. And from a center, two entangled photons are
produced and sent to each observation unit. Entangled photons here
mean photons that originate from the same quantum event so that
they have some related properties. So, like the case of Ali and John,
whenever both measurement devices measure, the same angle, either
both photons have the same angle, or both have different angle than
the angle of the measurement devices. How is this possible? How
does each photon detect where the other photon is? How does it
communicate with which angle it was measured? How does the angle
of the wave of the other entangled photon restructured and what
organized that? Why all these happen? Here, one possible solution
concerning the question on communication might be that each
photon in each pair has a local hidden variable which would make
the outcome possible.
The possibility of hidden variables has been searched with numerous
experiments since 1970s, and many of these experiments contained
millions of measurements. These tests are called Bell’s inequality
experiments. However, in all of those experiments the non-existence
of hidden variables has been confirmed.
-270-
So, somehow, the particles even though they are very far apart, they
communicate without any limitation of the speed of light.
Bell’s inequality experiments confirm this, and therefore undermine
the fundamental position of space as a basis for deterministic
relationships.
An implication of these experiments is that the entangled photons
communicate with one other much faster than the speed of light, if
not in a synchronized way. According to some interpretations, they
are inseparable in certain respects. Yet there can be a non-local
causality which will be non-limited with space; whereby, with the
elimination of the fundamental role of space, we can welcome a
transcendent causation.
Hence, the necessity of unipotential causation can be discarded and
a multi-potential causation which is compatible with free will
becomes plausible. Because, the important point in the above, is not
just the matter of communication, but also the content of
communication and purpose. The photon has also a wave-like nature.
If it is a wave, then a wave has a wavelength, a frequency, … So, let
us assume that there is a communication; what region of the photon
communicates, does it have a whole? Does it have a center, an
essence, a contact point? And how does its polarization change, what
manages it? How are the structure of communication, structural
connections, and interactions? And why if the two measurement
devices have same polarization, the photon adjusts itself, especially if
any kind of local or non-local hidden variable is true, in other words,
if two polarizations are acceptable. If there is no hidden variable,
again, though a certain polarization is acceptable, then why the
polarization adjusts to the state of the measurement device? This is
an issue that complies with the contingency of the universe: The
universe is special in that there is no necessity for it to be the way it
-271-
is, like the above photons do not have necessarily to behave the way
they do.
These are in parallel with the double slit experiments where different
particles that pass through the double slit and land on random places
on the screen, gradually form patterns on the screen even if there are
long times between each photon, electron, or atom that passes
through the double slits. Furthermore, according to some
observations and interpretations, if after a photon passed through the
slits, there is a decision and act of observation to determine the state
of the photon, the photon restores how it passed through those slits.
These sound counter intuitive. However, if we think about it,
everything in the universe, including the macro world, behaves
similarly: While a stone falling from a specific height lands on the
ground, the moon rotates a specific angle.
3.4.1.2.2.9.2 Quantum Physics Is Probabilistic.
Copenhagen interpretation is one of the most popular interpretations
of some important quantum phenomena. According to this
interpretation, quantum events are unpredictable. So, the very
essence of things is like mathematical probabilistic equations. In
some situations, particles do not exist in just one state, but exist in
superposed multiple states; until there is an observation/ interaction.
The unpredictability of things is not an issue of measurement. There
are ontologically unpredictable.
So, for example, in a double slit experiment, we cannot predict where
an individual photon that passes through double slit will land on the
screen. Yet, multiple photons will display a wave pattern on it.
-272-
However, unpredictability can only be an outcome. A process itself
cannot be inherently probabilistic, since, things must be connected
to unipotential or multipotential causes.
All causes cannot be unipotential causes, because of wave aspect of
the matter, since a wave is a non-separable whole wherein beyond a
point, we cannot find a sequentiality. This is a logical and empirical
result of space-independent flow of information and spacetranscending quantum phenomena, as explained in the previous
parts of this section.
Copenhagen interpretation is better aligned with argument from
unity and transcendence. However, its emphasis on uncertainty
which looks like an uncertainty in the processes themselves is
different from the Islamic teaching.
In Islamic teaching, the cause of uncertainty is sovereignty and
multiplicity of alternatives. There are no causal effects issuing out of
nowhere. And as measurement limitations related to quantum
physics demonstrate, there is no possibility to prove that uncertainty
rules at a fundamental layer. However, there are reasons to reject a
fully random event.
Quantum physics negates the spatial separation as shown in
numerous Bell's inequality tests. Therefore, at certain scales there is
no fundamental sequential priority of a specific region, and
everything has simultaneous influencing capacity to some extent.
This is also against uncertainty because instead of no reason for an
event there are two or more causes which resolve in resulting acts,
features, and struggle of many contributors each of whom has
alternatives in certain ranges. And these tests demonstrate that a
thing transcends space -individually, mutually, or multilaterally-.
These are in contrast to determinism. According to determinism,
there must be separation of a previous and following state, or of a
-273-
region of space from another region at any scale. But if things
transcend other things, then they cannot be separated. The unity of
entire existence demonstrates this. Bell's inequality is an example in
a small-scale.
3.4.1.2.2.9.3 Quantum Phenonema as A Demonstration of
Non-Uniformity of Laws and Structures
Experiments in the area of quantum physics show strongly that
unilocality (non-locality), non-separability are true. Two entangled
photons constitute a whole unseparated by space; an electron which
is also a wave constitute a whole… Therefore, it becomes obvious that
wholes which appear at many layers also have irreducible holistic
aspects and distinct causal power. Therefore, these findings have
important implications against determinism which in fact is
reductive. These findings show that instead of sequential
deterministic causation, transcendent and unitary causation is much
more plausible.
Some interpretations of quantum physics’ findings argue that there
is retrocausality as observed in delayed choice quantum eraser
experiments. If true, this would confirm that the allegedly
deterministic laws which are considered as a fundamental basis of
determinism are not encompassing all things in a deterministic and
future-oriented way, and therefore, they are not so fundamental.
According to such interpretations, there are not only future oriented
effects, but also the opposite. This would also support that the laws
are not top-level things, and they may be inapplicable under different
conditions.
If these laws are results of structures of things, then they do not have
any causal effect on the formation of structures. Hence, they are
secondary.
-274-
This is related to the multiplicity and discontinuity of things. So, a
process that is observed in a region or in a scale is not always
necessarily observable in another one. Hence, a law is not applicable
at all layers or in all regions. This is an important sign of design.
If things can be stable in their different structures, then of course, we
cannot expect processes to be uniform and predictable. If a thing
behaves differently in a scale as opposed to another one, then unless
we encompass all structures, we cannot predict fully what will happen
next. Whatever we predict based on a pattern or law, may enter in
or may be influenced by a whole in another realm or of another layer.
But more importantly, this shows that our reason to expect law-like
uniformity within anything, and establish a “necessity” for such a
uniformity is undermined. This also undermines a predictability
based on an assumption that there will be necessary law-like
uniformity between structures, stages, or parts of the structures of
things.
Photo-electric effect was an important example as well related to
quantum phenomena and differentiation of layers and regions. The
differentiation within different wholes demonstrates that there are
related but distinct unities.
Question 39.
Is there a clear evidence about whether a signal from one point to
the other travels instantly, or faster than the speed of light? If there
is not, and if there is in reality a maximum speed limit much higher
than the speed of light that applies to the travel of any signal, then
would not the quantum counter argument fail? And maybe our tools
do not yet allow us to measure precisely such a maximum speed limit,
but maybe such a limit is valid.
-275-
Answer 39.
Firstly, the important thing to note is that in quantum physics, the
idea that everything consists of only grain like particles has been
discarded. It is generally accepted that things have also a wave-like
nature. A wave does not and cannot consist of an indivisible grain
like particle. It displays a unity which is defined by its wavelength,
frequency, and so on. It is not limited to a point in space or time.
Hence, it has a distribution and unity through space. So, space is no
boundary within such wholes and outside of such wholes. Likewise,
it is much more likely if not necessary that time is no boundary at all
for the existence and events. It is rather a nature and a derivative of
space and things other than time.
The tunnel and twins-paradoxes are two examples which
demonstrate clearly the irrationality of theories that are based on a
speed limit.
Also, it will never be scientific to claim that there is a specific speed
beyond which there will be nothing that may travel faster. It is a
claim for a negative. And certainly, it is an unfalsifiable and
unscientific claim, since in order to falsify it, one has to know the
entire existence.
Quantum phenomena and experiments falsify clearly the mostly
adopted maximum speed limit, which is the speed limit of light.
Question 40.
Even if time is not seen as a barrier, there may be logical connections
between events. In other words, even if all events happen with no
time separation, but we just see those separations as separations from
our perspective for convenience or as a result of evolution, there may
be logical connections. So, in this case also there may be causal
-276-
connections. How can we say that these causal connections are not
elements of determinism?
Answer 40.
In determinism the event or the agent at time T2 is reduced to
another event at time T171. So, it is claimed that the event at time T2
has no causal power of its own.
In a timeless, equations-like set of relationships, where an event E3
is fully reducible to event E2, and an event E2 is fully reducible to
event E1 in an infinite regress as in determinism, most problems of
determinism will exist. But if they are not fully reduced in an infinite
regress, these problems may not exist.
3.4.1.2.2.9.4 Quantum Phenomena Undermine Locality
Which Is A Basis of Determinism.
As explained in part 2.2.1.3 about argument from unity, locality is
not a top-level truth. Quantum phenomena support this point while
disproving locality. Can unilocality (non-locality) coexist with
determinism? Determinism requires unipotential causality. If there is
a multipotential cause, which can cause state S1 or state S2 equally
and unpredictably, this will invalidate determinism.
For a physicalist, causes are essentially spatiotemporal. And time is a
function of space and change correlated in terms of space. So, this
correlation which is the basis of time relates to space again. The
unilocality (non-locality) invalidates an absolute distinction
71
This question and answer are also applicable from a structural perspective.
In this case, reducing to another space/time would correspond to reducing
human beings to atoms, molecules…
-277-
regarding absolute or relative change in space and based on space,
and therefore the basis of determinism.
3.4.1.2.2.10 Determinism is Inconsistent with Daily Life
Experiences.
The determinist says that blaming and punishing a criminal is wrong
since he was forced to do the crime because of deterministic things;
he can only be rehabilitated. But if blaming, praising, punishing, and
rewarding work and has positive influence on how people behave,
this will imply the likelihood of truth of arguments against
determinism: A person may will to blame or not to blame; a person
may will to behave in accordance with the blame or may will to not
comply.
If determinism was true, then people would not waste their energy
to discuss whether to punish or not a criminal; they would not even
see more than one alternative; their particles would behave the way
they have to, in accordance with deterministic laws; there would not
even be wholes of agents who see more than one alternatives.
Hence, any praise or blame reaction for or against anything that
happened is an evidence against determinism. Because they are
closely related to the transcendence of the human being through
which he sees two really possible alternatives none of which is
coerced. This transcendence is closely related to FWP.
The determinist also behaves as if human beings have the sovereign
free will power. They transcend multiple alternatives, not just one.
And they use the freedom to will any of the alternatives, and they
expect people to exercise their freedom. In the following I will give
some examples in this respect. These examples are daily quasiexperiments about the use of the free will power over any alleged
deterministic pressures. The determinist may claim that these
-278-
examples do not demonstrate that there is FWP. I claim that they do,
and in PFW negation and brain observation experiments, we will see
detailed analysis of the effects of PFW. These experiments will show
that our FWP really overrides many spatiotemporal patterns.
Through these experiments, it will become clearer why in the normal
daily life situations everybody assumes the sovereign FWP, and why
even determinists have to assume the existence of FWP.
The following examples are closely related to those experiments.
3.4.1.2.2.10.1
Contradiction and Inconsistency of The
Denier of Free Will in Terms of Responsibility
Are We to make those who believe and do good works the
same as those who corrupt the earth? Are We to make the
righteous as the wicked?
(Quran: 38/28)
An important implication of denial of free will based on determinism
is the rejection of responsibility. A person will be either believing in
free will power or reject it or be agnostic about it. The one who
believes or is agnostic about it, will not have any objection if he is
blamed for a crime he committed. But a denier of free will, may reject
responsibility based on determinism.
For example, the disbelievers in the times of prophets said that they
are disbelievers because they found their forefathers upon their path.
The examples are not limited to the religion and they are applicable
to worldly blames, including crimes. It is also applicable to
praiseworthy situations.
Free will is a very first foundation of all our acts. When we buy a
chocolate, when we sell our house, when we get married, when we
hire someone, when we invest, when we drive our car, when we
-279-
applause an artist, when we dislike something… we assume the truth
of free will. We transcend many alternatives, and we observe that
normally nobody forces us to will one or not to will one.
Determinism entails some hypocrisy because of its inconsistencies
which will make a determinist behave differently than what his belief
entails. For example, a requirement for the ability to enact contracts
is sanity. To enact a contract, a person must be able to distinguish
and have a sufficiently good judgement about what is preferable and
what is not. Also, this person must have the freedom to sell his house
or not, or for different prices. If he is not sane so that he will sell it
for any price, then he may try to revoke the sale.
If a determinist signs a contract to have an obligation to pay
1.000.000USD without anything in return, to a person who pointed
a gun to his head, then, he will go to the court to be released from
this obligation, and claim that he unjustly suffers because of the
situation. But let us suppose that he sold his car worth 20.000USD
for 30.000USD. And the buyer goes to the court and claims that he
bought it because the neurons/ particles of his brain behaved
according to physical laws and forced him to do so, and he could not
do anything else, and that he needed the money for something else,
he will not accept the reason of the buyer. If he accepts such reasons,
then, he will be accepting that no contract he enacts will be binding
for the other party and for him. But determinists also make such
contracts and consider them binding.
Those who reject free will behave and must behave as if there is free
will. Otherwise they had to accept any claim to abolish any contract
for lack of free will.
Also, while enacting the contract, he knows the consequence and
accepts it. If he did not have free will then why did he make the
contract in the first place? If then he denies it what is the superiority
-280-
of his judgement for the absence of his free will compared to someone
who argues for free will and wants that the contract is applied?
What are the implications of someone behaving as if there is free
will, though he believes that he does not have free will? The need for
this behavior is important for those who reject free will because there
have been experiments which show that those who believe less in free
will tend to cheat more. So, a denier of free will will scientifically
have to accept that he tends more to do evil.
Those who argue against free will, seem to have no other option than
behaving as if they have free will: They will generally applause a good
performance, they will make contracts with agents who have no free
will and no responsibility according to their own view, they will
generally hate killing an innocent child, and they will argue trying to
develop arguments against those who believe in free will.
But then, this entails behaving as if something wrong is true. This is
like someone who does not enter a building and who believes that
the building is not in fire but behaves as if it is in fire.
To be more specific, let us imagine one of the workers of a company,
does not enter the building though it is working hour. The manager
calls him, “come in and do your work”. He replies “I behave as if the
building is in fire”. The manager says “But it is not in fire, is it?” The
worker says “No, I believe that it is not in fire.” The manager says
“So, why do not you come in and work?” The worker says “It is more
convenient for my position”. Of course, this is a pathetic behavior
and thinking, and for the determinist opponent of free will there is
no way to explain this hypocrisy.
So, for example, when a determinist denier of free will lends some
money, he can ask for it to be returned if it is overdue, behaving as
if he believes in free will. But when he is the debtor, and he did not
-281-
pay on time, and assuming that he will never need to borrow
anything, and the lender does not have any power to collect that
money, and assuming that there is no benefit for the opponent of
free will in returning the money, then why would he behave as if
there is free will? He does not believe in it, and there is no benefit at
all in behaving as if there is free will? If he does not return it, then
he could do nothing but default.
One may say that it is because of the internal consistency of this
opponent of free will. However, according to determinism, the only
consistency is the consistency of the particles bumping one onto
another in accordance with the laws of nature, in the brain of the
opponent.
The determinist will need to admit that he is unjust whenever
someone wants something from him based on determinism and he
does not do the request. Yet, as we see in the FWP experiments, even
determinists experience everyday that they transcend more than one
alternative, and that there are normally no coercive causes that block
them from willing one of the alternatives.
Question 41.
The determinist may behave like that not because he believes that.
For example, when he thanks, he may be willing just to communicate
that he has been happy because of what he did. So, how does that
argument refute determinism?
Answer 41.
He may not be “willing”, he may not “communicate”, he may not
“be happy”. If determinism is true, all those things are happening
not because of him, but because of particles in his body. However,
he experiences that he is real, and he as an agent transcends
alternatives.
-282-
Here I mean that if he feels some appreciation for a favor done to
him, this feeling of appreciation is contradicting his recognition of
determinism.
Question 42.
Even if he has such feelings, his recognition of determinism is
something logical. So, why these feelings would constitute a
noteworthy contradiction?
Answer 42.
As explained earlier, the determinist cannot claim to be logical either.
All he feels including feeling convinced, rational, or feeling
appreciative are just what has to be as a result of particles’ states
billions of years ago.
3.4.1.2.2.10.2
Determinist Experiences FWP When He
Proposes Rehabilitation as the Only Reaction
Against Crimes
Passing on red light is fined. Willfully killing an innocent person is
punished and blamed. According to determinism, nobody should be
punished, blamed, rewarded, and praised. Because, nobody can avoid
any act he commits, good or bad; nobody had any power to do what
he did not, and nobody had any power to avoid what he did; and
nobody can claim any ownership for what he willed or did.
However, some determinists claim that as for health reasons some
people are isolated from the society, likewise, the criminals also can
be isolated and rehabilitated for the benefit of the society. Yet,
obviously this does not save the day for the determinist, since, in
determinism there is no possibility to rehabilitate anyone, or to make
-283-
any change for the benefit of society. Because the will power to
rehabilitate, or to will a better state for the society are also illusions.
If the particles, fields, laws of nature and the like coerce the
rehabilitator, the rehabilitator cannot do anything else; his will power
is no more than an illusion. If the society was determined to be
rehabilitated, then it will be rehabilitated; though rehabilitation is
also just an illusion, since there is only the acts of the particles and
fields. So, the rehabilitation argument of the determinist is invalid,
since there cannot be a future goal for anyone other than an illusion.
Actually, when the determinist claims that instead of blame, we have
to act for rehabilitation, he experiences his transcendence and the
reality of his freedom of will. Hence, when he denies FWP, he is
being inconsistent with his experience.
3.4.1.2.2.10.3
The Rehabilitated Will Ask for
Compensation, And the Praised Ones Will
Have to Return Their Benefits.
Let us assume that a society fully accepts determinism. An agent
passes on the red light and he is fined. He says I willed to pass and I
passed because it was determined that I passed. So, it would be a
benefit for society if I did not pass. Yet I had no choice. So ok, my
society can fine me but as it is not my fault the society must
compensate for the fine and the time and other costs I may incur.
The determinist will either say, it is your bad luck that you passed
and were fined; and the society will not compensate even though you
were unable not to pass on red; upon which the agent may say that
it was the bad lack of the society that he passed on the red light. Or
the society will accept compensating in which case fining would not
be possible as it would be paid back to the agent.
-284-
Or the determinist law-maker and enforcer will say: You had to pass
on the red light, but we had to fine you as well. Therefore, you are
not guilty, and we are not guilty. So, we will collect the fine. Hence,
either the determinist will reject the concept of justice and its reality
entirely, or he will approve unjust behavior as OK.
By contrast, according to the Quran, the one who passes on the red
light deserved the fine, since he had the free wil power. He is fined,
and everything is balanced.
The application of determinism would cause a fully criminal society:
If a criminal is punished without compensation, then he is punished
unjustly. If he is compensated for the punishment, this means that
no criminal is punished ultimately. Imagine a rapist, or fraudster, or
killer who are caught and ask for compensation not only for the
punishment, but also who ask for compensation of the cost they
incurred for performing their unsuccessful crimes.
Is it a coincidence that all particles while behaving in their layer in
accordance with the laws of nature, overlap with our conclusions and
practices for the benefit of our society, and for the punishment of the
criminals and rewarding of the good ones? What is the probability of
such overlapping?
Obviously, these probabilities are quite small, and accepting that
these happen because of such coincidental overlapping is rather
irrational since such a coincidence would require trillions of
conditions: For example, at least, the numerous acts of trillions of
particles within hundreds of millions of human beings in whom these
ideas emerge would coincide with these ideas and conclusions.
A social order would be impossible to practice consistently with a
deterministic intellectual framework. Therefore, there is a permanent
inconsistency between what hard determinism requires in terms of
-285-
social order, and what we experience. This empirical inconsistency
fundamentally negates hard determinism. Especially if we assume as
some determinists and compatibilists claim, that consciousness is an
illusion. Because, if determinism was true, one would expect a social
order where no illusion has such big and permanent causal effect: In
the deterministic thought framework, “A crime happened, this must
not have happened” becomes no more than a conjecture, an error,
and an illusion which could not produce any result. According to
hard determinism what happens is what must happen, and what does
not happen is what must not happen and there is no room for
improvement.
And there will always be an empirical inconsistency between this and
what human beings do. That is why even those who reject free will,
will generally behave as if there is free will. But within the Quranic
framework, current and permanent social order and the concepts of
good and evil, and “must be” are consistently explained and justified.
3.4.1.2.2.11 Without Will Powered Existence, Nothing Can
Be Deterministic.
Whatever we observe in the universe is contingent. We do not have
any logical necessity for why it is the way it is. If this contingency
continues infinitely through all causes, then there will be infinite
regress. Therefore, there is a need for multipotential cause(s).
If there is a multipotential cause, then the transition from
multipotential cause to unipotential may be possible by choice. One
might propose randomness as another alternative way of transition.
However, as the details will be explained in part 3.4.2, randomness
theoretically can only be an aspect of an outcome, not an effective
cause, nor part of an effective causal process and entity. Randomness,
in order to be -supposing that it can be-, needs an effective entity,
being, or agent.
-286-
An event or act in a specific direction, needs first a framework; and
then information of direction, time, and power within spacetime.
Such information may be had by transcendent beings/ entities.
So, when we eliminate determinism through our reasoning about
contingency, and randomness, we reach the need for sovereign
beings so that events with specific directions may occur.
3.4.1.2.2.12 What Determines Events Are Not Past Events,
But the Disposition of Things.
If a car moves, it is not caused by what happened in the past. It is
caused by the disposition of the atoms, by the structure of the car,
and so on. If there is an inflationary period at the beginning of the
universe, it happens not because of a past, but because of the
disposition of the starting singularity.
Are the properties of things determined by determinism, or is
determinism determined by the properties of things? Properties of
things cannot be determined by deterministic processes, because,
deterministic processes cannot fit within a zero time-width state, as
explained in part 3.4.1.2.2.7.
Moreover, if there is energy, where is the energy contained? Any
minimum state wherein it is contained, must have an extension in
time. Because energy is defined by including a range in time: Energy
= (1/2) mass * speed2 or Energy = mass * speed of light2 contain in
any case a bracket of time, since speed equals distance/time. It is clear
that according to both philosophy and physics, energy is real. Hence,
no moment with zero bracket of time can be considered as a cause
of any future state.
So, if we know a state as in the claim Laplace’s demon, what do we
really know? A moment with zero time-width? If it comprises a time
bracket wider than zero, then at least we need to have a range of non-287-
separable states rather than a state. But this means that knowing one
state is not sufficient. At this point the question is what is the
minimum number of states needed in order to predict the future.
And once we need more than one, this number of states becomes
arbitrary and undeterminable. In part 3.4.1.2.2.7 why there is a need
for more than one state so as to be usable in the formulation of
determinism is explained.
This sub-section is about another problem of determinism: Is it
sufficient to have a state that will allow only some unqualified actual
movements? Or do we need a previous state which will be wide
enough to contain the necessary wholes? We understand that a
previous state in this formulation does not need to be wide enough
to contain the life of a human being. But it is obvious that unqualified
points of space would not be sufficient as active wholes. So, “if” the
atoms were the runner or objects of the laws, then a minimal previous
state had to be wide enough for the formation and lifecycle of an
atom. If it was not the atoms but the protons, or gluons the runners
or objects of the laws, the same would apply to them. Otherwise, by
what wholes or upon what wholes would the laws be applicable? So,
any previous state must also be wide enough to allow the formation
of such fundamental wholes. Inside a state that has less than a
necessary time width, the above laws cannot be applicable, since the
formation of those fundamental wholes would not be finished.
Hence, the necessary time-width of the minimal state wherein
determinism is not applicable must be quite considerable.
Many problems about infinite regress of different kinds may be raised
here. But let us come to the main issue of this part: Since these wholes
are independent variables along with the laws, as the laws cannot act
upon those wholes within the time width of this considerably large
state, why would there be a need for a law that would run those
wholes?
-288-
Instead, the wholes would be the origin of the alleged laws within
those states. If this is true, then neither any ambiguous and arbitrary
state, nor any ambiguous law would be needed to have any causal
effect on anything. Rather, the wholes would have the effective causal
power.
If the wholes have the effective causal power, then it would be a
fallacy to restrict this power to any specific whole. Hence, there may
be many types of sovereign wholes. These facts entail that the weight
would be upon the wholes instead of the laws.
I will explain the mechanisms and relationships of sovereign wholes
in part 3.5.3.
In any case, the above explanations show that laws and states are
ambiguous and irrational bases for any formulation of determinism;
hence, determinism which is build upon them is false.
3.4.1.2.2.13 There Are Things Beyond the Physical Patterns
Such as Logical Laws and Transcendence.
Determinism entails that each infinitesimal thing is caused by a
corresponding thing, and that each infinitesimal thing causes a
corresponding thing. If an infinitesimal thing was not caused by a
corresponding thing, then obviously things would not be predictable
at all based on past states. And if any infinitesimal thing did not cause
anything, then it would cause its continuation or its non-existence in
the next state.
However, there are wholes greater than infinitesimal things which
have distinct and transcendent features. As human beings we are a
good example in this respect. We have transcendence as relates to
the time and to the space. The information we contain is not just an
information of the moment, or information of our own cells, atoms,
or infinitesimal parts… We transcend multiple infinitesimal wholes.
-289-
Especially encompass the future and internalize it. We not only
encompass a single future, we also encompass possible future states,
and make calculations based on them. We also perceive a future
preferable state and a future unpreferable state. An animal also has
such perceptions and transcendence.
Even the photons look like having some similar abilities as observed
in double slit experiments. In these experiments, though they pass
from the double slit and land on an unpredictable part of the screen,
and even if there are days between each photon, at the end they
constitute a pattern on the screen.
If every infinitesimal thing has a corresponding effect in the
infinitesimal realm, then our transcendent attributes must be
appearing out of nowhere. But it is obvious that our transcendent
attributes interact with the infinitesimal realm. Even if we grant the
determinist that we are just supervenient on the infinitesimal, we are
a reality; there is at least a broad down-top oriented causality.
These transcendent features show that the wholes are distinct
realities. These are evidences against the unsubstantiated claim of
determinists based on infinitesimal things which allegedly are not
wholes. Because if smallest things are wholes, then they will have
constituent elements, and determinism will have lost its basis since
every whole will add something new of its own to the chain of
causality. In part 3.5.3 I examine the wholes and sovereign wholes
and their implications which will further substantiate our point in
this part.
Question 43.
Is not it possible that consciousness and qualia are just illusions?
-290-
Answer 43.
Illusions are tested and determined to be illusions. What we do while
we do these tests, are not illusions since this way we distinguish what
is an illusion from what is not. If all consciousness and qualia are just
illusions, then we will not be able to distinguish the illusory from the
real. In Islamic teaching, our observation capacity is real.
3.4.1.2.2.14 Minimum Complexity of Elementary Wholes
Necessary for Determinism Cannot Be Met.
Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens
and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them
and made from water every living thing? Then will they not
believe?
(Quran: 21/30)
Laplace says: “We ought to regard the present state of the universe
as the effect of its antecedent state and as the cause of the state that
is to follow. An intelligence knowing all the forces acting in nature
at a given instant, as well as the momentary positions of all things in
the universe, would be able to comprehend in one single formula the
motions of the largest bodies as well as the lightests atoms in the
world, provided that its intellect were sufficiently powerful to subject
all data to analysis; to it nothing would be uncertain, the future as
well as the past would be present to its eyes.” (Laplace 1820)
According to Laplace, not only the future, but also the past can be
precisely determined and known based on the data about the present
state.
In this part, I will examine the following questions:
-291-
As noted earlier, the components of determinism are states and laws.
The states would be consisting of things. If smallest things acceptable
to determinism in those states were like an electric motor, then would
determinism be considered true?
No, because if the smallest element of the narrowest state was as
complex as an electric engine, this would mean that the smallest
element would require a transcendent cause which is not
reconciliable with determinism. Because, as it is the smallest element,
neither it nor its parts can be explained by things like evolution,
previous states, and laws. Each cycle and component of the engine
would not be explainable with a previous state, but rather with a
transcendent element.
Then, can a basic element less sophisticated than a minimum degree
yield or work with laws so as to produce our current universe?
To address these questions, we need to evaluate the implications of
basic elements which fall short of necessary sophistication.
If the smallest elements cannot be as complex as an electric motor72,
what minimum complexity can it have?
If it can be less complex, then can the universe produce the
complexity we have? What constraints would there be if the basic
elements are not sufficiently sophisticated?
If it cannot be less complex with no reductive explanation, then why
would not there be more complex things which are not fully reducible
to other things?
72
The complexity of an electric motor does not have any special aspect
regarding this point. It is used just to help the reader conceive a level of
complexity.
-292-
Can an atom, or something else which simply moves in the space, be
less complex than an electric engine in its systematic properties?
Can the layers of a bird, its atoms, and the most fundamental
elements of the world behave consistently while each behave
according to their distinct features without all being effective and
interacting wholes?
In the following, we will analyze these questions through a billiard
balls worlds (BBW) thought experiment.
Firstly, let us analyze the case where the universe consists of elements
simpler than an electric motor.
In fact, it is impossible to imagine a most basic thing which just
moves within the space and which is less complex than the macro
structure of an electric motor. Especially if we consider that it moves
in certain patterns comparably to other simplest elements.
However, for the sake of our analysis, let us assume that such
simplest elements are granted.
Now, to make things easier to understand, we will make some
thought experiments with a team.
So, as a team, we have a huge billiard table with sufficiently
numerous billiard balls with different colors. These balls correspond
to the simplest elements of our actual universe. There is no friction.
We record everything that happens.
The first day experiment corresponds to simplest basic elements and
some aspects of the universe they would result.
We start the test by moving the balls which were in a random initial
distribution. We observe the balls. We notice that sometimes they
constitute shapes which look like life forms. For example, we notice
-293-
a pigeon which flies forward, flapping. We wait enough and we also
see parent pigeons having chicks which grow and fly.
But we also notice pigeons flying with just one wing, pigeons flying
backwards as in a rewinded video… The number of these weird
observations are normally much more than the orderly observations.
We make calculations and find out that the pre-calculated
probabilities of normal observations within weird observations
overlapped with the actual observations.
In the next step, we watch our video recording of the movements of
balls in reverse. We notice again almost similar numbers of normal
pigeons and flights, and similar number of weird pigeons and flights.
The calculations gave similar results.
Sometimes later, we do the same experiment again with the same
balls. Some findings of this experiment correspond to our actual
universe. Here we will see the implications of the deficiency in the
necessary sophistication. We will also give some idea about the things
that might compensate the deficiency in the necessary sophistication.
And also we will grasp to some extent what degree of sophistication
would be necessary, and whether the sophistication of the basic
elements together with some compensating elements at that basic
layer and state would be sufficient to produce our actual universe.
We will also see some related requirements and constraints.
In this part of the experiment, we notice that the observations are
different: We notice only the normally flying pigeons. There is no
pigeon flying normally with one wing, there is no pigeon flying
backwards. To check, we run the video recording in reverse. We see
that there is no pigeon flying forward while playing in reverse. Same
thing for all other life forms. This totally negates our pre-calculations.
Why the processes at the layer of the balls are consistent within
themselves, and the processes at the layer of the pigeons are
-294-
consistent within themselves, and why they both overlapped since
the balls were parts of the pigeons in the same time? And not only
that, the similar consistency happened also at the middle layers like
the movements of their wings and feet.
Did the aerodynamic shape of the bird have any effect on how the
balls behave? Or do the balls behave to carry the bird forward because
its eyes are in the front, looking forward? Is the pigeon real and
effective? Is its transcendence and consciousness real? Are the balls
able to inject consciousness in the bird? Is its behavior like free will
being true as in the tests in part 3.4.12.1, which support that the wills
of wholes are also effective and distinct and irreducible to his
particles?
The first experiment was fine. There were birds behaving normally,
but there were also birds which behaved weirdly. So, we could say
that the real things are the balls. The regular bird behaviors were just
coincidental.
But, in the second experiment there were unexpected consistincies
within and between layers. We could not say using the probabilities
that one layer was the supervenience basis, and others supervened on
that.
The second experiment is what we observe in the actual universe.
There are consistencies like that. And as explained earlier, according
to determinism, it is necessary that there are some most elementary
things which correspond to the balls. Therefore, we needed to deepen
our analysis:
So, overall, either, in our second experiment, some layers are
dependent upon the other; or they are interdependent partially, that
is some behaviors of the balls depend upon the birds, some behaviors
of the birds depend upon the balls; or there is an unbelievable
coincidence.
-295-
One colleague says: The cause may be a coincidental special
distribution of the balls at the beginning. If they were positioned in
a specific way, they could display a specific progress. For example, if
they were positioned next to each other, then afterwards, they would
be spread apart.
Another colleague replies, adding an analogy with the actual
universe:
If we could explain by the special distribution of the balls, then we
would also be able to explain the actual universe in the same way.
The most elementary parts of the universe may have a systematic
complexity below a certain level like the balls. So, they may be unable
to form other wholes through systematic, stable but also flexible
connections so as to form stable wholes and end the connections
whenever appropriate. In this scenario, the appearance of such
wholes at multiple layers as happened in the second experiment
would be impossible. Then, to have our actual universe with wholes
at numerous layers connected through billions of years with such
elementary parts would have a probability like 10-1000000… For
instance, half of the most elementary parts of the universe at the
initial stage might be positioned at different scales and regions so
that we would observe a reverse evolution. If the situation was to be
explained by the initial state, like the initial state of the balls, it would
be likely that some portion of the most elementary parts of the state
of our universe were positioned so that they were proceeding back
from the heat death. How can all of those elements be positioned
coincidentally so as to be appropriate parts of the big bang?
A colleague adds:
Why would we expect that for example the middle of our experiment
would not be considered as the start of the experiment? So, if the
starting state of our experiment has any special aspect, then the
middle of our experiment would also have the same specialty since
-296-
we do not see the reverse formation of pigeons in any half of the
experiment. Same applies for the any quarter or any other smaller
portion of our experiment.
Another colleague says:
I think we do not need even to consider such probabilities about the
initial state. The question is whether unchanging elementary parts
may overlap with the behaviors of the pigeons without interaction or
not. Because after all, the pigeons have specific behaviors. And as the
balls are not as complex as the pigeons, then how can it be possible
that these two things entirely overlap? For example, parts of the beak
of the pigeon stay together. The balls have no feature to stay next to
each other stably. So, if we zoom sufficiently, we will see that the
behavior of the pigeon and its parts are distinguished from the balls.
Then a colleague interrupts: Why do not we zoom in and find out
where their behaviors are differentiated?
We zoom in. Watch again and again the videos of the second
experiment. But we cannot find any differentiation.
A colleague says: Maybe the balls are changing at every stage. So, for
example, whenever a ball combines with another one, maybe its
structure changes. So, for example, the balls at the end are different
than the balls at the beginning. If this is the case, then naturally when
we play backwards, we would not see any formation of pigeons.
One colleague says: If the behaviors of different wholes at different
layers have irreconciliable features with the assumption that the balls
cannot have a systematic complexity, then we have to discard this
assumption.
Then the balls are not as simple as we thought of. They combine
with other balls in specific ways under certain conditions. When
-297-
there is a combination, this combination may be combined with
other combinations as well in specific ways.
The balls must be so that if a ball B1 interacts with another ball B2,
it will produce combination B1-2; if B1 interacts with ball B3, it will
produce combination B1-3. If B1-2 is combined with B3, it will
produce B1-2-3. Everything cannot be combined. So, B1 contains
numerous potential possibilities, and numerous potential
impossibilities. How many are these? These depend on B1, B2, …,
Bn’s features.
We can end our thought experiment format here.
In the above thought experiment, I tried to illustrate that in any case,
the most fundamental elements have to have an unnecessarily and
impossibly substantial systematic complexity if other wholes do not
participate effectively in the working of the universe. Even with this
substantial complexity, explaining a higher layer’s whole with a lower
layer’s whole is built upon the unjustified assumption that the lower
layer wholes are superior to the higher layer whole for being so
flexible as to constitute any parts of the higher layer’s whole. In an
unjustified manner, the lower layer whole is considered to be superior
in kind to the higher layer whole as if it is ultimate, and not
constituted by parts; although, its assumed changeability,
adaptability, and dynamism necessitate that it should be reducible
also to other parts.
Hence, it is impossible to have any deterministic framework.
According to determinism, there cannot be any state devoid of
sophisticated parts upon which any deterministic law can act.
There cannot be balls that may combine in such ways as to produce
what we have in our universe. New things have to fundamentally
contribute so as the events and entities in the universe may happen.
-298-
Freedom of will, sovereignty have a keyrole in the universe and in
the creation.
Explaining things in the universe with the initial states assumes the
existence of self-sufficient spatiotemporal bottom elements (SBE)
which are able to combine at convenient points with other SBEs and
separate at convenient points so as to produce necessary wholes for
other wholes. Such SBEs must not be reducible to other particles
because otherwise they will be a secondary layer and they will be that
which they explain. If they are not possible then there must be
sovereign wholes at any layer and new creation. SBEs are not possible
because they must have a systematic and holistic complexity above a
certain level. Therefore, they will have parts necessarily. Hence, nonseparable SBEs are impossible. Furthermore, the minimal
deterministic states and workable deterministic laws are not possible
either.
For further details see SBEs in part 3.5.6.4.2.8 and sovereign wholes
in part 3.5.3.
A logical result of the above is that according to the deterministic
and reductive physicalistic understanding, any reductive physicalist
science will not give us any really reliable knowledge about how
things work, as long as we do not comprehend the very bottom
fundamental layer. When we do such science, we are only observing
and working on epiphenomenal things. All the behaviors we
determine at the higher layers, are not real behaviors, and they do
not have any causal powers of their own.
According to Quranic teaching this is not true. Any layer may have
distinct entities and events which have at least additional causal
power. Hence not only parts of a bird behavior cause the bird, but
also being positioned like a bird causes parts to behave in a specific
way.
-299-
Question 44.
Why would we consider the playing in reverse of the video recording
in the above thought experiment? Does not the 2nd law of
thermodynamics, which states that the disorder increases in a futureoriented time flow show that time has a necessary direction from past
to the future?
Answer 44.
In the presence of deterministic laws, entropy is overridden by these
laws. These laws will apply irrespective of whether entropy increases
or not. They follow precise lines at every level of detail. So, if we
rewind any allegedly disorderly state, we will reach the orderly state.
If determinism is true then if we play the time backwards then the
same past will happen as underlined in the above quote from Laplace.
On the other hand, the thought experiment called Maxwell's demon
refute entropy increase. Loschmidt paradox also clarifies the same
issue.
3.4.1.2.2.15 Logical Determinism Is False.
Logical determinism says that it is true at all times either the agent
A1 will will the will W1 or the will W2 tomorrow. If W1 is true at
all times, then he cannot will W2.
However, that W1 is true does not require that it is true without the
sovereign free will power of A1. It can be true through the exercise
of sovereign free will power of A1.
3.4.1.3 Compatibilism
In part 3.1.1.4 I gave some details about the compatibilist definition
of free will.
-300-
Compatibilism claims that the universe is deterministic, and yet there
is free will. They say that free will power and determinism are
compatible. Those who do not claim anything about the truth of
determinism, but claim that “even if determinism is true, free will
would be existing” are also classified as compatibilist. In other words,
compatibilist means someone who accepts the existence of free will
even if determinism is true.
Compatibilists see a need to reconcile determinism with free will.
They consider the free will as an important and indispensable basis
for contracts, responsibility, and many other human needs.
As the compatibilist says that determinism is true or may be true, all
arguments against determinism are also applicable for compatibilism.
So, compatibilism is false. The responsibility seems to be the main
motivation for the compatibilist to defend free will. But for
responsibility, they need a basis for praise and blame. They generally
present evolution as this basis. They say that because of evolution,
there developed better and worse behaviors. So, some behaviors are
superior to others and may entail praise or blame.
Yet, in the similitude of a rolling stone, we can see that the idea does
not work: Let us say that a stone which became rounder and kept
rolling more because it became rounder compared to another stone.
One may say, stones that roll more become rounder, and the rounder
they become, they roll more. Yet this does not cause stones to become
or will to be rounder, or feel bad when they do not roll or do not
become rounder. Or this does not make being round or rolling
praiseworthy activities.
So, imagine two exactly same rolling stones rolling on exactly same
hills. If consciousness had arisen, and if they could differentiate their
rolling compared to the other stone, then we might say that they had
goals and that they could make a difference. But in compatibilism,
-301-
they do not see more than one alternative. They cannot be better or
worse than the other. So, there is no room for the desert of praise or
blame.
If a person does not pull his hand back from the fire, and if his hand
is burnt, a determinist cannot say that this is a bad state, or this was
a wrong behavior, because there is no “must be” state. And saying
this was wrong is just like saying that the movement of a stone should
not happen. If one says that not pulling his hand from the fire was
wrong, the compatibilist should not oppose to that, since his opinion
is not superior to the other person. According to the compatibilist,
both opinions are like rolling of the stone.
The compatibilist cannot say that his opinion is more correct because
of evolution, because all kinds of people with different and opposing
ideas some of which are necessarily false keep surviving.
Anyway, the arguments against determinism show that determinism
is impossible. Hence, the same arguments make the discussion about
the distinct claims of compatibilism redundant.
3.4.2 Will and Indeterminism
According to Islam, the agents may be responsible under certain
conditions. Also, no will can happen without the permission of Allah.
The randomness of anything cannot be the basis of will power. It is
also impossible that any event originates itself without the support of
God.
In this part, we will see how indeterminism relates to the FWP
according to Islam.
-302-
3.4.2.1 Definition of Indeterminism, Randomness, And
Uncertainty
Reductive physicalism which is the main source of the ideas against
free will, which discards any transcendental causes and multipotential
causes, offers two options about causality: An event occurs either (1)
because of unipotential causes, or (2) without any cause. The first is
explained mainly in the parts related to determinism. The second will
be explained in this part.
There are several interpretations about indeterminism.
One of the two main approaches is the idea that things always have
unipotential causes but because of our limitations, there are
seemingly unpredictable events. This idea is in essence deterministic,
because according to it, if we had the ability to access and process all
info for any state of the universe, then we would be able to predict a
future state. Hence, it is not what I examine in this part. This
interpretation can be considered in accordance with our explanations
about determinism.
The indeterminism, or uncertainty, or randomness that will be
explained in this part, are defined by the ideas underlined in the
following quotes:
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, “Indeterminism is the view
that at least some events in the universe have no deterministic cause
but occur randomly, or by chance.”73
(Hitchcock 2018) lays down more precisely the idea of indeterminism
that will be explained and criticized in this part: “The central idea
behind probabilistic theories of causation is that causes change the
73
(Encyclopaedia-Britannica-Editors 2020)
-303-
probability of their effects; an effect may still occur in the absence of
a cause or fail to occur in its presence.”74
In other words, the uncertainty, and randomness that we criticize
here can be defined as the feature of a thing or event that do not fully
or partially depend upon any cause. Indeterminism is the approach
which claims that there are partially or wholly random and/ or
uncertain things in the actual spatiotemporal world.
Most of the arguments against determinism are also applicable
against indeterminism.
3.4.2.2 Implications of Indeterminism Regarding FWP
3.4.2.2.1 Indeterminism Is Not A Source or Cause of Free
Will Power.
Some physicalists try to use indeterminism to open room for free
will. However, without the truth, sovereignty, and multipotential
causal power of the agent and the will power, this effort will be
useless. And once these attributes of the agent are admitted, then
there is no need for any indeterministic process where effects happen
without a cause. Indeterministic actions happening in the brain of
the agent, will not give the agent any free will power. The claim that
indeterminism does not give us free will, is correct.
Will as a power, is not a simple slack, indifference, or indeterminism.
The agent and his will power are multipotential causes. If there is no
involvement of the agent, any uncertainty, randomness, or slack is
not effective on their own.
74
(Hitchcock 2018)
-304-
If the will is the product of indeterminism or determinism and not
of the agent, then the agent will be subdued to something other than
himself; so, he can not be considered free.
According to the Quranic teaching, the claim that an event is either
deterministic or indeterministic is a false dichotomy. The falsity of
the dichotomy is because of the falsity of both.
Free will power (FWP) is a distinct power of the distinct reality of
the agent.
There can be causation related to patterns. Also, there can be
causation where only the outcome may have a distribution which
looks indeterministic though there is a sovereign and multipotential
cause.
Free will power is a multipotential cause. Hence, in many situations,
a person with will power has an equal ability to will for each
alternative among many alternatives. Therefore, what will be willed
is not predictable. This unpredictability is not because of the lack of
knowledge about any previous state. It is because of the power to will
equally any alternative from within a range of alternatives.
The freedom of the agent to choose an alternative does not mean that
the alternative was chosen by chance.
3.4.2.2.2 Indeterminism Is Not Necessarily an Argument
Against Free Will.
If indeterminism is used to mean an occurrence of an event without
any cause, its usage will be against free will: If a neuron fires for no
reason, without any cause, and if its owner wills a certain thing
because of that firing, then we cannot say that this person has free
will regarding that will.
-305-
But it may also be used to mean a range beyond patterns so as there
is a slack wherein the exercise of free will power does not produce an
inconsistency with some patterns. In this case it may be compatible
with free will. If by indeterminism, it is meant the unpredictability
arising because of sovereignty of entities and beings’ exercise of will
power, then, it is compliant with a will power and a necessary
attribute of the universe.
3.4.2.2.3 Indeterminism Is Part of a False Dichotomy.
Determinism-indeterminism is a false dichotomy against FWP. They
do not mean anything about free will, and this dichotomy distracts
the issue from its main axis. The question is whether will is real or
not.
This dichotomy presumes without any basis the non-existence of
transcendent and sovereign entities or beings.
3.4.2.2.4 A Multipotential Cause Will Produce Events or
Things Which Look Indeterministic.
If there are agents with will power as multipotential cause, then some
alternatives will be equally willable. Hence, there will be no general
necessity for deterministic patterns. Therefore, the wills of the agent
will not be predictable and deterministic.
If the physical universe includes such agents, then there will be
unpredictable things.
Unpredictability in the universe is compatible with the claims for the
freedom of will power. If all events were deterministic then it would
be impossible to claim a free will power for human beings. The
unpredictability we observe is the result of multipotential causes.
-306-
3.4.2.3 There Is No Evidence for Indeterminism.
There is no necessity which requires that a cause must be a
unipotential cause, so that its effect must be only a specific effect or
in a specific direction.
On the other hand, quantum physics’ findings demonstrate that there
are fundamental limitations to our measuring ability. Hence, we
cannot claim at any point of detail in any observation that we have
reached the ultimate point and detected that deterministic or
indeterministic processes underlie the reality.
Determinism is false as explained above. That the determinism is
false does not show that things happen with no cause, in other words,
it does not show that the indeterminism is true. Things may have no
unipotential causes; this does not mean that they have no causes:
They may have multipotential causes.
Things may seem to be random just because we lack information or
because of multipotential causes.
The randomness, if true, would be built upon a framework which
would contain relationships in any case. To have a probability for
dice figures, in the first place there must be the dice. Space and time
or some other basis would be accepted as necessary truths upon
which uncertainty may happen. And they would be accepted as
transcendentally contained and processed.
Unpredictability is only observed partially. So, indeterminism cannot
be a necessary thing and it cannot be as a law or principle. And there
cannot be a necessary thing or principle behind it.
-307-
3.4.2.3.1 The One Who Claims That Things Are Random
Undermines His Own Reasonability.
A statement made based on random processes cannot be rational,
like a statement which defends determinism. If any reasoning is
reducible to the acts of particles/ fields that have no transcendence
and truth value, then the resulting conclusions will not have any
truth value either.
Some speak in the following lines of thought: Through evolution
which occurred as a result of a combination of chance and
determinism there appeared beings with logic; so, deterministic and
indeterministic processes may be a basis for reasoning. The ones who
have logical capacity survive.
Obviously, if we flip a coin to find the answer to a problem, the result
of the flipping will not have any logical value. In accordance with
this, it is clear that many people with opposing views on big issues
survived, and keep surviving although it is clear that all of them
cannot be true at the same time. This issue is examined in detail in
part 3.4.1.2.2.3.
3.4.2.3.2 The One Who Claims Uncertainty Has the
Burden of Proof.
If someone tells me that the table will move two meters to the right
without any cause, then he has the burden of proof for his claim.
Because that which does not exist, cannot make itself exist. The
power necessary for moving the table which does not exist cannot
make itself exist.
If he claims that I have to prove the opposite, then he claims that I
have to do an impossible task, in that there can be billions of claims
which I will have to take seriously. Also, if he is correct in his
-308-
argument, then I can claim that the table will not move, and he will
have to prove the opposite of my claim.
Likewise, if one claims that a specific atom will decay or a particle/
wave will change its trajectory with no cause, then he has to prove
this.
3.4.2.3.3 Quantum
Physics
Demonstrates
Indeterminism Is Unprovable.
That
Indeterminism cannot be proven because of quantum processes and
quantum physics. Quantum physics and quantum world
demonstrates that there are limitations in measurement that cannot
be overcome. This impossibility is not caused because of the
deficiency of our tools, but because of the fundamental structure of
things.
For example, there may be a deterministic mechanism that connect
one particle to another, which cause the allegedly indeterministic
findings in Bell’s inequality experiments, or in double slit
experiments. So, because of this in principle, neither determinism
nor indeterminism is provable.
Question 45.
Is quantum physics relevant for the macro world? If the quantum
world is indeterministic, would not big numbers of probabilitistic
events balance and cancel out?
Answer 45.
The macro world contains the quantum world. Hence, it is influenced
by it. In case there were no systematic interactions of the quantum
world events with the other systems then we might say that they
would mostly cancel out. But quantum phenomena are parts of
-309-
systems. Hence, as such they may have implications in the macro
world.
3.4.2.3.4 Any Will Cannot Be Demonstrated to be Based
on Indeterministic Processes.
Unpredictability can be only an aspect of the outcome, not an aspect
of the process. Regarding the effects of will, only the outcomes are
observable, while the whole process is not.
We make certain choices through random-looking mechanisms. For
example, to delete two things on the mobile, it may not be worth
thinking which one to delete first. So, we may delete one according
to a trivial memory, or according to a firing of some neurons. But
maybe had we thought we could have found a reason to delete a
specific one of them first. But its cost would be bigger.
This does not mean that we could not delete the other one first. To
let it to the minute physical processes of the brain or not is up to us.
Saying the opposite is a faulty generalization. Saying that we could
not do another thing is without any basis. So, even if some outcomes
of the willing processes look random, this does not show that they
happened without any cause, or that there was no multipotential
cause behind it. Even if there was no unipotential cause behind it,
there was a cause.
The statistical distribution of the outcomes of multipotential causes
may in some cases -especially where the OTBT is not applicableequal what is called a random distribution. But such cases or results
will not be evidence for the existence of random events based on
random processes. In any case, an agent with a free will power as a
multipotential cause, may choose to produce wills which look
random as much as possible.
-310-
3.4.2.4 Indeterminism Is False
3.4.2.4.1 Negation Tests
If any will is claimed to be uncertain, then the agent may will in a
way to negate that claim. This issue has been examined in detail in
part 3.4.12.1.
3.4.2.4.2 There Cannot Be Random Events.
Indeterminism requires an event that originates from nothingness. It
requires that that which was not, is. Obviously, that which was not
cannot cause itself. If something causes it, then it is not
indeterministic, if indeterministic is defined as something with no
cause.
Indeterminism requires an effect outside deterministic forces and
without any cause. If there is a random-looking behavior, there needs
to be a source of power which makes the swerving from the
deterministic path. The source may be God or a multipotential cause.
If a particle goes out of its deterministic path, there needs to be a
source of power which causes this change.
Can a random process exist? An effect can be traced back to a whole,
or to a whole prior to it or structurally below or above it. A nonexistent cannot make itself exist. And we cannot trace back
something so as to produce infinite regress, since in this case, nothing
would be a cause of that effect. So at least theoretically we have to
assume a theoretical whole that is the basis of effects.
If there was an allegedly random coercive influence of a part of the
agent on the agent which produced an alleged will, then this would
not be a will if the part does not have the elements of the will. In this
case, the influence would be a physical influence, and whether it is
-311-
deterministic or indeterministic, the alleged will would be no more
than an illusion.
3.4.2.4.3 The Points Against Determinism Are Applicable
for Indeterminism as Well.
As noted above, uncertain events allegedly happen within the broad
deterministic spacetime and relationships. To have an uncertainty in
the decay of an atom, in the first place there must be the atom.
Therefore, the points against determinism are applicable for
indeterminism as well. For example, if the decay of the atom relates
to the atom, then the problem of infinite regress, and the problem of
beginning are also applicable for indeterminism.
Also, there are common points between determinism and
indeterminism. This is another reason for why many arguments
against determinism are also applicable for indeterminism. For
example, if a zero-width time bracket is not possible and it requires
some kind of transcendence within time for determinism, it is also
applicable for an allegedly uncertain event or effect.
One who maintains indeterminism, refutes this very claim, since it
cannot claim to be logical. Such a person will also be within the
inconsistent situations regarding the daily life, similar to the
determinist. Whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic,
there are wholes at different layers which are the causes of what
happens.
In most of the above issues, indeterminism has weirder
consequences. Hence, indeterminism may be refuted even more
strongly than determinism.
For the counter-arguments against indeterminism that overlap with
the arguments against determinism see part 3.4.2.
-312-
Question 46.
Even if determinism is false, and indeterminism is false, is not a
combination of the two possible and sufficient for the working of the
universe?
Answer 46.
Note that our arguments are applicable in any range or scale. For
example, the problems of laws of nature are applicable for any scale.
So, if you say the laws apply up to this range, but beyond it
indeterministic processes take over, the arguments against laws will
invalidate that the laws are applicable in that range. Also, the
arguments against indeterminism will be applicable beyond that
range.
3.4.3 Will Is an Irreducible Power.
And within the land are neighboring plots and gardens of
grapevines and crops and palm trees, [growing] several from
a root or otherwise, watered with one water; but We make
some of them exceed others in [quality of] fruit. Indeed, in
that are signs for a people who reason.
(Quran: 13/4)
Irreducibility of the will overlaps in many respects with the
irreducibility of the agent. I will explain the irreducibility of the agent
in part 3.5.6.4.2 as it is more relevant with the agent. As the
arguments in that part are applicable for the will power as well, we
will not get into the same issues here.
3.4.4 Will Power Is Not Fully Coerced/ Forced.
And it is not for a soul to believe except by permission of
Allah.
-313-
(Quran: 10/100)
From the verses and explanations within the previous parts, it is clear
that according to Islam, freedom of will does not mean that we as
agents are not influenced by anything else. An event, a person, a
verse, a physical condition, or something else may influence our wills.
The verse above shows clearly that the freedom of human being is
within a certain range, and subject to conditions. Yet the will power
is real and categorically immiscible. For example, you may have the
ability to turn the steering wheel to whichever direction you want.
But imagine that you are driving on a road to the left of which there
is a cliff. Are you able to turn it to the left? You are able, but you
probably will not turn it to the left. Yet, if you want to turn it to the
left, you can navigate with your FWP through your resources, remove
what prevents you from turning it to the left, and turn it to the left:
For example, you can change the position of the car, or stop it and
turn the steering wheel to the left.
Freedom of the will does not mean that the agent is free to produce
all states or any combination of states.
Whenever there is a positive will power which has the potential to
make a change in the universe, there is the freedom of will. It is not
necessary that this power has been actualized. By change I do not
mean the execution of the will, the formation of the will also is a
change in the universe.
However, there may be situations where the agent is unable to will a
specific will. For example, there may be a better alternative totally
inaccessible to the agent. In this situation, the agent does not have
the free will power regarding that alternative. Therefore, he does not
have responsibility either regarding it. Note that free will power is
not the sufficient condition for responsibility.
-314-
Partial coercion by prior or simultaneous causes other than the agent
upon the agent does not always mean that the agent does not have
free will power.
However, if an agent is coerced so that he does not have any room
for freedom, then he does not have any will. If determinism was true,
there would be such a situation.
Some claim that free will must have no limitations by definition.
Some say that it may have limitation by definition, but even a free
will with some limitations does not exist. Some, based on religious
convictions, claim that based on the foreknowledge and power of
God, even a limited free will is not possible. None of these are
acceptable according to Islam.
Question 47.
If someone is hypnotized, or has a tumor in his brain, is he coerced?
Answer 47.
Some hypnosis professionals say that though under hypnosis it is not
possible to make the agent will certain activities. For further details
see the question about maniputalion in part 3.4.12.1.1.1.3.
Tumors may cause behavioral changes. Likewise, neurons influence
the will. There may be situations where objectively the agent cannot
overcome the effects of the tumor. Or the effect may be in a
spectrum, maybe making the act of the agent 90% or 80%
predictable. Beyond a certain level, it may not be expected from the
agent to behave normally. But below that level, he may be expected
to overcome the effects of that physical condition.
And if he overcomes stronger effects, then he will have achieved a
praiseworthy success. In Islam, the agents are not expected to be
-315-
totally free from any conditions that push the agent to behave badly.
On the contrary, there are almost always challenges such as physical,
environmental, intellectual, financial conditions and so on.
Some of these conditions may remove the obligation to do or not to
do something. This is in accordance with the Quranic principle that
Allah does not charge anybody beyond his or her capacity. For
example, if there is nothing to eat, a person is allowed to eat pork
although normally it is forbidden. Hence, it is not a black and white
issue. Also note that the existence of FWP does not mean that the
person necessarily has all requirements of responsibility. Delaying
smoking for one minute by using the will power is a level of freedom
of will.
On the other hand, a person with a tumor in his brain that affects
his behavior is in an abnormal situation. A clock in whose cogs a
strange object got stuck does not show the correct time and it does
not work. This does not mean that a clock which does not have this
problem loses its ability to show time correctly.
That tumor is not a permanent and essential element of the agent,
and it may make the agent will that bad behavior. So, it is possible
that the agent is not able objectively to be rational and that the tumor
which is not a rational thing overrides or suppresses the reasoning of
the agent. It may also be possible that the agent has the capacity to
prevent the influence of the tumor.
Showing the tumor cases as examples corresponding to neurons is
fallacious. Because in the above example, the cause that prevented
the clock from working correctly does not exist in the normal
situation. There is no reason to assume that it will not perform its
functions in its normal state.
-316-
Also, there can be disorders within the fabric of the brain as well.
This will correspond to the tumor again. A person runs away from
the fire. This person is normal, because this relates to the OTBT and
the agent’s capacity to process it. If the agent cannot will for any
reason to run away from the fire, then it is likely that he is not
responsible and that he does not have the necessary capacity to be
responsible. So, in most cases in worldly issues, there will be such
objective benchmarks which can demonstrate whether the agent has
free will power or not.
For example, someone who has brain tumor, may behave very badly
to a specific person on certain occasions; but in the presence of others
to whom he wants to look like a nice person, he may behave very
kindly to that same person.
Sometimes, it may be difficult to distinguish whether the person with
the tumor is under its influence or not. Anyway, Allah knows what
is going on in the brain and in the mind of the person with that
tumor. In worldly terms, we may develop tools to make such a
distinction.
Some opponents of free will say that the procedures within
everybody’s brain is as coercive as those within a brain with a big
tumor. We cannot say that every agent’s behavior is coerced like
someone who shot tens of people because of a coercive tumor in his
brain.
If the agent acts in accordance with an objective OTBT, we cannot
say that he acts as if there is a tumor in his brain. If a woman does
not want to be burnt alive and escapes, we cannot consider her as if
she has a disorder like a tumor, because she willed against the
irrational custom of her society.
-317-
Many norms are obvious, common, and binding like “not killing an
innocent person”. Under determinism or indeterminism, if a person
kills an innocent person, one may say that it is like a tumor case.
In a tumor case, there may be a divergence from the norm that the
agent with a tumor may know. He does not want himself to be the
victim of such a divergent act. Then we can say that the agent should
try to prevent his act against the clear norm, especially if he is in a
state so that he would try to prevent such a crime if it was against
him.
3.4.4.1 Types of Limitations
Free will may be limited in different ways.
A classification of limitation is related to accessibility or
inaccessibility of knowledge related to an alternative. For example,
the agent may have limited and inaccessible knowledge about the
alternatives. A person who lived in the old times, may have no
knowledge that producing a specific tool might make certain things
easier. This accessibility may relate also to the attributes of
alternatives. A person in a certain environment may have no access
to the knowledge about the bad effects of smoking. Hence, he may
smoke.
One of the limitations is generally classified as nature and nurture.
An example related to nature may be like a person’s forgetfulness, or
jealousy. An example related to limitations related to nurture may be
the quality of education one has got.
Another classification of limitations is internal and external
limitations. The traditions of one’s society may influence a person.
This is an example about external limitations. A person may be blind.
This may be an example for internal limitations in accordance with
the borders of the agent.
-318-
A third classification of causes which produce limitations is structural
and sequential. An event which caused a person’s parents move into
another country, because of which that person has been exposed to
a specific culture which influenced him sequentially caused
limitations upon that person’s wills. A structural limitation may be
an internal or external influence that causes or influences the will
power in a certain direction. For example, the legal system of a society
may influence the wills of people in a certain direction. Or the agent’s
internal structure such as being woman may prevent her from willing
to do certain jobs.
A fourth kind of limitation may be related to the ability to perform
the will. For example, if in a certain context the person does not have
enough money to travel to a certain country, then he may not will to
buy the flight ticket to travel there.
In some cases, like the limited access to knowledge about an
alternative, it may be impossible to overcome these limitations. But
in some cases, some of these limitations may be overcome.
These limitations may also be enhancers for the will of the person in
a certain direction, like instead of limiting the access to certain
information, allowing him to access specific information. An example
for this may be the information pollution which make people will
unnecessary activities. Yet in an absolute sense, even if they enhance
the will of the person in a specific way, as those influences may affect
the direction of the will in whatever way, in total, we can consider
them as limitations.
The limitations are not generally like the walls through which a
person cannot pass but between which he can move freely. They are
rather, like walls plus coil springs tied to the person and to the walls
which limit the movement of the agent. So, for example, when the
person wants to move toward the right wall, the coil spring tied to
left wall pulls him in the direction opposite to his preferred
-319-
movement. There may also be many spring coils some of which push,
some pull in many different directions. Yet, the agent has its inherent
power. This similitude is very indicative of the deniers of free will
who say that in any case there is a cause for the will: In whichever
direction the agent wants to move, there are indeed some coils which
push and pull him in that direction. Yet, this does not mean that
their powers are always bigger than the agent’s powers. There can be
coil springs which are more powerful than the agent; even in this
case, the agent may have his some free will power, even if he cannot
overcome the specific coil spring. And in any case, if because of such
a spring he cannot reach the optimal wall, we cannot say that he is
to be blamed, we can say that his freedom was limited so as to remove
his responsibility.
3.4.4.2 System of The Limitations
Our reasoning power and knowledge have influence upon the
formation of wills: As an agent who has free will power, I can will to
fly to the sun unaided. But I am a human being. I do not have the
power to move within the space. Here we see the influence of my
physical structure and the environment upon my will. Let us suppose
that I have the means to move in the space unaided. Then, shall I
will to go there? I will consider that I have feelings and how long it
will take to go there and come back, and that I will miss my family,
my city, and so on.
Here, we see that our capacities within the immediate vicinity of our
will power, such as our qualia and consciousness limit our wills
further.
Hence, by default we can have a huge set of potential wills. But, each
aspect of our own being and environment narrow down those
potential wills if we want them to be actual. However, I can will that
without disturbing anything, I would be going there and coming back
-320-
very fast without missing my family, being shielded from the sun’s
harmful effects, and so on.
If we consider that in essence, the will power is potential in its nature;
those limitations apply essentially to the actualization of the will,
rather than its formation. In fact, this will power which produces
goals gave humanity its present status above many other things, even
though many goals have not been actualized.
On the other hand, in Islam, the will has a value of its own even if it
has not been actualized. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said in a
hadeeth, “the works are evaluated (by God) according to
intentions”75. Therefore, according to Islam, if a person had a sincere
will to perform a certain good deed, but he failed to perform it, then
he may be considered to a certain extent as if he did it. A statement
of the Quran in parallel with this hadeeth is as follows:
Whether you show what is within yourselves or conceal it,
Allah will bring you to account for it.
(Quran: 2/284)
3.4.4.3 Limitations on Free Will and The Context
It is important that the limitations upon the will must be considered
in their relationship with and in their relevance to the context. A
limitation on a certain will in a certain context, may not be a
limitation in another context.
For example, if a person does not have driver’s license, his will to
drive to the school will be limited. But this limitation will be
somewhat irrelevant regarding what he will eat in a restaurant.
75
(Bukhari .)
-321-
3.4.4.4 Semantics Underlying This Book and The
Limitations of Free Will
In our context, a certain range of freedom for the exercise of free will
is fundamentally sufficient, no matter how large is this range.
Suppose that all human beings are manipulated by aliens except for
one will relating to one act of one human being who is otherwise not
free in his will. Shall we say there is free will? Yes. Even if there is a
limited range of free will power, this is sufficient for the purpose of
this section. This is the setup of our semantics in our work. Note also
that the free will power is not necessarily something limited to the
human beings.
So, we say that an agent is not free under certain conditions and he
is free under certain conditions. There may be actual situations where
we do not have free will. In cases where there is no free will, we say
there is no responsibility. Hence, if it is possible in one range, then
this entails that it is possible that one “can” reach freedom of will in
certain ways, as long as certain conditions are satisfied. If these
conditions can theoretically be satisfied, the statement 'there is no
free will' becomes false within the general conceptual framework of
this book.
3.4.4.5 Limitations Do Not Always Mean That There Is
Necessarily Tension with Certain Circumstances
As human beings, we move with the rotation of the earth, whether
we will or not. We also move around the sun. Also, we move with
the sun within our galaxy. We may have big limitations in stopping
our movement with the sun within our galaxy. However, this does
not mean that we cannot move within our city.
Hence, the range of free will power is not necessarily in tension with
other processes in other trajectories or scales.
-322-
3.4.4.6 Some Limitations on The PFW May Be Useful or
Necessary.
Limitation on wills is not necessarily a deficiency. For an agent who
does not feel any pain or who does not have necessary reasoning
power, it may be more likely to will to enter for example a fire. Some
limitations may cause the formation of more productive and
permanent systems. The limitations upon the agent may make him
produce better wills. For example, our lack of knowledge about
quantum world may prevent from willing to produce certain things;
hence, we may want to learn more about that world, and this
knowledge may open new ways for new wills.
3.4.4.7 Within the Range of Responsibility There is Full
Freedom.
Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its
capacity. It will have [the consequence of] what [good] it has
gained, and it will bear [the consequence of] what [evil] it has
earned.
(Quran: 2/286)
Absence of freedom cancels responsibility. Hence, in respect to the
range of responsibility, there is full freedom of will.
Limitedness of free will relates to the above verse of the Quran where
responsibility is said to depend upon capacity, where capacity relates
also to the will power. Outside capacity there is no responsibility. So,
if there is even any limited free will then it has some aspects related
to responsibility. If there is a limited freedom of will then that is
sufficient to defend free will and responsibility: There may be
responsibility whenever and as much as there is free will.
Let us address some points related to the range of responsibility:
-323-
Free will is not a black or white issue. Once the existence of free will
is established, its extent will not matter very much. Once it is
established, then we can work on how to optimize and extend it.
Then our discussion will be about its kind, degrees, and categories.
And more specifically, whether human beings can have this free will
in the context of responsibility is one of the key issues.
The free will power is an attribute of the agent in general, and not
an ability related to a specific choice situation. This ability is intrinsic
to the agent, and exercisable in the right conditions. That the
conditions of a specific situation do not allow its exercise, does not
entail that it does not exist, and that this ability is inherently limited
or absent.
If a person overcomes once some pressures by his free will power,
this shows that this power is not inferior to those pressures, and that
it can overcome them. Hence, this specific occurrence can be
extended to many other cases: therefore, he has and can have free
will beyond that specific case. Responsibility does not require the
absence of any influence. There can be influences, but in order to
remove or limit responsibility, they must be coercive.
For example, if someone stole one million dollars, this may be
influenced by his bad education on ethics. So, to be punished, should
not he be fully free in order to be fully responsible? In this situation,
the agent has full freedom as it relates to his act. If someone predicted
that he would steal, he could negate it for a better result, for instance
for 2 million dollars76. He is smart enough to know that his act is not
good, if we assume in this case that he is a normal person with the
ability to manage his daily affairs. And accordingly, he would react
negatively if someone stole his money.
76
See part 3.4.12.1 about tests for further details.
-324-
Let us take another example: If the red candy is poisonous, and if my
genes have a tendency to eat/ choose the red candy, and if I know
that the red candy is poisonous and if I will to eat it, then I am fully
responsible since there is no coercive cause to eat it. In this example,
the tendency arising from genes is not coercive, hence it does not
have any influence in removing or diminishing the freedom of will.
3.4.4.8 Alternatives
An alternative broadly is a willable thing as opposed to other such
thing(s). The moment we have said alternative we have already
implied freedom of will, because, we conceived them
transcendentally. As a broad term, the “alternative” is without being
yet filtered through the reasoning power of the agent. Alternative is
external to the will power. The will power is there even if there is no
alternative. It is the object of the will power. Further details about
alternatives will be given in parts 3.6.5 and 3.7.1.
3.4.4.9 Implications of Recognizing the Boundaries of Free
Will
Having free will in certain ranges and conditions enables us to work
on what these ranges are and what are their conditions and
boundaries. Recognizing free will and its limitations will enable us to
find out how we can overcome the limitations, enhance our free will
power, and get better achievements.
3.4.5 The Will Power Interacts with The Universe.
Energy is broadly defined as follows: “the ability of a physical system
to do work on other physical systems”77. Hence, the will power which
channels energy, interacts with the universe. So, it influences things.
77
(Wikipedia 2020)
-325-
It is not an epiphenomenal concept. Nor it is supervenient upon the
physical.
Two magnets within a falling box pulling each other behave in
accordance with the related wholes of which they are part of. The
essential is the transcendent in the atom, electron, gravity,
consciousness, time, or space. The wholes have their distinct realities.
There is no reason that the agent or the will power do not have their
distinct wholenesses and features. And there is no reason to claim
that would not they interact with other wholes. Parts 3.4.12.1 and
3.5.3 explain in detail how they are distinctly real, their processes,
and their interactions with the universe.
3.4.6 Will Is A Sovereign Power.
He said, "Indeed, Allah has chosen him over you and has
increased him abundantly in knowledge and stature. And
Allah gives His sovereignty to whom He wills. And Allah is
all-Encompassing [in favor] and Knowing."
(Quran: 2/247)
He said, "Is it other than Allah I should desire for you as a
god while He has preferred you over the worlds?"
(Quran: 7/140)
And surely, We have honoured the children of Adam, and
We carry them in the land and the sea, and We provide them
with good things, and We have made them to excel highly
most of those whom We have created.
(Quran: 17/70)
-326-
And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the
angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive
authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes
corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your
praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that
which you do not know."
(Quran: 2/30)
The word “sovereign” in relation to the owner of the will power is
used here with the meaning of “having a distinct capacity to make
changes upon the universe”. It also implies not to be epiphenomenal
and/or supervenient upon something else. Spatiotemporal patterns
are not superior in kind to the will power. With our FWP we can
create laws or patterns like legislation or routines of doing something
that are similar to the physical patterns.
Physical laws seen as pushy explainers by some, allegedly drive the
behavior of so called fundamental/ elementary particles. So, they are
considered superior to other things in terms of efficacy. However, as
we explain in parts relating to holism and falsity of reductionism,
every sovereign whole78 is real and influences other things to some
extent. Likewise, the agent is also real and has intrinsic influence.
The presumption of some is that if the agent wills an alternative, we
can trace it back to a physical event. This may be true, but tracing it
back to a physical event does not mean that the physical event was
unchangeable by the will power.
As explained in part 3.5.3, parts are open to change to some extent.
They may change their behavior when they are part of a specific
sovereign whole.
78
The sovereign wholes are explained essentially in part 3.5.3.
-327-
So, a sovereign whole is free and can override the allegedly
deterministic relationships within a certain range. Likewise, the will
power of a sovereign whole is not reducible to any parts.
Also, as we see in the following verses, the sovereignty of will power
entails making positive or negative changes on the owner of this
sovereignty:
That is because Allah would not change a favor which He had
bestowed upon a people until they change what is within
themselves. And indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
(Quran: 8/53)
And [by] the soul and He who proportioned it
And inspired it [with discernment of] its wickedness and its
righteousness,
He has succeeded who purifies it,
And he has failed who buries it [in corruption].
(Quran: 91/7-10)
We are subject to many influences toward specific directions. But
also, we have the power to control them, or let them govern. A person
with a narcist personality or brain tumor may choose to go to a
doctor for cure, and the doctor according to available means may
cure or not.
Or the person may choose to think and learn for behaving better,
and think that he has to behave to others as he expects others to
behave to him. He can improve himself.
However, it is also possible that his good side is buried, his good light
is extinguished, and bad desires and evilness invade and take full
-328-
control of him, and he becomes an agent of evil, and the agent’s
whole becomes evil.
In the following verse, we see the supplication of Prophet Solomon
(PBUH) to God so that He makes him have the attribute of
gratefulness:
So [Solomon] smiled, amused at her speech, and said, My
Lord, enable me to be grateful for Your favor which You have
bestowed upon me and upon my parents and to do
righteousness of which You approve. And admit me by Your
mercy into [the ranks of] Your righteous servants.
(Quran: 27/19)
A sufficiently consistent person able to continue a daily life has
sufficient sovereignty to be responsible.
Sovereignty automatically implies freedom. If something has a
distinct capacity to produce changes, then it also has freedom.
Having even a small amount of power means at least a limited
freedom. As the agent has certain transcendence, he may exert his
power over a range as opposed to deterministic understanding where
power is instantiated and transferred between infinitesimal things.
This sovereignty combined with a transcendent knowledge produces
a big power and freedom in that the owner of these attributes can
exert big effect by planning and organizing based on these attributes.
Hence, the freedom is not necessarily proportional to the direct
physical effect of the agent upon the physical world.
The default is the sovereignty of the agent and hence, the freedom of
the will. Because the agent is distinct, and logically first there is the
agent; then there is the will. If there is a constraint, then this means
that the constraint is secondary. Let me clarify my point with the
example of a compatibilist: For a compatibilist, does an agent have
-329-
sovereignty? The compatibilist views the agent not as a transcendent
multipotential cause. Therefore, we cannot answer this question
positively. For the compatibilist, determinism where there is only one
actual alternative, may be true along with the existence of free will
power. However, it is obvious that with just one alternative and
without the agent being able to go beyond it we cannot claim the
existence of any sovereignty, hence a freedom of will.
Freedom of will does not require that there is no cause for the will.
There may be a cause but the agent has the ultimate proper power
to will an alternative or not. Every cause is not coercive upon the
agent. The agent may have willed to eat blue candy and this may be
caused because of a nice day travel in the sea and due to relevant
neuron firings. But if the agent can supersede this, then he has
sovereignty. So, this ultimacy and unboundness of the will power is
an important sufficiency element for the freedom of the will. Here
ultimate means that in the relevant context, it is the strongest power
and it is the top or highest power above which there is no coercive
power other than the permission of Allah. The negation experiments
and brain observation experiments in part 3.4.12.1 are relevant in this
respect.
Question 48.
Why did God create the things that influence toward evil and
sovereignty instead of not creating negative influencers? This way
would not the world be a better place?
Answer 48.
A better place is a subjective concept. A place where one cannot have
more than what he has been explicitly given, or where a person does
not have the freedom to reject God, or where a thief is not allowed
to steal may be seen not so good by some. In this world, everybody
-330-
gets what he wants and takes risks. On the other hand, a world where
there is no distinction between the good and evil, and where the good
and evil are dealt with in the same way may not be so good.
Question 49.
If everything has this sovereign power then why things behave in
patterns?
Answer 49.
Because Allah defined and ordered certain things to behave in
patterns in certain ranges, and in freedom in certain ranges. Also,
some relationships like patterns are necessary so that a sovereign
whole may will and act. For example, without having forseeable
implications of a will, a sovereign whole cannot exercise his FWP in
respect to his goals.
Question 50.
A verse of the Quran says that even if the disbelievers have been
returned back, they would return to what they did. Does not this
mean that they cannot do otherwise and that they do not have free
will power? Does not this mean that they have a nature which causes
them to choose the evil, though they have not chosen their nature?
Answer 50.
A person may choose something even though he is not forced to
choose it. Although such people did not “have to” choose evil since
they are considered responsible, they chose the evil as said in the
following verse:
-331-
But what they concealed before has [now] appeared to them.
And even if they were returned, they would return to that
which they were forbidden; and indeed, they are liars.
(Quran: 6/28)
And even if he is sent back, he would choose the evil though he did
not have to choose it and though he saw the consequences. He
chooses it because he prefers it. If he had to prefer it because of his
unchangeable structure then he would not be responsible. But his
structure is not unchangeable.
Let us imagine a robber who is caught while robbing. If he had the
opportunity to go to the past, it is possible that he robs again after
making some changes to his plans. Doing the same things if returned
does not entail the absence of will power.
But they became divided into sects, each party rejoicing in
that which was with them.
(Quran: 23/53)
Low effort and arrogance are important aspects of being evil.
Therefore, exercise patience like the messengers of
perseverance before you excercised patience, and do not be in
haste regarding them(, the disbelievers).
(Quran: 46/35)
And an average person knows this. Hence, those who do not do what
this knowledge entails are making a choice.
The evil is not generally perseverant. This is a key aspect of failure
while having free will power: They fail because they do not use this
power together with their other powers, not because something
-332-
forces them. They see themselves self-sufficient unjustly and
unreasonably.
As shown in the parts related to determinism and indeterminism,
both are false. If they are both false, then there is one alternative left:
There are sovereign beings, that either originate or are assigned this
sovereignty. Either Allah or those that He empowers and sustains do
and direct things.
The ability to have done otherwise without sovereign and distinct
power does not mean much because if it could be otherwise by
random things or events, this would not mean that the agent had
freedom. So, the key is sovereign power. So, if a sovereign and
distinct power of the agent enables him to do or will otherwise then
this ability will be relevant.
Hence sovereign will power requires the ability to will otherwise. But
mere ability of an agent to produce a different result while being
supervenient upon things, does not mean that he had the sovereign
will power. Because the ability to do or to will otherwise in exactly
same multiple states may also be related to other sovereign wholes
instead of the sovereign whole of the agent in a specific situation.
And such an apparent ability to will otherwise would neither mean
nor demonstrate that there is a distinct sovereignty of the agent in
that specific situation: Though the agent has his FWP, in that specific
situation it may be unexercised.
As there is no determinism and no randomness, at the very bottom
there is deliberation. The result of the will power can not be separated
from the very being of the agent. His being good or evil is not prior
to the will module of the agent. The agent is not normally fully bound
with any limitation. So, by willing it becomes good or evil. See part
3.4.12.1 related to negation experiments and brain observation
-333-
experiments which prove the sovereignty of this module. Also in part
3.5.3 we will see the details of the sovereignty of will power.
Question 51.
If Allah is One, if there is no room outside Him, if nothing can have
any power against Him, and if everything needs Him in order to exist
and behave, how is it possible that Allah creates beings with free will
power, and with sovereignty? Does not the creation of sovereign
beings mean that there are autonomous multiple centers of power,
and would not these mean that there is no just one God? Even if the
powers of these sovereign beings may be limited, would not this
mean that there are different centers which are not different in kind
but only in degree? If the unity of God is an absolute necessity how
can such sovereign beings and centers of sovereignty be created and
where can they be created if there is no room beyond and outside
God, beyond His power? Would not then such beings mean that God
is limited and there is basic multiplicity at the level of God? And
therefore, would not the existence of free will for things other than
God be impossible due to the unity of God? Similarly, Allah for
example being the Seer, how is possible that He creates beings who
have seeing capacity which are not God? How can Allah create
consciousness for another being?
Answer 51.
Allah is the fundament of all existence. He is the Self-Sufficient, the
One. There is no room of divinity that relates to consciousness,
energy, knowledge, sovereignty, and so on outside Him.
And there is not a thing but that with Us are its depositories,
and We do not send it down except according to a known
measure.
(Quran: 15/21)
-334-
By our sovereignty we can create a number system wherein there are
certain relationships. Within that system, a specific number that we
determine will have certain effects, though it was not before.
Likewise, God’s power and sovereignty is able to create such systems
wherein He can determine specific sub-sets and elements to have
effects. Hence, He creates canvases like black paper, which is limited
but wherein each point is assigned certain powers and those that
relate to sovereignty. Those canvases are not parts of God; since
anything belonging to the person of God is with no limitations. But
canvases that He creates are with limitations since in the first place
they are sustained and designed by God. We do not have the capacity
to create new mass, but we can imagine things. And what we imagine
is real, though it is imaginary, we make it exist as an imagination.
The “potential” of each existence already exists within the power of
God. Though their specific and absolute location does not exist
specifically. Like black points on a black paper. A specific black duck
may be a combination of different black points on that paper. Which
black points they are is not important and their specification is not
necessary since these points are also defined and sustained by God.
This is just a small similitude for the sovereignty power of God to
give an idea about why there may be other sustained sovereign
beings.
Within this basis there is no room for randomness or fundamental
determinism. Allah has whatever the creation needs in order to exist.
The black paper contains whatever the black duck picture needs. But
they do not and cannot have actuality by themselves. That is why
Allah says:
Indeed, Our word to a thing when We intend it is but that
We say to it, "Be," and it is.
(Quran: 16/40)
-335-
When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is.
(Quran: 19/35)
Before, it is not in an actuality state but in a potentiality state within
the creating power of Allah. This power contains the potential for
any attribute that we know or we do not know, that a being may
have, such as consciousness, will power, sovereignty, space or time
that anything can occupy…
This is a communication, like a command containing the will about
what points will be actualized in a unity. Note that these are
similitudes translated in our concepts, the essential of potentials is
different. Not activated means that that thing does not exist as itself.
It exists as potential within the power of God to be created. So, before
a cat is activated it does not exist as a cat with four legs and other
parts, except in the knowledge of God, as something that is possible.
This state of potential is not a distinct potential of a self-sufficient
cat. In other words, we cannot say that we are eternal as God but
God merely activates us. Our potential of being created with our
powers within the creating power of God is not what we actually are.
Even though all the dots of a drawing of a black panther exist on a
black sheet of paper, we do not say that that drawing is there. This
only a similitude because it contains inherently our limitations.
The power of God does not correspond to that black sheet of paper.
However, all that is necessary to create the creation is comprehended
by God, yet, God is not limited to those.
As explained in the context of non-existence of nothingness in part
2.2.1.2, any dimension that is considered physical, mental, concrete,
or abstract is likewise comprehended in an infinite extent by God.
No such dimension is surrounded by any general or partial
nothingness since nothingness does not and cannot exist. Whatever
-336-
we need in order to exist, that is the power of God and His unity,
exists. However, it is possible that Allah creates an essence from
which He creates all things.
And there is not a thing but that with Us are its depositories,
and We do not send it down except according to a known
measure.
(Quran: 15/21)
Have you not considered your Lord how He extends the
shadow, and if He willed, He could have made it stationary?
Then We made the sun for it an indication.
Then We take it to Ourselves, taking little by little.
(Quran: 25/45-46)
In the above verse “We take it to Ourselves” may mean that the
shadow does not exist any more as shadow but returns into the
potentiality it had before existing.
In the above verse, taking to God is like a return into potentiality.
A return to God may have a meaning of getting closer to God’s
communication because of the removal of certain barriers like
ignorance, false gods, and so on and being in direct presence of God's
judgment, His direct favors, and His more intense presence... The
following verse mentions such a return:
Say, "Is it other than Allah I should desire as a lord while He
is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame]
except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the
burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He
will inform you concerning that over which you used to
differ."
-337-
(Quran: 6/164)
Things are not reducible to God since God is of different nature.
When something is created, it is assigned the powers by the One,
without whom it can be neither defined nor exist. 1+ 2 = 3. Here 1 is
real thanks to the Unity of the One and by the creating of the One.
This potential belongs to the One, yet these numbers are not part of
the One. It is not possible to take out “1” from the set of numbers,
so as to destroy the set of numbers.
A whole constituted of parts can be deficient by the removal of parts.
However, God is not constituted of parts and the creation are not
parts of God.
Some parts may be thought of without their wholes. We can see some
metal bars while they are not shaped to be a chair, while there is no
chair. But in the logical order, the creation cannot be thought of
before the unitary power who creates them.
Therefore, the Creator is always higher than the creation. Creating
sovereign wholes never restricts the Creator.
The wholeness, completeness, independence, and unity of the One
are fundamental, prior, and reached without reference to the
creation, though the potential of the creation can only be reached
logically by reference to the One and Whole.
There is the potential of sovereignty of each creation within the
creating power of God, though this sovereignty is not self-sufficient.
It is given the command of 'Be', whereby it is activated and enabled
to behave in accordance with its design and sub-elements. The
powers of the creation is activated within the whole which is created,
it does not exist self-sufficiently: If a human is created, it is created
within the context of a space, earth, food, eyes, ears, atoms…, that is
within the context of its parts, environment, past, future and so on.
-338-
It needs not only God but also all those things and those things need
him, though they all have sovereignty. The small relatively to the big
is small but due and thanks to the One. Though its creation means
being assigned this unity, it is not self-sufficient, yet it has a potential
to be and to be connected to other potentials.
Unities of the sovereign sustained by the One and Self-Sufficient God
are not independent unities. They are not unities of the same nature
as the unity of the Self-Sufficient.
And because of that power of Allah to do all things, there is no
fundamental determinism. Yet if Allah empowers a creation with
sovereign power, then it behaves according to that power. From
outside it may look like a random behavior, because sovereign power
may produce both random looking and deterministic looking events.
In Islam, there is no false dichotomy of effective determinism and
indeterminism since both are impossible and the reality is
sovereignty. Sovereign power is an existent by definition with no bias,
though designed conditions may constitute coercive and noncoercive biases. Determinism would mean a fundamental coercive
bias and limitation for God. Randomness would also mean a
limitation, and plus it would mean that something originates from
nothingness which would be an impossibility.
How to create a center that sees as a different being? It is an empirical
and obvious fact that we have each our distinct consciousness. Both
its unity within each agent and each agent’s consciousness being
distinct from another agent’s demonstrates that it is deeply related to
the unity observed within all things. We do not know how Allah
creates distinct consciousnesses, but logically, the One who is able to
create all things, is also able to create our consciousness. The
relationships of the spatiotemporal with the consciousness, and the
-339-
common points between the two demonstrate that the Creator of the
universe and the Creator of the consciousness is the same.
If three objects constitute a shape of a triangle, then each point in
terms of position is defined by their whole. The same applies for their
parts. So, the unity surrounding all is necessary for all things. The
same applies for consciousnesses. Hence, our consciousness is created
and sustained by the One Originator of all. As in the example of the
triangle, the parts depend on the wholes and the unity which
surrounds them. The space that connects the triangle is also unitary,
but all unities are also surrounded, sustained, and united by the One
Creator and Sustainer of all.
That certain patterns look like necessary and deterministic makes the
sovereignty of the agent and his free will power look like
contradictory. However, their fundamental nature is same, sustained
and contingent. There is only a difference in degree, not in kind.
Question 52.
So, if God sustains things, is an object that we touch a part of God?
Answer 52.
An object is the creation of God. When something is created or
activated it has a different nature. It is limited. It is mortal. Its
existence with that nature can end. Such objects constitute another
realm compared to the divine nature of God. Their relationship with
God is different than their relationship with other objects. God's
nature is different than the nature of that object. God surrounds all
things. God is not that object, that object is not part of God, like a
thought is not part of us.
However, there is a very special nearness between God and anything
as emphasized in the following verses:
-340-
And We have already created man and know what his soul
whispers to him, and We are closer to him than [his] jugular
vein.
(Quran: 50/16)
And He is with you wherever you are.
(Quran: 57/4)
Also, note that the distances are also the creation of God and part of
the unity between things.
Question 53.
What is the reality of the will module other than its parts?
Answer 53.
The reality of the will module in relation to its parts, is like the reality
of its part in relation to that part’s parts.
The details about this will be given in part 3.5 about the agent and
sovereign wholes, and in part 3.6.1.9.2 about Libet experiments.
Question 54.
When we will something, we will according to how and what/who
we are. But we have not determined how and what/who we are. So,
how we may have the power to determine what we will?
Answer 54.
What and who we are are inputs for the FWP, they are not
necessarily coercive causes upon it. They are also objects of FWP to
some extent.
-341-
The question presupposes that “how and what we are” does not
contain any sovereignty and/or any freedom. It also presupposes that
parts have like a magic power different than the wholes. These
presuppositions are unsubstantiated and are based on circular
reasoning fallacy.
The free will power is a means. It is especially necessary to head
toward what we have to be optimally, or what we have not to be. For
example, I have consciousness and I may suffer if I am not healthy.
This requires certain behaviors. But also, my certain attributes may
urge me to do behaviors which are harmful for my health. In this
example, that I will or do what my nature and good shape
necessitates is not inconsistent with my free will power. My free will
power is exercised in willing between the two types of behaviors. This
issue will be examined in detail in part 3.6.2.
Question 55.
If the sovereign agent wills on his own, how can God be fully
sovereign? Cannot the agent surprise God?
Answer 55.
The alternatives that we face do not originate out of nowhere or
ultimately from the sovereign agent. They originate from and are
created by Allah.
Since Allah knows all probabilities and the alternatives that the
servant evaluates, and since He creates these alternatives and gives
access to the servant for these alternatives Allah cannot be surprised.
Furthermore, no will is finalized without the approval of Allah.
-342-
3.4.7 Will Is A Transcendent Power.
Willing entails perceiving one of two or more alternatives. If one
perceives a whole set of alternatives, he can also contemplate just one
of them.
As opposed to such a transcendent power, within a reductive
physicalist view, point-like influences reach point-like parts of the
agent. These influences act on those point-like parts in accordance
with the spatiotemporal laws, then they create the illusory impression
of agency. According to this view, for example, many photons from
the red candy pass through many cells of the agent, each point-like
elements reach point-like places within the brain. Even though some
point-like elements interact, these interactions are also point-like.
Hence, the whole of the candy is instantiated nowhere as an
undivided whole. There is no such place wherein the holistic aspects
of the candy can fit. The holistic perception of the candy as an
alternative within the agent, is considered as an illusion.
We can translate the points in the universe into our brain. Or enlarge
any region in our brain to correspond to the universe and choose a
point from within it. We can will infinite amount or combinations of
wills within certain boundaries. This is because we transcend ideas,
concepts, …
A counter-argument might be: “The points in our brain may be
combined in infinite combinations even though there are less points
in it”. However, here it is clear that there would be an essence or a
power which would do the combination that would transcend the
spatiotemporal distance between the points.
The agent encompasses a range in unity, rather than a point. This
range may contain what he will actually will, and what he will not
will. This range contains what is possible, and what is impossible.
-343-
With his free will power, the agent does not consider the feasibility
of each alternative within the range. So, at this point, without the
consideration of the alternatives the agent may will any of the
alternatives. He did not exercise his reasoning power at this point.
And he does not need to exercise his reasoning power for all
alternative sets. If the choice is important, he may need to exercise
his reasoning power. But in any case, he may choose not to exercise
it. In such a case, if he wills a specific alternative, this may be traced
back to a neuron firing for example. But this does not mean that the
neuron is a coercive cause. The whole of the agent and his essence is
a distinct power to reverse what the neuron entails. The important
point here, is that the agent encompasses all of the alternatives
transcendentally. And before the exercise of the reasoning power,
which is not something that the agent needs to do necessarily in all
cases, the pure state of the agent entails the ability to choose any of
the alternatives. Whether the agent is obliged even under these
conditions is explained in part 3.4.12.1 about the negation
experiments and brain observation experiments and in part 3.1.1.3
about the causal relationships and the definition of free will.
In Islam, the agent is not reducible to point-like parts. And the agent
can contain the unities of the alternatives. In this respect, the parts
of the agent constitute wholes. The apparent distances between them
are in fact connections within the whole of the agent. The
explanations about the sovereign wholes in part 3.5.3 clarifies the
issue further.
3.4.8 Will Is A Distinct Power.
As the agent is a whole, it has its existence distinctly from its parts.
As a sovereign whole has an existence distinct from its parts,
sovereign powers and acts of a sovereign whole also have a distinct
existence from the powers and acts of its parts. This distinctness does
-344-
not mean that there are no interactions or overlapping points
between them.
Say, O Allah, Owner of Sovereignty, You give sovereignty to
whom You will and You take sovereignty away from whom
You will. You honor whom You will and You humble whom
You will. In Your hand is [all] good. Indeed, You are over all
things competent.
You cause the night to enter the day, and You cause the day
to enter the night; and You bring the living out of the dead,
and You bring the dead out of the living. And You give
provision to whom You will without account."
(Quran: 3/26-27)
In this respect, we see many examples of non separability, instant
communication, goals of the wholes distinct from those of the parts.
Likewise, parts may compensate duties of other parts and they can
change and reorganize themselves for the goals of the wholes.
For example, the meaning of pen is not reducible to the letters of ‘p’,
‘e’, and ‘n’ in the word ‘pen’; ‘pen’ has a distinct reality of its own.
In the word ‘kalem’ in Turkish there is also this meaning though it
does not contain the same letters. Again, each agent has his own
consciousness and unity distinct from his atoms.
In part 3.5.3 we will examine that layers of wholes have their different
characteristics. The essence, free will power, OTBT, knowledge, and
consciousness of the agent have their distinct nature and influence
over other layers, including physical layers and relationships. As the
influences of consciousness, knowledge, OTBT, reasoning power are
related to the free will power, they change the universe through their
relevant layers. Their influence is not fundamentally different in kind
than what the relationships between sub-atomic particles do. And as
-345-
they influence other things through free will power, they have also
their distinct nature and their own freedom. For further about holism
and reductionism see part 3.5.6.4.1 .
A rock that is falling upon the earth, is also rotating around/with the
earth. Both falling and rotating are distinct, even though taking into
account all its movements within all frameworks and considering its
overall trajectory, we can see that it is neither a line representing a
fall in a certain direction, nor a line depicting a perfect rotation.
But the fall may be changed while rotation goes on, or the opposite:
If something stops the earth from rotating, the gravity relationship
between the falling object and earth continues; or if the gravitation
relationship is stopped, the rotation of earth may continue in certain
ways. So, they are distinct and the will power is distinct likewise from
other relationships.
We are also rotating around the earth, but in the same time, we are
being conscious, we exercise our free will power.
3.4.9 Will Power Is Unitary.
The will power has many inputs, and related powers. But the essence
of the agent exercising the will power will mobilize them. This will
will also be encompassed by the unitary consciousness.
3.4.10
Will Power May Be Very Effective And
Efficient.
And We have certainly honored the children of Adam and
carried them on the land and sea and provided for them of
the good things and preferred them over much of what We
have created, with [definite] preference.
(Quran: 17/70)
-346-
A question may come up as to how the direct spatiotemporal effects
of the will power which seem to be so tiny as to be beyond our
measurement, can have an impact on the macro world.
Assuming that a distinction between the micro and macro is
reasonable, we should note that there is not necessarily big difference
between the micro and the macro regarding the impact in the macro
world.
A photon within a photocell operated door may open the heavy door,
though without it, you may need lots of “macro” energy and tools to
open it. Even a photon may be used to destroy the earth. So, the key
is not energy but the structure, transcendence, knowledge, and truth.
There is no proportional relation between the initial energy used by
the will power and the results produced. Also, the same applies
between wills, a small will may cause huge changes in other wills
thanks to relevant powers of the agent.
Hence, though the free will power and its origin may seem small, its
flexibility, transcendence, and other features make it superior to
many other things. Again, like a bird who uses the orientation of its
wings smartly goes very high with little use of energy, the agent with
the use of his will and intellectual abilities may accomplish big
results.
The amplification of small effects in the photocell example is
applicable in the daily life as well. For example, if someone slept at 3
AM and he has to wake up at 6 AM for morning prayer, he may have
difficulty in waking up though he set up the alarm and heard it. But
let us suppose that he slept late because he watched a movie that he
could easily have willed not to watch, since he was almost indifferent
about watching it. Had he chosen not to watch it he could avoid
missing his morning prayer. So, if things are difficult, probably there
-347-
are stages where with timely and good decisions and wills a person
might have avoided big troubles.
The goal is not to have more challenges. Life is already sufficiently
difficult. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) says “Make things easier not
more difficult”79. It is not a virtue to make things more difficult and
to overcome more difficult challenges that require bigger will power.
Islam is very result oriented. We already need maximum will power
to reach big goals shown by God and one should not waste his will
power. If a person or community does not make good planning and
prioritization, then they will achieve little results by big efforts. Allah
emphasizes in the Quran that even He makes things according to a
plan. So, planning, being proactive are necessary to make things
easier and to reach bigger results with the power we have. If one does
correct activities in correct times, he can be successful and get bigger
results with the use of the same will power. Otherwise, in order to
be successful, he may need a will power that is much bigger than
what he already has and he may fail. The will power is something
that can be depleted, so it must be used effectively.
One may buy a car for 100.000USD though a car worth 20.000USD
would be sufficient. Therefore, he may need to pay interest, and then
he may default, and lose his wealth, and get divorced then commit
adultery and fight someone who asks his loan back and kill him...,
his will power weakening all the time and his challenges growing...
These do not only cause worldly problems, but also problems in his
relationship with God.
Also, if individuals in a country are generally like this, then problems
like current account deficit, inflation, and financal crises... may occur.
If humanity does not take these into account, in global level similar
things along with environmental problems, wars... may happen.
79
(Bukhari .)
-348-
Hence "will power management" is quite important. Leadership in
this respect from the individual to humanity is important.
Having well-designed routine and a good strategy will help us save
will power which we can use for bigger goals.
Question 56.
We cannot resist gravity. For example, we cannot float in the air
against the gravity even if we will to float. Likewise, if there is a very
strong urge to scratch a certain part of our body, it may be likely that
we cannot resist it, even if we will not to scratch. Though, we may
know that scratching would be bad in certain situations. So, how and
why would the neurons in our brain resist to such an urge while the
neurons lay at the root of such an urge? And in any case, how could
they overcome that urge?
Answer 56.
Our will power does not arise in the macro world. We cannot will to
float in the air, and cause this way the floating of our body in the air.
Some things happen in our brain and within our essence. Within our
brain there are parts that correspond to our hands, feet, skin, heart,
lungs and so on. There is also our consciousness that relates to
conscious behavior, and in our consciousness as well there are parts
that correspond to the above-mentioned organs. There are particles
within our brains that at least interact with our consciousness.
As a consequence of all these things, even if the gravity pulls our leg
downwards, we can raise our leg upwards, though it is heavier than
our brain, or the related neurons.
Our transcendence enables us to access the energy within other
things. As of now, we know that the human beings are very special
in this respect.
-349-
Even though the will arises unlike a force observable as the patterns
of gravity or electromagnetic force, it is not the domination of the
brain over the entire body. Rather, as explained in part 3.5.3,
everything has a relationship with sovereignty; hence, it is a task
sharing between the parts of the entire whole of the agent.
Hence, the effective aspect of the agent should be considered rather
as an intellectual and cognitive activity qualified importantly with
wider transcendence. In this respect, instead of the spatiotemporal
composition of the agent, it is more correct to evaluate the OTBT of
the agent, the powers of the agent, the powers of other influencers,
their weights, relative positions, and so on.
In this context let us give an example to show how cognitive powers
of the agent may constitute a big leverage to overcome the
spatiotemporal factors that have influences on the agent:
A person may have an urge to scratch a part of his body, and the
urge of this power may be 90 units. This person, may detect that this
urge comes 80% of the times after eating something hot. The power
of the urge to eat anything hot, may be determined to be 40 units
when there is something hot on the table, and the power of the urge
to buy it when shopping may be detected to be 10 units. The person
has a resistance power to urges that amounts to 50 units. So, if an
urge to scratch comes, he cannot overcome it, he scratches, then, a
wound, bleeding, and some other problems occur. But knowing these
figures, that he will have trouble resisting against the urge to scratch
after eating something hot, he decides to not eat hot things on the
table.
In another scenario, he may have a resistance power of 40 units. So,
he notes that he cannot refrain from eating the hot thing once it is
on the table. But in the shop, he can stop buying the hot thing, since
the urge to buy is just 10 units, which is below his resistance or will
-350-
power. Like this, even with less will power, he can manage his wills,
and exercise big power with his small will power. And, it is also
possible to train and increase his will power.
Although our legs are heavier than our brains, our wider
transcendence in terms of knowledge, qualia, and other respects, may
overweigh the influences of the physical, since the physical has a
narrower transcendence. According to the reductive physicalist or
determinist, all things are considered to be reducible to the
spatiotemporal, therefore, the effectiveness of the will power would
be considered as unacceptable. But as we explain in part 3.5.6.4.2,
physicalist reductionism is against logic and our empirical
observations.
In this respect, the daily prayers, fasting, charity, pilgrimage are also
tools to train and improve our will powers.
An important point here is that, we do not have full free will power,
we have a limited amount of it. However, with the support of
reasoning and arranging things upon which we can make changes,
we can reach in many cases results as if we have full free will power.
3.4.11
Location of The Will Power
If the agent observes parts of the brain, and changes them, then
where is the will power located? Do the parts of the brain change
themselves? Is there something like quantum entanglement which
relates to the location of the will power?
3.4.11.1
The Concept of Location in Respect to Will
Power
Some see the laws of nature as pushy explainers. But what for
instance would it mean that the gravity is a pushy explainer?
Whether we adopt a Newtonian or relativistic or quantum
-351-
explanation, where is the power that makes the related equations
happen? Is it in the things that are subject to those laws? Do the
things which are subject to these laws/ forces execute them? Are they
transcendent? Is it in the fabric of space? Or do they transcend it?
Can “one” object within a space move? Can it move when there is
no other object? If it cannot move when there is only itself, and if it
can move when there is another one, then does one object create an
infinite space to enable the movement of the objects? Can we
conceive of an object without a space? What is the power that
connects, defines, and relates the points of the space?
Do the quantum phenomena show that there is no real local
limitation?
These questions are related to the facts which demonstrate that in
fact the real power of unities is above the spatial distances. They
demonstrate that the real powers transcend the space and time.
What we perceive through our eyeballs are only certain aspects of the
existence. Generally, we spend our energy following things that
move, that change their locations: Cars are coming, a customer is
going… We do not train ourselves in focusing on the end point,
unitary and transcendent aspects of what is moving: We are not
trained in focusing on ourselves since “we” are granted. Because of
focusing on the moving and on the external, we have a strong
tendency of seeing things as within separate boxes of space and time.
Yet, that which is moving also has the same unchanging aspect as
explained in part 2.2.1.3 about the argument from unity.
Note that this is not to underestimate what we see. What we see is
important, but if we focus on the skin of what we see, we will be
misled.
-352-
The unitary aspects of things relate also to concepts, relationships
that are not instantiated within alleged point-like particles.
And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The
soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been
given of knowledge except a little."
(Quran: 17/85)
In this sense, it is not very reasonable to consider a person as a brain
divided into compartments. The divisions are also unifications. The
brain as such has a unity of its own. Yet, the brain is tightly connected
to the essence of the agent. These two also constitute a whole of their
own. These are elements of design and unity whose parts are not
separable.
Our visualisation reflects our myopia and our hypermetropia: At a
certain stage we see from far the atom and not seeing the lower layer
due to our myopia we say that the atom is the final thing which
makes things happen; and due to our hypermetropia and disability
to see the holistic attributes, we say that the molecule does not have
a distinct reality of its own. However, the atom is within the molecule
since the molecule is designed to be constituted of atoms, but the
molecule is also within the atom since the nature and design of atom
contains its potentials to constitute molecules.
The agent with his essence, unity, identity, reality and being distinct
from his parts, encompasses the parts and can perform sovereign acts
about which he is empowered by God. And the impacts of this
performance are explicit on the parts of his brain and on neurons
like the entangled sets of particles in quantum physics, which act as
one single whole even though they are miles apart. Likewise, the acts
of each neuron upon its parts such as microtubules are also like the
acts of the agent compared to the parts of the brain. The same is
applicable between an atom and its subatomic particles.
-353-
These holistic interactions do not need to be between just two
neighboring layers: The agent's distinct act may relate not only to the
neuron layer, but also simultaneously to the subatomic layers as well;
and they do not need to be just in the top-bottom orientation, but
they can also be in the bottom-up orientation. So, the agent may also
encompass the society and influence it as the physical states of
neurons may influence the agent.
The agent is distinct from his parts, and there are differences as well
between the whole and its parts.
And you see the earth barren, but when We send down upon
it rain, it quivers, and swells, and grows [something] of every
beautiful kind.
(Quran: 22/5)
Do the neurons contain the power that the agent has, through
something like entanglement, as they behave in accordance with
gravity? If they do, would the actors be “they” or the atoms that they
contain? If an agent observes a neuron in his brain, is the observer
the agent or the neurons? If it is the neurons, why is it not the atoms?
If it is the atoms, why is not it the protons?
In the example of the following verse, the clay is reorganized and
given powers to behave in another way, being given powers to see,
hear, fly…:
[The Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary,
remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when
I supported you with the Pure Spirit and you spoke to the
people in the cradle and in maturity; and [remember] when
I taught you writing, and wisdom, and the Torah, and the
Gospel; and when you designed from clay [what was] like the
form of a bird with My permission, then you breathed into
-354-
it, and it became a bird with My permission; and you healed
the blind and the leper with My permission; and when you
brought forth the dead with My permission; and when I
restrained the Children of Israel from [killing] you when you
came to them with clear proofs and those who disbelieved
among them said, "This is not but obvious magic."
(Quran: 5/110)
Things can be structured in different ways. The structuring itself is
tightly related to unity. When things are restructured, they can have
different and new features.
When the reductive absoluteness, permanence, and fundamental
nature of the self-sufficient spatiotemporal bottom elements (SBE) is
rejected, then there is a need for other bases. These bases are beings/
entities that behave and communicate within unity. The state of an
atom integrated to the brain is different than an atom which is not
like that. And when the former atom separates from that system, it
becomes different.
If we copy all atoms of a person in another person, we will not have
exactly same persons. Because, firstly, if the second person is alive
and if he has a different essence, then he is not fully equal to the first
person. And secondly, according to the unity and reality of a higher
system, such as space, they will be two, and they will have distinct
qualifications.
When a new whole is produced, there may appear new features such
as consciousness. These features may be due to the extension or
amplification of already existing features or the production of totally
new features.
On the other hand, it should be noted that certain single cell
organisms which do not have brains, such as paramecium, hunt,
-355-
mate, evade predators very similarly to the animals with brains. This
single cell contains functions of movement, communication, and
many other functions of the animals like lions, birds, and so on.
3.4.11.2
Can We Determine A Part of The Brain as The
Location of The Will Power?
To address this point, we have to consider the part-whole
relationships first. This also relates to action at a distance which is
observed from micro to macro scales. This also relates to alleged
wave-particle duality: I say “alleged” because as I explain in part
2.2.1.3 neither wave, nor particle fits well into our empirical
observations and logic.
Anyway, let us use these in a conventional way and consider the point
in the heading: In order to understand well the location of will power,
we have to understand further details about the wholeness of the
agent, and also the part-whole relationship.
What is the difference between the case where the part in appropriate
circumstances constitutes the whole and affects it, and the case where
the whole changes the behavior of the part? If the part notices the
whole and behaves accordingly, this means that it notices its
environment, the other parts of the whole, and it behaves differently,
and that the whole does not have any effect. This does not need to
be the noticing by the part, the conditions may be so that the part
changes, not through conscious awareness. Then what does
condition mean? It again means the states of the other parts, or the
states of other parts of other wholes, or merely other wholes. In this
case we can say that the whole is inactive or maybe inexistent. Now,
in the case where the whole notices the part and changes it, this
means that the part is passive. But, how can the whole detect the part
and change it? Because the whole was non-existent before its
formation and before the parts came together.
-356-
However, we should note that the part was non-existent either, since
the part is also a whole like other sovereign wholes. So, we accept
that the part detects its parts, and changes them and itself; then, we
face the problem with the above whole. If the above whole was nonexistent, then its part would also be non-existent. We are not justified
to give the sovereign whole of the part a superior status compared to
the whole that that part constitutes.
So, should we assume that there is an indivisible part in the bottom
layers? But if we accept that unsubstantiated alleged possibility, then
there is another problem: If no other layers of wholes have any effect
on what we observe, and if these SBEs are the only active ones, then
these would behave miraculously in a way to internalize all laws, and
as if they are aware of and want to comply with all the wholes and
their different actual trajectories related to different laws. If there are
such active parts on their own, then all layers will be ineffective and
these bottom parts must be managing all of the layers, all of the
trajectories in the same time.
The above points show that neither infinite regress, nor believing in
miraculous SBEs as an explication of wholes is an intelligible
solution. Both of them just produce unnecessary problems without
solving the problem: In both alternatives, we again have to have
wholes. In the first alternative, it is assumed that there are infinite
relationships between layers. In the latter alternative, we again have
wholes, but we need to assume that these wholes are magic. Why
should we deprive all upper layer sovereign wholes from their distinct
identities and effective functions, and charge all of these functions to
imaginary and unsubstantiated SBEs?
I argue that there is no need to such farfetched solutions. As we
directly experience, as our consciousness and free will power
demonstrate, we have our distinct and effective wholes as human
beings.
-357-
If a human being has his distinct whole, then there is no need to
relocate his free will power directly related to his whole to lower level
wholes. When a human being runs, do we say that his running is
located within his legs? Or when he eats, do we say that eating is
located within his mouth? Likewise, the location of the will power
relates to the whole of the agent. We cannot say that this will power
is in this lobe of the brain or in this neuron.
Note also that as explained in part 3.2, according to the Quran, the
whole of the agent has an essence which is like a hub, coordination
center of a whole.
Question 57.
So, where is the will power? In the neurons?
Answer 57.
What is a neuron? It is not the molecules and atoms it contains. It is
probably a new sovereign whole more than the molecules and atoms
it contains, but it contains the molecules and atoms. Likewise, the
will module is more than the neurons but containing the wholes of
the neurons. The will power is in that active and distinct whole. Not
in the neurons because from the reductionist perspective of the
question there is no neuron, they are reducible to atoms; but there
are no atoms since they reducible to protons… The question assumes
that the neuron is more concrete/ tangible/ specific than and superior
to the brain, and the brain is like that compared to the agent and his
essence... though this is not the case. Part 3.5.6.4.2 explains in detail
why reductionism is false.
Question 58.
Do not the neurons influence the agent?
-358-
Answer 58.
They do, but the agent also has influence upon them as the agent is
not the sum of neurons and similar things.
3.4.12
Free Will
Experimentally.
3.4.12.1
Power
Can
Be
Proven
Experiments and Proofs
In science a method to demonstrate that a certain thing has a distinct
effect, is to adopt a null hypothesis first, and assume that that thing
does not have any effect. And we determine the situation without
that thing. Then we do experiments with that thing involved. And
try to see whether there is a meaningful diversion/differentiation
from the expected null hypothesis results.
In this part we will test through normal experiments and thought
experiments whether determinism is true, whether indeterminism is
true, whether the agent has sovereign free will power over them.
Here firstly we will adopt a similar way: If determinism is true, then
the will power would not bring about a differentiation. So, can we
differentiate, divert from and negate hard deterministic processes?
We will do first FWP negation experiments (FWPNE). We will do
these experiments under the assumptions of determinism and
indeterminism.
Secondly, we will do brain observation thought experiments to see
what happens when the transcendent observer who has FWP
observes his spatiotemporal brain.
We will analyze the issue from numerous angles.
-359-
A popular empirical argument for free will is this: I will to raise my
hand, and I raise it; nothing restricts me before I will.
The opponent of the free will will argue: Your ignorance of the
restrictions does not mean that there are no restrictions. It is clear
that there are processes that go on in your brain before you will.
Furthermore, it is scientifically shown that your wills are influenced
by your past experiences even though at the time of willing you are
not aware of those experiences.
The arguments and counter arguments that go on at this level are
not sufficient for reaching a conclusion. The proponent of free will
does not address the arguments of his opponent; the opponent of
free will does not show that what he presents are coercive causes
which make the free will power that is experienced ineffective.
In the previous parts, I demonstrated that determinism and
indeterminism are both false. In part 3.5.6.4.2, I also show that
reductionism is false. This way, we have addressed the argument of
the determinist by showing that there are not necessarily and always
coercive causes upon our free will power, and that our will power is
not reducible to spatiotemporal entities or events. Hence, we are left
with the alternative that we immediately experience, that is, the free
will power or the causal power of the sovereign wholes. I explain the
sovereignty of the will power essentially in part 3.5.3.
In this part, I will present negation experiments and brain
observation experiments which will enable us to observe the distinct
effect of our will power over alleged deterministic or indeterministic
processes. These experiments will confirm further the falsity of
determinism and indeterminism. Additionally, they will show us that
not only we have a kind of free will power, but also that our free will
power has a degree which is sufficient to make a change in the
universe. They will enable us to distinguish whether things that
-360-
influence our wills are coercive or non-coercive. They will also show
that free will power is falsifiable. Furthermore, they will help us
understand some aspects of how the free will power works.
These experiments relate to the exercise of free will power against
alleged deterministic, indeterministic chains of events and
supervenience bases of reductionism. These experiments are directly
related to free will power.
The main ideas behind these experiments are these: If everything is
deterministic, then we could not change it. If things that relate to our
will power were unpredictable, then we could not negate such
unpredictability. So, we have to make the free will power confront
the predictions of determinism, the unpredictability of indeterminism
to see whether FWP can negate the predictions of determinism and
the unpredictability of indeterminism. If FWP wins, then it is true
and determinism, indeterminism, and reductionism are false. If FWP
loses, it is false, and they are true.
As we see in the following verses, there are expected events based on
the current state of the universe, but they can be negated:
[Al-Khidhr]80 said [to Moses], "This is parting between me
and you. I will inform you of the interpretation of that about
which you could not have patience.
80
Al-Khidhr is a special servant of God to whom He gave some special
knowledge. Prophet Moses (Peace be upon them) meets and wants to follow
him in order to be educated by him, though he is warned by him before the
beginning of their journey that he will not be patient upon the events that he
will see. On three occasions, Moses kind of protests what Al-Khidhr did. At
the end, before leaving, Al-Khidhr explains where the state of the affairs would
lead, and how he intervened based on that partially deterministic knowledge
and changed the flow of the events. For the whole story, see the Quran
Chapter 18, verses 65 onwards.
-361-
As for the ship, it belonged to poor people working at sea.
So, I intended to cause defect in it as there was after them a
king who seized every [good] ship by force.
And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared
that he would overburden them by transgression and
disbelief.
So, we intended that their Lord should substitute for them
one better than him in purity and nearer to mercy.
And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the
city, and there was beneath it a treasure for them, and their
father had been righteous. So, your Lord intended that they
reach maturity and extract their treasure, as a mercy from
your Lord. And I did it not of my own accord. That is the
interpretation of that about which you could not have
patience."
(Quran: 18/78-82)
However, these events are not unchangeable. Expected events
including wills may change. But if we have this power to change
when we know, then this is a distinct power which is also effective
when we do not know. It is not reasonable to say that if we do not
know the exact state of the universe, we will necessarily comply with
it. Assuming that whatever we do was already going to be, is without
any logical or empirical basis.
In the above story, the one who has more knowledge, has more
power to make changes, even though both have such a power to some
extent. Hence, the will power is effective along with other forces. And
knowledge is transcendent, not bounded by the physical, due to the
definition of physical.
-362-
If an agent can conceive of another alternative, then at least in
situations where more than one alternatives are not impossible to do
-we can even will such impossible alternatives, but we will omit them
as they are not finally willable-, he can will that other alternative.
One may say that he may will all true or false potential alternatives
which are not harmful. If he can will all such potential states, then
he can will each of them including some combinations separately.
There is an impossibility in doing fully empirical experiments in
micro levels to see what the state of the universe entails. Especially
as the free will issue is related to all physical levels, doing experiments
that cover all of them is impossible. How can we observe numerous
neurons, qualia, consciousness, whether there are slacks, the details
of quantum events and know precisely all laws of nature?
However, such difficulties do not belong to just free will. In any area
of science, we have such difficulties, yet we can get some results from
which we can benefit. Yet, we have no idea about what matter,
energy, a physical law, gravity, and observation are, or how to
overcome the problem of induction…
Yet, working on different possible scenarios combined with thought
experiments, we can determine if there are any inconsistencies for
different models on free will. We can find out whether our willing
process is subdued to or sovereign over the physical, whether our
conclusions are true in all cases or in some cases.
Here, we will be using normal experiments as well as thought
experiments.
These experiments have lots of implications that extend beyond free
will, such as consciousness, the whole of the agent, the omniscience
of God, artificial intelligence.
-363-
3.4.12.1.1 Will Power Negation Experiments Assuming A
Deterministic Universe
There may be situations where a person may have the power to
choose an alternative or another one; and there may be situations
where he cannot choose an alternative other than what he chose. A
sick person trembles and we can predict that he will tremble and he
cannot negate it. Or we can predict that a person will run away from
fire and he cannot negate it. Or we can tell a person that he will eat
pizza, and he can negate it.
The denier of free will power (FWP) claims essentially that there are
deterministic physical laws/ forces at the fundaments of our universe.
The reductive physicalist determinists also claim that our wills
supervene upon those laws/ forces and spatiotemporal states of the
universe. They say that the will power has no causal power of its own
like those forces. Some non-reductive determinists will claim that our
wills are additionally the results of our nature and nurture81.
3.4.12.1.1.1 Simple Negation Experiment: Negating the
Alternative That Must Be Willed According to
Determinism
3.4.12.1.1.1.1
Introduction
In many instances in the daily life, we observe that nothing coercively
prevents us from willing one alternative instead of the other.
81Though,
a determinist would need in any case reduce the effects of human
nature to the previous states which did not contain any human being at all.
-364-
If we have two alternatives, and if in the absence of one of them we
could will the other, no deterministic effect should prevent us from
willing one of them when they are both present.
For example, if there was only the yellow egg, we would be able to
will to eat it; and if there was only the white egg, we would be able
to will to eat it. So, in the presence of both, the presence of the other
as an additional alternative is not by itself a situation that prevents
us from willing the already present one.
Though the one-directionality of time does not allow us to go back
and change our will, this one-directionality is irrelevant to the causal
power of free will. It is sufficient that the free will power was existent
at the time of willing.
We can ask the hard determinist: If whatever we will is determined,
and if we cannot change what is already determined, why do not we
observe at least sometimes, that we are forced this way to will that
alternative? Why what we perceive as “our” will does not diverge
from what is going on at the levels of neurons or molecules or atoms?
One answer of the denier of free will power will be like: “It is
determined what we will do/will in the layer of atoms, neurons and
so on; but we do not know what is going on in that layer underlying
the will. And since what is going on there is always in parallel with
what we perceive as our will, we cannot perceive a tension or conflict
between the two.”
The impossibility of a precise actual prediction seems to mislead the
denier of free will power when he says: “You think you will freely,
but you just do not know the causes of your will.” In other words,
he says if you saw the causes, you would see that you could do
“nothing” other than what those causes entailed. The following
experiments will address and refute this claim in many ways.
-365-
Those who reject free will power try to present as a key argument the
Libet type experiments which try to see the predictability of the wills
through brain states. According to deniers of free will power, it might
well be the case theoretically to predict the wills; but we could not
change a will even if it was predicted.
Suppose that someone who claims to know all about the previous
states of the universe and laws tells you that you will will a specific
one of the candies in front of you. He tells you that while in his
prediction he has taken into account that you are informed about it.
You do not know beforehand which one he will tell you. But you
“know” beforehand that whatever candy he informs you, you will be
able to will the opposite.
It does not matter whether there can be such a person who can make
such a prediction. Even if there is such a person who makes such a
claim based on determinism, you will know that you will be able to
negate what he tells you. Because, you have a much general
experience by which you know that if “anybody” who is not forcing
you to will a certain choice informs you that you will will something,
you may negate it. You can always determine a set of alternatives so
that whoever informs you that you will will a specific one from
among them, you can negate that prediction.
Let us get more specific:
The proponent of FWP claims in accordance with everyday
experiences: “If I have in front of me one red and one white candy, I
can will to eat any one of them under normal circumstances82”. The
82
We assume that there is no health problem or similar things that strictly
prevent one of them. If there were such circumstances, then, the proponent of
the free will also would say that the agent did not have free will. And, the
opponent of FWP does not claim that free will does not exist only under such
special coercive circumstances.
-366-
denier of FWP who brings an exception to the above claim says: “The
universe contains data in terms of initial state and physical laws that
point to the fact that I will will to eat a specific candy. In case
someone has access to these data, and comes and says that I will will
to eat the red candy, then I cannot will to eat the white candy.”
According to the hard determinist if we had full access to a past state
of the universe and the laws of nature, then we would know what we
would will in the future, and if we would be able to negate that
predicted will with our will power, then there would be a
contradiction. So, we cannot negate a will predicted like this. The
only point is that we do not have access to that data. That is why we
feel as if we can will freely one of many present alternatives. The
layman says “Nothing prevents me from willing to eat red candy or
white candy”. The following experiments are designed in order to see
conclusively who is right.
3.4.12.1.1.1.2
Free Will Power Negation Experiment
(FWPNE)
Let us suppose that one day we met a real Laplace’s demon (LD) who
knew all previous states of the universe and all laws of nature. And
he predicted that I would will to eat the white candy, and not the red
candy while I had both the white and red candy in front of me.
According to determinism, to my surprise, I would be unable to will
to eat the red candy however hard I tried. The following experiment
will show whether this is true.
The experiment is a combination of two experiments. The 1st
experiment is a normal experiment, the 2nd experiment is a thought
experiment.
The 1st experiment is as follows:
-367-
“There is one red candy in red wrapping, and one white candy in
white wrapping. We have two ordinary experimenters. Experimenter
1 (E1) will try to negate what E2 predicts as E1’s will. In each round,
E2 will try to predict which candy E1 will will to touch, and E1 will
try to negate the prediction by willing to touch the opposite of the
predicted candy and by willing to do the related acts such as moving
his hand and fingers accordingly. E1 will touch just one candy in
each round. E1 has five seconds to touch one of the candies after the
prediction. And they will write down the results for each round.
E1 also will write down what happened in case something abnormal
like the following happens: If he lost his vision of the other candy, if
he could not move his hand toward the candy, if there was a problem
in his following logical steps as “if prediction is the red candy, negate
the red candy, touch the white candy”…
E1 will try to negate the prediction so as to prove that he has free
will power.
They will have sufficient number of rounds to produce a scientifically
reliable conclusion.
They have the written rules of the experiment with them, and they
compare what happened with these rules.”
The purpose of the experiments is not to show that things cannot be
predicted. The purpose of the experiment is to clarify whether
determinism is coherent and consistent; whether our free will power
is no more than an illusion, or has a distinct causal power. Laplace’s
demon (LD) or the predictions in the thought experiment part are
used just to represent certain claims more clearly. Instead of “LD’s
prediction”, I can say equally “what the deterministic causal
relationships entail”.
-368-
Let me also briefly explain what are the possible results of the
experiment:
If E1 experienced a few times the abnormal experiences, this means
that in the relevant round, he experienced the implications of
deterministic claims. He experienced that his free will is just an
illusion, and in those instances, his consciousness diverged from the
underlying allegedly real effective causal processes of neurons, atoms,
and so on. He could not negate the prediction of E2 which
overlapped with what the deterministic causal relationships entailed
in terms of his will. In other words, in these abnormal rounds, if E2
predicted that E1 would will to touch the red candy, E1’s brain atoms,
neurons were so that he would touch the red candy. So, he could not
negate the prediction, and he had some abnormal experience.
There may be an objection: As E1 tries to prove that he has free will
power, and as he programmed himself to negate, of course he will
not have such experiences.
This is a valid objection if and only if determinism is false.
To clarify this point, let us analyze it together with the 2nd
experiment, which is a slightly different thought experiment version
of the first experiment: All else being the same, instead of E2, E1 does
the experiment with Laplace’s demon (LD) who makes the
predictions.
If determinism is true, in this 2nd experiment, in each round, E1 will
have an abnormal experience: For example, when LD predicts that
E1 will touch the red candy, E1 will not be able to will to touch the
white candy.
Moreover, note that, this situation was not an exceptional situation:
If determinism is true, no matter what and no matter how many are
the will situations, if LD comes to E1, E1 will not be able to negate
-369-
the prediction. This is not because of any deliberate and special
influence of LD on E1; he just tells E1 what must happen according
to previous states of the universe and laws of nature.
This is exactly as the determinists claim that any person was not able
to will anything other than what he willed. This is natural according
to determinism, since E1 just has his illusory feeling that he freely
negates the prediction. He feels that he is the cause of his will, though
he is not. According to determinism, E1 and his perceptions have
zero causal power in what he does or wills. But LD has access to the
effective layer of causal chain.
Assuming the 2nd experiment was finished as determinists expected,
an interesting thing here is that, E1 could never negate LD’s
prediction. So, his feeling that he negated E2’s predictions were just
an illusion. There was just one-way effect from the underlying causal
processes toward his consciousness. He just had a feeling of what is
going on in the other causal layers in the form of an illusion. The
words of LD, E1’s chain of thought, his conscious experience about
his will power were just illusions, there were merely the sound waves,
the atoms in his brain acting, and so on. And as LD had access to
those, when he made the prediction based on these, E1 could do
nothing. Even his thoughts about his will to negate were nothing but
like a noise of atoms bumping one onto other.
The point here is, though in the second experiment E1 could not
negate any of the predictions of LD in accordance with determinism,
how could he negate E1’s predictions? The author of this book
actually did the experiments, and could negate in the real life. You
can also do these experiments and see that you can negate. How
could E2 manage to never coincide with what the past state of the
universe and the laws would deterministically require about the will
of E1? How could E1 which acts at the illusory perception level be so
successful in negating the prediction?
-370-
However, there is a point that the determinist may raise: “Although
the state of the universe and the laws entail all future states, such a
communication of a prediction cannot be used even in a thought
experiment, when the prediction will cause its negation. Such
communication of the prediction will produce logical problems83.
When LD communicates what E1 will will, there may be a causal
structure which will produce the opposite of the prediction. In other
words, in the negation experiment, LD is like saying: “You will touch
the white candy, but you will not touch the white candy”, since he
knows that what he predicts will be negated. After LD predicts, the
experimenter’s brain will process this information. This process is
not contained within the states up to the prediction.”
Let me address it:
All explanations about the problems of determinism explained in part
3.4.1.2.2 are relevant for the impossibility of deterministic
predictability; so, I already argue that deterministic predictability is
impossible. The prediction at the higher level of perceptions should
not cause the problem the determinist raises, since, things like
perception and will power are ineffective and the mechanisms at the
very bottom layers even lower than electromagnetic force and
physical waves are effective according to determinism. However, here
it will be useful to clarify one aspect of the above point.
Let us assume that even if determinism is true, an effective thing
cannot be informed of such a prediction in such a way. But an
ineffective thing can be informed. For example, if there is an illusory
part of the agent, even if it is informed about a prediction, it cannot
negate that negation. In the thought experiment, the experimenter
(E1) could not negate. The voice of LD about the prediction may
83
For additional details about this point and related illustration see part
3.8.1.4.3.
-371-
cause a negation through the brain structure of E1. And informing
an effective thing about a prediction may create a paradox if it is
structured so as to negate the prediction. So, as E1 could not negate
the prediction, the point raised did not have any effect in the 2nd
experiment, but it has to be explained for the reasons that I will
explain below.
Instead of adding some details in the main experiment, I will give
them here, in order to not make the main ideas of the experiment
too complicated for the reader in the first place. Also, the following
explanations will clarify some further aspects of determinism84.
In terms of reductive physicalist determinism, communication of a
prediction is broadly the translation and transfer of some aspects of
a future state of an event in the form of signal packages. So, when
we say “Watch out, the box will fall on your head” this is a signal in
the form of a package of sound waves which will be interpreted by
the target person as one aspect of a future state of an event.
It may be claimed that while collecting the data for the prediction,
the events about which we collect the data may be changing; hence,
this measurement problem may render the prediction unusable in
this context. However, the measurement problem arising from
influencing that which is measured is not applicable here for the
following reasons:
Firstly, the prediction does not need to contain all details of the event.
Secondly, though the measurement tool influences the measured in
any case, this influence does not distort necessarily all aspects of the
84
The questions in this book are produced by the author in order to clarify
issues from different angles. None of these questions are actually asked by any
adherent of any views. So, the assumptions or points which look like those of
a certain view are only according to the understanding of the author and do
not represent necessarily any point of view.
-372-
event so as to make it unusable for the specific experiment. For
example, let us suppose that there is a big rock blocking the road in
the night, I see it through the photons going from the headlights,
hitting the rock and coming back. Although at least some photons
have an influence on the rock and its parts, the change on the rock
has no implication about what I have to do since the photons do not
move it out of the way for me. In this respect, regarding the
experiment, we can even assume the existence of particles so small as
not to influence the will process when the information is practically
gathered and communicated to E1. So, although the measurement
problem is a problem for our scale, it is not a problem of principle in
every context. It is only a problem under certain conditions. For every
scale there may be theoretically consistent ways to collect information
that is meaningful for a specific and defined purpose. In our context,
the purpose is to get information about a state of relevant parts of
the universe in a specific scale. Predictability of determinism is a
different problem, though it requires access to such information.
Therefore, there is no problem in this respect against the validity of
these negation experiments.
In a situation when LD predicts that E1 will touch ultimately the
white candy, he has the following knowledge: The brain structure of
E1 including all neurons, atoms, and so on is so that E1 will negate
any declared prediction. He also knows that the state of all else will
cause LD to declare his prediction; but, this is a redundant point. So,
if LD declares the red candy as his declared prediction prior to the
effect of the structure of E1’s brain which will negate the declared
prediction, he knows that the final prediction is the white candy. But
if he tells E1 that the prediction is the red candy, there is a
miscommunication, and E1 thinks that this is the final prediction.
When E1 negates the red candy, he thinks that he proved LD wrong.
So, LD tells E1 this issue, and E1 understands it. In other words, LD
tells E1 “My declared prediction excluding your brain structure is the
-373-
red candy; and your brain structure is so that you will negate my
declared prediction, so you will touch the white candy”.
The inherent contradiction the determinist talks about is a simple
communication problem. The structure of the brain of E1 and its
potential projections based on different inputs contain information
about all potentials of negation, hence access to this information
neutralizes the problem of logical contradiction that the determinist
talks about. So, knowing the prediction as such, is sufficient to know
the predicted outcome without any contradictions.
At this point, E1 asks LD an important question, “Are you sure that
I will negate according to my brain structure? Will I change my brain
structure in any one of the two experiments?”
Because, in the prediction as such, it is implied that “E1 will not
change his brain structure during the experiment”, which also looks
like a prediction. If in the brain of E1 there is another module M2
for example which will reverse the negation brain module M1 of E1,
then the prediction of LD would not be complete. So, no matter how
many related modules there are, LD must be able to inform E1 about
whether the total structure and state of E1’s brain will negate the
declared prediction or not.
Changing the brain structure may be like rearranging the neurons.
A module of the brain may be structured so as to change another
module. Changeability of brain structure entails that the
spatiotemporal structure is not the ultimate cause of our wills.
An important point here is that we are talking about the structure of
the brain, and about a complete communication. Not a future event.
Before we settled the problem of the determinist, the brain of E1 was
set up to negate the prediction. So, LD would predict something
which would be negated. This time, LD gives an information about
-374-
the brain state of E1 including its projections according to the states
and laws of nature. The state and influence of laws are the two
complete bases of the prediction according to determinism. And he
gives also the information about what all things not influenced by
E1’s negating brain entail, which is reflected in his declared
prediction.
We can analyze a normal computer code. We can see whether it will
turn a positive value input into a negative value for example.
Likewise, LD sees the brain structure of LD, and sees how it will
unfold through billions of years. It also sees its structure so that how
it will react to any action.
Theoretically there are three answers to E1’s question: (1) “Yes, I am
sure that you will negate”, (2) “No, you will not negate”, (3) “Maybe
you will change your brain structure and so maybe you will not
negate, or maybe you will negate, it is up to you”. The third answer
is not possible since LD is a determinist. He knows how it will react
to all sets of conditions, and he knows all actual conditions. And we
are in the limited experiment context, so, LD does not need to take
into account the influence of other factors that will happen
tomorrow. LD sees that the second answer is not the case.
So, LD gives the first answer, and adds “You cannot change your
brain structure, you are not but your structure, including your brain
structure.”
Now that we have removed the problem the determinist raised, the
problem in the experiment for the determinist will continue as
follows:
In this detailed version of 2nd experiment, a round happens like this:
LD says that the declared prediction is the red candy. E1 understands
that the ultimate prediction of LD is that E1 will touch the white
-375-
candy. This means that he will not be able to will to touch the red
candy. So, as he has to negate the ultimate prediction, he has to touch
the red candy. And to his surprise, he sees that he cannot will to
touch and he cannot touch the red candy.
So, as LD said, he could not change his brain structure. As LD said,
what was he other than the structure of his brain.
On the other hand, let us come to the real-life experiment: E1 tells
E2 that there is a negation structure in his brain. So, in this
experiment also the structure will cancel out:
A specific round happens as follows: (1) All things influencing the
communicated prediction, entail that E2 communicates as prediction
the will to touch the white candy; (2) E1’s related brain structure is
so that he will negate the prediction of white candy. So, the ultimate
prediction of E2 is that E1 will will to touch the red candy.
So, when E2 says the declared prediction, he knows the ultimate
prediction. And as long as E1’s brain structure is so as to negate this
as LD said, E2 will be correct about his prediction.
But when they do the experiment, to the surprise of E2, E1 wills to
touch the white candy. So, he has negated the prediction as would
happen in the real life. The only possible explanation is that E1 is
not bound with the structure of his brain.
3.4.12.1.1.1.3
Analysis
It is noteworthy that the experiment brings in big problems about
determinism which relate to different layers of causality: When LD
predicts and E1 allegedly faces an abnormal situation, the prediction
of LD is based on the layers other than E1’s perception and will
power as a whole. E1 fails in his attempts to negate, because LD’s
-376-
predictions are based on the precise spatiotemporal mechanisms, but
E1 has no power to change those mechanisms as an agent. E1’s
perceived chains of logic and perception, are supposed to have no
influence on the result.
Moreover, E1’s will cannot be a deterministic outcome of prior states:
While trying to negate LD’s prediction, each time E1 had been
wrong, this would mean that there is a deterministic relationship
between the past states and his will to negate. That is, whenever LD
predicted that E1 would will the red candy, he willed the red candy.
So, in one way it would be predictable.
But as an agent, there would be negative relationship between E1’s
will “to negate” the prediction and his will to touch the relevant
candy, produced from his will “to negate” as happened in the 2nd
experiment: He could never negate what LD predicted as expected
from determinism; his will to negate LD’s prediction never
conformed with his will to touch the very candy that his intention to
negate entailed. So, for example, in the 1st experiment, E1 had to
produce pattern-like failure results of negation as in the 2nd
experiment; because according to determinism, the true prediction
was the opposite of the will of E1 to negate. If determinism is true,
then in the 1st experiment, E1 had to fail in all rounds. However, in
this respect the two experiments are totally contradictory. At least,
some of the predictions of E2 in the first experiment would comply
with what the state of the universe and laws of nature entailed.
So, determinism creates contradictions not only between layers, but
with the same layer as well: If determinism is true, then E1 cannot
negate LD’s predictions; but in the normal experiments he can negate
all of the predictions of E2 even though his will to negate has no
power against a correct prediction. None of the predictions of E2
overlapped with what the state of the universe and laws of nature
entail.
-377-
If there is the divergence between the agent level perceived causes
and spatiotemporal level causes as in the 2nd experiment, then we
cannot say that in the 1st experiment, the perceived whole of the
predictions and negations have been consistent within themselves,
and the whole of spatiotemporal causal relationships also have been
consistent within themselves, and that one layer was supervenient
upon the other. Because, when LD uses spatiotemporal causal chains,
in order to predict what E1 will will, there must have been some
disconnection in the deterministic chain between spatiotemporal
chain and agent level chain; and, the spatiotemporal chain must be
unbroken within itself.
If determinism is true, in the context of the above experiment there
would be another important problem: If the agent layer perceived
causal power is undermined by the lower levels, then what would be
the layer based on which LD predicts? Is it neuronal network layer,
neuron layer, microtubule layer, atom layer, sub-atom layer, a layer
that we do not know, or a combination? This is a crucial problem
because whatever it is, as it has lower and upper layers, there will be
an arbitrariness.
Now that the thought experiment on the basis of determinism gave
such results, we must find out how E1 could negate E2’s predictions
in the real experiment. Because if E1’s wills are only illusions, then
they do not have any effect on what is going on at the real causally
effective layer.
Especially, as E1 failed in all rounds with LD, how is it possible that
in the 1st experiment with E2 he won all rounds? After all, LD did
not do any tricks or change anything. He just said what the
deterministic causal chains entailed.
Can we say that evolution produced causal chains and mechanisms
that enable E1’s brain to negate a prediction, even though his
-378-
consciousness does not have any effect? We cannot, because in the
thought experiment with LD, E1’s body and brain were same and
they have the same mechanisms, yet he failed.
Can we say that E1’s will power failed against the deep knowledge of
LD, but as E2 was on the same level as E1, E1 could negate? We
cannot say that, because according to determinism, the perceived will
power has zero effect on what happens.
Then, was it a mere coincidence that none of E2’s predictions
overlapped with what the real causal chains entailed as E1’s actual
will? If it is a coincidence, then we can increase the number of
rounds, we can change the partner in the experiment until they
constitute a convincing evidence that the opposite is true. But of
course, the determinist is free to prove otherwise.
Is there a reason for the overlapping of E2’s predictions with the
opposite of the predictions of LD in every round without exception,
supposing that LD also writes down his predictions when E2 predicts
and before E1 touched one of the candies? Or is there something
special that disables E1 from negating the prediction of LD?
If it is the perfect knowledge of LD, then at least in some situations
would not the predictions of E2 overlap with the predictions of LD?
Because if it is impossible for E2 to comply with LD’s predictions, it
is also impossible that he always predicts the opposite of LD’s
predictions. Hence, if determinism is true, then, at least in some
trials, the predictions of E2 must have overlapped with the
predictions of LD. Hence, at least in some rounds in the 1st
experiment, E1 had to be surprised, as if LD directly predicted the
red candy and E1 could not will the white candy.
Or can E1 negate any predicted wills unless coerced?
-379-
Since in 100% of rounds E1 can negate what E2 predicts, this shows
in accordance with the quantitative scientific method that E1 has
distinct sovereign power over any deterministic processes at least in
some kinds of willing situations.
Let us see what happened in more detail:
LD said that E1 will negate LD’s declared prediction. In the 2nd
experiment, E1 could not “not negate”. But in the revised 1st
experiment, E1 could “not negate”. So, LD’s knowledge that the
brain structure of E1 is so that he will negate, was false. This meant
that E1 was more than his brain structure. Let us visualize this issue:
In the following we see a visualization of E1’s brain structure and its
implications on the prediction in the 2nd experiment. The arrows
represent the predictions like falling objects. The bars which
represent the brain structure, make each declared prediction to land
in the opposite land as the ultimate prediction. And E1 does not have
any power to change the ultimate prediction. For example, a declared
prediction of red candy, ultimately results in the ultimate prediction
of white candy.
-380-
FIGURE-3: CHANGING BRAIN STRUCTURE AGAINST
DETERMINISTIC PREDICTION
Now let us see what happened with the revised 1st prediction. As we
see in the following illustration, E1 has been able to change his brain
structure so as against the expectation of E2 (based on the
information given by LD) the declared predictions ended up to be
the final predictions.
FIGURE-4: CHANGING BRAIN STRUCTURE AGAINST
DETERMINISTIC PREDICTION
-381-
An important point is that LD might have told E1 “your brain
structure will negate my prediction that ‘your brain will negate the
declared prediction’.” We can expand this by adding as many double
negations as we want. But, in summary, LD will have said whether
the brain structure of E1 is so as to negate the declared prediction or
not. He cannot say that it is so that it “may” negate. And however
deep may the double negations be, E1 will be able to negate the
ultimate prediction with E2.
However, if E1 is no more than his structure, this means that he is
no more than the bars in the illustration. If they are the bars, then
their shape and their trajectories in spacetime are known in
accordance with the laws of nature. Why would each bar shift its
place so as to negate the declared predictions? If they are shifting
according to the laws of nature, why is not LD able to see this,
regarding the first experiment?
Determinism does not recognize the “I” of E1. And how each bar or
neuron or atom will behave is known according to it. E1 cannot have
as a whole any distinct causal effect other than what the bars can do.
The bars cannot have altogether a goal of proving their free will
power as a whole. Not only that, even each bar does not have a
distinct effect of its own, since, its behavior is also to be explained
based on laws of nature.
One may say “it is because the information coming from E2 causes
them to shift”. Then why did not it shift in the experiment with LD?
We observe here a situation like Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.
Whatever LD says about the structure of E1’s brain structure, E1 is
able to negate it, transcend it, and get out of it, process what can be
outside the elements of the prediction. It can contain itself, the
prediction, and what is beyond.
-382-
So, as the thought experiment based on the unsubstantiated claims
of determinism creates contradictions, we must discard it and accept
what we observed practically:
So, at least in situations as in the normal experiment, either (1) there
is no precise future state entailed in a deterministic way by the
previous states and laws of nature, or (2) E1 has the power to
overcome influences of things, including what such states and laws
may entail, or (3) both. If (1) or (2) was false, then E1 could not be
successful in negating E2’s predictions. So, both must be true.
If both are true, then E1’s will power, his wholeness, and his essence
are not supervenient upon the structure of his brain. It may control
the structure, it can interact with it, and by-pass it to some extent.
Though there are relationships between the structure of the brain
and the will power, there is not necessarily a one-to-one relationship
between the two. For example, two different corresponding brain
structures may entail the same will. For further details see part
3.4.12.1.2 on real-time brain rearrangement thought experiment.
Question 59.
If the will is not supervenient upon the structure of his brain, then
upon what structure is it supervenient? If it is supervenient upon
another kind of structure, like the structure of a soul, then would not
there be determinism again, even though it would be the
determinism of another realm? If there is no structure upon which
E1’s will is supervenient, then what is the will power of E1?
Answer 59.
Any structure is a derivative of a unitary essence. What we see as
structure is a limited view through our eyeballs in a limited way. The
differentiations that we observe from a certain angle, are unities from
-383-
another angle. The essentials are the unities. Unconnected parts of a
structure cannot be self-sustaining. For further details, see part 2.2.1.3
about the argument from unity, part 3.5.3 about the sovereign
wholes, and part 3.2 about the essence of the will power.
Question 60.
In reality, you cannot have a real LD. If you have an LD, you cannot
know whether he is making a correct prediction or not. So, if you
negate LD’s prediction, as you do not know that he is the correct LD,
and that it is the correct prediction, would your negation have any
implication at all?
Answer 60.
The important thing is that if determinism is true, whenever the true
LD makes a prediction, I will not be able to negate what he predicts.
So, I do not need to know that an LD is the correct LD. The
contradiction appears whenever we accept the deterministic chain
which entails a specific all-inclusive future state. The presence of such
a coercive outcome creates the contradiction with my free will power.
This, according to determinism establishes that what I feel as my free
will power is an illusion. Hence, the basis of the prediction is not and
cannot be what I feel. It can be the sub layers like neurons, or atoms,
or other such things at lower layers. And when I do the experiment
with my friend, my will to negate, has no causal power. Furthermore,
the causal effect of sub layers is to be the opposite of the effect of my
felt causal power at least regarding my will to negate. So, when I do
the experiment with my friend, there cannot be a causal connection
between his prediction and my will. This is an inherent contradiction
of determinism. This may happen for any prediction based on any
spatiotemporal layer of any parts. Therefore, I have a distinct,
sovereign, and effective wholeness.
-384-
Question 61.
Is not it possible that the universe is deterministic, but there is no
predictability? If in practice we cannot know what is the resulting
will, based on past states, laws, and actual causal chains, how can we
actually know whether we can negate it or not?
Answer 61.
Determinism is built on predictable, and repeatable events such as
“if event E1 happens, then event E2 will happen”. There may be
practical limitations. But in principle, determinism entails
predictability. So, contradictions that deterministic predictability
would produce would undermine determinism.
Question 62.
What if the experiment is about jumping from the tenth floor of a
building? Then, the agent will not be able to negate the prediction
that he will not jump.
Answer 62.
The determinist claims that there is no free will at all, no matter what
the situation is. Hence, proving it in cases like touching candies will
be sufficient to refute determinism and prove the existence of free
will. The claim for FWP is not that there is free will power
everywhere and in all circumstances.
Question 63.
Does a computer that can negate the prediction have free will? For
example, in a computer program, if we input “1” in a cell called
prediction, it can return “2” in a cell called will, and if we input “2”
in prediction, it can return “1” in the other cell.
-385-
Answer 63.
The negation as shown in the experiment is a necessary condition for
will. It is not a sufficient condition.
Only a sovereign whole may have freedom since to have FWP, firstly
there must be the one that will have the free will power. The whole
must be a sovereign whole. Sovereign wholes are explained in part
3.5.3. Also, the agent must have some transcendence, and a distinct
unity.
What we consider as a prediction is not a prediction for the
computer; it is just a point-like effect on its parts. Its point-like parts
will react not as a negation, but as a continuation of reactions at their
layers.
On the other hand, there may be sovereign wholes in its parts. Such
a whole may be acting not so as to negate a will, but in accordance
with the commands related to its wholeness. As explained in part
3.5.3, and also as indicated in the following verse, lifeless looking
things also may be sovereign wholes or agents:
Then your hearts became hardened after that, being like
stones or even harder.
For indeed, there are stones from which rivers burst forth,
And there are some of them that split open and water comes
out,
And there are some of them that fall down for fear of Allah.
And Allah is not unaware of what you do.
(Quran: 2/74)
-386-
Furthermore, it should be noted that in any case, the negation of the
computer is extremely limited, and is not of itself. The human beings
manufacture the computer, and a human being writes the formula in
the relevant cell. LD can predict that “it will negate whatever he
enters”. But if LD informs the human that the prediction is that “he
will negate” what LD will say, the human being may negate the
prediction that “he will negate”. This has been one of the key points
to refute determinism: The LD is not entitled to tell the agent that
his brain structure “may” negate; he is obliged to say whether he will
negate or not. At this point, determinism gets stuck. However, for a
computer, whether it will negate or not is charted in his hardware
and software. If in the 1st experiment E1 was a computer, then E2
might probe the computer, its codes, and make a prediction so that
the computer could not predict; though, the wording and
communication of the prediction would be a problem as E1 would
not be a sovereign whole, since entering the prediction in the cell is
not a real communication.
The human being can negate any kind of prediction as long as it is
conceivable, not coerced, and as long as it is not strongly against his
ought to be truth. The above experiments may be organized in very
different ways so as to negate sometimes, not to negate another time.
In any case, a normal human being will be able to devise ways to
demonstrate his free will.
Question 64.
Maybe a human being just feels and looks like an agent though he is
just epiphenomenal? Maybe he is reducible also to his parts, and
maybe his perception is just an illusion. So, how can he himself have
a will power?
-387-
Answer 64.
In order to answer this question, let us briefly see what happens in a
corresponding experiment with the computer, where the computer
corresponds to E1 and I am E2:
I enter in the “predicted will cell” “1”, the computer returns in “actual
wil cell” “2”; I enter in the “predicted will cell” “2”, the computer
returns in “actual will cell” “1” so it goes like this. In the second part,
LD replaces me, there is no change in the computer and its codes.
We observe the following, assuming that determinism is true: LD
enters in the “predicted will cell” “1”, the computer who cannot
negate returns in “actual will cell” “1”; LD enters in the “predicted
will cell” “2”, the computer returns in “actual will cell” “2”.
In the above situation, can the computer compare the difference
between running the experience with me and with LD? Does it have
a unitary whole which accesses its parts, and memory in order to
assess these differences? Or, do all the data remain in its respective
atoms? If it has, then it must be having a whole like us.
But, whatever it does, we know that we have a unity which accesses
such data and compares them. So, as human beings we have an aspect
which is not reducible to our parts.
Secondly, if we carefully consider the above deterministic scenario,
and if we consider the explanations about the experiments, we should
note that whether the actor in the experiment is the computer or the
human being, determinism is contradictory. Hence, deterministic
arguments constitute no reason for rejecting our free will power that
we empirically experience all the time.
Thirdly, as explained in the context of the experiment, there is no
reason to assume that the events outside the agent layer have any
priority or more causal power.
-388-
For further arguments about why we are not reducible to our parts,
you can see part 3.5.3 about the sovereign wholes and part 3.5.6.4.2
about reductionism.
Question 65.
If the prediction includes the will to negate, then how can it be
negated?
Also, considering the halting problem, and Gödel’s incompleteness
theorems, how can things be predictable? Do sovereignty
experiments demonstrate non-predictability or freedom of will? Why
would not they be interpreted as demonstrating non-predictability
instead of the sovereignty of will power? So, maybe our wills are just
random with no sovereignty and freedom.
Answer 65.
I argue that things can not be deterministically predictable. But
determinism claims that the universe is in principle predictable.
Therefore, halting problem and Gödel’s incompleteness theorems
support the position against determinism.
According to determinism, the will to negate was included in the
states of the universe millions of years ago. Therefore, when LD
makes the prediction, it takes into account the information about the
intention to negate and also the communication of the prediction to
the agent.
However, note also that “negation” is just an epiphenomenal thing
according to determinism; rather, there are interactions between
things like fields, particles which entail a future state, not our
misleading perceptions that we call negation. So, the prediction of
LD is like predicting where a moving object would land under the
influence of a gravitational field.
-389-
Anyway, our universe may look too complicated to be predictable
like this. However, we can think of the same experiments in a simple
deterministic universe which can be easily predictable, or in a
universe where there is sufficient technology. The similar
contradictions will happen in every deterministic universe. The
weakness of determinism against free will power is a problem of
principle.
Furthermore, the issue of actual predictability is irrelevant, as we do
a “what if analysis”. It is not claimed that things are predictable in
accordance with determinism since we reject determinism; it is
claimed that the deterministic predictability is impossible in any case.
I argue that supposing that a deterministic prediction, would produce
many contradictions. We show that even if things were predictable,
then we could overcome that determinism and many alleged
physically deterministic relationships.
For example, suppose that Mr. X says “Even if there was a tsunami
in this place, this structure would protect you”. Mr. Y argues “It is
impossible that there is a tsunami in this place”. Here what Mr. Y
says is irrelevant, because Mr. X does not claim that there will be a
tsunami there, rather he says that if there were the conditions similar
to a tsunami, for example, a high water pressure, then that structure
would protect him. So, if Mr. Y had shown that the structure would
not resist a pressure P, then he would have brought a relevant
counter-argument. So, an actual prediction may be impossible as
there are so many variables to know. Yet this does not matter,
because in many cases, we can will the opposite of what is predicted
even though it is claimed that we are part of a deterministic universe.
Furthermore, the impossibility of prediction, shows that determinism
cannot be empirically proven, and also establishes the impossibility
of this kind of proof and refutation against free will. If deterministic
-390-
prediction is impossible in principle under certain conditions, then,
determinism cannot be used as an argument against FWP. If it is
possible under all conditions in principle, then it produces the
internal, logical, external, and empirical contradictions explained in
this book.
In any case, the prediction is supposed to depend on a causal
relationship. If there is a cause to make that relationship, then in
some respects, the human being has some transcendent nature as
such cause. Previous parts explain why there is a cause which
produces such relationships. So, the human being can interact with
that cause in a transcendent way instead of only being the puppet of
the relationship it caused.
By the way, I will also present an experiment to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the free will power in an unpredictable universe.
Furthermore, I demonstrated why randomness cannot be an
argument against free will in parts 3.4.1.3 and 3.4.12.1.1.2.
Question 66.
The above tests are against physicalists. But a person who is not a
physicalist also may be a determinist. For example, he can say that
there are reasons that are related to the mind and qualia of a person,
and these reasons may be beyond the physical, and cause a person
will something in a deterministic way. So, do the above tests apply
as an argument against such determinists?
Answer 66.
Yes. For example, if someone says, “If someone feels hungry, he will
eat a thing in any case”, then we can think of this relationship as a
physical law. If there are such coercive relationships, then according
to such deniers of free will, there has to be future states of wills that
-391-
the agent cannot negate. However, in any case there will be
alternatives for which the agent is indifferent or is able to choose
freely.
Question 67.
What if the subject of negation test is manipulated? So, he negates
but in fact he does not have any freedom. In this case, he feels that
he is negating, but in fact it is the manipulator who is negating.
Answer 67.
The manipulated agent may be free or not depending on the intensity
of the manipulation.
As the question is about whether an agent may have free will power,
even if he is manipulated by a manipulator, this means that the
manipulator has free will power and is outside determinism and
indeterminism. Running these experiments with the manipulator
would also refute determinism and prove the existence of FWP.
Question 68.
When we do a negation, how can we change the structure of our
brain, since we do not know the details of its components?
Answer 68.
When a bird looks at left or right, it does not know which nerves or
muscles it moves. Yet, it can do it. Likewise, when we drive a car, we
do not know all parts of its engine. So, when a sovereign whole
produces a will and an an act, there are certain systems that help
perform these in accordance with their design.
-392-
Question 69.
If God tells someone what he will will, then can the agent negate
that?
Answer 69.
This is explained in part 3.8.1.4.3.
3.4.12.1.1.2 Will Power Negation Experiment Assuming an
Indeterministic Universe
In the previous part, we saw that the agent has a transcendent power
to control the physical structure of his brain. We also saw that the
physical structure of the brain does not have a fully deterministic
process.
In part 3.4.2 we saw why uncaused events are impossible.
These shed light on why any allegedly indeterministic event cannot
necessarily have any coercive effect on the will power.
In daily life, in situations as the following it may be claimed or we
may feel that a random event has been effective, and that we had no
power to do anything against it.
Especially when we had to decide something just in seconds or
milliseconds, we may feel as if we decided based on some random
thing: One example is a student who has just seconds to mark the
correct answers for the last few multiple-choice questions in an
important exam. Another example is a driver who is going fast who
noticed late the traffic light which is about to turn red, and there is
a fast approaching car behind while he has milliseconds to decide to
pass or not.
-393-
Or sometimes, we may say looking at a past error how we could have
done it. We can feel that maybe something random happened.
Or there may be an important decision situation whose alternatives
are almost equally attractive. Though there is no time pressure, we
may feel as if we did not have a reason to choose one over the other,
and something random made us choose one. Or it may be claimed
that we have thought that one alternative was better, just because of
a random neuron firing in our brain.
Or is it that indeterministic events are going on in our brains all the
time but we perceive just their macro and net implications?
In an example situation, the alternative A1 may appear as the one to
choose, for a reason or allegedly for no reason. Once it appears, this
entails that there is a corresponding brain structure as detailed in the
previous parts. As shown in the previous part, the agent has a power
to overcome it and change it to alternative A2. But what if the
direction of this power to overcome it, is the outcome of a random
process? The answer is that the agent has the power to change the
outcome to A1 again by changing his brain structure. Whatever is
inspired by the allegedly uncertain event, the structure of the brain
of the agent can be changed so that the implication of the inspiration
is not coercive. The changeability of the structure of the brain by the
essence entails that the brain structure is the ultimate and only cause
of the will power.
The free will power is related to the mere power to change. It does
not relate directly to the power to change it in a good or bad
direction, or to reverse it. But while engaging other mental powers,
it navigates through these powers while transcending them and it
directs them in certain ways. It is not obliged to reverse or to approve
anything by itself. But the essence of the agent who runs the FWP,
may use the outcomes of other mental powers together with FWP.
-394-
The power to assess A1’s optimality, is related to consciousness,
reasoning, and free will powers. A person may have willed to eat one
more chocolate bar, and then willed to not eat one more chocolate
bar. Both wills may have allegedly appeared because of uncertain
events. When the agent finalizes one of the two, this does not entail
that he willed randomly as long as he had the power to change one
of the alternatives. As explained in the previous part, no matter what
the origin of a brain structure toward an alternative occurs, under
normal conditions, the agent has the power to shift it.
Whether the agent ended up in a good will or bad will is the subject
of the part 3.6.2 about the OTBT of the agent. If the agent has two
alternatives of smoking and not smoking, and if he has access to the
benefits and harms of both alternatives, then he can override the will
which occurs allegedly because of the random events. By his free will
power, he can navigate between and transcend the alternatives, and
land upon one of them. To determine where to land, he will use his
knowledge and reasoning power resources wherein he also navigates
through his free will power.
In the above parts, we saw that an effective randomness cannot exist.
However, let us also see how this can be understood experimentally:
For this purpose, we will add a 3rd experiment which is a thought
experiment, to the experiments of the previous part: In this
experiment, all else will be the same with the 2nd experiment, except
this time, instead of making predictions, Laplace’s demon (LD) will
give us information about the current state of uncertain events. As
LD is by definition has full access to the current state of the universe,
he does not need additional powers.
So, LD tells E1 the following: There is a particle in your brain so that
if it collapses to a spin up state, “according to the structure of your
-395-
brain”, neuron N will fire so that you will will to touch the red candy.
If it collapses to a spin down state, N will fire so that you will will to
touch the white candy. Here, the spin up and spin down states
correspond to the declared predictions in the 2nd experiment in the
previous part.
Therefore, when in the experiment LD tells E1 that the collapse has
resulted in spin up state, and hence he will will to touch the red
candy. - Supposing that there are also deterministic processes outside
this collapse, LD informs what is going in total; if E1 is able to negate
what either the deterministic or indeterministic entail, then he will
be able to prove his FWP. We can also suppose that there are no
deterministic processes in the experiment, in this case, E1 will be
testing only the effect of uncertain event. - So, to negate, E1 will
touch the white candy. This way, he will have demonstrated that an
allegedly random event does not coerce him to will a specific
alternative. If he cannot do it, then completing the other related parts
of the experiment in line with the 1st and 2nd experiments, it will be
shown that this thought experiment is inconsistent with the real life,
and that in real life, E1 will be able to rule over the implications of
such allegedly uncertain effects.
Therefore, in accordance with the explanations in the previous part,
E1 is able to reverse or approve the implications of the allegedly
uncertain effects of such events. Hence, neither the structure of a
brain, nor the deterministic or indeterministic events coerce the agent
will specific wills.
Question 70.
Does not this test show that there is no destiny and that there is no
non-temporal divine knowledge? Would not any direct implication
of an uncertain event correspond with the knowledge of God?
-396-
Answer 70.
No, because the knowledge of God in this context is like our
knowledge upon observing all including our negation; final wills of
such tests would correspond to the historical knowledge of God who
also sees the future as if it has occurred. If He allowed us to negate
the implications of the uncertain event, then the alternative we willed
by negating is the ultimate will of God that He approved and put
within the set of alternatives that are made willable to us.
Further details are given in part 3.8.1.4.4 about destiny.
Question 71.
Does not the experiment also show that a manipulated subject has
free will? What if it is done while someone manipulates E1?
Answer 71.
The experiment will show that ultimately someone has free will, if
there is a consistent sovereign negation. This may be E1 or the
manipulator. The free will power of E1 may be limited depending on
the intensity of the manipulation.
Question 72.
Why would not we say that some physical processes within the agent
actually negate some other deterministic or non-deterministic
physical events? Maybe that which negates is also a kind of nondeterministic or deterministic physical event?
Answer 72.
If we consist of indeterministic physical events then we would not be
able to consistently negate the uncertain outcome predictions, or to
consistently negate any brain structure observed by LD. We “may”
-397-
negate a predicted “structure that we will negate”. Or we “may”
negate an “uncertain structure” that would allegedly cause uncertain
wills. The experiment can be reconfigured so as any type of
probabilistic flow of events or wills at any layer is negated by E1. For
example, while the brain structure is claimed to be uncertain so as to
produce uncertain wills, the agent may negate that by giving patterns
to the set of resulting wills; the number of wills may be high enough
to give a scientifically sound conclusion.
Question 73.
Maybe determinism and indeterminism are false, but why in a
combination of the two the experiments would not work?
Answer 73.
Once the principles underlying determinism collapse, there is no
reason to defend determinism. Because if uncertainty is possible, then
there is no principle upon which any partial determinism can be
claimed, except as some patterns originating from sovereign wholes
which is in essence different than determinism.
3.4.12.1.2 Experiment on Rearranging the Willing Brain
Structure
The reductive physicalist and the determinist claim that our wills
supervene upon the physical structure of our brains. If this is true,
with sufficient technology, we should be able to rearrange our own
will.
This point, even before doing any experiment shows the existence of
FWP. Because, with sufficient technology, I should discover what
spatiotemporal structure in my brain -or outside my brain- causes my
will, and I should be able to change it. If I can change my will this
way, this means that my spatiotemporal brain structure is not the
-398-
ultimate cause. If I cannot change my will by changing the
spatiotemporal structure of my brain, this again means that my
brain’s spatiotemporal structure is not the ultimate cause of my will.
The 4th experiment which is a thought experiment is as follows:
In accordance with determinism, though E1 can see the two
alternatives of red and white candy, and he sees no obstruction, he
can will only what he actually will have willed. He is informed by LD
that he cannot will the white candy.
Though through the analysis of the 1st experiment, he understood
that the claim of LD is false, this time, assuming that he is true and
that his wills supervene upon the physical structure, he tries to see
what is going on in his brain, whether there will arise further
contradictions, he tries to see whether he can rearrange certain things
and will structures so that he can will the red candy:
E1 has all kinds of probes and tools to see his brain and make certain
changes. He sees that his brain elements are so that he wills the red
candy. However, he checks whether he can will to change the related
“circuit”85 or switch of his brain that causes the will of red candy.
Though the circuit is so that he has to will the red candy, there are
two theoretical possibilities regarding the circuit which causes him to
will the red candy:
(1) He will will to rearrange the circuit to will the red candy into a
circuit to will the white candy. (2) He will not will to rearrange the
circuit to will the red candy to a circuit to will the red candy.
For simplicity, here I use the word “circuit” instead of neuronal networks,
neurons, …
85
-399-
If (1) is true, then he rearranges the circuit. If (2) is true, then he
checks if he will will to rearrange the circuits which cause (2).
Now, as it is a scientific search whether he can prove his free will
power, E1 will check all circuits to see if there is an open point. LD
cannot stop him, since there will be in any case some people who
want to check whether they have free will power and who will try to
prove LD wrong.
If he finds just one open point, then in a chain he will rearrange all
circuits including the very circuit which requires that he wills the red
candy, and he rearranges that and he touches the white candy.
Or if he cannot find an open point, let us suppose that E1 checked
all circuits one by one starting from the very circuit that causes him
to will the red candy, and all of them are so that he cannot rearrange
any circuits. He came to the related “final” circuit in his brain.
Regarding different scenarios, there are three important points here:
(1) E1 very soon finds an opening. Because, it is very unlikely that
all probed circuits happen to be negative. The probability of the first
circuit being negative is ½, the probability of the second circuit also
being negative is ½ * ½ =¼, the probability of 100 circuits being all
negative is 2-100 which is very close to zero. Also, note that E1 may
have many alternative circuits that may be used to by-pass the
negative circuits.
Also, checking whether E1 will change a circuit entails checking
whether E1 will change components of that circuit. But, the
components of that circuit will be same in nature with the
components of the circuit which entails willing the other alternative.
So, it is difficult if not impossible that he finds out that he will not
will to change the circuit.
-400-
(2) The questions’ answers may not be within those circuits as there
are virtually infinite chain of questions. Hence, the prediction of LD
cannot be done based on these spatiotemporal circuits either. Let us
suppose that there is a last circuit in the brain up to which he could
not find an open point; E1 will again have two potential wills and a
question: Will he will to rearrange that last circuit, or not? If the
answer is within the circuits as the determinist claims, then the circuit
which contains the answer to this question will also be somewhere
in the brain. But this definitely will require infinite number of circuits
which is impossible in actuality. So, there is an essence of E1 which
contains certain things that his brain does not contain.
(3) As E1 negated E2 in the first experiment within seconds in each
round, it is not possible that so many circuits are checked in daily
life. So, it is unlikely that the wills happen entirely through serial
connections and processes. Also, even assuming that the
spatiotemporal structure of E1’s brain is the only factor determining
the will of E1, to claim that E1 cannot negate a claim, would entail
that there is no opening in the brain of E1 so that the circuits directly
related to the will can change is not substantiated; especially, since
E1 transcends both alternatives, if he is told that he cannot will one
alternative, then he can give his brain enough time so as some related
circuits change in order to will the blocked alternative.
The experiment shows that E1’s will cannot be the result of a
spatiotemporal deterministic, reducible, and sequential process. He
has a transcendent essence which receives the data in a unitary way,
and in cooperation with the related elements of the brain supplies
the motor modules with relevant commands. The agent transcends
things in unity, not necessarily in steps: The essence of the agent
transcends both candies, and the scenarios where he touches the red
candy and where he touches the white candy equally. There are no
limitations of energy or mass at a certain layer. E1 can easily imagine
raising a truck with his finger, and give the command to his finger.
-401-
After this stage he will notice experimentally that it cannot raise it.
But the power of the previous stage is contained within its freedom
and transcendence balanced sometimes with the ignorance of the
practical execution issues. The reasoning power, the memory related
to past experiences is outside this transcendent freedom. Once the
agent can conceive the alternatives, he can give the command to his
motor modules. So, seeing the physical circuit as something that
prevents willing a touchable candy is in fact a weird situation.
Furthermore, it shows that though there are relationships between
the structure of the brain and the will, there is not necessarily a oneto-one relationship between the two. For example, two different
corresponding brain structures may entail the same will.
Question 74.
In the situation of an indeterministic universe, if we need to make a
distinction between the alleged supervenience basis (ASB)86 and the
will87 as a causal power, which one has a causal power over the other?
The will and the position of the switch seem to always overlap.
Answer 74.
In the deterministic scenario in the 1st and 2nd experiments, we could
see that E1 could negate the implication of a deterministic universe:
The answer to the simple question “can you will the red candy while
the related switch of the brain is to the left so as to entail the white
86 In this part, by alleged supervenience basis (ASB) I mean a state constituted
of deterministic or indeterministic spatio-temporal entities, relationships and
reasons upon which the will is allegedly dependent or supervenient. In the
following experiment we will see ASB’s implications about free will power.
87 If we see the agent as holistic being and ASB as a sub-reality then there is
no problem; the will is real with its dimensions, it is distinct and it is sovereign.
The opposing view is that the will is illusory and ASB is the only one that
produces effects.
-402-
candy?” would make you know whether you have sovereign free will
power over the deterministic mechanisms.
If I am reshaping my brain particles this means that I am more than
particles or I have some dimensions beyond the dimensions of the
particles, especially in a non-deterministic universe. Because
otherwise I would not be able to change and it would be a
contradictory process unless the change in particles coincidentally
and fully complied with the subject of the conscious will. And
changing requires a transcendent capacity which would have certain
attributes, by which I can observe, conceive, plan, or execute the
change.
3.4.12.2
Some Key Points About the Experiments and
Proofs
3.4.12.2.1 Experiments Are Not the Only Proofs for Free
Will
We show FWP not only through tests but also by demonstrating the
impossibility of determinism and indeterminism without sovereignty.
These arguments support each other.
3.4.12.2.2 Mechanics in The Tests
The parts are not superior to the whole, since taken separately they
contain themselves but not the whole. They do not see the potentials,
but the agent sees them since each part is instantiated within itself.
The ability to transcend these potentials is closely related to free will,
because as potentials, any potential is a willable alternative, though
for each part there is a limited accessible potential. And taken
separately no part contains nor comprehends the whole of the
potentials that the agent can comprehend and transcend.
-403-
3.5 Producer of The Will: The Agent
Nay! I swear by the self-accusing soul.
(Quran: 75/2)
(To the righteous soul it will be said:) "O fully satisfied soul!
Return to your Lord, well-pleased and pleasing [to Him],
(Quran: 89/27-28)
The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is in them
exalt Him. And there is not a thing except that it exalts
[Allah] by His praise, but you do not understand their [way
of] exalting. Indeed, He is Forbearing and Forgiving.
(Quran: 17/44)
And We have already created man and know what his soul
whispers to him, and We are closer to him than [his] jugular
vein.
(50/16)
The “agent” specifically means a human being in our context,
however, more generally, it refers to anyone who wills. In our
context, the agent is the actor of the will, the willer, and the entire
being who wills and who will earn the consequences of the exercise
of the will power. The agent may be in different states. And there are
layers of the agent and these layers may interact.
-404-
3.5.1 The Concepts Related to The Agent in The Quran
Regarding Free Will
The agent is the willer. Therefore, understanding what an agent is,
how is its structure, what are its states, and powers regarding free
will are necessary in order to understand the will power.
So, I will first give an overview of the terminology of the Quran about
these. And then we will go into further details.
3.5.1.1 Agent (Nafs)
The word “nafs” is used in the Quran in two essential meanings. One
meaning is the “person”, which indicates the agency of the human
being. I will also use the word “agent” interchangeably with the
“person”, since regarding free will, our focus is on the agency aspect
of a human being as a person.
The other meaning of “nafs” is “the active essence of the person”.
Regarding English usage, the word nafs in Arabic corresponds to the
word “soul” which has also the two meanings. The hand or foot that
we can touch are parts of the person; but they are not parts of the
essence.
Although the Quran uses also specific words that correspond to
“person”, and “essence”, the word “nafs” which comprises both is
used more often. This seems to be very instrumental in delivering the
message that the mental, sentimental, spiritual, intellectual, and
moral aspect of the human being constitute the most noteworthy part
of the human being. Allah knows the best.
3.5.1.1.1 Nafs Meaning “The Person”
The following verse is an example of the first meaning:
-405-
You will certainly be tried in your property and your
‘persons’. And you will certainly hear from those who have
been given the Book before you and from the idolaters much
abuse. And if you are patient and keep your duty, surely this
is an affair of great resolution.
(Quran: 3/186)
The agent or person in this usage, is a whole containing all of the
following elements. In the following sections I will take in detail the
parts, processes, properties, environment of the agent as they relate
to the free will.
3.5.1.1.2 Nafs Meaning the Essence/ The Soul of the
Person
The following verse is an example of the second meaning:
And who is more unjust than one who invents a lie about
Allah or says, "It has been inspired to me," while nothing has
been inspired to him, and one who says, "I will reveal
[something] like what Allah revealed." And if you could but
see when the wrongdoers are in the overwhelming pangs of
death while the angels extend their hands, [saying],
"Discharge your souls! Today you will be awarded the
punishment of [extreme] humiliation for what you used to
say against Allah other than the truth and [that] you were,
toward His verses, being arrogant."
(Quran: 6/93)
In the above verse, we see that the souls of some people are punished
in a different way.
The following verse is about the rewarding of a person who has been
killed in the way of Allah:
-406-
And never think of those who have been killed in the cause
of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord,
receiving provision,
(Quran: 3/169)
So, in the above two verses, we see that the still body of a person is
in our presence, while the soul of the person may undergo a
punishment or reward. In the latter verse, the person is alive with his
Lord, “receiving provision”. It is clear that this worldly body of the
person is not receiving any provision. These bodies’ atoms are in a
certain state, yet these persons keep enjoying and eating the
provisions of Allah.
We always observe that the change in the spatiotemporal
components of a person does not necessarily make the person
another person. If that which is rewarded is fully another body, and
if there was no common essence between the existence of the person
who was dead, and the person who is being rewarded or punished,
then another person, another body would be receiving rewards for a
deed that he has not done, and that another person has done.
The reward is presented as a reward for what they did. This means
that the essence who did the good deed was not essentially the body.
Because the contents of a body changes continuously. Punishing the
same structure is also meaningless, because structures of the same
agent may change, and also a structure can be copied. If it has qualia,
and if a same structure rebuilt somewhere else has the same qualia,
the exact new copy will not be the doer of an evil act that the original
body did somewhere else.
On the other hand, if the punishment for an evil act had been at the
very time of doing the evil act, then freedom of will would not be
obtained, and good and evil would not have been existed and then
compensated.
-407-
If the essence of the agent to be punished or rewarded is connected
to one neuron in the brain and transcends other parts from there,
then again something else would be punished. If it is like a quantum
entanglement of particles in the brain then the punishment of other
neurons would be unfair. The same should apply in the worldly
punishment as well: If the punishment of the criminal happens some
time later, then the very atoms would have gone, and would it be the
spatiotemporal structure of the agent which is punished? Likewise, a
structure would be different even if it has permanent aspects.
For the agent to be responsible as the same person he must have a
unity. If the active essence contains differentiations then it might be
said that the one punished is not the one who committed the crime.
However, as explained in part 2.2.1.3 mere differentiation does not
necessarily prevent unity, since differentiation is closely connected to
unity. Here, the distinction of the soul is due to its different
functions. While the elements of the body or the brain is dissolvable
to be given to the usage of other souls, the soul is the location of
agent-like relationships so as it has permanence and distinct identity.
These are related to the Designer name of Allah, because of which
we observe that things are not reducible or supervenient to a specific
thing. Different aspects and substances are originated and sustained
for specific purposes; and there is no mechanical and nontranscendental basis to which things can be reduced. Further details
about these are given in sections related to argument from unity and
its extension of transcendence.
If the essences were not the key elements of an agent, then at least
some bodies who have completed their functions in this realm, would
be transferred to another realm; otherwise, parts of different bodies
would be mixed and it would be practically difficult to recompense
distinct persons in the hereafter. Similar problems would also occur
in the worldly punishment and reward.
-408-
Can this essence be just a locus of an ineffective consciousness? A
part of a whole that can be taken as responsible, just as a link or
symbol? And if it is effective how effective would it be? Naturally, in
a consistent and fair system, it has to be considerably effective.
Also, if the essence did not have distinct effects, and it had only
consciousness, then it would be rewarded though it did not have any
effect.
The unitary beings are fundamental. The physical88 is a limited and
secondary aspect which is accessed through our eyeballs. Yet the
physical is also based on unity.
If the one who is to be rewarded was a recreated soul or structure
then the one who rejoices those pleasures would not be the one who
for example suffered in the way of Allah. And that which is to be
rewarded or punished cannot be like a spatiotemporal substance like
an atom or neuron which is connected to a body and then separated
from it and connected to another one, because for example the body
is seemingly in continuous movement and internal change.
The power of the unchanging element may be understood from the
following verse:
Then He proportioned him and breathed into him from His
(created) soul and made for you hearing and vision and
hearts; little are you grateful.
(Quran: 32/9)
According to the meaning of the “physical” as the “natural”, everything is
physical, including God, souls, and so on. But generally, the physical is used as
meaning the spatiotemporal and excluding the transcendent. Hence, often I
use the word the physical in this latter narrow sense to facilitate
communication. But the first meaning is the more appropriate one.
88
-409-
The essence may be something that does not change so that a reward
or punishment is just. By the way, note that the change or the passage
of time are mostly what we perceive in a limited way through our
limited eyeballs. We experience that it is unchanging although all
elements of our bodies change. However, this essence may have
access to changing things.
Whatever we consider as changing has some unchanging aspects
within certain unities: A book is not a sovereign whole, but the
sovereignty of the space connects its parts in space. Hence, within
the sovereign wholeness of space it has a place.
Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that
do not die [He takes] during their sleep. Then He keeps those
for which He has decreed death and releases the others for a
specified term. Indeed, in that are signs for a people who give
thought.
(Quran: 39/42)
The soul89 has a unitary aspect as every other sovereign whole and
its essence. The apparent differentiations within any whole or soul
are elements of unity. The relationships between differentiated
components are also elements of unity. In this respect, the soul is
also in relation with other essences such as the essence of will module
or the essence of consciousness.
Consider the multiple and the One!
(Quran: 89/3)
It has access to different dimensions as physical dimensions,
consciousness, it is transcendent. It relates most to the whole of
anything. If a human being’s soul is gone, the wholes of his atoms
89The
word “soul” should be understood with its meaning as “an active or
essential part” of the human being. (Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
-410-
continue being. This soul interacts with different dimensions directly
or indirectly. It transcends time, physical things, memory within
certain ranges. It takes some things in some dimensions as inputs.
When a person is dead, this essence that related to the whole of the
body, consciousness loses its connection to those. Yet it can be related
to other elements. For example, it can be related to other cells in the
paradise. Every sovereign whole has such a unity and essence.
The reality of a human being extends as an ontological reality
through time as well. And this reality is something more than the
organization and energy it contains. It is a user of power which exerts
power over the related energy.
When a person is alive and real then this reality has implications
regarding that whole, for example he must eat. When this reality
ends the need for eating ends. And the behaviors of his parts change.
The cause of this difference is soul which is the holistic difference of
the agent from the sum of his parts. This is true for all things and
laws of nature and some realities as space-time.
Every sovereign whole that the soul interacts with has soul-like
features. Because of the limitations of our eyeballs, we only see
limited relationships at the surface.
Question 75.
How does the soul interact with the physical?
Answer 75.
This is answered in part 3.5.3.
Question 76.
Do split-brain patients have one essence or two essences?
-411-
Answer 76.
As of now there are insufficient number of qualified experiments
about split brain patients. And as no normal person would want his
corpus colussum be severed, those patients are exceptional cases. On
the other hand, there are communicative limitations about such
experiments about animals.
However, other than exceptional situations and artificial setups, the
split-brain patients live their lives normally. Although all of their
fibers connecting the two halves of their brains are cut, they do not
experience clash between the two halves.
In experiments, when they are made to grab a key with their left
hand and not allowed to look or touch with the other hand, if they
are asked what is in their left hand, they cannot say what their left
hand holds. Because, the left hand is generally controlled by the right
half of their brain; and speaking is controlled by the left half.
However, in normal life, they are not limited to their left hand or left
eye. And we see that they behave as one person, and they do not
have two personalities doing things in turn.
If split brain patients had two souls in one body then non-split-brain
persons would also have two souls in one body as well, just they have
to be collaborating. But as those who do not have such problems
witness, this is not the case.
Question 77.
In near death experiences, people report that they had out of body
experiences where they floated up while their bodies were lying down
and their eyes closed and their brains were in a shut down state. Does
not this show that the spirit or soul has an ability of itself to see and
hear without the body?
-412-
Answer 77.
And it is not [possible] for one to die except by permission
of Allah at a decree determined.
(Quran: 3/145)
And no soul perceives what it will earn tomorrow, and no
soul perceives in what land it will die. Indeed, Allah is
Knower and Aware.
(Quran: 31/34)
These allegedly near-death experiences are not actually near death,
since the death has not happened at that location and time.
3.5.1.1.2.1 Distinctness of The Soul
It is obvious that as experiencer of the qualia and events, we last
through time. Every whole has aspects and existence through and
transcending time. The brain may have states which give data, can
communicate with the essence of the person. The essence also may
be in structures like this. In any case, every whole has a unity. But if
this is the case, and if the brain has a unity why is there a need for a
distinct essence?
Because, the brain is decomposable, and its constituents which may
have many other purposes, can be recombined in different forms. Yet
for the requirements of agent relationships, values, responsibility,
there is a need for a more permanent creation for relevant
relationships in the design of the universe and beings.
In this context, when a person dies and the constituents of his brain
are inactive in the agency realm, the essence may continue to be
active or suspended but activatable. In daily life we forget things,
though we are conscious: This means that the essence is structured
-413-
in a certain way, since it does not have an absolute access to anything
that exists in the brain.
A feature of a sovereign whole is its distinctness from other things.
So, for example a whole may have features distinct from its parts,
features that its parts do not have. For example, our space which is a
sovereign whole, unites spaces of 'each object which has its own
space' so that they may be related to each other. Or, for example a
part of the brain may have a memory feature. But the essence of the
agent may have a distinct consciousness.
If the essence has structure and differentiation then what is the
permanent or common between the actor and that which is rewarded
or punished? Is it a material substance, or structure/ form…?
Each whole has unity as explained in part 2.2.1.3 about argument
from unity. At times, some states of the brain communicate with the
essence some do not, as in forgetting.
In the below table we can see different theoretical possibilities. For
example, first two lines, show the possibility of having different
essences while having exactly same substance and same structure.
Lines 3 and 6 show the theoretical possibility of having same essence
while having two combinations where neither substance nor
structure is same.
SpatioSpatiotemporal
Line temporal
Essences
Substance Structure
#
(E)
(Su)
(St)
1
Su1
St1
E1
2
Su1
St1
E2
3
Su1
St2
E1
4
Su1
St2
E2
5
Su1
St2
E3
-414-
6
7
8
9
10
Su2
Su2
Su2
Su2
Su2
St1
St1
St1
St2
St2
E1
E2
E3
E1
E2
TABLE 1
I will not go through the implications of all these theoretical
possibilities, though they are quite indicative when combined with
our experiences.
However, the following question is important in our context: Can
essence be different while substance and structure are the same? The
answer is “Yes”. Because, changes in the spatiotemporal substance do
not affect the essence, since we know that the particles within our
bodies are continuously replaced while we as the experiencer of the
experiences are the same. On the other hand, as explained above,
structure may be the same while essences are different as shown in
the case of exact structural duplication. And location does not have
any impact on the permanence of the experiencer. Feelings of the
identically structured two agents in different locations may be the
same, yet the essences which experience these qualia are different.
The agents may shift locations, yet changing location as we
continuously experience does not change who we are. Therefore, we
can safely conclude that the essence is obviously distinct from
spatiotemporal structure, substance, and location.
Question 78.
Is not it possible that what the Quran says about martyrs is a special
and miracle-like exceptional situation like the splitting of the sea with
-415-
Prophet Moses (PBUH), maybe it is not applicable for the souls in
general?
Answer 78.
The hereafter applies for all people. Those verses are not revealed for
some specific persons, but establish a rule-like relationship. And it is
likely that at least worldly atoms or molecules of people are mixed
with those of other people. In any case, the worldly brain is in our
presence while the agent enjoys other things.
3.5.1.1.2.2 Islam Is Not Dualist.
Say, "Are there of your 'partners' any who begins creation
and then repeats it?" Say, "Allah begins creation and then
repeats it, so how are you deluded?
(Quran: 10/34)
“Property dualism is the doctrine that the mental properties are
distinct from and irreducible to physical properties, even if properties
of both kinds may be possessed by the same thing, such as the human
brain. Substance dualism is the doctrine that the things that possess
mental properties are distinct from and irreducible to the things that
possess physical properties – for example, that the human mind or
soul is distinct from and irreducible to the human body or any part
of it, such as the brain.”90
In summary, the distinguishing feature of dualism according to the
above formulation is the “irreducibility” of mental properties and
things to the physical. This dualism recognizes both the mental and
the physical as the only fundamental classification in the relevant
context. It is different than monisms which recognize only the
90
(Lowe 2008)
-416-
physical or only the mental. It is not pluralist in that it does not
recognize additional classes in the relevant context.
In fact, the general formulation reflected in the above quote is one
which comes with some baggage of presuppositions. There is no
reason to take the reducibility as a criterion for the classification of
the doctrines in respect to the mental and physical. This presets the
agenda around the question of whether the mental is reducible to the
physical or not. It accepts the reality of the mental and the physical,
-though some see the mental as illusory and/or epiphenomenal-. But
it presumes that the mental and the physical are fundamentally
distinct. This is totally against the teaching of the Quran. Anyway,
in this part I will present some important implications of the Quranic
teaching about dualism as formulated in the above quote.
Let me also mention the knowledge argument91 to clarify a key point
of dualism: The deaf scientist92 S knows everything physical about
sounds and hearing. And one day he undergoes a surgery and starts
hearing. When he heard some sounds, S learnt and experienced
something new that cannot be explained by all that he scientifically
knew before the surgery. Therefore, the mental cannot be reduced to
the physical.
Islam is not dualist for the following reasons:
3.5.1.1.2.2.1 There Is No Reason to Separate the Mental and
The Physical.
Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision; and
He is the Subtle, the Aware.
(Nida-Rümelin 2019)
The deaf scientist is given as an example by (Robinson 1982), quoted in
(Nida-Rümelin 2019))
91
92
-417-
(Quran: 6/103)
Everything passes through our mental window. We never experience
immiscibility between the mental and the physical: We do not see
non-spatiotemporal spirits or stones or birds, we do not witness their
immiscible properties. And we cannot. If we see or experience, this
means that the mental and the physical interacts, and have
commonalities.
Secondly, we do not know sufficiently the essence of the physical,
and we do not know the essence of the mental. There is no reason to
claim that the physical is fundamentally different than the mental.
There are many reasons for the opposite. Explanations in part 2.2.1.3
about the argument from unity clarifies this issue.
On the other hand, we do not have full access about the essence and
person of God, hence to the essence of the creation. Therefore, in
any case according to Islam, any dualist classification may be only
epistemological. A claim that one is reducible upon the other is
unsubstantiated.
If a fundamental distinction is assumed to be true between the mental
and the physical, theoretically there may be 4 alternatives about how
the universe works: The mental and the physical are both effective;
only the mental is effective; only the physical is effective; none is
effective.
According to Islam, the physical and the mental cannot be separated
in terms of properties or substances except epistemologically. The
difference between the mental and the physical may be useful in
terms of epistemology in terms of degrees and contexts.
Defining the physical as a category other than the mental is fallacious
since 'we' 'define' and 'conceive' it as another category.
-418-
3.5.1.1.2.2.2 Physical and Mental Properties Are Not
Separable.
In Islam, every whole and every property of every whole has its reality
in a unity with other things; no substance and no property constitute
an absolute distance, since any distance also needs the unitary
creative power of Allah.
The properties are not separable as the mental ones and the physical
ones. As explained in part 2.2.1.3 about argument from unity, the
physical has mental aspects, and the mental has physical aspects.
Allah is “Aware” of all things -things include properties-. The mental
has the properties of unity, stability, classification, quantification,
allocation, design. The physical also has such properties.
If according to Islam, the body did not have soul-like attributes and
constituents, and if the soul did not have body like attributes and
constituents then we might say that Islam maintains dualism.
However, Quranic teaching does not allow us to make such sharp
distinctions.
Furthermore, the distinctions between the mental and the physical
do not apply to their Creator: One distinction between the mental
and the physical is that the physical is public, in other words
knowable by everybody as opposed to the mental which is subjective
and knowable only by the agent who experiences it. However,
according to Islam, this is not true as a principle. For example,
according to Islam, Allah knows the feelings of agents, or how they
observe the universe as in the following example:
The bedouins say, “We have believed.” Say, “You have not
[yet] believed; but say [instead], 'We have submitted,' for
faith has not yet entered your hearts.”
-419-
(Quran: 49/14)
So, ultimately, the mental is not fundamentally separable in principle
from the physical. Regarding the unity of the conscious experience
there is no fundamental difference either; all sovereign wholes have
also their unities as explained in part 3.5.3.
The scientist in the above knowledge argument does not have the
experience of hearing. But this does not mean that what he knew
before the surgery had nothing to do with the mental. So, he just did
not have access to a particular mental experience. His experience of
knowing before the surgery was also a mental experience. There is
no reason to say that whatever qualia he used to learn before the
surgery were not mental. Furthermore, whatever physical changes
were made in the surgery had an influence on his hearing. Also, the
contents of those changes as atoms, also may have mental aspects as
shown in the following verse:
Until, when they reach it, their hearing and their eyes and
their skins will testify against them of what they used to do.
And they will say to their skins, "Why have you testified
against us?" They will say, "We were made to speak by Allah,
who has made everything speak; and He created you the first
time, and to Him you are returned.
(Quran: 41/20-21)
While there is no basis to say that there is a sharp distinction between
the physical and mental, there is no reason either to say that there
are not things with attributes other than the physical and the mental.
3.5.1.1.2.2.3 The Physical and The Mental Are Created and
Sustained by Allah.
And He creates that which you do not know.
-420-
(Quran: 16/8)
Fundamentally there is no ontological distinction between the
physical and the mental. This is because nothing is self-sufficient and
everything needs the God who is Self-Sufficient and One and without
any parts.
We cannot say that the mental is reducible to the physical, because
the physical is not an ultimate basis for anything as explained in part
3.5.6.4.2 about reductionism and especially as explained in part
3.5.6.4.2.8 about SBEs. The physical and the physical properties are
also sustained by God. So, whatever properties does the physical
have, they are not their inherent properties, they are their given
properties. Therefore, reducibility of a mental property to the
physical is trivial at best. If the physical can be given a property of
being conscious, then discussing whether the mental is reducible to
the physical is not very meaningful.
Fundamentally, everything including differentiations, is built on
unity. How can the mental and physical properties have no
fundamental common ground while both have been created and
sustained by the same being who is absolutely One?
Whatever is the mechanism of consciousness and the physical, it
originates from Allah, who is not divisible regarding substance and
regarding properties; therefore, an isolation between the physical and
the conscious is not acceptable at the fundamental level. It is not
possible to separate the attributes of Allah as Knower, Aware,
Punisher, Merciful from His attributes as Creator, Powerful.
Adherents of religions who claim that God resembles a human being,
object, or animal may have difficulty in understanding how God
would not have distinct physical and mental attributes.
-421-
The physical is created and sustained by Allah who exercised His
attributes as Designer, Knower, Aware, Willer and so on attributes
for creating and sustaining the physical:
Ask them: "Who provides your sustenance from the heaven
and from the earth? Who has control over hearing and sight?
Who brings forth the living from the dead and the dead from
the living? Who regulates the universe?" They will soon reply:
"Allah." Say: "Why do you not then fear Him for your going
against the truth?"
(Quran: 10/31)
Whatever entity, being, or property is considered as mental or
physical, they are created and sustained by Allah. Allah does not have
a dual essence. Nor are His attributes separable from each other. He
can give mental properties to the physical, and physical properties to
the mental. The free will power which acts on the physical is an
example. In the following sub-sections I will give further examples
about this.
In the Quranic teaching, God can create whatever He wills. What He
creates is not limited by what already exists, since it is He who created
what already exists.
3.5.1.1.2.2.4 The Physical Has Mental Properties.
Until, when they reach it, their hearing and their eyes and
their skins will testify against them of what they used to do.
And they will say to their skins, "Why have you testified
against us?" They will say, "We were made to speak by Allah,
who has made everything speak; and He created you the first
time, and to Him you are returned.
-422-
(Quran: 41/20-21)
The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is in them
exalt Him. And there is not a thing except that it exalts
[Allah] by His praise, but you do not understand their [way
of] exalting. Indeed, He is ever Forbearing and Forgiving.
(Quran: 17/44)
The intentionality, subjectivity, and unity that are main features for
the mental are also shared by the physical.
The physical has no self-sufficient and objective property, meaning,
or being. Except if these are given them willfully by the One God
who also originates the mental properties.
We do not have any evidence to say that what we conceive is
something other than what we conceive even if it theoretically is
other than what we conceive. So, we cannot say that something is
not mind-like or conceivable, because whatever we are conscious of
is mind-like and interacts with minds.
So, when we say physical, it is not well defined in itself. What is the
distinction between physical and non-physical?
It is claimed that the physical is public and objective, in other words,
whoever has the means, can observe for example the weight, the size
of an object. However, it is not very clear that the physical is
objective/ public: Every physical thing in the universe might be
appropriately grown a million times, so that we would not notice the
difference. We look from the inside of our universe and spacetime,
everybody around looks from the inside, so we think that everybody
has an objective perception of the physical. If it looks like that
because we are inside the universe with certain limitations, and it is
not absolute, then this means that it is objective only for those who
are inside, for others it may be subjective, maybe even unperceivable.
-423-
We are not entitled to claim that every spatiotemporal thing we
perceive as an objective fact is ultimately complete and objective. In
fact, we do not have any absolute frame of reference for an absolute
size of anything. So, the claim that the physical property is public is
an unfalsifiable and unverifiable claim. So, it is possible that the
physical is subjective, and the mental observer is the more objective.
If we have consciousness supposing that we have it because of our
physical body, we cannot say that our parts do not have any
consciousness, hence, any unity and subjective experience. If the
physical can have such consciousness, then naturally they may also
have unity, subjectiveness, and intentionality. If the physical has such
attributes, then saying that mental attributes are not reducible to the
physical becomes meaningless, since the physical has mental
attributes.
Let us give an example related to the unity of the physical.
Let us suppose that there are 3 objects each with its own space, and
which cannot be related to other objects. This state is not sufficient
to explain any geometric relationship between them. For example,
that state cannot explain a triangular positioning of these objects.
Because, each is within a space unrelated to the other two spaces.
But if all of them are put in a common metaspace, then is this
metaspace effective and distinct, or is it supervenient upon these
objects? It is certainly an effective and distinct whole.
This metaspace is not necessary, then we can say that its unity and
distinctness was assigned to it by another source.
Now, let us suppose that one of these objects rotates around one of
the other two objects. This was not predictable in the previous state
where each only had its own space. Now that they have the rotation
-424-
relationship, we can say that there is another relationship overlapping
with the other relationships.
Then let us assume that whenever the rotating object is between the
other two objects, it has a feeling of hearing a voice. This “hearing”
was not predictable within the previous structure even though sound
waves might be possible. Hence, in the new structure, there is
another whole and unity built upon the previous structure.
This may continue, and be applied to protons, atoms, molecules,
cells, organs, planetary systems, and so on within our universe
regarding their different natures and relationships. The above steps
do not need to be sequential; they can be structural and spontaneous.
In the above example, we see that the unity that is used to distinguish
the mental experience is not a distinct property of the mental, it is
also a property of the physical. So, claiming that the mental
properties are fundamentally sepasable from the physical is
inconsistent with our world. Saying that those unities do not and
cannot have conscious experience is unsubstantiated, since we have
mental experience related to some spatiotemporal states.
If the physical can have conscious experience, then, saying that the
mental is irreducible to the physical is meaningless. If the physical
does not have conscious experience, then, at least it interacts with the
conscious, since, we are conscious and we experience beyond doubt
that we interact with the physical.
One example of a specific type of effective wholes are observed in
entangled pairs in the quantum world. In Bell’s inequality
experiments, the essence of the entangled photons is not located in
one of the photons distant in space. The local separation between
these entangled photons is effectively overridden by their whole. It
acts overcoming the unknowns and separations of space. In the two
-425-
photons entangled in a certain way, there is something which does
not exist distinctly in two photons which are not entangled. That
something is not bound by locality. This again shows the unity and
interaction capacity being common between the mental and the
physical, hence, making the claim that the mental is fundamentally
separable from the physical false.
For more detailed explanations about the mental like behavior of the
physical, see part 3.5.3 about sovereign wholes.
3.5.1.1.2.2.5 Some Mental Properties Need the Physical.
And [by] the soul and He who proportioned it
And inspired it its wickedness and its righteousness,
He has succeeded who purifies it93,
(Quran: 91/7-9)
Every soul will taste death. And We test you with evil and
with good as trial; and to Us you will be returned.
(Quran: 21/35)
The mental and the physical interact. The negation experiments and
brain observation experiments about the free will power in part
3.4.12.1 show the influence of the essence of the agent on the physical
states.
The “soul” (nafs in the original text -not “rooh” corresponding to spirit-) is
used as corresponding to the “person” in general in the Quran. Hence there
is a purification of his own self. There are inspirations coming from his own
nature, his environment, from people; yet the person may purify himself. He
has his own reality. For further details see part 3.5.1.1.2 about the agent (nafs).
93
-426-
In the following verses, we see some physical organs which are
necessary for some mental activities such as having sight:
Have We not made for him two eyes?
And a tongue and two lips?
And have shown him the two ways?
(Quran: 90/8-10)
As explained in the following verse, certain souls who are said to be
alive in the sight of Allah are being fed, and are receiving provision:
And never think of those who have been killed in the cause
of Allah as dead.
Rather, they are alive with their Lord,
receiving provision,
(Quran: 3/169)
These provisions are not illusions. Hence, we may conclude that
according to the Quran souls have a reality that is not necessarily
fully distinct from the physical.
3.5.1.1.2.2.6 Allah Does Not Have A Separable Substance.
The substance dualism is not acceptable in Islam, since Allah does
not have any separable substance. We cannot say that this special
substance of Allah is responsible for His mental acts or attributes,
and that substance for the physical attributes.
The essence of the human being explained in part 3.5.3 is not a
distinct substance related specifically to the mental properties. It
interacts with the spatiotemporal parts of the human being. While
-427-
there are some differences between the essence and the
spatiotemporal, they interact as explained in part 3.4.12.1 about free
will experiments. Their interaction shows that they are on common
grounds, regarding substance and properties.
Furthermore, as explained above, the spatiotemporal also has mental
aspects. The essence explained in that part is a matter of design rather
than a fundamentally different essence who has only mental
properties and functions. It is designed that way so that this world
continues in its agenda, while each soul comes in when its turn
comes, be tested, and then see the outcomes of the test. According to
the design, it has to have a life that goes beyond its stay in this
temporary world.
3.5.1.1.2.3 Other Soul-Like Things
An object is with its space. With the making of an object, its space is
created. We cannot conceive of a created object without its space, and
not only in our thought, but ontologically, an object is not separable
from its space94. So, its unity is created with its environment. This is
not necessarily sequential; all objects and their spaces may be initially
created within the same space.
But other objects also must have their spaces, if they are to exist.
However, when two objects are united in one space then they can act
relatively to each other. So, their being in the same universe becomes
a new system and produces new potentials and implications.
Now, to create a gravitational system, a system with a law or force of
gravity, the objects, beyond being within the space, also need to be
connected to each other in terms of the equations of gravity. Note
that this does not mean that all of those relationships are to be created
94
Space is an example here. This reasoning may be extended to other things
as well. For example, we cannot think of a number without its “surrounding”.
-428-
consecutively. Additionally, the forces can also be connected to each
other in certain ways. Likewise, there are different relationships or
relational systems at different layers or between different things.
Similarly, molecules and atoms may be unified within bodies and
according to defined relationships as if they are entangled to work
for a specific set of goals.
We see above that the objects which did not have any power to move
with their inherent spaces, gained further potentials which can be
measured in respect to other objects when they are made the parts of
a unifying space that which contains them including their spaces95.
Here what I indicate as unifying space is normally the normal space
people talk about. However, we should note that any spatial entity,
in order to be, needs its own intrinsic inseparable space in the first
place, and that there is no necessity that there would be anything
additional that connects that entity with other entities. Therefore,
this unifying space has a concrete and distinguishable effect over
objects and their unified spaces.
In the context of the soul, the above objects correspond to the
particles of a human being acting as the part of the whole of the agent
so that different signals coming and being instantiated within
different neurons being shared with the soul of an agent. Here, the
parts of the agent gain further qualifications, wherefore, there
appears a whole of the agent who transcendentally receives data in
separate locations/ neurons, and who puts them into use in
relationship with the whole of the agent.
There is unity in regards to the whole of the space and in regards to
the whole of the agent. In regards to space each thing moves as a
95
Note that the unifying space may be unified space in the same time. In the
above example, a single object may have parts. So, its distinct united space in
respect to other objects, is a unifying space in respect to its parts.
-429-
whole. In regards to the whole of the agent the incoming signals to
parts of the brain are also instantiated according to a system, in the
unitary and transcendent whole of the agent. If two objects pull each
other in regards to a gravitational system, then there is unity in
regards to the whole of the gravitational system.
Similarly, when we use the letter “e” in the word table, “table” is
distinct, but “e” is also distinct. The letters of the word table
constitute the word table, but table is distinct from the letters. The
concepts are the reasons why the letters exist. Table can also be
without the meaning of the table.
Where are these unifying, soul-like essences? This question may be
answered with a similar question: Where is the unifying essence of
space? As you may note, in this context the essence of the space
transcends the space and location. Likewise, “where the unifying
essence for an atom is” also a question with a different kind of
answer: An atom’s unifying essence unifies what it contains but is
also connected to the unifying space; hence, it also transcends space
and location. Similarly, if we ask where the unifying essence of
number “4” is, the answer is that it transcends the set of numbers.
These essences are not fundamentally separate or differentiated.
Their relationships with other things are defined by God. For some
details about differentiation, see part 2.2.1.3.
These soul-like essences of wholes can be disconnected from the
relevant realm temporarily or permanently, as in the example in the
following verse:
Allah takes away the souls at the time of their death, and
those that do not die [He takes] during their sleep. Then He
keeps those for which He has decreed death and releases the
others for a specified term. Indeed, in that are signs for a
people who give thought.
-430-
(Quran: 39/42)
Parts are not united with the soul in its unity in some stages of the
sleep. They have their wholeness within themselves, other than that
they are less connected to the soul of the agent. This connection is
not in terms of space; so, the soul does not move away from the body
with a certain speed when the agent sleeps. Rather, it is in other
deeper kinds of relationships.
Note that the processes mentioned in the above verse happen in lawlike ways. We see in the following verse that even the creation and
resurrection of all mankind happen like the creation or resurrection
of just a single soul:
Your creation and your resurrection will not be but as that of
a single soul. Indeed, Allah is Hearing and Seeing.
(Quran: 31/28)
The agent contains other layers of unity as well: For example, the
agent’s parts interact in unity with the whole of the agent, but also
with the unity of the space. Likewise, the agent interacts with its parts
in unity, but also with other objects as being part of the space. So,
unities of things may be overlapping with the unities of other things.
Where are the borders of the unities? There are no absolute borders,
each unity within a whole is also a unity with other wholes, which
has its essence not in differentiation, but in unity. Borders themselves
are elements of unity. A unity is not the other unity, but it is defined
in terms of the other unity as well, so they overlap.
Facts for the wholes apply for the soul-like elements as well: A whole
cannot be considered as absolutely separate from other things.
Positing a distance is meaningless, since, the distance itself is a
unifying element. If there is a distance, that distance would also be
in units, that would be defined in terms of that which is distant. All
those units are created, defined, and sustained by the One God. A
-431-
bird who flies and flaps its wings has a reality of its own deeply
connected to its outside and inside. At the deepest level Allah holds
all.
Quantum unilocality96 shows that the active essence, the very
ontological being of things are not locally separated. Properties of
things are not absolute-distance based either. The interaction
between the essence and the spatial is so that the spatial is defined
based on non-spatial unity. Space has implications, but this is because
it is designed that way. Its effects do not originate ultimately from
itself. Hence, it does not have any key superiority to the soul or to
the consciousness. The spatiotemporal is just a view and it is
encompassed by and within unity.
Can the whole be separated from its parts? A cell dies and there are
the molecules. The person dies and there are the organs that may
keep living if transplanted, and molecules and atoms. If there is no
infinite structural regress then no part is absolute nor eternal by
itself. No part is built upon a self-sufficient substance. All is
sustained. So, a whole is not dependent on or reducible to its parts
but it is in relationship with the parts. The parts interact, and the
soul also interacts with the whole as its center.
Atoms in the brain which move as relatively to and dependent on
each other require a unity; in fact, they are part of that unity; and act
in that unity. Their own unity exists, but also, they act as elements
of the higher unity of the agent. So, as their own unity is within a
unity, and real like this, the unity of the agent is also like this in
The technical general term “non-locality” does not represent well the
Quranic teaching. In the Quranic teaching location is real and effective.
However, it does not mean absolute distance. On the contrary, distance is also
an element of unification and unity. Hence, I prefer using “unitary locality”
and “unilocality” instead of non-locality.
96
-432-
unity. So, the whole has such a unity, and this unity is instantiated
both on the atom, and on the whole body and brain.
Can the coming together of the similar neurons in the same structure
produce automatically the irreducible reality, whole, and soul of the
agent? As the objects having their own spaces cannot produce a space
that will be common to them, similar neurons considered as elements
only of the spatiotemporal, cannot produce the same agent by
themselves and without the essence of the agent. They cannot be
organized fully in the same structure if considered as limited within
the spatiotemporal, because the whole of the agent makes changes to
the neurons, and their structure.
If unilocality is true, then things are organized and designed in a
different and unitary way.
Question 79.
Can this concept of soul-like essence be related to the quantum
phenomena?
Answer 79.
The Quranic framework is very reminiscent of the quantum
phenomena.
Firstly, wave-particle duality may be better explained within the
Quranic framework: Long ago the non-existence of ether has been
confirmed experimentally. Hence, the medium where the waveparticles propagate in the state of waves can find better answer within
a framework wherein patterns are defined in a command-like and
information-like way.
Quantum entanglement is mostly interpreted as particles being
entangled with other particle(s). However, this is not parsimonious
in that it requires that every one of numerous infinitesimally small
-433-
parts has the power to cooperate and originate their powers to
cooperate with other things. In the case of a soul-like explanation,
one soul-like essence of a whole is sufficient to coordinate numerous
parts regarding the necessities of that whole.
Long ago it has been shown that the maximum limit based on the
speed limit of light is false. In Bell’s inequality tests it has been
demonstrated that locality is false. This complies with the
transcendence, omnipresence, omniscience and many other divine
attributes of God.
Furthermore, our transcendence and the negation experiments and
brain observation experiments that are explained in earlier sections,
demonstrate that determinism is false. A widely adopted
interpretation of quantum physics is based on the rejection of
determinism. The key emphasis of the Quran on the freedom of will
and on responsibility necessitates non-existence of determinism.
These also are in harmony with the Quranic teaching. However, note
that the Quran rejects also an indeterminism similar to randomness
which is considered as a causal factor. Rather, uncertainty may be the
natural and multipotential outcome of the sovereign wholes.
All of the above quantum phenomena can be explained with the use
of soul-like essences in a much more parsimonious paradigm, based
on the Quranic framework.
3.5.1.2 Modules of The Agent Related to The Free Will
Power
And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge;
surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these,
shall be questioned about that.
(Quran: 17/36)
-434-
And do not conceal testimony, for whoever conceals it his
heart is indeed sinful, and Allah is Knowing of what you do.
(Quran: 2/283)
The free will power of the agent is a power at the high level of the
agent’s very essence. However, there are other modules of the agent
which influence to an important extent the exercise of the free will
power.
Since the hearing, seeing, the heart (qalb) and heart (fuad) may be
questioned, the same about the identity of the essence may apply to
them as well. This entails that the soul has components that
correspond to our hearing, seeing, and hearts. They can be
responsible as much as they contributed to the good or evil, if certain
conditions for responsibility are satisfied. For identity of the essence
see part 3.5.1.1.2 about the nafs meaning the soul.
3.5.1.2.1 Heart (Qalb)
One of the modules of the agent which influences the exercise of free
will power is the heart.
There are several words used for heart in the Quran, such as qalb,
fuad, lub, şadr. The word “qalb” the one which is used the most in
the Quran, seems to have been used in a metaphorical way for a
center active in terms of mental powers. Qalb is a verbal noun of the
verb qalaba which means to turn, return, transform, flip over. The
“turned about” in following verse, is a use of the passive form of
another form (qallaba) of the verb:
The Day their faces will be ‘turned about’ in the Fire, they
will say, "How we wish we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the
Messenger.
(Quran: 33/66)
-435-
The biological heart as an organ at the center of blood circulation is
also called qalb because of its function of continuous activity, change
and turning the blood.
As a module, the usage of the word heart (qalb) relates to some
central mental functions. The heart (qalb) has a big influence in
changing and determining the direction of a human being in regards
to important issues.
According to the numerous verses where the word qalb is used, it
seems to be a module of the distinct whole of the agent. Its
indispensable and unitary element(s) are to be within the soul,
because as we saw earlier, the agent enjoys some rewards and
continues some mental activities while his corpse, biological heart,
breast, and brain are in our presence.
Some parts of the brain are related to the biological heart; the brain
and some aspects of the biological heart may influence the mental
heart (qalb).
Heart as qalb is a concept which is used very much in the Quran.
We understand that though it is closely related to the free will power
(FWP), FWP’s origin extends beyond it.
The following verses are examples which show the important role of
the heart regarding certain wills:
Your god is one God. But those who do not believe in the
Hereafter their hearts are disapproving, and they are
arrogant.
(Quran: 16/22)
The heart (qalb) is also a module which processes certain data and
reasons according to the following verse:
-436-
So, have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts
by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it
is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which
are within the breasts.
(Quran: 22/46)
In the following verses, we see that there are some exercises of FWP
attributed to the heart, and some attributed to the agent but not to
the heart:
Allah does not impose blame upon you for what is
unintentional in your oaths, but He imposes blame upon you
for what your hearts have earned. And Allah is Forgiving and
Forbearing.
(Quran: 2/225)
O you messenger, do not be saddened by those who hasten
to disbelieve among those who say, "We believe," with their
mouths, while their hearts do not believe.
(Quran: 5/41)
Call them by [the names of] their fathers; it is more just in
the sight of Allah. But if you do not know their fathers then
they are [still] your brothers in religion and those entrusted
to you. And there is no blame upon you for that in which you
have erred but [only for] what your hearts intended. And ever
is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.
(Quran: 33/5)
In the following verse, we see that some persons in whose hearts the
faith has not entered are invited to submit to Allah:
-437-
The bedouins say, "We have believed." Say: You have not
[yet] believed; but say [instead], 'We have submitted,' for
faith has not yet entered your hearts. And if you obey Allah
and His Messenger, He will not deprive you from your deeds
of anything. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
(Quran: 49/14)
The following verses show that it is likely that by heart it is meant
the above-mentioned module rather than the biological heart:
O you who have believed, respond to Allah and to the
Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life.
And know that Allah comes in between a man and his heart
and that to Him you will be gathered.
(Quran: 8/24)
Then your hearts became hardened after that, being like
stones or even harder. For indeed, there are stones from
which rivers burst forth, and there are some of them that split
open and water comes out, and there are some of them that
fall down for fear of Allah. And Allah is not unaware of what
you do.
(Quran: 2/74)
Those who dispute concerning the signs of Allah without an
authority having come to them, great is hatred [of them] in
the sight of Allah and in the sight of those who have believed.
Thus, does Allah seal over every heart belonging to an
arrogant tyrant.
(Quran: 40/35)
-438-
Question 80.
If the soul has components, then would not producing a copy of their
structures or substances bring in an identity problem?
Answer 80.
This problem would arise only if the soul would be decomposed and
different parts were necessary to produce it again. Yet through the
experience of the unity of our consciousness, we know that in any
case there is a non-separable essence which does not depend on the
changes of some parts of the agent. If we assume that we are
constituted only of the parts of our bodies, then we also assume that
it has a unitary aspect. The only issue that the teaching of the Quran
brings in, is the existence of the soul in another realm, and being
rewarded and punished as the same agent. If in that realm, its
components do not disintegrate, then this alleged problem does not
arise necessarily. For example, suppose a driver who driving a car hits
a person and he runs away; in this case, the whole constituted by the
driver and the car has disintegrated. But the unity of the driver
continues within the unity of the driver even though the driver has
parts. The same driver can drive another car.
Furthermore, what is certain, is the unitary essence. This does not
relate only to the agent; it is relevant for all sovereign wholes. Hence,
every sovereign whole has its essence in the dimension of the
essences. If an atom is a sovereign whole, the same applies to it as
well. For further details, see part 3.5.3 about sovereign wholes and
part 2.2.1.3 about fundamental unity.
Question 81.
How does the soul come into existence? Does it go through a process
like birth or evolution?
-439-
Answer 81.
The evolution is not a self-sufficient process. At least some of its
alleged processes and components if true, work by being sustained
by the One Creator. The Creator knows all kinds of creating
methods.
The soul also may undergo some changes.
3.5.1.2.2 Heart (Fuad)
The word “fuad” is used in the Quran as a core mental actor. It
etymologically means heat. Some scholars are of the opinion that it
is the heart as the qalb explained in the previous section. There are
other views about the relationship of fuad in respect to the heart. In
the following verses, we see that heart (fuad) is a module which
perceives, which inclines. It experiences some of the external things,
it can cause an inclination of the agent. It can deny. It can be
responsible or at least questionable -remember the verse mentioned
above which said that the heart (qalb) can be sinful-.
Our Lord, I [Abraham] have made some of my seed to dwell
in a valley where is no sown land by Thy Holy House; Our
Lord, let them perform the prayer, and make hearts97 of men
yearn towards them, and provide them with fruits; haply they
will be thankful.
(14/37)
Racing ahead, their heads raised up, their glance does not
come back to them, and their hearts are void.
The word “fuad” in the original text are mostly translated into English as
“heart”. So, the word “heart” in the translations of the verses in this subsection are in the original text “fuad” or its plural form “af’idah” unless
otherwise specified.
97
-440-
(Quran: 14/43)
His [Muhammad’s] own heart did not deny that which he
saw.
(Quran: 53/11)
And those who disbelieve say, why was the Qur’an not
revealed to him all at once? Thus [it is] that We may
strengthen thereby your heart. And We have spaced it
distinctly.
(Quran: 25/32)
And We will turn away their hearts and their eyes just as they
refused to believe in it the first time. And We will leave them
in their transgression, wandering blindly.
And even if We had sent down to them the angels [with the
message] and the dead spoke to them [of it] and We gathered
together every [created] thing in front of them, they would
not believe unless Allah should will. But most of them, [of
that], are ignorant.
And thus, We have made for every prophet an enemy - devils
from mankind and jinn, inspiring to one another decorative
speech in delusion. But if your Lord had willed, they would
not have done it, so leave them and that which they invent.
And [it is] so the hearts of those who disbelieve in the
Hereafter will incline toward it and that they will be satisfied
with it and that they will commit that which they are
committing.
(Quran: 6/110-113)
-441-
And Allah has brought you forth from the wombs of your
mothers-- you did not know anything-- and He gave you
hearing and sight and hearts that you may give thanks.
(Quran: 16/78)
And We had certainly established them in such as We have
not established you, and We made for them hearing and
vision and hearts. But their hearing and vision and hearts
availed them not from anything [of the punishment] when
they were [continually] rejecting the signs of Allah; and they
were enveloped by what they used to ridicule.
(Quran: 46/26)
The Fire of God kindled
Which mounts directed at the hearts.
(Quran: 104/6-7)
And the heart of Moses’ mother became empty [of all else].
She was about to disclose [the matter concerning] him had
We not bound fast her heart (qalb) that she would be of the
believers.
(Quran: 28/10)
The “fuad” may be a sub-module of the heart, or a module which is
very close to it. Or it can be the same heart with an emphasis of the
heart’s function more related to emotions. In any case, even if they
are distinct wholes, since they closely interact, we can say that they
constitute a whole together. Allah knows the best.
Regarding free will, we should understand that such modules
communicate, share inputs and outputs. This means that we can and
-442-
should educate our sub-functions or modules like seeing, hearing and
so on. Also, they need to be and can be proactive as well. They are
in close relationship with our whole. So, before producing a motor
act, sub-modules should ask knowledge and reasoning resources. For
example, should a person extend his hand to grab the cigarette? So,
we do not need to accept that this unquestioning impulse will come
in any case. Relevant modules may be trained to inquire from the
whole and related powers if it is ok to give a command to do an act
or produce a will. There does not need to be necessarily a one-way
flow of orders, commands, or kind of a fight. This understanding has
advantages to deal with addiction and harmful behaviors. If the
hearing is responsible this means that it can oppose some urges, it
can be educated and trained. If a sub-module can oppose us then it
must be taught certain things which can only originate from
themselves.
3.5.1.2.3 Breast/ Chest (Sadr)
And conceal your speech or publicize it; indeed, He is
Knowing of that within the breasts.
(Quran: 67/13)
There is some part of the external world which does not influence
us, and some of it influences us. And we have our own area of
governance. Once the external world interacts with us, it first
contacts our sensory organs. And they are translated into concepts
and feelings. Then, these access our core. These concepts and feelings
and the core are contained in what is called the chest.
The term breast or chest (Sadr) is relatively to the heart a larger
region which contains the heart plus further functions additional to
those of heart. Other than the heart, it is like an intermediary
medium between the external world and the core of the agent.
-443-
As we see in the following verse, the knowledge and memory are in
this medium:
Rather, the Quran is distinct verses [preserved] within the
breasts of those who have been given knowledge. And none
reject Our verses except the wrongdoers.
(Quran: 29/49)
The chest (sadr) also contains the outer shell through which the
influences may reach the core of the human being:
Who whispers [evil] into the breasts of mankind.
(Quran: 114/5)
And We already know that your breast is constrained by what
they say.
(Quran: 15/97)
So, whoever Allah wants to guide, He expands his breast to
[contain] Islam; and whoever He wants to misguide, He
makes his breast tight and constricted as though he were
climbing into the sky. Thus, does Allah place defilement upon
those who do not believe.
(Quran: 6/125)
[Moses] said, My Lord, expand for me my breast [with
assurance]
And ease for me my task
And untie the knot from my tongue
(Quran: 20/25-27)
-444-
Hence, our core is in one way protected by and fed through this outer
shell. The protection and good shape of this outer shell is very
important. The core and the shell need to collaborate well so that
each of them may be in good shape. For example, wrong knowledge
will cause the core to waste its energy. Likewise, the outward
influence of the core also goes through that shell.
A bad processor at the center will make the shell open to bigger bad
influences by being in the wrong places, or getting involved in bad
activities. where others can have influence. Heart (qalb) is where the
agent himself dominates and has power related to responsibility.
The relationship between heart (qalb) and chest (sadr) resemble the
relationships of the physical chest and heart. Yet the use of heart and
chest may be more than a metaphore. For example, when our brain
works in thinking, the parts of our brain responsible for our physical
heart and lungs should work. Because, when we think in fact, we
often talk inside ourselves and parts of our brain that are active for
arranging our heart beats to adjust to our talk aloud are running as
well. Same for parts of our brain that arrange and run our lungs'
activity for our talk aloud. When we think, we talk inside, our tongue
does not move, or our ears do not receive sound waves. Yet, parts of
our brain corresponding to our tongue, and ears work essentially,
though some motor areas do not work. Does this mean that most of
our talking capacity or hearing capacity is not active when we think?
Likewise, when someone thinks, the parts of our brains and other
organs that correspond to his conscious feelings through which he
feels that he is talking silently within his chest are also activated, even
if for example he has only an artificial heart. We cannot separate the
parts of our brains that manage our lungs from our lungs, or that
give signals to our hearts from our hearts. In one way, there are
running representations of our physical hearts, lungs, tongues in our
brains that are active while we think. Hence, our biological hearts,
-445-
lungs, chests have corresponding mechanical points in our brains and
in our essences. It is likely that their activities extend to the nerves
that reach the biological heart, lungs and so on and are influenced
by them. Furthermore, in the deeper side, it is likely that within the
soul also there are corresponding activities in corresponding regions.
3.5.1.2.4 Lubb
Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the
alternation of the night and the day are signs for those who
use reason.
(Quran: 3/190)
The Quran mentions in many verses the people who exercise their
reason. The word mostly used for the reasoning capacity is “al-albab”.
“Al-albab” is the plural of “lubb”, which etymologically means “the
core”. In the Quran, it is used with its meaning of reasoning power.
It is used in the Quran as in “olee al-albab” which means the people
who exercise the reasoning capacity, who use the reasoning module.
The following verses are some examples:
(Muhammad), say, "Not equal are the bad and the good,
although the abundance of evil might impress you." So, fear
Allah, O people who use reason, that you may be successful.
(Quran: 5/100)
In their story, there is a lesson for the people who use reason.
It is not a legend but a confirmation of what exists (in the
Torah). It (the Quran) has details about everything. It is a
guide and mercy for those who have faith.
(Quran: 12/111)
-446-
This is an admonition for the people that they will be warned
and know that He is the only God, and so that the people
who use reason may take heed.
(Quran: 14/52)
It is a blessed Book which We have revealed for you so that
you will reflect upon its verses and so the people who use
reason will take heed.
(Quran: 38/29)
Who listen to speech and follow the best of it. Those are the
ones Allah has guided, and those are people who use reason.
(Quran: 39/18)
Since the heart (qalb) is considered as a module which reason, it is
likely that the al-albab is one of its sub-modules.
3.5.1.2.5 Brain
Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out
its brain, and behold, falsehood perishes! Woe be to you for
the (false) things you ascribe (to God).
(Quran: 21/18)
Particles in the brain bumping one onto another either in a
deterministic way, or in an indeterministic way cannot be leading to
the truth, or to the good, or to consciousness. A structure of the brain
caused merely by such particles cannot lead to the truth or to a
freedom of will.
Yet under the control of the soul and its unitary, and transcendent
modules some of which being explained above, the brain with its
-447-
components and their steering ranges is an important intermediary
and tool to perceive things, to analyze, to will, and to act.
3.5.1.2.6 Spirit
And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the spirit. Say,
"The spirit is of the affair/command of my Lord. And
mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little."
(Quran: 17/85)
Then He proportioned him and breathed into him from His
[created] spirit and made for you hearing and vision and
hearts; little are you grateful.
(Quran: 32/9)
The word used for spirit in the above verses is “rooh” which
corresponds to spirit. The word soul (nafs in Arabic) is another word.
Since Allah makes reference here to the limitedness of the knowledge
of the human beings, while there is lots of information about the soul
(nafs) we can understand that there is a distinction between the two.
There is some kind of information which is relevant for us, and some
kind of information which is not. As Allah tells us that the Quran is
a complete guidance, we understand from the above that the
knowledge about the spirit is not so relevant for us. It may relate to
the realm of Allah. Indeed, the knowledge we get from the Quran is
sufficient for us to know what is necessary for us about the free will
power.
3.5.2 The Wholes
If We had sent down this Quran upon a mountain, you would
have seen it humbled and coming apart from fear of Allah.
-448-
And these examples We present to the people that perhaps
they will give thought.
(Quran: 59/21)
The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is in them
exalt Him. And there is not a thing except that it exalts
[Allah] by His praise, but you do not understand their [way
of] exalting. Indeed, He is Forbearing and Forgiving.
(Quran: 17/44)
Around us we see many wholes. We see cars, buildings, carpets, dogs,
human beings, and so on. Some of them can be fully explained by
the attributes of their parts and their environment. Some of them
cannot be fully explained by the attributes of their parts and their
environment. For the latter group I use the expression “sovereign
wholes”.
The first group are non-sovereign wholes. However, we should note
that according to the above verses, some wholes which look as nonsovereign, may have some sovereign aspects in having the capacity
to exalt Allah, though we generally cannot perceive such acts. So, I
should clarify that when I use the expression “sovereign whole”, I
mean only wholes whose distinct acts can be observed by human
beings at least in the wordly context. Yet, this does not mean that
some other wholes are not sovereign and do not have any sovereignty
in the sight of Allah regarding some behaviors we cannot observe.
In the following section, I will explain the sovereign wholes.
3.5.3 The Sovereign Wholes and Their Essences
In this part I will try to answer some questions: Is there an agent as
a distinct being who can produce changes in the universe? Or is there
no agent but his parts? Is the will supervenient upon infinitesimal
-449-
particles/ fields? Is the agent just an epistemological thing, just a
name, with no ontological reality? Is there a soul, a distinct essence
of the whole? In any case how will freedom be observed over them?
What is the distance between sovereign wholes; what is the distance
between sovereign wholes and their parts? What are the differences
between sovereign wholes and parts? What is the basis to distinguish
the agent, his powers, perceptions, influence from the physical?
These are some of the important questions in this book.
To answer these questions, we need to understand sovereign wholes.
A sovereign whole, is a whole whose behaviors cannot be explained
fully by the behaviors of its parts and its environment. Its
environment contains sovereign wholes other than itself and its parts.
Note that the sovereign wholes are not limited to only objects. There
is no reason to say that space, or a specific pattern or physical law
cannot be considered a sovereign whole which interacts with objects
or with other things if the necessary conditions are satisfied.
I will start the explanation by an analogy, which has aspects that
correspond to what we observe in our actual universe:
“Let us assume that we have a region R1 of space in which there are
billions of billiard balls (BB) with many colors. The balls move
according to certain patterns, they also bump onto other balls. Here
and there the balls take the shape of some life forms unintentionally
in the course of those movements in accordance with the patterns of
the balls. We focus on the ones which look like birds. We notice that
whenever the previous states of the balls related to a bird are exactly
same, the bird moves its head up.
The question we try to answer is this: Does the bird moves its head
as a whole, on its own, or does its movement supervene upon
something else. What is the source of the movement of the head?
-450-
Up to now, we understand that the movements of the bird is not a
movement of its own, it is supervenient upon the billiard balls.
Now, we zoom out and look at a region R2 which is wider than R1.
This time, we notice that the balls in our region R1, were actually
just special orders of smaller balls (SB) which exist in both R1 and
R2. Because, although in R1 all SBs constituted BBs, taking into
account R2, we see that SBs also constitute shapes other than BBs at
the same scale; and the states in the shape of BBs of those balls in R1
are just a special case. We zoom in more in to R1, and we confirm
this. Now, we understand that the head movement of the bird we
examined before was not supervenient upon the BBs. They are
supervenient upon the SBs. In fact, what we saw as a BB, had no
movement of its own either, it was like a special type of movement
which coincided within the region R1. We thought those BBs moved
in their own patterns as BBs, as we thought the head of a bird moved.
We have not yet found the answer to our question about what is the
real level of wholeness which has the effective cause for the
movement of the bird.
We search now a wider region, to see if in a much wider region R3
we see that there are no more smaller balls SB everywhere. We
change our lens and we see that the SB and their movements were
just a special, random case and view of much smaller balls (MSB)
which move in different patterns.
Hence, we have not yet found the answer to the cause of the
movement of the bird.”
The point in the above example, is that our search will continue up
to a point where we find out some wholes or balls that move on their
own wherever we look and whatever zoom degree we use.
There are two theoretical results we can reach in our search. Either,
-451-
(1) There are objects at some layer which move on their own and
with essences which at least partially control the parts of their wholes.
Because if there is no essence which controls a whole, we will need
to go at least one step down since firstly, that whole would not be a
sovereign whole, and secondly it would be supervenient upon its
parts as BBs or SBs were.
or
(2) There are no balls which move on their own.
If (2) is true, then there would be no movement at all. So, (2) is not
possible.
If (1) is true, then this means that it is necessary that at least there
are balls of a specific type (T1) such that each ball has an essence of
its own whole which governs its parts98.
If this is the case, then claiming that only a T1 ball has an essence of
its own which governs its parts will be special pleading, since such
balls are many and there is no necessity that only a T1 ball has such
an essence. Once such an essence is possible for a layer, then there is
no reason for claiming that there can be no sovereign wholes at least
98
Theoretically a part may have an attribute of behaving in a predictable way
and differently than its separate behavior whenever it comes together with
certain other parts and forms a specific whole. If all parts of a whole are like
this, then, we cannot say that the whole has a distinct and sovereign power of
its own; though such a whole is possible as a non-sovereign and non-distinct
whole. Even if a whole had its consciousness as a non-sovereign whole, we
could not say that parts of such a whole must be blamed or praised. These
parts must be considered as having their distinct and stable identity before and
after they formed the whole. For example, when the body of an agent
decomposed, his atoms cannot be punished. They do not have the
vulnerabilities of the agent. Such wholes do not remove the problem of infinite
regress.
-452-
at some higher layers which would have essences which govern their
parts to some extent. And in a differentiated universe as our actual
universe, where sovereign wholes in different layers display distinct
features, such essences would be necessary for such wholes at
different layers. Because if sovereign wholes at different layers have
distinct behaviors of their own, assuming that T1 balls would form
their trajectories in order to make those higher layer wholes seem to
act sovereignly would be stretching the capacities of T1 balls too
much and unnecessarily.
Hence, if such essences are possible, then it is possible to have two
observations where all balls at all sub-layers of the bird had exactly
same previous states and features; yet, in one of the observations, the
bird moves its head up, and in the other one, the bird moves its head
down. In these two observations, at least one of the birds B1 has an
essence which governs its parts. This is as the essences of T1 balls
govern their wholes. Note that a T1 ball behaves like an agent who
is observed to have free will power in our negation tests.
The next stage of our analysis concerns the origin of the essences: If
these T1 balls behave measurably, and in harmony relatively to each
other within a systematic space and time, this means that they have
a unitary originator and sustainer. They need a feature that
transcends to some extent other T1 balls, space, and time. The
behavior of each T1 ball is definable on, comparable to, and
consistent with the other T1 balls, and points of space. Hence, they
cannot be the ultimate existent, since, as they are many and they
depend on each other, there would be circularity if one T1 ball’s
behavior was built and determined on another T1 ball’s behavior. If
there are such essences, then there will be relationships and a
medium between them. And a pattern of interaction between them.
For a similar analysis see part 2.2.1.1 about the argument from
necessity.
-453-
Furthermore, that each is ball is the originator of the entire
coordination would be against Ockam’s razor.
The next stage of the analysis is about the nature of the essence of a
T1 ball. This essence must be transcending the parts of the T1 ball
and must have power on its parts. This essence must also transcend
the external world to some extent. This essence must have a unitary
essence which corresponds to the whole of the T1 ball.
We should also note that the essence is not a generic essence of T1
ball type whole or of a human being type whole. Since there exists
multiple sovereign wholes of the same type, then, each essence must
be distinct from other essences of the same type.
A T1 ball may lose its continuity as a whole. In this situation, the
connection between this essence and the parts of the T1 ball may
cease while the essence may continue its existence.
How does this essence appear, or get combined with the parts of his
whole?
The essences of T1 balls are distinct from the essences of the wholes
which are parts of T1 balls. Similarly, a human being may die, and
his body may decompose. Yet, the essence of that human being may
keep its existence. Even if certain tools used by the essence may not
be mature as in a child, or has weakened as in a very old person, the
essence continues its existence.
A sovereign whole exists in the sight of Allah. Only He transcends
all wholes. The parts cannot transcend all of the wholes they
constitute. They are given by God the transcendence over the whole
they govern, if they have such a whole.
The essence is the effective and transcendent constituent of a
sovereign whole. An essence and its related sovereign whole, produce
-454-
certain changes in the existence. The governed parts of that sovereign
whole cannot explain these changes by themselves alone.
This essence, within the wholes of human beings relates to the free
will power of that sovereign whole, and also it relates to
consciousness. It is this essence who executes this free will power in
interaction with the other modules, faculties, and parts of the agent.
This essence transcends the neurons, and channels the energy to
different neurons. So, it is a higher level and extended actor. In some
sovereign wholes, some sub-parts may be controlled through the
wholes of higher-level parts.
The essences of other sovereign wholes may have competencies
related to the means contained in those wholes. The essences
themselves do not need to be homogeneous.
An atom, or an insect, or a planet may have essences; their essences
may be different. The Quran tells us that everything in the heavens
and on the earth glorify Him.
What we observe through our eyeballs about an atom, or a planet, or
an insect, are observations limited within our observation limitations,
biases, and angles. The full and real being of that which we observe
may be very different than what we comprehend and conceive of
them. Likewise, other created sovereign wholes who are able to
observe also observe only views within their limitations and natures.
For example, that a dog sees only as black and white, does not mean
that things are black and white. If we do not see or do not want to
see something, this does not mean that that thing does not exist.
Seeing depends also on how the seer is organized by himself. On the
other hand, not everything is perceived through every means: We
perceive some things with our eyes, some things with our hands,
some things with our intelligence. The essence that communicates
-455-
with the internal and external world is given certain means to make
those observations. This way it can interact with them.
In this respect, note that a sovereign whole, may be a governed whole
in the same time relatively to different wholes: For example, a human
being who controls and moves his arms, is governed by the forces
active at the level of the solar system while he rotates as part of the
earth.
Sovereign wholes may be in different forms. For example, human
beings are a kind of sovereign wholes. The degree of predictability
may vary between forms of sovereign wholes. If an iron atom is a
sovereign whole for example, it may have a high degree of
predictability compared to a human being. It can be considered as a
sovereign whole even if it manifests 100% predictability; sovereignty
is not determined according to the predictability in the behaviors of
the whole, but according to the change of predictability of its parts
before and after being the part of that whole.
Regarding the human beings, the essence explained in this part
corresponds to the soul. Ontologically, the essence explained here
and the soul are equal. But in accordance with the general
convention, we call the essence of the human being’s “soul”. So, the
essence of the human being is the soul of the human being; and if an
electron is a sovereign whole, the essence of the electron is its soul.
Some related issues have been explained in part 3.2 about the essence
of free will power.
Question 82.
Does a machine or a table have this essence?
-456-
Answer 82.
Every whole which has a distinct influence on its parts has this
essence. So, for example, if all actions of the parts of a machine can
be explained by the wholes of its parts such as its atoms and
molecules, then it is not necessary to conclude about a distinct
essence for the machine or for the table.
Everything within space is related to other things and constitutes a
whole as a content of the space. But in this sense, the space and its
contents constitute one sovereign whole. To distinguish whether a
human being is a sovereign whole, we need to see if it produces any
change which is additional to what its parts and other sovereign
wholes entail by their distinct attributes and behaviors.
Question 83.
If the essence of a human being goes away when he dies, then what
about the essence of the most fundamental sovereign whole at the
end of the universe? What remains after its essence goes away? Is
everything essence?
Answer 83.
The alleged most fundamental interacts with other wholes such as
space. They may be interacting in this universe with their certain
extensions, or forms, or by forming wholes with other wholes
forming temporary structures or wholes. They may be behaving in
accordance with the implications of that interaction. At the end, they
will return to their origin through a certain process as mentioned in
the following verse:
On the Day when We roll up the heavens like the scroll of a
scripture is rolled up. As We initiated the first creation, so
-457-
shall We return it. It is a promise of Ours that We will do
this.
(Quran: 21/104)
They may return to their origins simultaneously with other wholes.
One alternative is that at a certain layer there are pure essences.
Regarding this question, these are just some unsubstantiated theories
mentioned here to give an idea that there are consistent scenarios for
the bottom and for the ultimate end. Allah knows the best.
3.5.3.1 The Unity of the Essence and Its Differentiations
If the essence interacts with the universe and multiple things, with
physical things which have parts, then does the essence contain
differentiations? If it also has differentiations then why is there a need
for such an essence? If the essence of a sovereign whole has some
differentiations, then does this essence needs an essence for itself so
that it may work and may be functional?
Note that every sovereign whole that we observe have these essences.
For example, imagine two oranges each in its distinct space; the space
of one orange is not related to the space of the other orange. As they
are in separate spaces, the distance of one orange from the other is
not definable. Now, let us suppose that God creates a metaspace
which contains, unifies, and defines their spaces. Now, we can
determine that one orange is let us say one unit away from the other.
The essence of the metaspace created by God has been given a unity
which enables it to perform its distinct function. This kind of unity
is essential for the sovereign wholes, and this unity is executed by the
essence of that sovereign whole. Therefore, the essences of sovereign
wholes do not need further essences for further unification. One such
unification for a specific sovereign whole -in the above example the
metaspace-, is sufficient.
-458-
An essence like this, connects parts of that sovereign whole which
are sovereign wholes. On the other hand, it gives additional
properties to these parts. If there are many combined oranges in the
above example, then now we can say that each orange has identifiable
values of position, although before the effect of that metaspace they
did not have these values within a metaspace.
The above example is important in determining the following
important questions: Do parts acting in a certain way under specific
conditions constitute effectively the upper sovereign whole
exclusively, with their attributes and powers rendering that sovereign
whole supervenient upon these parts? Or is that sovereign whole the
effective one which gives the parts some of their attributes? More
specifically, for example, if we bring together all of the particles of an
agent, shall we have the same agent with all of his attributes including
his consciousness?
In the orange example, before the effect of metaspace, the orange’s
position was defined with dimensions x, y, z. With the effect of the
metaspace, it is now defined with dimensions x, y, z, and m. A person
P1 observing the orange O1 in the metaspace, who additionally
observes orange O2 related in the dimension m, may conclude the
existence of a dimension m, and he may say that O1 has a dimension
m; and that under the condition that there is another orange which
such a feature, it can constitute a whole O1-O2 with O2 – O1-O2 is
not necessarily a sovereign whole – . Hence, he can further conclude
that there is a metaspace, but this metaspace is not effective, the only
effective were O1 and O2 or any other such kind of orange On.
Because, he does not observe dimension m and its effects without
oranges; but when he observes its implications on the oranges, then
what he thinks that he tests are the oranges.
How can we determine whether P1’s conclusion of down-top
causation here is correct or not? Indeed, the oranges are observed
-459-
and measured to have the dimension m, and to interact in that
dimension. But is this attribute given from above? Or was it inherent
in the oranges and each orange’s attribute was existent prior to the
“top”?
One way to determine this, is similar to the argument from unity
explained in part 2.2.1.3: Without a unitary basis, what is measured
regarding dimension m based on oranges would be circular.
Secondly, as the oranges are contingent, the annihilation of O2 from
the metaspace would not reduce the dimension m. Yet, if after that
annihilation that dimension existed because of O1, this would mean
that O1 has a transcendent feature of having and causing the
dimension m. But O1 also might be annihilated. However, as O1 and
O2 have same features, and as the annihilation of O2 did not
annihilate the dimension m, there is no reason to claim that the
annihilation of O1 would annihilate dimension m either. Therefore,
even though the metaspace is measured based on oranges, the
effectiveness flows necessarily from top due to its unity and observed
necessity. A feature of the oranges which enable them to be part of
this system is their ability to be qualified with the dimension m;
however, this is ability is given by their designer.
A similar reasoning is applicable for every sovereign whole related to
any law of nature. Also, it is applicable for all conscious things in
terms of consciousness. The actual essences interact with the
spatiotemporal, the actual space is also an essence like this.
The unity has a key place in understanding the sovereign wholes. As
in the parts about unity, consciousness, laws of nature I gave
sufficient explanation that can be used in this context, I will not
repeat them here.
The orange example sheds light on how to understand the unity
related sovereign wholes as well: As we saw above, the effective
-460-
essence of the sovereign whole of metaspace obviously reigns on a
range: At least it reigns over O1 and O2. So, if it unites O1 and O2,
and if it contains multiplicity, what unites the essence of metaspace?
The answer is that there is no need for a unitary essence anywhere
else: The essence of the metaspace is just an additional form of unity.
Even before the essence of the metaspace, O1 and O2 needed unity
in order to exist: Even though they were not combined under the
metaspace, each was united internally regarding itself, its space, and
their parts; and they were both united as part of the creation. The
creation of metaspace just added another layer of unity.
The sovereign wholes may lose their effects locally, temporarily, or
permanently. Where do the essences go in such situations? For
example, when an agent dies, where does his soul go? This is a matter
of design. The claims that there is only 4 dimensions or 11 or n
dimensions are false and unsubstantiated according to Islam.
Therefore, where an ending sovereign whole’s essence goes is not
very relevant in understanding the system of sovereign wholes. For
example, Allah says that some souls go somewhere to enjoy certain
physical pleasures.
When a new a sovereign whole becomes existent in the universe, is
this accompanied with an increase in the total energy of the universe?
Not necessarily. The energy is a scalar. So, if a moving object changes
its direction, its energy does not necessarily increase or decrease.
Every sovereign whole has its sufficient share from unity given by
God. The essence of a neuron gets its share of unity useful for the
identity and transcendence of the neuron over its atoms, molecules…
To transcend the neurons in a body, God gives an essence to the
agent accompanied with a share of unity. These are elements of
contingent design.
-461-
What we experience as “I” is sufficient to represent our person. The
unity in our consciousness transcends multiple things in a unity.
Again, as a contact point with the other agents, our “I” is sufficient.
In one way, every essence is like a hub, a center. Even though an
essence has some specific aspects, it represents the non-separable
aspect of a whole. Yet, as explained in this part, the essence of the
agent encompasses multiple things.
As the unity of God solves the problem of circularity and infinite
regress within the whole of the entire existence as the top point, the
essence of a sovereign whole carries out a similar function in respect
to that sovereign whole.
The essences unify many unities in their unities. Different
components of an essence of a sovereign whole behave in nonseparable unity as in the example of the metaspace above. Such
essences, in one way unify some sets, and in one way give distinctness
to what they unify. The metaspace in the above example obviously
contains many points, however, all those points are defined and
connected in the unity of the metaspace. It may also provide a
distinctive unity within a meta-meta-space. – The unilocality (nonlocality) of quantum physics may be helpful to understand this point
–. If that metaspace is taken back by God, then the respective unities
of the oranges may go on their functions and existence within their
own unities related to their distinct essences. So, as unity on the basis
of the sovereign whole is the main feature of its essence, we do not
need a further unifying essence for an essence of a certain sovereign
whole. We need a new unifying essence only if many sovereign
wholes are designed so as to be the components of another sovereign
whole.
The essence of a sovereign whole, is not the essence of a part of that
sovereign whole; it is unique in respect to that sovereign whole: An
agent is not his cell, atom, hand, feet, eye… Likewise, these parts are
-462-
not the agent. The agent may die, but one of his cells may survive;
the atom or the feet may continue functioning for example if
transplanted. Even if we suppose that the essence as a soul has parts,
these parts are not the essence of the whole. They can only be nonseparable in respect to the essence. This is like the non-separability
of 1 from 2: If one of the two did not exist, the other one would not
exist.
When you read the word “table”, let us assume for simplicity that
each letter of “table” is instantiated and transcended in one neuron
of your brain. Let us assume that a neuron is a sovereign whole which
has the capacity only to transcend a letter. However, there is also the
distinct reality of the word “table” which is truly instantiated in a
unity. Allah designed a universe so that there will be a kind of essence
which can encompass a word or more to some extent, within a unity.
So, although there are neurons, there would be also another reality
which would have a bigger unitary transcendence. The essence of the
neuron might be empowered to wear the hat as a neuron, as a larger
module, as the agent, and as a planet. But in this case, there would
not be a good balance and many other inefficiencies. Hence, the
design is so that the neuron has an essence as a neuron; the agent
has an essence as an agent… There is an efficient specialization.
Likewise, when I exercise my FWP, the components of the command
I give as a will are non-separable within my unity, they work as
related to my whole.
If a cell of a person is a sovereign whole which can act on its own
when that person is dead, and as such it has a behavior of its own,
this means that while a part of that person, it needs a harmonization,
direction, and guidance. Also, if the cell is a sovereign whole, then it
has its own essence. It is not parsimonious that each essence of each
cell represents at the highest level both itself and the sovereign wholes
they constitute. It is not practical that trillions of cells retrieve the
data necessary for the survival of the agent, and deliberate in
-463-
harmony with all other cells for the well-being of the agent. In the
mean time, they would need to do such things for other sovereign
wholes that they constitute. Hence, the task of the essence of the cell,
does not contain the distinct tasks of the essence of the person. So,
the existence of distinct essences of sovereign wholes and the
definition of their functions is a matter of design and taskdistribution.
On the other hand, once we reach unity at an essence which
encompasses the components of its sovereign whole in a unity, there
is no need to search for further sources of unity for that sovereign
whole. Additionally, the part 2.2.1.3 about the argument from unity
shows that in order to exist, multiple things would need appropriate
unitary bases; and once there is a basis of such a unitary nature, then
these multiple things can exist as a whole without a need for further
unification.
3.5.3.2 How do Essences Interact with the Physical?
The distinction made between the soul and the physical as if they
have no common grounds and properties is a farfetched distinction.
Every sovereign whole in the limited physical world99 has a soul-like
aspect. Both the physical and the essence have transcendence, unity,
design, and contingency aspects. The physical has a unitary aspect.
The sovereign whole has its essence which is effective regarding that
whole, and this sovereign whole’s sub-sovereign whole has its essence
similarly. The essences just enable us to identify, locate, and
distinguish the origin of the effects of the sovereign whole and the
origin of the effects of its sub-sovereign whole parts. When one
rejects reductionism and recognizes truly the distinct reality of
sovereign wholes and sovereign sub-wholes, then there will be a need
99
As explained earlier, even the reductive physicalist should agree that there
are sovereign wholes within the limited physical world, since he believes
that there are sovereign wholes to which other things are reducible.
-464-
to identify the effective substance of each sovereign whole. Therefore,
there is no fundamental distinction in kind: The reductionist sees the
effective sovereign wholes which interact with each other at an
unknown lowest layer. Islam recognizes the reality of sovereign
wholes at many layers interacting with each other.
So, there is no difficulty in their interactions. It is obvious that there
are multiple sovereign wholes, and it is obvious for all views that the
sovereign wholes interact. In Islam, the reality of parts and wholes
are recognized, therefore, the essence of a sovereign whole interacts
with its sovereign-whole parts. A reductive physicalist recognize that
there are some sovereign wholes somewhere at the bottom as
supervenience bases; if they claim that these sovereign wholes do not
have parts, then they should be pure essences; if they have parts, then
they should also have essences for above explained reasons.
If some things are not visible through our eyeballs, this does not
mean that they do not exist. We may have difficulty in seeing through
our eyeballs how a sovereign whole may interact with sovereign
wholes which are its parts. But we can understand how this happens.
Many things that we do not see or we do not know are effective.
Human beings kept living thousands of year ago when they did not
know many things which made them live; they will keep living
thousands of years later when they will be ignoring many things
which will make them live.
So do not assert similarities to Allah. Indeed, Allah knows
and you do not know.
(Quran: 16/74)
The essence or the soul is a user of a command-like transcendent
power.
-465-
It may be connected to the body but first where is the body and what
is the body? The body is not fundamentally different than a soul. The
way they interact is also unique and a result of a design. What is the
space or energy by which the body is defined; how are they
fundamentally different than a soul?
We have a somewhat stable identity although our physical body and
its parts change continuously; for example, when we are child, we are
small, we have maybe 20 kilograms; we may be 1 meter tall; then
when we are grown up, we may have 90 kilograms and we may be 2
meters tall. Our memory allegedly residing in parts of our brain
which may allegedly be the connection for our stable identity
according to physicalism is just a bunch of separate atoms for a
reductionist.
3.5.4 Human Beings as Sovereign Wholes
Some see the agent as the sum of the spatiotemporal parts. However,
this will cause an infinite regress: Because if we explain the agent this
way, then we would question what the parts are, and the parts also
would be explained in the same way.
A distinction between part and whole considering the part as more
real compared to the whole would not be very reasonable, since a
part would also be a whole. The efficacy of the whole cannot be
explained only by the part, since the part also needs its parts. Hence
every part and every whole are direct results of a design and
sustaining power. Each of them performs whatever power is assigned
to it.
Question 84.
If the sovereign whole is not the sum of the spatiotemporal parts,
then what is it?
-466-
Answer 84.
The sovereign whole compared to the sum of spatiotemporal parts,
has a key and indispensable actor of its own which is its essence,
which is called a “soul” in the context of human beings. Some of its
parts may also be sovereign wholes and have their respective
essences. As we examined in part 3.4.12.1 about the negation
experiments and brain observation experiments, we influence key
spatiotemporal parts in a transcendent way. We act as if we are the
essence or origin of a fundamental force like gravity.
We have a power over some parts which may be also sovereign
wholes; and they have powers over us; and there is an interaction.
The qualia we perceive about the parts and other things are
spatiotemporal aspects of deeper wholes.
When we observe say a particle, in fact we observe an aspect of that
particle. We do not see the entirety of that particle. Its entirety is not
visible through the eyeball, since it extends throughout the universe.
Its entirety is only visible to the eye of the reason. If we want to see
the essence within the neurons or atoms, then we cannot see because
the essence is not so limited. It extends beyond what is visible
through the eyeballs. It is not limited in its effects on the photons.
Those extensions are like elements of a language necessary for
interaction and communication. Every part of us observes the aspects
it is enabled to observe. Eyes observe things in their interactions with
photons, ears in their interactions with sounds, and our wholeness
and intellect in their unity.
We define what we conceive as a spatiotemporal part essentially
based on its effects in the spacetime. We cannot define its substance
since its substance cannot fit in words and relates to the unity that is
deeper and at the origin of a 'definition' as well. It cannot be defined
based on relative things which are processed by the agent. It is like
-467-
defining a printer by its parts, inputs, and outputs. These are all real.
But the printer is none of them nor their sum. The printer is the
printer, as its cable is a cable.
Question 85.
When we observe the planetary system, is not it no more than the
sun and the planets? What else is there other than the sun and the
planets?
Answer 85.
A planet having its own space-time would not constitute a part of the
planetary system. The same applies for the sun. They are brought
together within the same space-time, and within certain relationships
so that there is a planetary system.
For example, the same bottom part had to behave according to
gravity and strong nuclear force in the same time. This is impossible
if we do not recognize the wholes of different layers. Hence,
sovereign wholes at different layers have their realities. And the
particle must also contain the information about where it is in a
certain layer or whole, and in all layers. But wholes also depend to
some extent on what their parts do. So, there is circularity, and things
need guidance and a unitary sustainer in order to be and to act.
And within the land are neighboring plots and gardens of
grapevines and crops and palm trees, [growing] several from
a root or otherwise, watered with one water; but We make
some of them exceed others in [quality of] fruit. Indeed, in
that are signs for a people who reason.
(Quran: 13/4)
-468-
Question 86.
We may will what we will, but we may not determine what we are.
So, how can we have a sufficient freedom?
Answer 86.
There is a range in which we can determine what we are. This point
is explained throughout this book. But also, the question contains
the answer. If “an agent” has the capacity to protest against his
“disability to determine what he is”, why has not he behaved in a
good manner? If he does not have the capacity to behave in a good
manner, why does he protest against his “disability to determine what
he is”?
3.5.4.1 Wholeness of The Human Being Through Time
The agent has an effective wholeness and identity which is not
divided by time. This is not specific only to a human being. The
effective structures between time t0 and time t1 are connected and
constitute a whole. We cannot think of a real melody if its elements
are not non-separably connected through time. Within a time-slice
of zero time-width, no being would be existing. Actually, as explained
in part 3.5.6.4.2.6.5, time is not something upon which things
happen, but something that depends upon things.
If the agent does a good or evil act in a certain time, it is the act of
the same sovereign whole and it affects the degree of this sovereign
whole. The agent who does the good deed in the future is the same
agent who is present now. The following verses relate to this point:
Indeed, those who reject faith it is all the same for them
whether you warn them or do not warn them they do not
believe.
-469-
Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing,
and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great
punishment.
(Quran: 2/6-7)
If a person changes himself in the future, again this is the same
person with the present person. If a person improves himself, he
becomes open for the guidance and help of Allah in accordance with
the following verses:
Allah does not guide the unjust people
(Quran: 2/258)
I will turn away from My signs those who are unjustly
arrogant in the land, (so that) even if they see each and every
sign, they will not believe in it.
If they see the Right Way before them, they will not follow
it; but if they see a crooked way, they will follow it; this is
because they denied Our revelations and were heedless of
them.
(Quran: 7/146)
And [We cursed them] for their breaking of the covenant and
their disbelief in the signs of Allah and their killing of the
prophets without right and their saying, "Our hearts are
wrapped". Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their
disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.
(Quran: 4/155)
This issue will be explained in more details in part 3.5.6.7.
-470-
3.5.4.2 The Wholeness of The Agent Through Space
The ability of the agent to encompass transcendentally things that
look separate through space shows that the components of the agent
have a unity, hence that the agent is a whole through space. If the
parts of the things that are encompassed by the agent were solely
instantiated in point-like spatiotemporal parts of the agent, then the
wholes of the things could not be conceived by the agent. So, in some
dimensions, the parts of the agent constitute a non-separable whole.
For the transcendence of the agent as it relates to his wholeness, see
part 3.5.6.7.
3.5.5 Nature of the Human Being Which Is Common with
Other Beings
So, observe the effects of the mercy of Allah how He gives life
to the earth after its lifelessness. Indeed, that [same One] will
give life to the dead, and He is over all things competent.
(Quran: 30/50)
In this part, we will examine the fundamental nature of a human
being which is common with other things. In this context, I will also
go through some points that relate to God.
When we say “this is here, and that is there”, there is a unity within
us where their realities are instantiated. This instantiation cannot
happen within any entity or being which is limited to and only
defined by the spatio-temporal. Because in this case, there would be
again a point-like and infinitely divided instantiation, since there
would be points within the spatio-temporal region where this is
instantiated, and we would not be able to encompass these things in
a unity.
-471-
Also, words and knowledge are not and cannot be defined or limited
to any spatio-temporal level/layer. A specific information or
statement written on a wall, a paper, a hard drive, or on neurons are
the same, independent of the medium in which they exist. Probably
we will not encompass fully the origin and working of this unity;
since we are the outcome of a unity who is bigger than us and who
cannot fit within something smaller than it.
Creation happens through an activity which also has intellectual,
knowledge-like, and command-like aspects.
When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is.
(Quran: 19/35)
Hence, the distances are also one with what they separate. The
differences are like the differences between the words and concepts.
One can try to imagine an all powerful being who has unity and no
differentiation in Him. But then mistakenly he would have imagined
Him with limitations: Even though he imagines him like a
homogeneous space with no differentiation in it, yet there is a
limitation, because each point of that homogeneous body imagined
by a limited being, is limited with space and other things. He would
also say: “Well, there is differentiation in in anything I imagine; how
can they originate from One? How differentiation can issue from the
One?” Everything we imagine contains differentiation. Because to
focus in one point of an area that we see, instead of another point,
we need energy, we have to spend an effort. To relocate our focus to
another point, we need energy, we need to spend an effort.
Additionally, that point is limited necessarily since it is not another
point. Adding such limited points does not produce a whole, since
each point is limited in the same way. All constituents of a plane, or
of a volume is limited from our perspective. As all constituents are
-472-
limited, then the sum of all those are limited as well. However, all
those points are somehow glued in a way that transcends all those
distances that we perceive, like a super-meta unitary dimension. But
for the above simple reason, we can never encompass with our
limited eyeballs that unitary power which transcends all those points.
But through reasoning we can have an idea about it; and this idea is
relevant and sufficient for us. This point is crucial. Before
understanding things, we have to understand our own selves,
limitations, and what powers we need to use to comprehend what.
This way we will have understood that what we learn about the
nature of things will be limited in certain respects; also, we will have
understood the importance of using the correct powers to access
corresponding truths.
A black or white paper contains billions of points that form billions
of shapes, though maybe yet not united in a further layer by the
consciousness or other unifying activity. It is less differentiated than
what it contains, yet it contains them. Anything we can conceive of
as a conception is limited since we are limited.
As we are limited, it is difficult for us to conceive of an unlimited
unity. But we conceive of limited unities. However, we can rationally
conclude that a unity of a flower for example, is encompassed by a
bigger and more transcendent unity. And we can logically conclude
that this cannot go until infinity, since then there would be infinite
regress, and things would not be united. Differentiations necessitate
unity in order to be. Thus, we can understand the ultimate unity who
is Self-Sufficient. In all limited layers of unity there is differentiation.
But they only exist because of unity that they have been assigned.
Therefore, the origin is not of the same nature as the layers created
by the Ultimate One. All layers are relative and sustained by the One
Originator. He is Self-Sufficient, He does not have limitation.
Therefore, it is difficult for us to conceive Him. Any conception we
produce about the biggest unity, has in any case limitations.
-473-
Therefore, as God is with no limitation, He is different in nature
from whatever we can conceive of.
Question 87.
If we say that there is differentiation within the creation, so, how
come there is no differentiation within God.
Answer 87.
A unity that we experience at the deep end point of our
consciousness, also exists at the very fundamental origin of the things
that we are conscious of, if they are real. If we say “this moves toward
that”, is the movement of “this” a self-sufficient and self-referenced
event? Is there a common and absolute framework relatively to which
it moves or undergoes a change? Is this common framework space?
Obviously, it is not, since each point of space would also need such
a common basis, because each point of the space is not and cannot
be self-referenced and self-sufficient. Therefore, the active reality of
anything is settled within a unity and has an aspect of unity.
The first necessary property of anything that we observe is unity; and
the aspects that we observe as differentiated are in essence aspects
originating from a unity. When we say “this” is not “that”, this
statement is also based upon and needs unity. Distances that we
observe between things are just outcomes of the realities of many
unities within many layers and of our unity that can encompass
multiplicity of unities. Creating seems to be like creating a new unity,
a new aspect of unity like points, like regions of space, like laws.
And never think of those who have been killed in the cause
of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord,
receiving provision,
(Quran: 3/169)
-474-
Our consciousness is a good example in showing the multiplicity
within unity. Let us see this through a thought exercise about
consciousness, but this time, let us focus on the external unity and
distinctions within this external unity:
If the same unitary mind/consciousness can be reproduced in
another location by bringing together other material substances,
namely particles/fields, this will mean that the mind is not the very
substance of the related brain. Yet, if it cannot be produced by using
other material substances though exactly of the same kind and
structure, then this will mean that the differentiation of the substance
within spacetime does not have anything to do with the
consciousness.
Also, if the same consciousness is produced in another location, then
we can say that as they are within other locations, they are not the
same mind unless the two minds are considered to be united above
spacetime. This brings the question of how each substance can be
specific to each consciousness, since there would be no reason for
two substances of the same nature to produce two different
consciousnesses, when there is only a difference in location; but as
the location is external to the substance, it is irrelevant to the
question. If two things are internally same, but they are different
relatively to each other even only in global location, then they are
two. Global unity and global state are important, real, and effective;
yet, when we move in space, we experience that we are the same
person.
Two internally exactly same things are not essentially exactly the
same. They constitute two elements of the entire existence, where
each also relatively define the other. If there are two of them, they
cannot be the same. Each one is another unity, another agent; except
if both together constitute a unity. Even if within themselves they are
exactly the same, globally they are not the same. Their locations and
-475-
relationships to other things are different. There is an active unity
behind them. The same active unity which identifies each point of
space, also identifies some relationships of consciousnesses.
The above points are an example of the unities that are preserved
and defined throughout and through differentiations.
The mind is not limited with the related space-time, and is not
entirely defined by it. For a physicalist, two minds within two exactly
same physical state or location within their respective or nondetermined space-time might be the same. Because, for him, within
their boundaries they are exactly the same, and there is no unity or
differentiation in terms of other dimensions such as a dimension of
consciousness; there is no God who unites, relates and defines them
together within rich sets of relationships.
However, within the Islamic framework, in any case, they are
defined, differentiated and hence united by the One God. They are
differentiated and united in the same time on top of their immediate
spatiotemporal attributes. Hence, they have each their distinct
identity and reality. For example, in a universe where there is totally
equal two symmetric entities where it is impossible to define one
differently from the other in terms of space-time, they would be
exactly same even though in fact they are not the same; however, in
terms of Islamic system, they are two distinct entities with further
implications based upon the totality and holism sustained and caused
by the unity and surrounding power of the One God.
Likewise, if a consciousness is assumed to be supervenient upon a
spatio-temporal structure of a physical entity; if this same structure
is reproduced in another place even in a symmetrical way, that would
be another distinct consciousness except if both constituted one
integrated bigger consciousness.
-476-
Everything is enumerated according to the following verse:
He has enumerated all things in number.
(Quran: 72/28)
So, each sovereign whole has a separate number and identity, hence,
two same persons in two locations are probably impossible since
every sovereign whole would have a distinct number.
Question 88.
How is the person in the hell or paradise linked to the person in this
world?
Answer 88.
The soul or the person has its own reality distinct from its parts so
that some variations in the parts do not destroy the identity of the
soul or person. Actually, our bodies are in a continuous change, and
within certain number of years, all of the atoms within our bodies
are replaced by new ones. Yet we are the same person. Is this an
illusion or is it just a matter of an essence distinct from the
constituting elements? But what would be the identity of the
constituting elements? Are they illusions as well, or do not they have
any identity and reality? Do not our internal organizations change
all the time, while we walk or talk? Though the spatio-temporal states
relate to our activities, the spatio-temporal is not the only dimension,
and is not the fundamental dimension. Everything including the
spatio-temporal, is set up upon a more fundamental dimension
related to unity.
A thought experiment similar to the above, has also implications
about the nature of things other than the agent: Firstly, if same
consciousness can be reproduced on another physical substance, then
this means that the physical matter/ substance (electrons, …) does
-477-
not have any consciousness capacity, since the latter has different
substance but same consciousness. Secondly, if same consciousness
cannot be reproduced on another physical substance, then this means
that the physical substance has an intrinsic consciousness capacity
and consciousness is not something illusory because if it was illusory
then it would be possible to reproduce the same illusion on the other
physical substance.
We know that the physical constituents of a human being change
within the time while the person’s identity remains the same. So, as
underlined in the above experiment, the martyr’s mind may be
reproduced to be effective on another physical substance; however,
this does not mean exactly that it is just a shape in other words a
property consisting of spatio-temporal specifications; because shape
is not an absolute extension within the space/time. Hence it is neither
the physical substance, nor the shape or organization of the
substance; however, as explained in the part about the argument from
unity, everything in the existence has a unitary aspect. So, in this
realm, the essence of the agent interacts with other things through
their common unitary aspects.
Question 89.
Does the agent mean only the human beings?
Answer 89.
And there is no creature on [or within] the earth or bird that
flies with its wings except [that they are] communities like
you. We have not neglected in the Register a thing. Then
unto their Lord they will be gathered.
(Quran: 6/38)
-478-
Indeed, we offered the Trust to the heavens and the earth and
the mountains, and they declined to bear it and feared it; but
man [undertook to] bear it. Indeed, he was unjust and
ignorant.
(Quran: 33/72)
Human beings are not the only agents.
The part 3.5.6.4.2.8 explains that reduction of things to ultimate SBEs
is fallacious. In other words, there are no SBEs which are absolute
and to which all things can be reduced. Therefore, things at different
layers add distinct effects from themselves to what happens at the
lower or upper levels.
Regarding freedom of will, animals should not be different than
human beings in kind, though they can be different in degree. For
example, some animals wait before attacking their prey for a good
timing. Though when they are young, they cannot act this way, when
they have more experience, they can do it. So, when grown up, if
they could be communicated a goal of testing whether they have free
will, could we test it and see that they have FWP?
If they learn to wait and judge the best timing, and refrain their urge
to attack, they should be able to control an emotional urge from
within themselves. And if testing their free will could be a primary
goal, then they should be able to control themselves. If it was told,
you will attack 40 seconds later, and you will not be able to stop
yourself, why would not it be able to will to stop itself? As long as it
judges that the prey looks toward it, it judges that it is not appropriate
to attack it, and refrains from attacking. So, if it was possible to
communicate to it “to see whether your free will exists or not, we
will test whether you will be able to stop yourself at the moment
where the allegedly deterministic sum of all influencers will make
you attack”, could it stop itself at that moment? If the input it gets
-479-
on its prey that it is looking toward it makes it change its will, a
communication of a goal to test its freedom of will would enable it
to change and negate its allegedly fully predicted behavior. So, if it
can stop its emotional motivations by using its own judgment, we
can say that there is no reason to claim that it would not be able to
stop itself from attacking at the deterministically predicted moment.
But its power of judgment, ability to delay some urges and to
prioritize some goals show that it would be able to negate at least
some urges.
The same may happen in the context of physical sovereign wholes as
in the following verse:
Moreover, He comprehended in His design the sky, and it
had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come
both, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come
(together), in willing obedience."
(Quran: 41/11)
In the following verse, Allah tells us that the earth and the mountains
declined to do a certain act but that the human being undertook it:
Indeed, we offered the Trust to the heavens and the earth and
the mountains, and they declined to bear it and feared it; but
man bore it. Indeed, he was unjust and ignorant.
(Quran: 33/72)
The human being though he has larger knowledge in absolute terms,
and relatively to other creature, he has little knowledge compared to
his capacity and to what he can gain of knowledge according to his
accessing powers. Moreover, a large knowledge about certain things
causes arrogance, and therefore injustice and ignorance about some
other more important things.
-480-
Is it possible that in this latter verse, the ability to decline was given
for a specific and exceptional situation? It is possible. But, in any
case, this shows that the mountain can have the free will power as a
mountain. Hence, being a mountain does not constitute a
contradiction with having FWP.
Question 90.
How can an atom have free will power? For example, it will establish
deterministically a bond with another atom under certain
circumstances.
Answer 90.
The atoms may have free will power, though not necessarily. No
physical law is necessary. All particles obey these laws, but “they”
“obey”; in other words, they choose to obey.
They may theoretically will to not obey. Also, if they are forced under
certain circumstances or limits, they cannot disobey. Allah said
according to the Quran, verse 41/11, to the heaven and earth “come
both willingly or unwillingly”.
Secondly, freedom is not full freedom: They may be subject to some
patterns in some respects. Yet, in some ranges that we do not measure
fully as in the example of quantum uncertainty conditions, they may
exert their wills, or cooperate with higher or lower level
entities/events.
Question 91.
Do the angels, the satans have free will power?
-481-
Answer 91.
O you who have believed, protect yourselves and your
families from a Fire whose fuel is people and stones, over
which are [appointed] angels, harsh and severe; they do not
disobey Allah in what He commands them but do what they
are commanded.
(Quran: 66/6)
And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the
angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive
authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes
corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your
praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that
which you do not know."
(Quran: 2/30)
And to Allah prostrates whatever is in the heavens and
whatever is on the earth of creatures, and the angels [as well],
and they are not arrogant.
They fear their Lord above them, and they do what they are
commanded.
(Quran: 16/49-50)
We do not see in the Quran any verses where there is any negative
retrospective responsibility event about the angels. This is because
the angels as mentioned in the Quran do not disobey Allah.
However, the verses in the Quran give us an idea that the angels
behave as agents who have free will. Yet, they have no reasons to
negate God. They do not have most weaknesses of human beings:
They do not become hungry, thirsty…, yet they are careful to obey
God.
-482-
[Allah] said, "What prevented you from prostrating when I
commanded you?" [Iblees100] said, "I am better than him. You
created me from fire and created him from clay."
[Allah] said: "[O Iblees] get down from this [Paradise], it is
not for you to be arrogant here. Get out, for you are of those
humiliated and disgraced."
(Quran: 7/12)
The satans are also agents who have free will. And, they have
retrospective responsibility.
Part 3.4.12.1 explains further issues related to the possibility of free
will in the context of machines.
3.5.6 Features of The Human Being as An Agent with The
Will Power
In the previous part we saw some general features of the agent. In
this part, we will see some specific features of the agent that are
relevant to the free will power.
Besides the ontological nature of the human being which is common
with other beings, he also has a nature which is different than other
beings. For example, the human being cannot fly or stay under water
without external tools. Likewise, each human being may have some
different nature. For example, some may enjoy more walking in the
forest, some may enjoy more to go to the beach.
Beings or objects may have some features that are different than their
respective constituents. For example, a bird may fly, though its cells
or its atoms or its feet cannot fly by themselves alone. Or the sun
100
Iblees is one of the satans.
-483-
being a star, has certain features different than its components. Or a
certain atom may behave differently than its protons or electrons.
Likewise, agents who have the will power, have also features that are
different than their constituents. For example, a human being has
features which are different than his constituents: He can and must
eat, sleep, think, aim at certain things, avoid certain things. And a
certain human being may need specific things such as
eating/preferring certain food, doing certain actions.
3.5.6.1 Reality and Effectiveness
Within Islamic holism, the whole of the human being is as real as
any of his cells, or any of his atoms, or the entirety of these atoms.
Likewise, his attributes, consciousness or what we may define as the
soul are also as real. And he also has his distinct effectiveness.
His feelings and so on are not illusions. The agent is not
epiphenomenal or supervenient upon the parts. No parts are superior
to the sovereign wholes that they are part of. There may be
relationships between them; however, a sovereign whole is as real as
its parts.
All things are sustained by Allah.
That is Allah, your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the
Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of
all things.
(Quran: 6/102)
If we said that the subject is not real but its parts are real, what would
make the parts more real than the agent? Why would parts cause
things, while the agent would have no causal power? The parts also
have parts.
-484-
An agent is as real as his parts, and antecedent, internal, and external
causes related to his will. A person has a brain, nerves, neurons, eyes,
ears, father, mother, teachers… that influence his wills. Yet he is as
real as his neurons which contain atoms. He is as real as his teacher
who is an external cause and who has the same things. He is as real
as his atoms which have parts… He is as real as the society which he
forms and in which he grew up, as his parents who caused his
existence… If we reject his own share over his wills, then why would
we recognize the influence of all those elements which are claimed
to be external to the subject? Why would they be used to consider
the agent as not effective regarding his wills?
In this respect, the problem of free will is in fact a problem of the
materialist reductionism. Thus, if a dog barks, it is not the electrons
that bark, because otherwise, electrons would be assigned a power
that they do not have, namely being the fundamental cause. But
electrons also depend on other things. Things are not transparent
media which transfer the impact that comes from an unknown place.
On the contrary, they are real and part of the source of the effect.
A major claim against the freedom of will is that the will power is an
epiphenomenon. Epiphenomenon is defined as: “A secondary mental
phenomenon that is caused by and accompanies a physical
phenomenon but has no causal influence itself”. And epiphenomenal
is that which is of or relating to an epiphenomenon101. Hence, if the
will power is an epiphenomenon, then of course to claim that it is
free would be impossible.
The features of sovereign wholes at any level are true. There is no
basis for saying that there is only down-top or only top-down
causation, or that only things at some levels are effective, others are
ineffective or supervenient. We cannot reject the flying feature of a
101
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
-485-
bird saying that it is nothing but a certain rearrangement of atoms,
therefore atoms are real, flying is epiphenomenal. If we say so, then
what is the substantiation for the atom not being the consequence of
something else?
Saying that there is only down-top causation will either lead us to an
infinite regress which is logically and empirically impossible; or it
will lead us to ultimate bottom elements, which is again impossible.
These elements will be explained in detail in part 3.5.6.4.2.8.
Free elements are free in that they reside within the design of God
who is free: For example, a pigeon flies. This is a feature given by
God. These are not illusions.
The agent has the capacity to see the consequences of alternatives,
and he feels the consequences.
The agent who acts, wills, and sees the results is the same person,
same agent though his statiotemporal substance and structure
changes. Seeing is not linked in all its implications and causes
exclusively to a part or to a module of the brain; and the same is true
for hearing, understanding, willing, acting. The agent gets some of
these as inputs and processes them, and produces outputs. This is
about the reality of the agent as a constituent or requirement of will
and responsibility.
A sovereign whole has its own reality. Likewise, the agent has his
own reality as experienced, although his parts are also real. And also,
as we have shown in the negation experiments and brain observation
experiments in part 3.4.12.1, the whole of the agent is not
epiphenomenal. It can reorganize itself. The basis for the reality of
parts is also true for the reality of the sovereign whole. The sovereign
whole may have features that its constituents do not have. Or it can
have features with values that are more than the values of the features
-486-
of its parts. A sovereign whole may be vulnerable to things which do
not harm its parts. A danger may harm an animal but may be
harmless to its atoms. A thing may harm a part of a sovereign whole,
but may be useful to that whole as in amputation in gangrene.
Thus, sovereign wholes are not necessarily reducible: There is a truth
to the features of any levels, the bird cannot be explained only by
reference to its cells. No laws of nature are absolute, they depend also
on the related sovereign wholes, structures, organizations, and
shapes.
A part of a sovereign whole may cause something. But this sovereign
whole may also cause something on its part.
The shortcomings of reductionism which is relevant in this respect
are explained in detail in part 3.5.6.4.2.
3.5.6.2 Unity
The agent is one as a whole. The essence connected to the agent
encompasses the whole of the agent in unity. In this respect, the
consciousness and FWP also have unity as explained in the related
parts.
Thanks to the unity of the agent and of his essence, under the whole
of the agent, every thing under it is defined by a unity and hence
anything gets a meaning as related to other related parts as well as to
the external factors.
3.5.6.3 Sovereignty
Say, O Allah, Owner of Sovereignty, You give sovereignty to
whom You will and You take sovereignty away from whom
You will.
-487-
(Quran: 3/26)
The human being as an agent is sovereign in that he has the power
to produce his wills and upon them his acts.
The determinism and indeterminism are explained and refuted in
detail in parts 3.4.1.2 and 3.4.2.
Regarding free will, if determinism is false, and if indeterminism is
false, then the remaining alternative is exclusively free will power of
the sovereign agent. This is the only alternative remaining after
determinism and indeterminism:
Theoretically there are two possibilities: (1) There are only
unipotential agents. An agent has only one alternative in a specific
situation. (2) There are multipotential102 agents.
Determinism, indeterminism, and/or reductionism entail (1). They
are exclusive reasons for (1). (1) is also equal to having no alternatives
since there is no other possibility to will anything other than what
the agent will have willed. If the agent is fully reducible to or
dependent upon other things, then the agent does not have any real
and distinct free will power. These things may be past events, his
neurological structure, his reasons, the manipulation of another
agent -who is also subject to (1)-, or a random firing of a neuron. In
this theoretical possibility, no matter what the cause of the will is, the
agent has only one way to go.
The remaining theoretical possibility is that the agent is real and he
is a multipotential cause.
In other words, he either does not have a distinct multipotential
causal power as in (1), or he has as in (2). The arguments against
102
For multipotential and unipotential causality see part 3.1.1.3.1.2.
-488-
determinism and indeterminism show that (1) is definitely false. So,
(2) is true, and the agent has a free will power.
The above reasoning shows that there is at least one sovereign agent
with free will power. To assess whether a specific agent is a sovereign
agent with free will power, we have to consider whether he is
reducible. Because if this agent is reducible to its parts’ behaviors,
then we cannot say that he is sovereign. In part 3.5.6.4.2, I have
shown that the “reducibility as a general principle” is false. There is
no reason to claim that the human being is reducible. Within the
limited universe, with his considerable transcendent abilities, one of
the foremost candidates to have sovereignty is the human being. On
the other hand, with negation experiments and brain observation
experiments on the free will power, the irreducibility of the sovereign
human being is demonstrated in part 3.4.12.1.
As further explanations about the sovereignty of free will power in
part 3.4.6 are applicable here as well, I will not repeat them here.
Question 92.
If determinism and indeterminism are false, then is every act an
outcome of sovereignty?
Answer 92.
Yes. But sovereign beings interact with other things. Hence this
constitute a limitation on sovereignty. On the other hand, Allah
creates things according to specific designs, which constitute also
limitations. For example, we cannot run faster than a limit.
Furthermore, by the falsity of determinism I do not mean the nonexistence of any patterns. There are some patterns in some ranges,
subject to will power, and in accordance with the design of Allah.
-489-
On the other hand, the human being has the sovereign free will
power, but he is not obliged to exercise it at all times.
3.5.6.4 Irreducibility to The Physical
And (the disbelievers,) they say, "Our hearts are within
coverings from that to which you invite us, and in our ears is
deafness, and between us and you is a partition, so work;
indeed, we are working."
(Quran: 41/5)
And those who disbelieved will [then] say, "Our Lord, show
us those who misled us of the jinn and men [so] we may put
them under our feet that they will be among the lowest."
(Quran: 41/29)
He will say, "Enter with the previous communities of jinns
and humans into Hell." Every time a group enters, they will
curse their ancestral group. Once they are all in it, the latest
one will say of the previous one, "Our Lord, these are the
ones who misled us. Give them double the retribution of
Hell." He will say, "Each receives double, but you do not
know."
(Quran: 7/38)
Generally, in the discussions about free will, determinism and
uncertainty/ randomness are brought as the issues related to the truth
of free will. As we have shown in part 3.4.1.2 and part 3.4.2, both
determinism and indeterminism are false.
However, a more important and relevant, but less pronounced
hypothesis related to free will is reductionism.
-490-
A dictionary definition of reductionism is: “The theory that every
complex phenomenon, especially in biology or psychology, can be
explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic physical mechanisms
that are in operation during the phenomenon.”103
When determinism and uncertainty are offered as the only
alternatives upon which the reality of free will should be built, the
unquestioned hypothesis is that the will and the agent are reducible
to the spatiotemporal and some other things.
The reductionism is also important regarding free will power in
another viewpoint: Even if the falsity of determinism and
indeterminism is obvious, if the will power is reducible to other
things, then we cannot claim the distinct existence of the free will
power of the agent. For example, if the parts of an agent are neither
deterministic nor indeterministic104, but the agent is reducible to his
parts, then the agent cannot be considered to have free will power
(FWP).
The argument against free will, based on determinism or
indeterminism follows the prior step of the often-undeclared
assumption that eliminative reductionism is true. So, the agent is
assumed to be ineffective, epiphenomenal, and supervenient upon
the physical. Hence, the only effective things are presumed to be the
particles, fields, and/or other spatiotemporal elements. And these are
assumed to behave in either deterministic or indeterministic ways.
103
(Dictionary.com 2020)
These parts can be sovereign wholes. However, as this part is focused on
the existence or non-existence of free will power rather than who has it, I will
examine the reductionism as related to deterministic and/or indeterministic
claims.
104
-491-
Consequently, all, including the agents are considered to follow just
the deterministic or indeterministic paths.
Therefore, to understand freedom of will, undertanding reductionism
is more important than understanding determinism and
indeterminism. So, in this part, I will try to explain what
reductionism means in the context of free will; and why full
reductionism105 is fallacious.
Is the agent and his will reducible to the physical, biological, social
entities and events?
A kind of reductionism may also reduce the agent partially or wholly
to the past entities and events. There are other kinds of reductionism.
However, our following explications can be easily applied to the other
kinds of reductionism that are related to the discussion of free will.
The argument against FWP in accordance with reductionism can be
explained with this example: If cogwheels are real and effective, then
the clock will behave only as the cogwheels behave. Likewise, if the
neurons and other things corresponding to cogwheels are real and
effective, then the human being will behave only as these behave. As
the clock does not have any power or reality to negate the cogwheels,
the human being does not have any power or reality to negate those
things.
The analogy between the human being and a clock is obviously a
wrong analogy, since it is an analogy between a sovereign whole and
105
Unless otherwise indicated, when I use reductionism, I mean the full
reductionism, which entails that everything is reducible to other things. There
are obviously things which are reducible to other things.
-492-
non-sovereign whole106. Everything cannot be a non-sovereign whole
as the clock, since otherwise, there would be no existence because of
infinite regress. If the cogwheel is explained by its parts as the clock
is explained by the cogwheel, and if every part is explained by its
parts, and if there is no sovereign whole in the entire chain of
explanations, then nothing would have any active power to make the
clock work.
Arguments based on reductionism in the context of free will power
have been put forth against claims of responsibility within and since
the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). And these are not accepted
as excuses as we see in the above verses from the Quran.
If those who went astray blame the previous generation there will be
infinite regress. And they have to accept that they were among the
causes, since the next generations would also blame them if this
would be a valid blame. Because they blame previous causes and they
are also previous cause for certain events.
The influences of sovereign wholes are not limited to distinct
spatiotemporal behaviors of the sovereign wholes. We cannot say that
one’s being a father, or another one’s being beautiful does not have
any reality and influence distinct from the influence of their particles.
There is no basis to say that the reality of a “father” in this respect is
inferior to the reality of an “atom”. The issue of infinite regress
applies here as well.
3.5.6.4.1 Reductionism
When I talk about reductionism, I essentially mean physicalist
reductionism. And I take “reduce” and “reductionism” in the
106
Although this analogy is developed by the author, since the reductionists
would not accept a sovereign whole, it is an appropriate analogy to deliver the
point of such opponents of free will power.
-493-
following sense: “The English verb ‘reduce’, derives from the Latin
‘reducere’, whose literal meaning ‘to bring back’, informs its
metaphorical use in philosophy. If one asserts that the mental reduces
to the physical, that heat reduces to kinetic molecular energy, or that
one theory reduces to another theory, one implies that in some
relevant sense the reduced theory can be brought back to the
reducing theory, the mental can be brought back to the physical, or
heat can be brought back to molecular kinetic energy. The term
‘reduction’ as used in philosophy expresses the idea that if an entity
x reduces to an entity y then y is in a sense prior to x, is more basic
than x, is such that x fully depends upon it or is constituted by it.
Saying that x reduces to y typically implies that x is nothing more
than y or nothing over and above y.”107
A reduction is effected when the laws of the target science are shown
to be logical consequences of the theoretical assumptions of a base
science.108
There are other formulations of reductionism. However, the above is
the most relevant in the context of free will.
As reductionism is very crucial regarding free will, let us go into
further details based on a specific argument for reductionism
explained by (Kim 1999):
If a person is in a mental state M1, then there is a corresponding
physical state P1 of this person. When he shifts to the mental state
M2, there is also a physical state P2 that corresponds to M2. If P1
and related physical laws are sufficient for the transition from P1 to
P2, then M1 does not have any efficient causal power on the
transition from P1 to P2 and from M1 to M2. And according to the
107
108
(Van Riel 2019)
(Nagel 1961)
-494-
physicalist reductionist approach, P1 and related physical laws are
sufficient for that transition from P1 to P2.
The above example is about the relationship between the mental state
and physical state. But it can equally be used for any state of a
sovereign whole and the states of its parts.
In the above line of thought we notice an error of assuming the
existence of self-sufficient very bottom layer. Also, the assumptions
that between P1 and M1 or between Pn and Mn there is a one-toone token relationship is not substantiated.
However, that line of thought demonstrates the important link
between physicalism and reductionism. If someone is physicalist,
then he has to adhere to the above line of thought and not adopt a
holistic physicalism. The above line of thought which is consistent
within itself, entails that a physicalist holism is untenable.
Why is there a tendency to relocate explanations to lower layers?
Because if two parts come together and there appears a totally new
relationship or property unexplainable by these two parts, from
where would that new relationship would come? According to Islam,
the answer is “from God”. But for some people, this answer is not
acceptable. Consequently, they have to accept that any whole must
be explainable based only on its parts. Where do the attributes of the
ultimate parts come from? Here, we see that reductionism has a
strong faith-like aspect.
Secondly, the tendency to relocate explanations to lower layers may
have also practical reasons: Knowing what wholes can be made of
different parts enables us to combine them in different ways and
produce new products. Being used to these practical aspects, may
cause many people to question insufficiently the problems of
reductionism.
-495-
Thirdly, there are also assumptions that allegedly separable smaller
things are simpler, since there are allegedly less powers acting on a
smaller particle. And the more we learn about simpler and smaller
things the less unexplained things will remain. Hence, there may be
hopes that we will learn how things happened to exist starting from
zero. However, the more we explain the attributes of larger things
with smaller things, these smaller things will be assumed to be larger
in their powers.
None of these justify a conclusion that all wholes are explainable in
terms of their parts.
In the following parts, I will examine reductionism in further details.
3.5.6.4.2 Reductionism Is Unsubstantiated and False.
He creates what He wills.
(Quran: 42/49)
Once the agent is fully reduced to another thing, then we cannot
argue for the free will power of the agent. It does not matter in this
respect whether that thing behaves deterministically, or
indeterministically, or in another way.
If in a debate an opponent of free will offers the false dichotomy of
determinism and indeterminism, he implicitly argues for
reductionism. Because the absence of any alternatives other than
these two can be claimed only if the agent is considered reducible to
other things and not to have any distinct effect.
Therefore, in this section, we will go through physicalist
reductionism as it relates to free will power, and I will explain why it
is not a reasonable view.
-496-
According to physicalist reductionism, the biological is reducible to
the chemical, the chemical is reducible to the physical, molecules are
reducible to atoms; atoms are reducible to electrons and so on… If
we have complete information about the bottom physical level, then
we have a complete understanding and predictive power about any
upper level. A whole in an upper level is just epiphenomenal, with
no effect of its own, like an illusion. Most opponents of free will will
one way or the other build their arguments on this.
If we know all about each of the letters in the word “pen”, can we
grasp the word “pen” and the meaning it contains? We cannot.
Because pen as a word, is irreducible to the letters. It has the power
to represent an object. If we know all about each atom of the pen,
without knowing their spatio-temporal relationships can we know
the pen fully? If we do not know about the value of the pen for a
human being, do the atoms of the pen alone constitute the entire
existence of the pen? No. Hence, in many ways the pen is not
reducible to its atoms or to other atoms.
A sovereign whole at a level influences entities and events at the other
levels.
Say, “Allah is the Creator of all things”
(Quran: 13/16)
And not an atom's weight in the earth or in the sky escapes
your Lord, nor what is less than that or greater than that, but
it is (written) in a clear Book.
(Quran: 10/61)
The agent and the will power are not fundamentally different than
other sovereign wholes.
-497-
In Islam, everything is real, created, sustained, and empowered by
God. So, reductionism of everything into spatiotemporal things is not
acceptable in Islam.
Van Riel et al. notes “The hope that the actual progress of science
can be successfully described in terms of reduction has vanished.”109
This complies with the Quranic teaching.
Rejecting physicalist reductionism110 does not entail rejecting physics.
We should just reject a specific narrow understanding of physics.
Physics relates to nature, and in a broad sense God has a nature and
there is a relationship between God and nature since God is the
Creator and Sustainer of physics. The physics which excludes God,
and the physics which is defined as something unrelated to God, is
not acceptable in Islam. But physics as a comprehensive science is
necessary.
Biology relocates some real questions to chemistry and physics;
chemistry relocates some real questions to physics. And physics
relocates the same to things which are studied under philosophy. And
some see philosophy inferior to science. Consequently, some
important questions are swept under the rug, especially when they
are related to the issue of free will power.
In the following sub-sections, I will explain why reductionism is
unsubstantiated and false.
109
110
(Van Riel 2019)
Scientific reductionism is generally used as corresponding to physicalist
reductionism. However, although the adjective “scientific” presupposes that it
is scientific, it is not substantiated that it is scientific. Hence, we prefer to use
the term “physicalist”.
-498-
3.5.6.4.2.1 Reductionism Is Unsubstantiated.
The reductionist claims that there are no wholes which are not
reducible to other things are unsubstantiated, and cannot be
substantiated. Because, it requires access to all wholes in the universe,
and to all layers of existence. Obviously, this access is impossible.
Furthermore, there is no logical or empirical necessity for all things
to be reducible to other things. Additionally, the problems in the
following sub-sections demonstrate that reductionism cannot be
proven.
Accordingly, a claim that the will power or the agent is reducible to
the spatiotemporal states of his spatiotemporal parts is
unsubstantiated.
3.5.6.4.2.2 Top-Down Causation Is as True as Down-Top
Causation.
He released the two seas, meeting [side by side];
Between them is a barrier [so] neither of them transgresses.
(Quran: 55/19-20)
And they will say to their skins, "Why have you testified
against us?" They will say, "We were made to speak by Allah,
who has made everything speak; and He created you the first
time, and to Him you are returned.
(Quran: 41/21)
And Allah has extracted you from the wombs of your mothers
not knowing a thing, and He made for you hearing and vision
and intellect that perhaps you would be grateful.
(Quran: 16/78)
-499-
Since parts and wholes act as if they share the same space, they are
not fundamentally separable. We cannot say that something in and
of itself explains a whole, since, for instance, any law of nature is
assumed to bind even distant things as if they are a whole.
In terms of causality we cannot say that only low-level things
influence the top-level things, since high level relationships such as
spatial relationships are also a reality: The locations of the planets
and their atoms in the planetary system not only have implications
for the movements of the planets, but also they have implications for
how the atoms behave.
If for example the space was reducible, then it would be explainable
in spatial points. But then distant, and near, big, and small would
lose their reality independent of our consciousness: Because any
point cannot contain these relationships. If we define a point within
a whole, then we assume that it is contained within a non-separable
relationship. If we reduce things to relationships, then we reduce
them to transcendent and non-separable wholes. Especially if we
consider that relationships are also related according to certain
relationships, we will see that reductionism does not work. These are
not related to our consciousness, since whether we exist or not, these
relationships work.
The reductionist in the first place divides and discriminates. Because
for him there are reduced things, and there are things upon which
other things are reduced. However, an atom has an actual potential
precise implication for a specific cat even if it is not within or close
to that cat. That implication also defines the atom. In the design of
God, the cat or whatever will be created with an atom has an
implication for the existence and some features of the atom.
On the other hand, for example, an atom, or an electron is not a
point-like entity, and they cannot be isolated point-like entities. They
are explained in terms of internal and external structures and
-500-
relationships. So, reductionism would only work in a limited way in
respect to a certain layer. At that layer, however basic it is, we will
see that that which we use as an explanation, is something that
belongs to a higher layer relatively to something else. Or we will see
in accordance with the popular interpretations of quantum
phenomena, that we have wave functions where there are only
wholes.
The real world is not reducible to imaginable simplest billiard balls,
though even such simplest balls would require lots of internal
relationships.
Hence, top - down - future - past - potential - actual causalities are
true simultaneously and not necessarily only in a fixed single
direction.
All spatiotemporal structures and functions are contingent, and
results of the design of God. Nothing is fixed, unchanging, absolute,
or superior against God.
In the limited universe we observe, there is no homogeneous upward
going causal structural chain. There are different structures at
different layers. Had there been such a chain, then we could figure
out what had to be the structure of anything at any smallest scale.
But we discover different particles at the same layers and at the
different layers with specific numbers and relationships, by doing
specific experiments, rather than looking at what is going on between
celestial objects.
Also, as we saw in the negation experiments and brain observation
experiments about the free will power, there are distinct effects of the
sovereign wholes upon the parts.
-501-
Consequently, our empirical observations and logic, do not allow us
to conclude that we can make a clear and final distinction between
things that are reduced and things that are reduction bases.
Question 93.
What differentiates the whole from its parts?
Answer 93.
Here the assumption is that the parts of the sovereign whole are
fundamentally different than the the sovereign whole. This is a false
assumption. The very basic does not need to be defined in and of
itself. It may be defined at least partially in terms of upper whole.
The sovereign whole may be also an element, a basis, or a
requirement of the part. When we conceive of an object, we conceive
it within a spacetime. Everything is defined based on its relationships
in one or more sovereign wholes in relationship to 'many' things.
If there is an extra dimension added to the spatiotemporal, and which
is related to the will, then the will will not supervene upon the
narrowly physical. Because then there would be other changes
occurring outside the spatio temporal dimension. So, in this situation
there would be no one-to-one relationship between the physical and
the will. Our consciousness is an example for such extra dimensions.
Further details about this question are given in part 3.5.3 about
sovereign wholes.
3.5.6.4.2.3 Reality of Non-Spatio-Temporal Concepts and
Considerations
The spatiotemporal does not have any implication in terms of right
and wrong: A falling stone is what it is. We cannot say “this fall is
false”. If spatiotemporal dimension(s) are the only ones, then there
-502-
would be no other dimension wherein spatiotemporal entities would
extend or influence or produce. But if there are the dimensions of
true, false, good, evil then we cannot say that these fundamental
dimensions are reducible to the spatiotemporal ones.
There is no reason to claim that our spatiotemporal perceptions are
superior to our other perceptions. Why would we say that
economical, social, biological, chemical relationships are just
epiphenomenal, ineffective relationships?
If the only reality was only physics or physiology, then there would
be nothing else which would consider it wrong. (1) If the only reality
was the spatiotemporal, then the agent’s parts would not be able to
transcend another agent; (2) Even if they did, they all would be as
parts of the same whole, complying with relevant laws of nature, and
consistent.
We have the will power and when we will, this act has dynamics
different than those of the parts. We consider things that relate to
economics, feelings, future, and so on. These are specific to our level.
An atom’s attributes, functions, and behavior are different. We are
real, the atoms are real, the cells are real, our eyes are real… What
we consider when willing does not overlap with the specifics of an
atom. If we say that what we consider is just what atoms calculate/
process, then we have no reason to stop at the atoms’ level, we need
to go deeper, but at no place we are justified to stop. So, we have to
accept that the atoms are epiphenomenal as well, hence, nothing, no
entity, no relationship we find out will constitute a real finding.
If we assume that the atoms or something else are the supervenience
basis, then we would have added some additional features to the real
spatiotemporal that we have not reached. Therefore, we would have
contradicted ourselves.
-503-
Until, when they reach it, their hearing and their eyes and
their skins will testify against them of what they used to do.
And they will say to their skins, "Why have you testified
against us?" They will say, "We were made to speak by Allah,
who has made everything speak; and He created you the first
time, and to Him you are returned.
(Quran: 41/20-21)
On a Day when their tongues, their hands and their feet will
bear witness against them as to what they used to do.
(Quran: 24/24)
3.5.6.4.2.4 Infinite Regress Problem Related to External
Things
Above, we generally saw the parts or past of the agent as the things
to which he or his will can allegedly be reduced. However, the will
can allegedly be reduced partially or wholly to things other than their
past or constituents such as the effects of food, weather, friends, and
so on.
If everything is influenced by and built upon external things, then
nothing would exist/ happen because of circularity. For example, if
the will was the consequence of a friend’s act, then the friend’s act
would be caused by another event… in an infinite regress and in
circularity. However, an actual infinite regress is impossible in this
context as well. So, things that exist are real, active, and free. They
have their realities which are also sustained by God. Anything that
exists will have a whole or partial capacity to change what is ordained
by the external facts, or what is projected into the future. Otherwise
it would not be existing.
-504-
3.5.6.4.2.5 Consciousness as An Evidence of Irreducibility
Consciousness is an important sign of an irreducible whole.
Consciousness relates to the entirety of the agent, not any part of it.
Even if it was detected that it is a part of a brain it would be a sign
of a whole since that part would also be a whole. It cannot be reduced
to a spatiotemporal point in the brain, since it encompasses many
ranges in the same time. It cannot be reduced to a volume, because
then constituents of that volume would be transcendent and nonseparable. Therefore, the consciousness cannot be reduced to the
spatiotemporal. For similar reasons it cannot be reduced to other
ultimately separable things.
If we draw four boxes, the consciousness encompasses them. But in
the reductive physicalism each box is instantiated within
corresponding parts in the brain. If the brain is reduced to parts, then
each part would contain a part of the boxes. Hence there would be
no transcendent and holistic reality of the wholes anywhere.
The agent can produce “infinite” scenarios, can reshape, can redefine,
can know, and be conscious of multiple things at once, while the
physical is assumed to be in one-to-one relationship. The agent can
value things differently. It is active over what he conceives. What he
conceives is real as conceptions as different from the physical,
though, we cannot separate the physical from the mental.
Even if the qualia would be illusions, they would be real as illusions.
Hence, it is clear that those transcendent attributes cannot be
reducible to the spatiotemporal, except maybe if we assume that the
spatiotemporal is not spatiotemporal as understood by some. But if
we assume the latter, then we would have added some additional
features to the spatiotemporal.
-505-
3.5.6.4.2.6 Physicalism Is False.
Physicalism is defined as “a thesis that the descriptive terms of
scientific language are reducible to terms which refer to
spatiotemporal things or events or to their properties”111. It is also
seen as the thesis that all first-order properties instantiated in the
spatiotemporal world are physical properties.112 There are different
kinds of physicalism, however, the above definition is sufficiently
relevant regarding the physicalism that I will examine in our context.
A physicalist maintains that things and events are reducible to
spatiotemporal deterministic or indeterministic relationships, parts,
and wholes113. Though there are holist physicalists, physicalism
reduces things and events to the physical114. In a detailed analysis, it
will be seen that physicalism is inconsistent with holism.
Hence, the general idea of physicalism is an important factor in
adopting reductionist approaches to free will. So, an analysis of
physicalism is necessary in the context of free will.
Physicalism emerges from searching the causes in the wrong place.
If I try to understand how my car happened to be, only within the
parts of my car, then I can be “steelist”, or “rubberist”, or “atomist”.
But if I also have a wider vision and look around for some engineers,
for my needs, for some factories, then I can reach a truer
111 (Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
112 (Latham 2009)
113For a reductive physicalist, wholes are also reducible to parts.
114 By “physical” many understand “that which is the essential and
consisting
only of spatio-temporal things and entities”. The physical or physicalism
which is analized in this work are according to this meaning of these
expressions. However, I think that ontological separation between physical
and non-physical is only an articial and fallacious one for the reasons given in
the relevant parts in this book.
-506-
understanding. If a person tries to understand the spatiotemporal
within the spatiotemporal, then a similar problem occurs.
Although the Quran strongly encourages to find out and benefit from
patterns in nature, it also clarifies in a balanced way the importance
of other things as sovereignty of human beings, will power, truth,
consciousness, responsibility, and divine values. It also emphasizes
the contingency of patterns found in nature and how those patterns
are established in order to be benefited from, and as signs showing
the Creator and sustainer of the universe.
Then your hearts became hardened after that, being like
stones or even harder. For indeed, there are stones from
which rivers burst forth, and there are some of them that split
open and water comes out, and there are some of them that
fall down for fear of Allah. And Allah is not unaware of what
you do.
(Quran: 2/74)
And there is no creature on [or within] the earth or bird that
flies with its wings except [that they are] communities like
you. We have not neglected in the Register a thing. Then
unto their Lord they will be gathered.
(Quran: 6/38)
Question 94.
What is the relationship between the physicalist monism and Islamic
monotheism?
Answer 94.
Some consider physicalism as monist. When it is monist, it is
inconsistent in that it recognizes the multiplicity of the physical
-507-
things and the relationships between them, while it rejects the
necessary transcendent power. The bigger the number of
spatiotemporal and systematically differentiated things at
differentiated layers, the more inconsistent is physicalism in its
monist aspect.
Islam recognizes the transcendent power, and the things that this
power creates and sustains. The more the number of systematically
differentiated things, the stronger the unitary aspect of Islam, since
such multiplicity display the control of a bigger unitary power.
When physicalist monism rejects the transcendent default power, it
is incomplete in terms of a source for transcendently encompassing
alternatives, and for the transcendent free will power. Hence, it is
difficult if not impossible to reconcile it with the free will power.
The Quranic teaching consistently presents the source of the free will
power and the reasons for it.
Question 95.
What is the relevance of physicalism to the free will power?
Answer 95.
In physicalism, except for its marginal versions, there is a closed
physical system and the universe consists of this closed system. The
relationships within and between entities and events are generally
through deterministic and/or probabilistic laws. Entities and events
can be understood only through determinism and uncertainty. Since
all things are reducible to spatiotemporal relationships, it is not
possible to conceive of any being or entity which may have autonomy
and sovereignty.
According to physicalism, biological or psychological experiences are
illusion-like; they can be reduced to physical entities, events, and
-508-
laws. Enjoying food or suffering from a health problem have no
causal effect as being qualia. They can only be understood in being
just physical states and structures that gained some permanency
which resist any incoming destroying effects. So, if one bleeds
because of an accident, the feeling of pain occurs so that the organism
reorganizes itself in order to annul the harming effect, and reprogram
the organism in order to avoid future harmful events so as the
organism survives.
Joy, pain, understanding are just epiphenomena which do not have
any causal effect except for the underlying physical entities and
events. Pain as experienced by an organism has no causal effect, but
the corresponding and underlying physical states have this effect.
There is no other effective dimension specific to qualia which
interacts with the spatiotemporal dimensions. If there are such
dimensions, they are just epiphenomal; they do not absorb energy
from the spatiotemporal; they do not change the flow of the energy.
In a reductive physicalism, entities and events consist of ontologically
distant parts, and they can be divided into their parts, and into related
sequences. A transcendent inclusion or encompassing of entities and
events within agents is only epiphenomenal. Related ontological
unities are not possible. Parts are instantiated within parts.
In a holistic physicalism, wholes may be included in the causal
processes. For example, a biological organism may have influence on
the parts and its elements may be non-separable. However, since it
is physicalism, though qualified as holist, it explains the whole only
in terms of the spatiotemporal. Therefore, I am convinced that
holistic physicalism cannot be fundamentally different than reductive
physicalism. So, for the holistic physicalism also there are only
deterministic and/or uncertain causal relationships; the whole and
the parts are subject to them. Yet, joy, pain, understanding, agency,
and such mind-like features are just epiphenomenal, or simply put,
-509-
they do not have any causal effect on the physical entities and events.
Some further points on this are explained in this book in respect to
strong emergence.
In this sense, physical monism which says that everything is of one
nature, is monist ony by discarding the mental dimensions, and by
naming them as epiphenomenal. Because, even if we assume that
these mental dimensions are epiphenomenal, nobody denies that
they are real and existent; so, for the physicalist they exist along the
spatiotemporal. Consequently, to me the claim that a physicalist is
or can be a monist is inconsistent. They have two fundamentally
distinct and irreconciliable natures. It would not be rational to
consider only the effective things as existent.
In accordance with physicalism, we cannot talk of a distinct causal
value of purpose or design, since the physical relationships are closed
relationships and together with spatiotemporal states, they are
considered sufficient to predict future states. Even if they are not
sufficient to predict, the only possible causes are the spatiotemporal
ones.
In summary, the determinist physicalist says that the will of the agent
is nothing more than an epiphenomenon. The states, physical
entities, and the equations/ functions of physics are sufficient to
explain everything.
Here, the point is that adopting such a physicalist approach is in
conflict with the free will power115.
115
There are compatibilists who believe both in physicalism and free will. As
we explained in the related parts, the free will as they define occurs with no
freedom of its own or of the agent.
-510-
Question 96.
Is not non-reductive physicalism acceptable?
Answer 96.
I do not think non-reductive physicalism can be considerably
different than reductive physicalism. For details see part 3.5.6.4.3.2
on non-reductive physicalism.
Question 97.
Is Islamic teaching emergentist?
Answer 97.
Kim (1999) classifies emergentism as follows: “It is evident that
emergentism is a form of what is now standardly called “nonreductive materialism”, a doctrine that aspires to position itself as a
compromise between physicalist reductionism and all-out
dualisms.”116
In Islam God is not born, hence does not emerge; His creation is
within the plan of God as well. Hence, Islam is not emergentist.
Though downward causation has some place in Islam, regarding
God, it is totally different: The top does not emerge deterministically
or randomly from some other things.
Regarding the free will power there is a fundamental difference as
well: Though agents are born, grow up, and depend to some extent
on some microphysiological processes and entities, all of these which
may look vertically differentiated relatively to each other, occupy the
same layer as they relate to the creating power of God. In other
words, the agent does not emerge from the mechanistic processes;
116
(Kim 1999)
-511-
rather, he is designed with other related creation as a unitary whole,
by God. So, at the very fundamental level, they do not emerge from
each other.
There is downward causation as well, especially as it is obvious in the
processes related to free will. While the events are running, we cannot
say that the parts constitute the whole of the agent and make the
agent emerge as a reducible thing. There are relationships between
parts and wholes. But these relationships are like in equations in that
everything in an equation is equally real. Let me explain with an
example:
Four objects A, B, C, and D are positioned in the same space so as
to constitute a square S. Here, we cannot say that S emerges from
A, B, C, and D. A, B, C, D, and the space are already created and
designed so as to contain the potential of constituting a whole.
Furthermore, they in any case constitute a whole whenever they are
part of the same space. Square is only one of the instantiations. Before
the square also, whatever was their positions, they constituted a
whole. And that whole did not emerge; with the existence of each of
them a related whole existed; that whole is not separable from A or
B or C or D.
So, the only emergence is with their coming into existence by being
created by God, but this is neither stronge emergence nor weak
emergence. Their being positioned so as to constitute a square may
have different consequences than their forming a triangle. These
consequences are also contained within them as potentials. But when
their positioning as a square is actualized, this, again together with
their potentials constitutes another whole. In other words, ABCD in
the square form is another entity compared to them being in a
triangle form. Yet, each of A, B, C, and D also constitutes an
individual whole.
According to the Quran, the states are real:
-512-
So, I swear by the twilight glow,
And [by] the night and what it envelops,
And [by] the moon when it becomes full,
[That] you will surely experience state after state.
(Quran: 84/16-19)
In any case in the creation stage of anything within a certain
framework, there is a whole including the potentials. No part we
observe is conceivable without a related whole.
Which potentials actualize for a specific creation depend on the
commands of God, on the extent of freedom assigned to it by God,
and on the commands, design, and freedom of other creation.
Hence, commands, information, communication, transcendence, will
play important roles in the functioning of the universe:
And your Lord inspired to the bee, "Take for yourself among
the mountains, houses, and among the trees and [in] that
which they construct.
Then eat from all the fruits and follow the ways of your Lord
laid down [for you]." There emerges from their bellies a
drink, varying in colors, in which there is healing for people.
Indeed, in that is a sign for a people who give thought.
(Quran: 16/68-69)
And He completed them as seven heavens within two days
and inspired in each heaven its command.
(Quran: 41/12)
-513-
Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a
matter, He only says to it, "Be," and it is.
(Quran: 2/117)
Allah said, "O Dhul-Qarnayn, either you punish [them] or
else adopt among them [a way of] goodness."
(Quran: 18/86)
The last verse above indicates a range of freedom, while the previous
one indicates no range of freedom.
On the other hand, strong emergence is seen as something fully built
upon laws, where the low layers are connected with the high layers
through laws of different kinds again. Furthermore, those who
defend strong emergence, maintain that the same identical low layers
would produce the same high layer phenomena. Therefore, strong
emergence is no more than adding further relationships to the same
structure under reductionist principles. Hence, for most
emergentists, free will power is not obtained even under strong
emergence.
3.5.6.4.2.6.1 We Conceive the Physical Only Through
Mind.
How would we “define” the “physical” with words while words are
not “physical” (or non-physical)? One might argue “even if I do not
define it with words the physical is there”, then what is “there” even
when you do not define it? Hence, in this situation, we would not be
able to call it physical or anything else.
If sight of light is illusion, if shape is illusion, if space is illusion ...
then what is that which acts? The physicalist is with nothing but
mind yet he rejects mind. If things have nothing to do with what and
-514-
how we define, what are they? Are we outside existence? Is our nature
unable to interact with the existence? Cannot we conceive of at least
some relevant realities?
A better approach is to recognize our observations, senses, reasoning,
knowledge and their objects as all being real and within a unity. In
Islam, everything has a common Creator, therefore a common
ground which justsifies the possibility of interaction between things.
Hence our only channel through which we recognize things is our
mind. In any case, we recognize things as they are translated into the
language, concepts, feelings, unity of our mind. Either we recognize
the reality of our mind, qualia, and their capacity to access what is
beyond, or we have to reject the possibility to access anything beyond
our mind if our mind is not real.
We do not have any evidence to say that what we conceive is
something other than what we conceive even if it is other than what
we conceive. So, we cannot say that something is not related to mind,
because whatever we are conscious of is mind-like. Hence, as logic
and consciousness are not a secondary thing relatively to the physical,
the logical is as effective as the physical. Even we can say that the
physical has logical and conscious constituents. So, there is no reason
to give the physical any fundamental priority.
When we define the physical, we define it with our mental properties
as unity transcendence... The physical is not the basis. If we want to
remove the mental from the physical it is impossible. So, in any case
what we call physical depends on the mental in our perspective.
3.5.6.4.2.6.2 Foundations of The Physical Are Mind-Like.
If what is real is totally of different nature and it is not mind-like
even partially, how does the content of our mind correspond to what
-515-
is beyond? In other words, if in our mind there is a space which
makes us feel that the object O1 is more distant than object O2, what
is the reality of space that makes one of them closer? If the
transcendence and unity within us does not have a corresponding
transcendence and unity related to what is beyond us, how and why
would they be consistent within themselves, and how could they be
translated into our mind?
A key aspect of the physical is the unity that surrounds it; a key
aspect of the mind is also such a unity; a key aspect of their
interaction is also the unity.
If we claim that blue is a kind of qualia, the essential is the physical,
and the qualia is an illusion, this claim is inconsistent and
unsubstantiated. Because what we conceive as the physical is not any
different than the color blue. They all relate to others, are connected
within unity, and are meaningless without their transcendent
relationships to other things.
Hence, it is apparent that regarding their underlying powers, what is
within our minds and what is beyond are not separate. And if our
mind is real and what is beyond is real, then what would be the
barrier and the connection between them?
And what makes them inherently of different nature? For example,
let us think of an object. Is it physical, as opposed to non-physical
whatever it is? What makes it physical? Its extension in the space? Is
space physical? What makes it physical? Suppose that the object
moves smoothly, and suppose that it is the only object in the
universe. What does it mean that it moves, and according to what?
Is its movement physical? What makes it physical? It makes the space
curved? According to what?
-516-
Or for example if the space is physical, and if we deny our perception
of space then what is space? What is the nature of our definition and
perception of space? What is the physicality of our perception? If
within our minds our illusory consciousness connects the points of
space, then what connects the points within the spacetime beyond
us? If the parts of anything exist by themselves, then where is the
whole?
When we define something, we define it in its relationship to other
things, e.g. as a whole of some things, or as a part of some things.
Then what does link and separate those things which are beyond our
minds ontologically? That which unites things which are beyond our
minds is necessary, because multiple things are “consistently”
instantiated and united within our perception. This consistency is
obvious within our mind, within what is beyond it, and in between;
that is why we can do science successfully. There must be a unity in
what we observe, so that the unity of our perception may perceive it.
If there were two things within two unrelated spacetimes, then could
we perceive it? If yes, then would not this mean that we have access
to these two spacetimes? If we had access to them, would not it be
the case that they are connected independently of ourselves? If there
is no corresponding unity encompassing what we observe, we would
not be able to have meaning of things beyond our mind.
Hence, if there was no encompassing unity within what we observe,
then we could not conceive of a real triangle, since the points of the
triangle would not be related. And something we designed based on
it, would not keep its spatial relationships. If there was inconsistency
in between the mental and what is beyond, what we designed based
on it would be fed back to us in a disorderly way.
There is a unitary reality that at least comprises the elements of our
consciousness. So, how can the physical be totally unrelated to our
-517-
consciousness when we talk about the physical? And how can we
make a distinction and a fundamental separation between the
physical and our consciousness, words, unity? How can we create a
dualism of physical and non-physical when we think or when we
talk? And if we cannot talk and think of such a dualism how can one
deny one of them?
Saying that reality is physical as opposed to consciousness, would be
a self-defeating statement, because it would be a “statement” which
is not a reality.
The common foundation of what is called the mental and the
physical is obvious according to the above considerations. Yet, the
disability to see or accept the extension of this common ground into
the physical, may be causing the physicalist make a false dichotomy
saying: Tables are separate, planets are separate, persons are
separate117 but our minds see them in unity, in one place,
transcendentally. So, we have to choose either our mind or what is
beyond and one of them must be depending upon the other and must
be epiphenomenal. The physical cannot be epiphenomenal, since for
example, when a person dies, the physical keeps existing without
losing anything. We can repeatably test the spatiotemporal, but we
cannot test repeatably the mental. Therefore, it is the mental which
117
In fact, there is no reason to conclude that space is absolute as causing
absolute distances between things. There may be other space/times along with
a spacetime. It is not testable that the space is absolute: Everything within
space including the space might be grown a million times in such a way that
we cannot distinguish whether the space has been grown or not. Because there
is no benchmark which tells us that the space must have certain extent or
correct value; the only benchmark which are the objects and laws and so on
already depend on the space. So, we cannot say that the space is absolute. The
same applies for time or space/time. Hence, they do not have any superiority
upon the mental, or the content of the mental.
-518-
is epiphenomenal and it is the physical upon which the mental
depends and/or supervenes.
One aspect that the physicalists argue for their physicalism is the
repeatability, measurability of physical events. However, as the
problem of induction shows, this approach is non-sequitur.
Obviously that something that is repeatable or that something is
within a pattern does not mean that it is necessary or it is
fundamental or prior. Though a rock keeps falling, there is no logical
necessity for the fall of the rock. This issue is addressed by both
muslim and non-muslim philosophers. It is essentially addressed
under the name “problem of induction”. The arguments for free will
including the tests in part 3.4.12.1 are in the same time arguments
against physicalism, and related fallacy.
Though full repeatability in all respects is not necessary to show the
reality of something, they are possible within the Islamic teaching: In
accordance with the design of God, things may be repeatable, may
be given features that are understandable, repeatable, beneficial for
human beings in this respect; and along these things there may also
be uncertainties or sovereign things that can behave freely as well.
There may be unpredictable effects of sovereign things that are not
repeatable, and due to these, repeatability may be non-existent in
some regions or things.
While there is no reason to have a narrow and limiting approach so
as to see everything only behaving according to deterministic or
probabilistic patterns in a repeatable way, repeatability can give
comfort to some people in that they can feel safer if things are
predictable, knowable, and controllable. Yet the physicalist
framework cannot give any control to any agent if the agent and any
control are assumed to be supervenient or reducible to those
deterministic or probabilistic patterns. So, such psychological
-519-
advantage is not substantiated and is just illusory: There is no
possibility of control for an agent under such physicalist approach.
Another psychological advantage of such an approach is the relief
from responsibility: If things are reducible to patterns, then the agent
is not responsible since he cannot have any freedom or sovereignty.
But this comes with the disadvantage of disowning success. And there
are physicalists who are compatibilists who say even if events may be
deterministic, we have free will and responsibility. As we explain in
part 3.4.1.3, this approach does not make sense.
So, although physicalism seems to be related to such emotional
motivations rather than reason, it is obvious that even these
psychological advantages are not true advantages.
Note that the choice of the criteria of repeatability and testability
presumes the absence of sovereignty, since sovereignty can override
repeatability, testability, determinism, and indeterminism. Certainly,
the criteria of physicalism are insufficient in the search for the truth,
and they have to be extended consistently to be able to distinguish
sovereign beings, entities, and acts of agents. Of course, this path will
require the abandonment of the dogmas against the transcendent. It
will also require a less utilitarian, subjective, self-deceptive, lazy
attitude, since the current popular attitude seems to be looking for
aspects of the existence that are easier to control, exploit, and
understand rather than seeing them in all their real aspects in an
unbiased way.
According to Islamic holism which recognizes the effectiveness of the
mental, this false dichotomy of the physical and mental is not
acceptable. The physical is not fundamentally different than the
mental, the physical is not the only effective. Energy does not relate
exclusively to the physical, but also to the mental. Transcendence,
-520-
qualia, will, and unity do not only relate to the mental, but also to
the physical.
3.5.6.4.2.6.3 The Agent, His Consciousness, And the Mental
Are Real.
There is no reason to discard the willful and multipotential causes,
since we empirically observe them as seen in the negation
experiments and brain observation experiments in part 3.4.12.1. If
free will is true then physicalism fails. Because free will power entails
the recognition of a multipotential causal power of the agent, which
is additional to the physical laws and/ or forces. Furthermore, it
admits the possibility of a transcendent source for the spatiotemporal;
and once the possibility of such a source is admitted, there will be no
reason to keep the big inconsistencies of a paradigm built on those
blind laws and forces. Additionally, the possibility of such a source
will also solve the problems related to responsibility, good, evil, truth,
and so on.
Say, "To whom belongs everything in the heavens and the
earth?" Say, "To Allah." He has decreed that mercy is His
attribute.
(Quran: 6/12)
The reductionism and freedom are related. If the whole has a range
of freedom and a sovereignty of itself, then it will have some effects
of its own which do not arise from lower layers.
Therefore, what is called physical has influence on the mental, but
also what is called mental has influence on what is called physical.
The numerous arguments demonstrating the reality of the agent and
of the will debunks physicalism. On the other hand, the logical and
-521-
empirical refutation of physicalism refutes the arguments based on
physicalism against the free will power.
The following sections also support this very section in that they
show that space and time are not fundamental.
The arguments specific to the impossibility of determinism and
indeterminism explained in part 3.4.1.2 and part 3.4.2 show that
there is another principle for the behavior of things. This
impossibility requires that this principle is beyond the spatiotemporal
since the deterministic and indeterministic behaviors exclusively
contain all physical behaviors.
If the whole of the agent is conscious then this means that there are
interactive relationships between the physical and the mental. And
as we explained in part 3.4.12.1 within the FWP experiments, the
relationships the physical and mental are not one-way relationships.
So, one-way supervenience is false.
3.5.6.4.2.6.4 Space Is Not the Ultimately Fundamental.
The physicalism is built on the keyword “spatiotemporal” as we saw
in its definition. The “temporal” is built largely on the “spatial”.
Therefore, we need to understand the “spatial” well.
Is the space self-sufficient? Once we explain a thing in terms of space,
then do we have a complete explanation?
The dictionary definition of space is as follows: A boundless threedimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have
relative position and direction.118
118
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
-522-
In physicalism, space is considered as a fundamental thing. In some
interpretations, a metaspace wherein the space bends is considered
fundamental.
Physicalism assumes that everything is explained by spatiotemporal
relationships. For example, positions of molecules affect and enable
the formation of a cell, positions of atoms affect the molecule,
positions of electrons affect the atom... When we use the gravity
equations, we assume that the spatial position of things causes events.
If it is said that the mass warps space, it is assumed to warp it as a
function of distances within the space or meta-space.
Obviously, space is not less complex than that for which it is used as
an explanation. It is not more self-sufficient than things contained in
it. And obviously, it does not have the features to explain the features
of the things that are contained in it. Consequently, it does not have
a nature to be an ultimate basis of the existence. Therefore,
physicalism as a view which sees the space as the last stop in the
search of reliable knowledge, is incomplete and inconsistent in
respect to its inherent mission.
Even when we conceive a single point, we conceive it within its
surrounding and as an element of a system. Even that simplest system
requires definitions and unifications.
Is a different region in space really a different region? What
distinguishes them? If a region of space is next to another region of
space, what separates them? What connects them? How is one space
region defined relatively to and consistently with another? What
unites different things with spatiotemporal attributes within the same
space?
Let me give an example in the below two-dimensional grid: Let us
suppose that the region noted in gray is a specific region. Let the
-523-
region be considered an empty space. What distinguishes the region
indicated with gray from the region indicated with black? Are they
identical? What connects them?
Grid 1
Regarding these questions it is important to get rid of the baggage
which comes with the organization of our brain and consciousness:
When we conceive of the space, we conceive it as automatically
organized. But in physicalism, the external reality and consistency of
space that we experience and experiment, is assumed to have no basis
on any transcendent unity, and consciousness; this is normal, since
physicalism sees the space as the ultimate basis of explanation.
If we say, the regions are connected by the points that are contained
within these regions, then this is not a valid explanation. Because,
the points within each region do not have more connecting capacity
compared to regions themselves. If we assume that points make the
connections, and consider that they are point-like regions, what
connects and defines them?
If the location of one point in space is defined by the other points,
but if the same applies for each point, then none of the points would
have any power to define any other point. Because each would need
the other points in order to first have its own identification; so, this
-524-
would be circular reasoning and would also lead to infinite regress.
Hence, the space is neither self-sufficient nor fundamental.
Hence, space is not the thing that binds things, because space needs
to be bound.
Some theories see the space as plastic, which can be curved. If it can
be curved, then it will be curved within something else; that
something else will not be fundamentally different than space as long
as all the existence is assumed to be narrowly physical. That
something else is also considered as a spacetime according to some
popular theories. The points about space are applicable to metaspace
and spacetime.
So, space does not provide us with a self-sufficient explanation for
other things’ spatiotemporal aspects. It does not even relevant as an
explanation for why objects, particles, or the universe have the
specific structures and relationships they have. It does not have any
explanatory power about the qualia, truth, evil, good.
Hence, it is safe to say that the physicalism based on the
spatiotemporal is inconsistent and incomplete in explaining the
universe. Our logic and empirical observations point to a different
and unitary nature and power that sustains all things.
Question 98.
If the space is empty, then why would there be a need to unite
anything of that space?
Answer 98.
Even though the space is supposed to be empty, it is assumed to
contain relationships within it. For example, if a particle enters that
empty space, the region it occupies is related to the region of another
-525-
particle that enters that space. So, to be somewhere in a space has
implications. Therefore, and because of the reasons explained above
there is a need for a unitary power who sustains the space and/or its
properties.
Let us imagine that there is only one existing object in the entire
universe. Can it move to the right? What would it mean that it moves
to the right? According to what? If there are more than one objects,
then we can at least conceive of one moving relatively to the other.
While none of them alone can produce a movement, if two objects
in the same universe produce an effect that was not present in a
universe with one object, this shows us that there is a transcendent
unity above these two objects and the related space. Their existence
in the same space is a reality. This reality does not exist in isolation
in any one of them or in the space. None of them is self-sufficient,
yet, they exist.
Whenever an object exists, its space also exists. This means that a
common space is not necessary except for the spatiotemporal parts
of that object. Things exist by having each its own space. The
common space is an additional and contingent aspect. Therefore, the
space as we conceive it to be so basic and kind of necessary, is not
necessary.
Hence, instead of considering the space as an empty room, we should
consider it as a sustained and effective basis for certain relationships.
Question 99.
If parts also have parts how can each part have its own space?
Answer 99.
The parts constituted of sub-parts do not need to share the same
space with other parts at the same level with them. But if they are
-526-
wholes consisting of sub-parts, then they have to share the same
space with their sub-parts.
We assume that everything needs to share the same spacetime and
necessarily has inherent self-sufficient transcendent powers by itself.
This is false and unsubstantiated.
Question 100.
If the space is not self-sufficient because it needs a unifier, then
would not the unifier also need a unifier? Would not saying otherwise
be special pleading?
Answer 100.
The question is built on the claim that the basic premise is as follows:
“Everything has a cause119.” And the reasoning continues as follows:
“If we say that God does not need a cause, then we are committing
special pleading for God.”
The first premise above is obviously fallacious. Because it is built
either on infinite regress, or circularity or both. So, clearly it cannot
be a starting point and a default rule.
Instead of it, we can use the more fundamental premise of
Parmenides as “That which is, is” together with “that which is not,
is not”. Then, we can ask “what” that which is is, because, while we
understand that it can encompass the entire existence since that
which is not is not, we do not understand whether it is like a dot, or
like a mountain. Then we understand that a dot or mountain are not
appropriate to compare to “that which is”, because, here we conceive
a dot as if it is surrounded by that which is not, which is impossible,
Here, I use the word “cause” instead of “unifier” in the question, because
cause is a more general and popular term in this context, and it also contains
unification.
119
-527-
since that which is not is not. Hence, we conclude about the infinite
incomparable aspects of “that which is”. Note that here, “that which
is”, is that which ever is; we, or the mountains, or the cars also are,
yet, we are not at the fundamental layer of necessary being.
Upon these considerations, we can now come to the multiple and
contingent. Our empirical experience shows that along with “that
which is” there are also that which can be caused by and contained
as a potential within the power of “that which is”.
It is clear that “that which is” is one. For further details about this
and about the above points see part 2.2.1. It is also clear that that
which is has an extension and a power entailing many creation
potentials, since at least we conceive certain ranges which are
necessarily transcended by “that which is” according to the above
explanations.
This way, instead of starting with a fallacious start, we start with a
sound premise in our context leading to “that which is self-sufficient
and necessary, is” and then “that which is not self-sufficient and
necessary may be caused by that which is self-sufficient”.
The question may be explained in respect to unity as well: Firstly, the
self-sufficient necessary being is necessarily One for the reasons
explained in part 2.2.1.3. This is the first, default, and most obvious
truth. After that truth is solidly set, we can conclude that the multiple
things cannot be self-sufficient, and in order to exist, they must be
sustained by the self-sufficient One Power. Starting point is not and
cannot be the contingent things in this respect. They cannot cause
the self-sufficient One Being to be based on special pleading. The
truth and unity of the self-sufficient Being is the predominant and
general rule. The sustained things are secondary.
-528-
Above I focused on the order of importance, strength, of different
premises and postulates. We should also keep in mind that different
rules/ premises can be applied for different layers as long as it is not
necessary to apply one rule to all. If we see a book and say that it
must have been written by a writer, this does not mean that the writer
must have been written as well. When we examine the book, we
conclude that it cannot write itself; the direct knowledge about the
book and its attributes make this conclusion obvious. Based on the
book we can have some idea about the writer. If we examine the
writer directly, we can have further idea about how he happened,
what are his attributes, was it a computer, was it an automatic
translator… So, there is not an issue of special pleading if there are
different premises applicable to different steps of a syllogism.
The relevant aspects of the spacetime that cannot originate by itself
are obvious. For how we reach certain attributes of God, you may see
part 2.2.1.3 about the argument from unity, and part 3.5.5 about the
nature of the agent which is common with other beings.
3.5.6.4.2.6.5 Time Is Not the Ultimately Fundamental.
And they say, "There is not but our worldly life; we die and
live, and nothing destroys us except time." And they have of
that no knowledge; they are only assuming.
(Quran: 45/24)
And it is He who sends the winds as good tidings before His
mercy, and We send down from the sky pure water
That We may bring to life thereby a dead land and give it as
drink to those We created of numerous livestock and men.
(Quran: 25/48-49)
-529-
Time is an important element that reflects the unity within what we
observe: Until a falling rock reaches the earth, the earth rotates a
certain angle. The rock cannot reach the earth unless the earth rotates
that angle. The similar relationship is also true between this rock and
a moving rock in a galaxy lights-years away from the earth.
Hence, we have an impression that time is a power which pushes
things in a coordinated way. Sometimes it is said that time is what
the clocks measure. However, had time been such a power and selfsufficient, aware of all particles and waves, had power on all of them,
then it would be god-like.
Time is not generally believed in as a god. Rather, it is recognized as
a measure of locations of moments and durations. However,
implicitly, for many, time is considered as a pushy thing which causes
things. It is not questioned about what is its function, and what is its
causal power if any.
In this section we will question time to a certain extent, since it is
very important regarding reductive physicalism.
Time depends on the patterns and relationships; hence, time is not a
necessary thing. A thing may happen, and after that, another thing
may happen. But, “after” is not absolute, it is dependent upon the
relationships again. So, the basis is the relationship. When there are
patterns as elements of design, then we can talk of before, after, and
now.
The time is included within the design, and designed things, and
relationships.
An important point in this analysis is that the orderly change in time
is always depicted in reference to spatial states. As we see in the below
grids, space is constituted of regions which need unification and
which are not like a fundamental axis.
-530-
In the below depiction in parallel with the empirical facts, there is
nothing which demonstrates that the space and/or time have a selfsufficient fundamental distinct benchmark and position.
Let us suppose that the changes in the regions in the below grids in
gray correspond to the movement of an object. The black region
corresponds to regions that contain a standard time benchmark like
the rotation of the earth.
Grid 2
Grid 3
-531-
Grid 4
Grid 5
Grid 6
-532-
Grid 7
Physical event used as time indicator is just another physical event.
When we say “I will come in one hour”, what do we mean? We mean
that I will come while things happen, that is, all clocks run as
translated to the essential clock’s hour-hand rotates one tour. Here,
rather than a discrete substance or flow of time, I mean the
relationship of my coming to the running of other things including
clocks. And the clock is used as a standard unit for communication,
to mean and understand the same thing so that there is consistency
between what I say and what the other party understands. Hence,
why I can relate my coming to the running of other things
consistently?
The relationships within the grids relate more to spatial relationships,
and the relationships between the grids relate more to the temporal
relationships. One grid is not sufficient alone to represent the
temporal relationship. When we have two grids related in a stable
way, then we have another non-separable whole, and connections
between the grids. If they are non-separable120, this means that the
relationships between grids are like the relationships within each
grid, and like the relationships between the two sides of an equation.
Therefore, our analysis about the space apply here as well in that
there needs to be a unitary power which sustains these relationships.
120
In fact, they are non-separable as explained in earlier parts.
-533-
On the other hand, to have an effect on these relationships would be
possible only with some kind of transcendency of the God or by a
transcendency sustained by the God. In this framework, it is not
necessary that only the past influences the future; the future and the
patterns which connect the past and future also may have influence
on the past since there may be transcendent beings. Therefore, any
moment is not self-sufficient or superior by itself for being past or
future.
Whether we consider time as an output or as an input, it necessitates
unity and transcendence.
The angels and the Spirit will ascend to Him during a Day
the extent of which is fifty thousand years.
(Quran: 70/4)
He arranges [each] matter from the heaven to the earth; then
it will ascend to Him in a Day, the extent of which is a
thousand years of those which you count.
(Quran: 32/5)
If God changes the past, then one scenario is that logically all things
that depend on that change will be erased, since the past after that
past will not be. But this is not plausible because the things that have
happened, experienced cannot be unexperienced by definition, and
they cannot be removed from the knowledge of God, and they cannot
be removed from among the things that God witnessed.
And never is your Lord forgetful.
(Quran: 19/64)
A more plausible scenario is that that past will not be changed and
the change will be a change only in a kind of metatime. However,
this second scenario is not completely reasonable either, because, if
-534-
the previous past exists in the metatime, then the reason to make
another past is absent since what is to be changed is not changed,
just a different copy is created. On the other hand, if the normal time
can be changed, then there is no reason for any unchangeability of
the metatime, so change in the metatime does not lead anywhere
either. Similar issues apply for changing the future. So, logically,
anything can happen only once. Note also that if I get info about the
future and change the present accordingly, this also means changing
the future. These show that time does not have an effective and
distinct existence of its own. If it had such an existence, then its parts
might be changeable at least logically without any inconsistencies. By
the way, note that the above suppositions of changes are only from
our perspective, not from God’s overall perspective: Though God is
aware of all things as an all-encompassing God and He can also act
upon brackets and from different angles simultaneously, we are
within time or space brackets and look with our limitations.
How fast does the time pass? One second per 'second'? If so, how
fast does that second pass? So, it is not reasonable to say that each
time one second passes, one second passes. Or it is not reasonable to
say that each time one second passes, two seconds pass. Hence, time
does not have its own logical basis within itself, it is not selfsufficient.
Obviously, when we say time passed very quickly, this does not
reflect something measured, this just reflects our feeling. According
to what can we measure the speed of time of an accurate clock? What
should be considered as the most correct clock, why, can it be
separated from other clocks? Or is every clock is correct, since, if we
remove the effect of every condition which makes a clock work faster
or slower we see that every clock works punctually? We should not
forget that any distorting condition also works punctually.
-535-
These points show that time can exist only by being sustained by or
be the result of a unitary, transcendent power who encompasses all.
Question 101.
In relativistic physics there is no simultaneity. But does not the above
analysis contain simultaneity and is incompliant with relativistic
physics?
Answer 101.
The relativistic physics is negated by quantum physics whose
predictive power is greater than relativistic physics. Secondly, the
progress of events does not change depending on the speed or
acceleration of the observer at a certain point, since this observer is
also part of the universe. For example, in a chart depicting the
evolution of the universe starting from the big bang, the time distance
of any point to the big bang is consistent with another far point.
There is no point in saying that the time in one edge of the universe
progressed faster or slower than the opposite edge. The present
models of relativistic physics do not comply fully with all empirical
observations, and there are obvious paradoxes it creates. We will not
go into the details about relativistic physics which are beyond the
scope of this book. But the reader may want to read counter
arguments against relativistic physics, and related paradoxes121.
The above points show that reducing things to the temporal as well
as to the spatial will be omitting more important aspects of the
existence.
121
This is the personal opinion of the author. The twin paradox or tunnel
paradox are clear demonstrations of the problems of relativity.
-536-
3.5.6.4.2.6.6 The Arguments Against Determinism and
Indeterminism Are Applicable Against
Physicalism.
In this sub-section, to avoid repetition, I mentioned only the issues
that are related to physicalism more directly than determinism,
indeterminism, and reductionism.
However, the arguments explained against determinism,
indeterminism, and reductionism are also applicable against
physicalism.
3.5.6.4.2.7 One Who Claims That There Is No Free Will
Based on Reductive Physicalism Refutes That
Very Claim.
Say, "Do you have any knowledge that you can produce for
us? You follow not except assumption, and you are not but
falsifying."
(Quran: 6/148)
He is Allah, other than whom there is no deity, the Sovereign,
the Pure, the Peace, the Bestower of Faith, the Overseer, the
Exalted in Might, the Compeller, the Superior. Exalted is
Allah above whatever they associate with Him.
He is Allah, the Creator, the Inventor, the Fashioner; to Him
belong the best names. Whatever is in the heavens and earth
is exalting Him. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.
(Quran: 59/23-24)
The claim that everything is reducible to the spatio-temporal assumes
that everything including truth and understanding is reducible to
particles/ fields/ patterns. Hence, reasoning, freedom to choose the
-537-
truth or error are also only illusory, there are just unreasoning
physical patterns who cannot have any truth value, which do not
have anything to do with consciousness, comparison.
Hence, any argument brought by the physicalist reductionist will be
only an illusion for that very person.
According to Islam, there is better and worse; true and false; but for
the physical reductionist there is no value in knowing the truth of
anything. There is no need to spend efforts to find the truth. Because
we cannot change anything. If there is such a value, if he claims that
we have to spend efforts to proceed towards the truth, then he claims
that our will is efficient and is more than spatiotemporal events/
entities.
If there is no freedom and sovereignty of will power, then the
reductionist does not have the ability to follow a logical process
whereby eliminating the error and choosing the truth. Their claim
that truth, error, better, worse, are just illusions fails in a similar way.
They cannot claim to have superior knowledge because their
perception of knowledge is determined by external events which
makes it no more than a mere conjecture, or maybe not even that.
Are our knowledge and truth claims real, or are they illusions? Are
they just supervenient upon and reducible to particles bumping one
onto another - deterministically or indeterministically -? Or does the
truth originate from an initial, necessary, and absolute power and
knower? And do we really have a power to encompass that truth?
Clearly, according to Islam, there is the God who is above all and
who establishes the truth. And this Originator has given us the power
to connect to the truth. This Powerful and Knower has given us the
power to know the truth to a certain extent.
-538-
Power relates ontologically to knowledge. The knowledge of truth
requires that our perceptions, concepts, logical chains are consistent
and not illusions, and that that which is known is real and sustained
by a unitary power so as to be consistent. So, at the origin the truth
and the knowledge are connected and surrounded by the unity of
God, and they have the same level and basis with the ontological
reality.
Truth claims cannot be supervenient or reducible to the relative,
circular, and separable. Where would the truth of all things be if
things are reducible infinitesimally to infinitesimal particles?
On the other hand, a reductionist logic system which is based on
either indeterminism or determinism and which does not contain a
transcendent and sovereign being is incomplete in accordance with
Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Some implications of this are
explained in part 3.4.12.1 about the negation experiments and brain
observation experiments. But a logic which is the object of a
transcendent sovereign being is complete since it cannot be limited
in a contradiction. Since it is transcendent and unitary, it can bring
together any inconsistent things and discard them if they are
inconsistent or incomplete. Such a being can also encompass the
elements of logic, and discard its elements which produce
inconsistency or cause incompleteness. Because it is holistic and is
not defined as equal, reducible to other things.
Reductionism causes incompleteness also because it rejects the reality
of each whole, although each thing has its reality. According to
reductionism, there is not even anything to know, since, the reality
of anything is denied for being reducible to something else. However,
in Islam, wholes are real.
-539-
Allah who is Powerful, has also the power to establish the truth and
display to all, the truth and its consequences on a specific day.122
3.5.6.4.2.8 Self-Sufficient Spatiotemporal Bottom Element
Is an Incoherent Concept.
Here, by self-sufficient spatiotemporal bottom element (SBE) I mean
the ultimately fundamental spatiotemporal elements such as
particles, fields, strings, or any other spatiotemporal thing unto
which everything is allegedly reducible and reduced according to
physicalist reductionism. As I explained in part 3.5.6.4.1, a holistic
physicalism is contradictory with physicalism, so I argue that all
physicalism must be reductive to be consistent to a certain extent.
SBE does not mean particles like atoms. Also, if particles are waves
then SBEs are smallest elements of the medium in which these waves
propagate.
If physicalism is true, then we should be able to explain things in
terms of spatiotemporal things. If we explain things in terms of
spatiotemporal things, then things must be reducible to some
elementary spatiotemporal things, since, otherwise, some things
would be originating from outside of the spatiotemporal. For
example, if an iron atom is recognized as a distinct and irreducible
reality, then when its sub-atomic particles constitute the iron atom,
there would be appearing something else from outside of the
allegedly all-inclusive spatiotemporal realm. Furthermore, if the
behavior of the atom cannot be entirely explained by its
spatiotemporal constituents, then we would have to recognize some
transcendent essence of the atom which would be producing some
functions on top of what the sub-atomic parts produce. Additionally,
if the sub-atomic parts explain everything in accordance with
122
For some of the proofs for this one power see part 2.2.1.
-540-
physicalism, then an explanation produced by a distinct reality of the
atom would be redundant, and even theoretically contradictory.
In parallel with the above, the following quote from Broad
summarizes the physical reductionism and emergentism in regards
to the one kind of stuff unto which other things supervene. Though
the emergentism seems to be slightly different, at the end it also boils
down to the same reductive approach as explained in part 3.5.6.4.3.2:
Broad, C.D. (1925) says: “[There] is one and only one kind of
material. Each particle of this obeys one elementary law of behaviour,
and continues to do so no matter how complex may be the collection
of particles of which it is a constituent. There is one uniform law of
composition, connecting the behaviour of groups of these particles as
wholes with the behaviour which each would show in isolation and
with the structure of the group. All the apparently different kinds of
stuff are just differently arranged groups of different numbers of the
one kind of elementary particle; and all the apparently peculiar laws
of behaviour are simply special cases which could be deduced in
theory from the structure of the whole under consideration, the one
elementary law of behaviour for isolated particles, and the one
universal law of composition. On such a view the external world has
the greatest amount of unity which is conceivable. There is really
only one science, and the various “special sciences” are just particular
cases of it. (1925, p. 76)"123. (O'Connor 2020) says: "While
Emergentists, too, are physical substance monists (“there is only
fundamentally one kind of stuff”), they recognize “aggregates [of
matter] of various orders” — a stratification of kinds of substances,
with different kinds belonging to different orders, or levels.”
The word bottom refers to the end point in the spatiotemporal causal
chain: For example, regarding the claim that cells are reducible to
123
(O'Connor 2020)
-541-
molecules, molecules are reducible to atoms, if there were no further
elements more fundamental than atoms such as electrons, protons…
then atoms would be “bottom”. By bottom elements, I do not mean
necessarily smallest particles, or fields, or strings…, they can be any
spatiotemporal thing upon which things are reducible according to
any versions of physicalist reductionism; they can be like space, time,
mass as well.
If physicalist reductionism is true, then there are ultimately
fundamental elements which act freely, and which constitute the
elements of will, as they constitute the elements of all else. Because
if there are no fundamental elements, then there will be infinite
regress. But infinite regress is impossible, since, it means that nothing
in the chain has any or sufficient effect on other layers.
Physicalist reductionist position assumes SBEs to which things can
be reduced. However, SBEs are logically impossible.
In the physicalist paradigm, when there are no self-sufficient bottom
elements below which there is no layer, then all layers become
arbitrary. There is no reason and no basis for any pattern. For
example, if there are no SBEs when electrons and protons come
together, they do not need to constitute atoms; or if atoms come
together, they do not need to constitute molecules.
3.5.6.4.2.8.1 Problems with A Structured SBE
Structural aspects of SBEs produce lots of contradictions.
If the most fundamental is structured, hence, subject to patterns, or
subject to laws, then it is not the most fundamental since it has
differentiation, contingency, and bias in its elements. It has some
elements which can be separated and reorganized. If it is not
structured then it is not bound with any structure, and it cannot be
-542-
a basis for structure, since all things which have structure are
allegedly reducible to SBEs and structured things cannot be reducible
to unstructured things. If SBE has patterns, and bias toward a certain
direction/ pattern, then this means that it is differentiated, hence, it
has sub-elements that are different than that fundamental thing.
Therefore, that thing is not the most fundamental.
SBEs could be only relatively basic, since, they would be defined
relatively to other SBEs; in other words, each SBE would need other
SBEs to have its features. Therefore, to overcome circularity, they
would need in any case a structure and unity which extends beyond
each of them. The physical things are differentiated and are
surrounded by or they contain things as space/ time. But to be an
absolutely basic spatiotemporal part and ultimate supervenience
bases, they need to be undifferentiated. Otherwise there would be no
necessity for their being, they would be contingent and dependent
on other things.
SBEs or their parts do not need to be bound in order to constitute
SBEs. In any case they are linked by space. If parts of an SBE are
bound, the glue is the space. Parts are near each other because of the
space. So, what is the distinctive feature of an SBE? That it is not
constituted from anything else? But if it has any extension like space,
then necessarily it is constituted of other things. Hence, it is
impossible that it is a supervenience basis.
Furthermore, if SBEs act then they must contain differentiation and
be subject to change. If they are within a space then they must be
defined by space. If different parts are closer to each other then there
must be a binding power.
If we want to divide an SBE, is there a resistance against division? If
not then it is not the smallest particle. If yes then its sub-parts are
not indifferent about being in a different state. If smallest particle has
-543-
any extension in space then the mathematical extensions and
mathematically limited extensions will be more fundamental than
that whole particle.
Do the ultimately fundamental spatio-temporal elements have to be
homogeneous? Yes, because otherwise, some would have some parts
which others did not have, hence, those things that existed within
some and did not exist in the others would be more fundamental.
But based on the arguments for the principle of identity of
indiscernibles, we can say that it is impossible that they are
homogeneous and that they are many. Because if they are fully
homogeneous, they cannot be many.
SBEs must contain differentiation in any case: For example, its inner
two parts are bound to each other. But another SBE is repelled; the
parts of the other particle do not attract equally parts of the previous
particle. This would mean that the surrounding space behaves
differently as well. Furthermore, all bottom essence is not same since
there is at least space as an inherent aspect, and it has certain
implications in any case. Bottom components of space interact with
the bottom components of mass/matter.
Can there be SBEs of different kinds? If so then there would be sub
parts/elements which would be differentating the SBEs. Hence those
differentiating elements would be bottom instead of SBEs, so there
cannot be SBEs of different parts.
If SBE has other components in other dimensions then it is not
bottom.
Logically necessary parts of the alleged SBE would logically need the
other parts in order to be, since some of their properties would be
relating to their surrounding and relatively to other SBEs in
-544-
accordance with the argument from unity explained in part 2.2.1.3.
Hence there can be no SBE.
3.5.6.4.2.8.2 The SBEs Must Be Impossibly Sophisticated.
If the universe is reducible to the SBEs, so that no other whole we
observe has any distinct causal power, then all trajectories, patterns
that seemed to relate to those wholes would relate to SBEs. In this
case, an SBE in a magnetic field would be behaving in accordance
with the electromagnetic equation, but in the same time, it would be
rotating around the earth, and around the sun in accordance with
the relevant positions, equations, and trajectories. The influence of
the electromagnetic force may negate gravity and overcome it or they
may produce a common vector for an object in a specific situation.
Likewise, an atom within the brain of a human being would do the
above, and also would act as part of a cell, while also producing
consciousness.
These demonstrate that in fact any SBE would have transcendent
properties. Because, an entirely isolated element cannot act as if it is
aware of the related frameworks in many layers, and what their
implications would be. Yet, they allegedly behave like that. The
movements of planets in our solar system are allegedly explained by
action at a distance in Newtonian physics. The relativistic physics is
supposed to explain them through curvature of spacetime without
need to use action at distance, yet questions about how and according
to what the spacetime is curved demonstrate the persistent power of
need for transcendence. Also, an explanation based on gravitons will
need transcendence as to the behavior of gravitons, even if gravitons
are used to explain certain events.
This is similar to assigning every human being as a salesman,
president, doctor, engineer. As such an empowerment would not
-545-
work in the human organizations, it would not work within the
universe as well.
3.5.6.4.2.8.3 +The Impossible Simplicity of Alleged SBEs
Can bottom elements be many but of different fundamental kinds,
such as space being one kind of bottom element, time being another
one, mass another one, mathematics another one? No, because they
interact and they are defined based on some other ones.
Can bottom elements belong to totally unrelated realms where none
of them is related or relatable or connectable? According to our logic,
this is impossible, since, they would be connected within our laws of
thought. One of them would be non-existent within the realm of
another one, hence be limited by the other one. Therefore, they
would be related in any case.
If SBEs are point-like particles, then everything consists of points
with zero spatiotemporal extension. Then if it is the space that
changes, it would change relatively to something else. If SBE is like
a point, then it is like a kind of information defined by its position
in a certain dimension. In this case, it would be defined by a
transcendent whole which would be against physicalism.
Additionally, is it possible to reach zero simplicity if we divide things?
If it was possible, then the total of zeros would be zero as well. Is it
possible to reach infinite simplicity in the infinitely small? So, at that
level, shall we need no explanation, and then shall we be able to build
the entire existence on it? Therefore, seeking entire answer in the
smallest is not a rational way.
Will we be able to reduce the entire universe, including the agents
and wills to just one equation? Will we be able to produce an
equation that explains the entire existence, or not? If not and if we
-546-
will have a minimum of two equations, would the first be necessary?
If it was, what made it necessary compared to the other one? But if
it is not necessary, then there must be something necessary that
caused it. Because, if there were the possibilities of both its existence
and non-existence, there is a question for why it existed, instead of
being absent. If it is not necessary, then it does not contain the cause
of itself.
But if it is just one equation, then, are the sides of the equation
necessary? And the above issues will be applicable here as well.
3.5.6.4.2.8.4 SBEs Would Be Free.
If there are such SBEs, they should be free, because they would not
be reducible, supervenient, or dependent upon other things. If they
are supervenient upon other things, then they are not most
fundamental.
If there is no bias forcing them in specific directions, and if they
constituted the contingent structures that we observe, then, they
would have willed like gods to constitute the universe freely. Hence,
the free will rejected on the grounds of reductionism would be
existing within the SBEs.
3.5.6.4.2.8.5 Problem of Infinite Regress with SBEs
If there is no fundamental ultimate layer, then every spatiotemporal
thing would be depending on something else. But if nothing is selfsufficient, then there would be no distinctly effective thing. Hence,
there would be no effective existence. If “everything” emerges from
lower layers so that there is no bottom, then there will be nothing
from which things would emerge.
-547-
But on the other hand, even if there are SBEs, then there will be
another kind of infinite regress: If we consider a simple situation,
where one half H1 of the SBE is bound to its other half H2, but it is
not bound to the half of another SBE, we can conclude that even at
the very bottom layer there needs to be an organization and
transcendent unity. Hence if supervenience and reductionism was
true, the SBEs whatever they are, would be supervenient upon their
parts, leading to infinite regress.
3.5.6.4.2.8.6 SBEs Would Be Subject to Change.
If SBEs are subject to change, they could not be the most
fundamental.
If it is accepted that SBEs appeared at the big bang, then it must be
accepted that they are necessarily subject to change by their nature.
If relationships of change are contained within particles then they are
not bottom because the relationships that they contain can change,
and the elements of change would be more fundamental. If
relationships are not contained within SBEs then they are passive,
and subject to other things.
On the other hand, the most fundamental cannot be static; it changes
and reorganizes itself, since the limited universe we observe changes,
and according to reductionism these changes are supervenient upon
the SBEs. If they are unchangeable, this means that the higher layers
are not supervenient upon them, since we observe change at the
higher layers. But, as we explained above, if SBEs change, they cannot
be the most fundamental spatio-temporal.
Can there be unchanging SBEs? If there are, this means that
organization creates different effects. But then bonds of the
organization would not be possible/ stable/ and they would be
-548-
breakable. If they are not changeable, this would also mean that there
is top-down causation whereby the the top layers cause some changes
up to certain lower layers. If SBEs are essentially unchanging, but
changing in context this means that they are not bottom level.
Are the SBEs waves or particles? If they are particles or waves then
what about space and time? Do they also consist of waves, or
particles? If an SBE 'can' be a wave, then anything upon which a
wave runs will be changeable, because there would be differentiation
within that thing upon which SBEs run, so that waves may form and
propagate. Furthermore, in this case, the medium in which it
propagates would be more fundamental.
Moreover, if SBE is a wave, then it would be changing. Hence, even
the bottom would necessitate transcendence. The same applies for
mathematics-based theories and 'fundamentally' differentiationbased theories where differentiation is postulated at the very bottom.
If the SBE is a particle, then it would be a space occupying entity
with specific extension, differentiation, and limits within the space.
Hence, it would contain internal differentiations, hence, parts which
are more fundamental. Additionally, the medium upon which it runs
would be also changeable and effective, hence SBE would not be
ultimate.
3.5.6.4.2.8.7 SBEs Are Not Necessary.
Are SBEs necessary or contingent? If they are contingent then there
must be different possible kinds of SBEs. Then they would be
structured, changeable, hence not bottom. So, they must be
necessary.
Yet they cannot be necessary because they are many, and if they are
quantifiable internally and externally, they cannot be necessary. If
-549-
their quantity is Q, there is no reason to say that that quantity could
not be Q+1 or Q-1; if Q-1 is possible, then it is possible that there is
0 SBE. And they have no special feature different than other
spatiotemporal things and there is no other reason which would
make them necessary.
3.5.6.4.2.8.8 SBEs Would Be Relative and Circular.
The alleged supervenience bases are relative and limited. Since they
are many, they would depend on each other in accordance with the
argument from unity explained in part 2.2.1.3. Hence these relative
things cannot be any supervenience basis. Whatever science explains
the fundamental level upon which other things supervene, is also a
science that requires explanation, as long as there is relativeness,
division, multiplicity inherent to it and within it. Hence, the
supervenience basis layer with the necessary homogeneity and unity
cannot be reached within this limited universe.
3.5.6.4.2.8.9 SBEs Are Not Verifiable.
The bottomness of any particle or wave is not verifiable, because
within time it can be shown that it is divisible empirically.
For reasons I mentioned above, logically, any SBE has parts and is
changeable. Also, for the reasons explained above, an SBE must be
indivisible, unchanging and hence past and future eternal.
Hence, SBEs cannot be reduction bases.
-550-
3.5.6.4.2.8.10
SBEs Cannot Explain the Unitary Beings
and Attributes.
The reducibility of the contents of unitary consciousness upon SBEs
creates contradictions. Because the reflection of numerous observed
SBEs would be instantiated upon numerous separate SBEs, and the
transcendent unity of consciousness would not be obtained. Also, as
they would be unchangeable, an SBE could not even contain a
divided aspect of the qualia, the SBE could only contain the data
related to its own ontological reality. For example, when we see the
sun, the qualia about it must be reducible to the bottom elements
within us; but, as explained above, they are unchangeable so that to
be able to contain qualia.
3.5.6.4.2.8.11
SBEs Would Be Defined by Higher Level
Features in Any Case.
High-level relationships as space, time, or contingencies are also valid
at lower levels, and low-level things cannot be or mean anything
without high level things. One may say lower level things are more
fundamental because they can exist while what they constitute do not
exist. However, they cannot exist for example if a spatial whole
structure does not exist.
No two different objects need to belong to the same space/spacetime,
no two different things need to belong to the same whole, they do
not necessarily need to be comparable; they do not need to exist if
there is no logical necessity. Hence, the definition of SBEs by the
common space/ time entails that they are not bottom and that they
are subject to design and contingencies.
And they may be organized so as to be subdued to/ dependent upon
one or many higher levels as a property of bottom-up organization
-551-
features. So instead of SBEs being coercive upon higher levels, they
can be dependent upon higher levels, as in miracles.
In Islam, there is no god other than Allah and everything is subdued
to Allah. So, no SBEs can be considered outside the power of Allah.
3.5.6.4.2.9 Without Freedom There Can Be No
Reductionism.
Reductionism requires freedom at a certain level. Otherwise there is
no bottom level element to which things can be reduced, as SBEs
being fundamentally biased requires sub-levels. But if there is no SBE
then according to the reductionist approach, there will be infinite
regress. For example, if one claims that SBEs necessarily turn
rightwards or if they necessarily attract each other, then there is a
necessary differentiated thing which causes them to behave like that
instead of its opposite. Consequently, that thing would be more
fundamental compared to the SBE.
In other words, it is impossible that there is no free SBE if everything
is reducible to SBE. Because that the reduction goes on in an infinite
regress is impossible. That there is a necessary bias for SBE is
impossible as explained above. So, according to physicalism, there
would be some free beings/ entities at the bottom.
If there are some free thing(s) in our limited universe, and if the
human beings are not free, then in what respect(s) they are different
from human beings, so as they can have free will, although the
human beings cannot? They do not have constituents/ parts? They
are more numerous? They are somehow irreducible to anything else?
They have further capacities additionally to seeing, hearing,
understanding, consciousness, coordinating powers…?
What does the bottom level correspond to in terms of freedom? If
the bottom elements existed, would they be the location of freedom?
-552-
Or, would not they be free either? Would they do whatever they did
necessarily? Or, freely? If they did necessarily, then there would have
been another element that would necessitate what they did. Because
if they did what they did without being restricted by any thing or any
feature beyond themselves, then they would have been free. If an
element within themselves required them to move rightwards, or
leftwards for example, then that thing would be more fundamental,
and that thing would be a candidate for freedom. However, since we
eliminated infinite regress and hence assumed that that element is
the most fundamental, a bias would not be applicable here.
3.5.6.4.2.10 Impossibility of Billions of Correlations
Within Illusions, Real Events, And Structures
If agents and their actions were fully reducible to spatiotemporal
things, relationships and events, or if they were supervenient upon
them, then there would not be “what must be” and “what must not
be”. There would not be huge correlations between unreal things. If
there was no real free will, we would not be unhappy or feel restricted
in any way when we are hungry, and we would not feel happy for
having reached a goal, since everything that happens would be
everything that had to happen. Why would we be sad or feel pain for
things that had to happen within the “real” sub-atomic levels? Or are
SBEs the ones who feel the pain, though they cannot do anything
else? Or are they in reality the ones who act when our burnt hand
goes back?
Happiness or sadness have implications. If personal qualia were not
effective, they would not create a survival advantage to the living
things according to the alleged evolution theory which is mostly
adopted by physicalist reductionists. Likewise, there would be no
need for an illusory/ epiphenomenal feeling of agency. Such a feeling
would be eliminated since it would raise an unnecessary cost and
-553-
hence a survival disadvantage. No matter what our feeling is, what
had to happen at the layer of SBEs would happen in any case.
There would be no need for the development of a taste of dislike,
fear, worry, about spatiotemporal events that “had” to be the way
they are; such an evolution would be contradictory. Any agent would
behave the same way in all scenarios relating to being burnt by the
fire, whether burning caused a pain or not. The SBEs would behave
as they behave in any context.
3.5.6.4.2.11 Parts of The Agent Change, While his Identity
Remains Stable.
We can change physical parts of the agent while the agent is the same
agent. The structure also continuously changes, while the willer
remains the same. So willer does not entirely depend on the specific
substance or structure, but rather it transcends them. If the agent was
reducible to spatiotemporal particles or fields, then firstly the unity
of the agent would not exist because the space that separates the
particles/ fields would not allow the unity of the agent, and each part
would have its own identity. Secondly, changes in them would result
in changes in the identity of the agent.
The material substance of the agent continuously changes.
Question 102.
Is not it possible that the parts go away or change continuously, but
the organization of the agent remains?
Answer 102.
The structure of the agent also keeps changing even though there
may be a balanced spatiotemporal structure.
-554-
Transcendence is rejected by the reductionist. But if the identity is
claimed to depend on the structure, then as each element of the
structure cannot be considered separately; we have to recognize the
wholeness, unity and transcendence of the structure. But as the
spatiotemporal is considered by the reductive physicalist as the most
fundamental and absolute, then space and/or time can only be taken
as separate and separated things. Therefore, physicalist reductionism
is inconsistent with unity of the identity.
3.5.6.4.2.12 Systematic Discontinuities
And within the land are neighboring plots and gardens of
grapevines and crops and palm trees, [growing] several from
a root or otherwise, watered with one water; but We make
some of them exceed others in [quality of] fruit. Indeed, in
that are signs for a people who reason.
(Quran: 13/4)
And it is He who created the night and the day and the sun
and the moon; all [heavenly bodies] in an orbit are
swimming.
(Quran: 21/33)
And not alike are the two bodies of water. One is fresh and
sweet, palatable for drinking, and one is salty and bitter. And
from each you eat tender meat and extract ornaments which
you wear, and you see the ships plowing through [them] that
you might seek of His bounty; and perhaps you will be
grateful.
(Quran: 35/12)
By systematic discontinuities I mean the existence of different stable
structures that contain same allegedly bottom elements. For
-555-
example, electrons, protons, neutrons as part of the earth rotate
around the sun while at the same time they behave in accordance
with electromagnetic, quantum, and other relationships at the micro
level. One thing may be under the influence of many wholes as a
stone which both falling, and rotating as part of the earth.
So, reductionism is inconsistent, since there are different processes at
different layers who are allegedly constituted of the same SBEs. If
everything was reducible to SBEs, then they would behave rigidly
without allowing or taking part in the formation of billions of
structures and life forms which would be limiting them in numerous
ways, and they could not behave that way.
Hence, many models allowing autonomous agents may be designed
and Quran gives us such a master model/framework.
That is Allah, your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the
Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of
all things.
(Quran: 6/102)
3.5.6.4.2.13 Physicalist Reductionism Undermines Itself.
Did We not create you from a liquid disdained?
(Quran: 77/20)
A reductionist who claims that his logic is reducible to particles
behaviors cannot claim to be rational.
Definitions of things are only possible in a transcendent and holistic
framework. Definitions and names are basic for any logical process
or activity. Hence when we develop or use a logical statement, we
need to use definitions and names. Separated parts cannot have this
-556-
defining power. Likewise, logical chains cannot have their unitary
distinct features under a reductionist framework.
Most physicalists overvalue repeatability and measurability. Many
physicalists claim that only the repeatable has the value of being a
scientific evidence.
However, if the reductive physicalists consist of particles/ fields
which are entirely repeatable and subject to repeatable physical laws,
then what they claim is only the result of particles bumping one onto
another. Hence there is no possibility for them to claim that what
they claim is true, or a claim is false. Truth or falsity only supervene
upon the particles bumping one on the other.
Therefore, if one claims that he is rational, then he is saying that he
is not consisting exclusively of particles bumping one onto another.
So, he claims that all that is true does not consist entirely of irrational
particles.
If repeatability is undermined even partially by accepting the
possibility of logic then it is not necessary. So, there is a trade-off
between all-encompassing repeatability, which physicalists defend to
the ultimate extent, and rationality. If rationality is claimed to be
true, then repeatability becomes partial.
3.5.6.4.2.14 Both Determinism and Indeterminism Are
False.
I presented arguments in part 3.4.1.2.2 and part 3.4.2 which show
that determinism and indeterminism are both false. Since,
sovereignty and transcendence are not causal alternatives for a
physicalist, his only alternatives are determinism and indeterminism.
Hence, as it is shown that none of the two is acceptable, this shows
that reductionism is false.
-557-
3.5.6.4.2.15 Quantum Physics
Quantum physics shows that same things behave as particles under
some conditions and as waves under some conditions. The wave-like
nature of specific objects shows that there is a space-transcending
nature of the matter. Furthermore, Bell’s inequality experiments,
quantum entanglement show that spatial distance between things is
not an absolute distance. The superposition of states is another aspect
of quantum physics which shows that multipotential causality is true,
since multiple states coexist as potentials in the same time. Quantum
physics phenomena also demonstrate that a part of a whole may not
be simpler than the whole of which it is a part; so, explaining wholes
with their parts is not necessarily possible.
Hence, we cannot say that there is separability within things. Once
we admit that the space cannot separate things, then there is no
reason to adopt a physicalist approach which sees the space and time
as a basis of all things.
3.5.6.4.3 Islamic Holism and The Whole of The Agent
3.5.6.4.3.1 Islamic Holism
Do you not see that Allah sends down rain from the sky, and
We produce thereby fruits of varying colors? And in the
mountains are tracts, white and red of varying shades and
[some] extremely black.
(Quran: 35/27)
Essentially a whole is prior to the part. For example, there must be
space wherein things can be defined, and the spatial relationships
must be defined so that things that will exist in it may be designed
consistently. Here, the requirements are not cited as sequential
requirements. So, as a whole may depend on a part, the part also may
-558-
depend on wholes or holistic relationships. But neither such wholes
nor parts are self-sufficient. So, they cannot constitute a realistic and
stable system unless they are sustained by a power who consistently
establishes, defines, and sustains them and their system.
Sovereign wholes have their relationships as wholes. An animal may
feel pain, while its electrons do not feel such a pain; hence an animal
may run away from fire while an electron does not behave normally
in this way.
In this respect, using the expression “path” instead of “physical law”
would be more appropriate. Because such an expression would
recognize the equal reality of all sovereign wholes, their distinct
paths, and their limited freedom.
Do they not see the birds controlled in the atmosphere of the
sky? None holds them up except Allah. Indeed, in that are
signs for a people who believe.
(Quran: 16/79)
And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas,
one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed
between them a barrier and prohibiting partition.
(Quran: 25/53)
Sometimes same elements produce different results where we see that
wholes are not reducible to parts. For example, the energy takes
different forms. On the other hand, we see different parts which
constitute things with similar properties. For example, we see many
different particles come together and form a human being.
These all show that reductionism is false. The limited universe
consists of wholes, and their existence is not based solely on their
parts. In it there are no self-sufficient wholes or parts, they are
-559-
contingent, hence they and their properties depend on one SelfSufficient Sustainer. For example, the electrons behave in a certain
way because they are designed and organized in a certain way, not
because there are necessities for what they are. It is not possible that
unqualified, unorganized parts produce systems, or systematic
results.
Every particle and spatio-temporal entity is according to a measure,
with certain extension, and with some limitation in accordance with
the design of the Creator.
Everything with Him is by due measure.
(Quran: 13/8)
Allah indeed has appointed a measure for everything.
(Quran: 65/3)
(Allah) has enumerated all things in number.
(Quran: 72/28)
He is the Creator, the Designer, the Modeler, and to Him
belong all virtuous names. All that is in the heavens and the
earth glorify Him. He is All-majestic and All-wise.
(Quran: 59/24)
Allah structures things and gives them shape. Before the shape there
is the Modeler.
Hence there are measures which are the outcomes of the free will
power of the Creator. On the other hand, those measures enable
beings to have free will power by giving them the ability to see the
alternatives, the means, and the implications of a will.
-560-
If atoms are to contribute in the formation of a specific being then
the atoms and their constituents have already been given the
necessary features while they are designed and created. If the free will
power of the human being is willed, then the necessary power, slacks,
and relationships have also been designed and created in a consistent
way.
Let us assume two particles each with its distinct space and with no
separable parts. If they are brought together in a new spacetime, a
new whole appears where there can be movement. However, with a
single particle and only its space there is no reference framework
upon which we can talk of movement. If the single particle is taken
as the only reference point, it will not be changing relatively to itself.
Yet, with the addition of another particle we say that there appears a
possibility of relative movement, this means that none of the particles
is confined within its own boundaries. This means that with this
whole, each of them is defined also as a system, as a reference frame,
and has some transcendence. On the other hand, if there can be a
relationship between the two, and if there can be more than them, in
other words, if they are contingent, we can say that they have been
assigned these features from a higher reality and unity. When a whole
is formed, parts may start behaving differently than the state without
such a whole. Then, there is no SBE as supervenience basis, because
SBEs supervene also upon higher wholes. Parts influence the whole,
and wholes also influence the parts. Parts by their very nature cannot
produce sovereign wholes, sovereign wholes by their very nature
cannot constitute wholes without parts. So, they need to be sustained
by the One God who only can have the necessary sustaining
attributes as a god.
3.5.6.4.3.2 Non-Reductive Physicalism
In part 3.5.6.4.2.6 I argued against reductive physicalism. However,
non-reductive physicalism is not in better shape compared to
-561-
reductive physicalism. A major reason for this is that its nonreductive adjective creates an inconsistency with “physicalism”.
Because, it is constrained with its “physicalist” aspect while
explaining any causal relationship; therefore, it will necessarily
reduce things to something physical. If it recognizes transcendent
actors which will transcend throughout physical layers or things, it
will be inconsistent with its “physicalism”.
According to non-reductive physicalism, explanations, natural kinds,
and properties in a higher layer such as psychology, do not reduce to
counterparts in more basic sciences, such as neurophysiology or
physics. Nevertheless, all token psychological entities —states,
processes, and faculties— are either identical with or just wholly
constituted of physical, microphysical entities or laws that relate to
these entities.124
As O’Connor (2015) says, “Non-reductive physicalism emphasizes
that while special sciences do not ‘compete with’ or complete physics,
they do have an explanatory ‘autonomy’ — they use distinctive
concepts and laws that cannot be derived from physical laws and
concepts using only definitions and other necessary truths.”125
There are detailed discussions about whether this is really different
from reductive physicalism. There are strong arguments supporting
the claim that it ultimately boils down to reductive physicalism.
Since non-reductive physicalism maintains that all is either identical
or just wholly constituted of microphysical, I will just note here that
in parallel with the arguments in (Pereboom 2005), I agree that nonreductive physicalism is in fact reductionist. Hence, the objections
against reductive physicalism apply for non-reductive physicalism as
well.
124
125
(Pereboom 2005)
(O'Connor 2020)
-562-
But this discussion is of secondary importance, since whether nonreductive physicalism is reductionist or not, I argue against reductive
physicalism.
I agree with the following neo-reductionist critique about the nonreductive physicalism: "Neo-reductionists also maintain that the
concept of top-down causation is a mirage. For instance, if a macrostate M1 is supervenient on a micro-state m1, top-down causation
issuing from that macro-state M1 has its ultimate cause in the microstate m1. An advocate of top-down causation would argue that once
the higher-level property M1 has been achieved it is legitimate to say
that it has certain effects, or can perform certain functions, for
instance it might create a new micro-state m2. However, this is at
best a shorthand for saying that m1 causes m2 [101]. The reduction
of M1 ceases to be a meaningful or worthwhile activity. Here, there
is no biological hierarchy and no hierarchy of theories to distress the
would-be reductionist."126
In reductive physicalism, there are SBEs substituted instead of God.
But in non-reductive physicalism, there are only relative and
reciprocally dependent things as lower levels depending on upper and
other levels, and upper levels depending on lower and other levels.
So, again the absence of any self-sufficient thing causes and is based
upon circular reasoning, and also infinite regress. But Islamic holism
is consistent, complete, and non-circular since there is a sound basis.
Question 103.
Is mathematical universe or relationalism acceptable according to the
Islamic teaching?
126
(Gatherer 2010)
-563-
Answer 103.
Mathematical universe is fallacious since mathematics is just one
dimension. Full relationalism is false according to Islam as there is
the absolute Surrounder, Allah.
3.5.6.4.3.3 How Does Islamic Holism Work?
He has encompassed whatever is with them and has
enumerated all things in number.
(Quran: 72/28)
The parts may be reorganized when they become part of the whole
or they may adapt or react to the whole without being reorganized.
This is like the appearance of new laws subject to the existence of the
whole. Remember that there are no absolute physical laws. These are
subject to sovereignty. This is as in the example of entangled particles
which give up some of their effects.
Each whole has related channels combined and interacting with
lower, higher, and parallel level wholes. The parts within their
respective spaces are not the same as in being parts of the sovereign
whole. So, the parts as part of the whole have some different
attributes because of being part of the whole.
Part and whole before unification are like in a superposition. With
unification some new potentials appear. Relationships happen
between layers and between relationships. This combination in a
whole, produces info that was not contained within parts.
When numerous atoms form a living human being, info that was not
present in them appears. New paths are paths and controls of the
new whole acted upon and created by the new whole.
So, the part may move based on equations, or may behave in
accordance with the sovereignty of the sovereign whole. Hence there
-564-
is immediate relationship between parts and wholes that cannot be
separated as long as the sovereign wholes keep existing.
Specific examples about this subject are given in part 3.5.3 and other
related parts.
3.5.6.4.4 Reductionism and Free Will Power
Indeed, those who do not expect the meeting with Us and are
satisfied with the life of this world and feel secure therein and
those who are heedless of Our signs
(Quran: 10/7)
The arguments against reductionism show that it is possible that the
human being is a sovereign whole and has a distinct effect on the
universe. The negation experiments and brain observation
experiments, consciousness, and other points made in this work show
that this possibility is actual in human beings. The agent has powers
that are distinct from the powers of its parts.
3.5.6.5 Vulnerability of The Agent, and the States to Be
Avoided
The first statement after the Opening chapter makes reference to the
vulnerability of the human beings:
This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who
guard (against evil).
(Quran: 2/2)
As human beings we have states as worse, bad, good, best… We can
be actually anywhere in the spectrum. Yet, we have to be somewhere
desirable in a stable way. There is a route that we have to follow
which will take us to a good destination; but we can follow any route.
This is the area where our free will power may be useful.
-565-
The awareness about our vulnerability is a big guidance for us. It is
a big answer to the question “why we think what we think?" There
is something we have to think about by default, unless we are
arrogant. So, if we think about what will be useful, the answer is that
we are prudent, well-guided. If we think about useless or bad things,
the answer is that we are arrogant, misled.
If all alternatives had same implications in respect to the ought to be
truth (OTBT) of the agent, then there would be no responsibility,
praise, and blame. Whatever he willed, would be in accordance with
the OTBT of the agent. So, in any case, he would be successful.
But the intention of Allah is to give different degrees to His servants
in accordance with their efforts, and values they adopt. Hence, the
agent was made vulnerable, and also there are alternatives to be
avoided, that are against the OTBT of the agent.
And whoever submits his face to Allah while he is a doer of
good then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold.
And to Allah will be the outcome of [all] matters.
(Quran: 31/22)
Truth about what must or ought to happen consistently with the
nature of the agent is a key feature of the agent. The OTBT is also
an important subject of the agent’s knowledge. On the other hand,
in the exercise of free will, and in the related reasoning processes, it
is an input.
This truth may have objective elements, like the generally agreed
upon truth of needing to be healthy, avoiding fire, or for a fish to be
able to swim, for an eagle, to be able to fly without aids. So, I call the
optimal states, features, tools, that are objectively and truly good and
desirable the “ought to be truth” of the agent.
-566-
The agent may also have subjective elements, such as liking chocolate
ice-cream instead of vanilla ice-cream. These I call ought to be states
(OTBS). These can be mixed with OTBT, and sometimes may be
considered as OTBT. For example, vanilla ice cream may be too
subjective specifically; but, either that or chocolate ice-cream, or a
specific food may be necessary for the sufficient energy supply to the
agent.
There may be different levels of net benefits of results based on the
objective truth. When these are assessed together with the agent’s
objective capacity, we can evaluate the success of the agent.
The capacity of the agent and his free will power to comply with the
OTBT are also important features of the agent.
In the present context, there are two kinds of cause. Causes that can
prevent and those that cannot prevent the agent objectively from
reaching the OTBT.
The existence and objective accessibility of such truth, gives us the
potential to will it. Such truth makes the alternatives distinct, so as
to help us see that one alternative is different and distinct than
another alternative.
And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together
(Quran: 3/103)
OTBT is like a rope of a boat tied well to a good anchor. Most waves
and currents have no coercive power over this boat; they can move
the boat, but within the limits that the rope sets. Thanks to this rope,
the boat and its riders are safe against these waves and currents.
Hence, the riders do not get lost; which is in accordance with their
OTBT which requires that they are not lost. So, as long as this rope
is available, the riders are responsible for using or not using it when
necessary. If there is a huge storm and the rope is broken, then there
-567-
is no responsibility, assuming that they had no other way to secure
themselves.
OTBT as an input of free will power will be explained in detail in
part 3.6.2.
3.5.6.6 Being Subject to Challenges
And We will surely test you with something of fear and
hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good
tidings to the patient,
(Quran: 2/155)
In Islam a human being faces challenges: Someone may have a
jealous or stingy nature, someone may have bad parents, may be
poor, someone may be lazy by nature… All of us face such challenges.
Our mission, is to overcome the negative influences, and establish
the victory of the truth, and reach our biggest OTBTs.
In the universe of potentials, there is the potentiality that we reach
highest degrees in the sight of the Truth, and there is the potentiality
that we reach worst degrees in the sight of the Truth, and there are
potentialities in between. All those potentials are accompanied with
challenges, free will power, and outcomes. If there were no needy
people, or if we had unlimited resources maybe we would have had
less challenges in respect to helping the needy.
The following verses explain beautifully a kind of challenge:
Have We not made for him two eyes?
And a tongue and two lips?
And have shown him the two ways?
But he has not broken through the difficult pass.
-568-
And what can make you know what is [breaking through]
the difficult pass?
It is the freeing of a slave
Or feeding on a day of severe hunger
An orphan of near relationship
Or a needy person in misery
And then being among those who believed and advised one
another to patience and advised one another to compassion.
Those are the companions of the right.
(Quran: 90/8-18)
Allah set some potentials as actual potentials for us, and let us free
so that we may actualize some of the potentials. So, either we will
actualize the potentials of doing good deeds, getting high degrees,
being rewarded and satisfied; or we will actualize doing evil deeds,
getting low degrees, being punished, and displeased.
The following are some verses about some other challenges:
But Satan whispered to them to make apparent to them that
which was concealed from them of their private parts. He
said, "Your Lord did not forbid you this tree except that you
become angels or become of the immortal."
(Quran: 7/20)
Indeed, We have made that which is on the earth adornment
for it that We may test them [as to] which of them is best in
deed.
-569-
(Quran: 18/7)
Allah is not a human being and He is not afraid of the consequences
of the evil of human beings as we see in the following verses:
So, Allah's messenger said to them (Leave alone) Allah's shecamel, and (let) her drink.
But they denied him and hamstrung her. So, their Lord
brought down upon them destruction for their sin and leveled
them.
And He does not fear the consequence thereof.
(Quran: 91/13-15)
3.5.6.7 Transcendence
Say, "Observe what is in the heavens and earth." But of no
avail will be signs or warners to a people who do not believe.
(Quran: 10/101)
The dictionary meaning of “transcending” that corresponds to our
usage in this work is “Being or going beyond the range or limits of
(a field of activity or conceptual sphere)”127. When I say a human
being transcends things in the material world, I mean that those
things are instantiated within and encompassed by the human being
and his unity distinctly from alleged point-like instantiations of that
thing in his parts.
In a reductive physicalist approach, the real relationships are believed
to be between point-like units, or between bottom fundamental
elements128. Because, other things are supervenient upon these. So,
127
128
(Lexico 2020)
These are explained in part 3.5.6.4.2.8.
-570-
when an agent sees a lion, photons or waves or signals from its ear
reach relevant parts of the agent’s brain. But, for example, a neuron
is not a very bottom part of the brain, the very ultimate point where
signals from the ear of the lion reaches is not a neuron since a neuron
is formed from sub-elements. So, what happens at the neuron level
is not sufficient to give us the ultimate explanation about what
happens; we have to go to the level of microtubules, yet they also
have parts so they are insufficient as well. Even if we go down to the
atoms, they do not give us a sufficient level of explanation. But
whatever is the ultimate point, when we have full explanation about
that level, then we will have explained the upper levels as well. So,
according to reductive physicalist, the very effective events occur at
the smallest fundamental level, and upper level relationships are
explainable by that most fundamental level. Hence, each smallest
signal from the lion’s ear’s parts reach point-like parts of the brain
and we see it. Our holistic impression of seeing the lion, is equal to
an illusion, a by-product, and an epiphenomenal result of the above
allegedly effective processes.
As opposed to the above approach, when I use the word transcendent
for a human being, I mean that the human being, being above the
point-like parts of his brain, transcends the parts and whole of the
lion. He perceives its wholeness. He can also perceive in his unity, a
hundred, or a thousand or a million lions. He has his distinct feelings,
goals, comprehension of the implications of not only the atoms of
the lion, but its implications such as the threat it causes to survival
regarding distinct goals of the human being. The human being does
not only evaluate the actually present lion(s), but any imaginary
number of them that may or may not be present in the future or in
the past. The human being as one whole containing his
consciousness, goals, past, future, encompasses, hence transcends the
whole and parts of the lion(s).
-571-
Many photons from many light sources come to our brains and they
pass through different neurons or particles; but these parts do not
each photon as separate persons, but through them, the essence of
the agent gets the unitary shape of the lion. There is a unity of the
human being that transcends and encompasses space, distances, and
time.
Though signals reach different points in the brain, the unity of the
agent transcends the distances between them and behaves unilocally.
On the other hand, the agent encompasses in his unity things that
have time extension as well: We can transcend the running of the
lion although the signals of each moment reach us at different times;
even though one may argue that these signals are instantiated and
organized at different memory parts. However, the data within each
memory part must be transcended by the unity of the agent so that
he may be aware of the lion. Additionally, in any case, we transcend
our memory cells that extend within time, since it is obvious that
encompassing memory cells as if they are defined by a time bracket
of zero-width will be useless and impossible; and none of the neurons
or atoms or sub-atomic particles are static. Again, a fully frozen brain
would not probably contain necessary information about the
movement of the lion since, the active vectors within each part
including atoms contain related information.
While the agent transcends things within space, or within the same
time frame, he also has a capacity to transcend things in different
times. A teenager can foresee that his efforts for education as a
teenager will produce good results in the future. Or a person has the
capacity to see that if he commits a certain crime, then afterwards he
may be in bad physical or emotional conditions. And, people put into
practice those powers, and see the results.
-572-
However, it should be noted that according to physicalism, our
conscious experience must not be occurring on atoms, protons,
electrons, neurons, microtubules, or anything we are experimentally
acquainted with as of now, since they are only epiphenomenal; our
conscious experience according to them may occur on some alleged
SBEs whose location is unknown.
Indeed, those you [polytheists] call upon besides Allah are
servants like you. So, call upon them and let them respond to
you, if you should be truthful.
Do they have feet by which they walk? Or do they have hands
by which they strike? Or do they have eyes by which they
see? Or do they have ears by which they hear? Say, [O
Muhammad], "Call your 'partners' and then conspire against
me and give me no respite.
(Quran: 7/194-195)
Physicalism entails a belief in SBEs upon which all would be
reducible. How would they communicate and at which level and
through which mechanism? And if they are so sophisticated, how
would they be bottom elements, since they would be constituted of
sub-elements.
Our consciousness and our acts are not constituted of point-like
parts. A separate reflection of a point-like part of the ear of the lion,
on a point-like part in a neuron of the brain would not be sufficient
for consciousness. On the contrary, there is a whole and unitary
essence of the human being which can encompass the whole of the
lion. As he can encompass that which is visible through the
relationships, he can also extend what he sees to the invisible through
his reason and transcendence.
-573-
For existence of will power there needs to be transcendence. At least
two things or an area as alternatives must be encompassed by the
agent in his unity.
On the other hand, without transcendence, parts of things will be
instantiated and distributed only within the point-like parts of the
agent, where we cannot talk of the agent and of the access of the
agent to any elements of the will. The agent should be able to see the
relationships between these elements, and foresee the relevant
outcomes. This enables the formation of wills.
The agent encompasses many alternatives but he also has constraints.
And generally, there are certain alternatives which are not impossible.
Without the transcendence of the agent upon the alternatives,
everything would be instantiated at different level and/or on different
parts, and even if there was a free will, as may be in the quantum
level, this would be at a level other than that of the agent;
consequently, it would not be based on the freedom of the agent.
Hence, the agent could not be responsible since he would not own
this will and that alternative. When I say free will, I mean here the
will of the agent.
Transcendence of the agent, applies also to the modules of will,
knowledge, consciousness, reasoning power. If outside differences are
instantiated within the parts of the consciousness, reality, distinct
power, and unity of the agent then the agent could not be conscious
of and transcend things.
Argument from unity in part 2.2.1.3 shows that transcendence is a
general aspect of the existence, sustained by God. Existence of and
access to the information are also based on transcendence.
When we say these things are two miles far apart, actually, these two
miles define these two things; from a different perspective, this
-574-
distance unites these two things. So, there are only unities and they
all are sustained by the prime power of Allah.
The agent and many other things are transcendent on space and time.
So, there is no determinism and no reductionism. Because, there is a
layer which has at least one superiority over any alleged
supervenience basis. One aspect of this superiority is that the
transcendent encompasses parts as wholes, and the relationships
between them.
Transcendence within the creation is not specific to only human
beings. Although there are different degrees and kinds of
transcendence, everything transcends space and time. Points of space
and time also transcend them, thanks to Allah who sustains all of
them.
We do not encompass things that have zero extension or extent or
things that have zero duration or zero size. Though we can
encompass limited number of things, limited ranges, what we
encompass is not of zero range. And if multiple things can be
encompassed by us, it is of course natural that God encompasses past,
present, and future; this universe and many other universes. If the
time bracket of an event we encompass has a width more than zero,
this means that we somehow encompass past and present and future
or at least two of them simultaneously.
As the agent transcends parts and alternatives, the agent has at least
one superiority over them. Qualified knowledge about other parts of
the whole, the wholes they constitute, their relationships are at least
some of the attributes that the parts do not have. For the agent,
many combinations of parts and their organizations other than the
actual ones are possible. The lady who arranges her home, transcends
the position of the TV: She conceives that it is next to the window;
-575-
she can also conceive that it is next to the door. These are transcended
by her as potentials.
In this respect, anything that may be included within that
transcendence is subject to the agent, as they can be managed. So, as
long as there is no neurological, or physical impossibility for a
specific alternative, there is no possibility to say: You cannot will x,
where x is known or accessible by the agent.
As we see in the following verse, limitation and power are both
implications of power, and some sources of free will and
responsibility:
[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of
you is best in deed and He is the Exalted in Might, the
Forgiving.
(Quran: 67/2)
Our previous explanations about transcendence in part 3.4.7 are also
applicable regarding the transcendence of the agent.
For detailed information about transcending time, see part
3.5.6.4.2.6.5.
Question 104.
If time is similar to time in block-time theory or B theory of time, if
we extend in time and if we are transcendent within time, why are
we not continuously aware of the past, future, and the “presents” in
them?
Answer 104.
Surely, We have created everything according to a measure.
-576-
And Our ordaining [a thing and its coming into being] is but
one [act], like the twinkling of an eye.
(Quran: 54/49-50)
According to the above verses, there are measures, but also it is as if
everything is instantaneous.
Though Islam does not teach the B theory of time, Islamic teaching
has some similarities with that theory in respect to time: Firstly, Allah
knows the future, and He knows it without deterministic
relationships, so, there must not be an absolute distance between the
past and the future. Hence, in some way, the future must be
encompassable by God like the past. Secondly, as the agent is
punished justly, he must have an identity and continuity through
time. Thirdly, as the soul of the agent exists as an active essence upon
some changing parts of the body and taken out at the death, it must
be active and have some stability throughout continuously changing
biological components of the agent and related processes. Fourthly,
as we empirically experience and as explained above, we transcend
space and time.
However, note that differently than the B-theory of time, the essences
of things are active in every stage of time in respect to the specific
conditions of that time. The specific conditions of each time may be
like the accumulated memory and knowledge of the agent related to
the relative past or the unknowns of the relative future. In other
words, every moment contains some inputs from its pasts and
futures.
The agent as a human being is a whole, and he has parts. And he has
an active essence which transcends and gets what is relevant to
himself from other parts.
There is not only a structure of the agent consisting of brain,
neurons, DNAs ... but also a structure of the agent consisting of his
-577-
essence and parts relating to time, space, energy, consciousness,
matter, and so on. In this context, we are like a being who has legs
on different “presents” of an alleged 4D framework in accordance
with the B-theory of time. Each leg has some information and
activity, and the essence of the agent is active on each leg.
Transcendent access does not mean unconditional or unlimited
access. If I look at my right, I have access to my right, if I look at my
left, I see what is on my left. As I emphasized earlier, everything is
transcendent to some extent; hence, these limitations are not
abnormal.
The active transcendent essence and identity underlying all my
experiences is the same. The human being is structured in this world
with such a structure. He might be designed with more limitations
or less limitations. He is part of larger systems, and there are reasons
for the limitations. In part 3.8.1.4.3, the reasons for the limited access
to information about future is explained.
As I feel my hearing and my seeing simultaneously in each moment
and as they do not mix, likewise, I feel each moment’s qualia in each
moment without mixing the other moments. I feel upon what type
of ground each of my legs step on that 4D chart: Is the ground hot,
cold, soft, or hard… The experience of my leg L1 belongs to time t1.
It has certain features corresponding to the coldness, softness and so
on: For example, for that leg, some events have passed, some
memories have been formed, some events are about to happen. The
experience of that leg does not contain the memories of leg L2 at
time t2 even though L2 is also experienced or will be experienced by
me as a transcendent agent. This is like experiencing a hot object
with my right hand, and a normal object with my left hand: Although
it is me who experiences both, the experiences of my left hand and
right hand are different and do not contain the other.
-578-
For a correct feeling, I have to feel the respective condition of each
leg in time. If I keep feeling an event which happened 10 years ago
as if it happens now, it will not be a correct feeling. So, I feel every
event as of its time: Today’s experience must be non-existent when I
experience the experiences ten days ago. If ten days ago I transcended
the experience of today, then I would attempt to change certain
things about the transcended future, and this would produce crucial
inconsistencies. Hence, we have a limited transcendence window.
It is similar to biological legs similitude: If I am required to transcend
twenty objects with different surfaces touching my hands, I would
have difficulty in transcending them. Yet, since we can run our lives,
we can say that our average transcendence level in this respect is
sufficient. Likewise, our transcendence through time is also
appropriately designed in the context of responsibility and free will
power.
So, I transcendentally access them but within their realities. I feel the
past within my whole transcendently, but my leg of “now” does not
feel it. So, am I only the present leg? No, I am active in all legs, but
in accordance with the conditions, potentials, and limitations of the
respective leg.
If my transcendent whole contained the knowledge of all presents in
every “present”, then this would not be the reality of each present.
Each present must have some accumulations, and some novelties.
That is the design of things.
Also, by definition, the future is that upon which we cannot exercise
our power. If we exercised our power, then it would have been the
past. I can remember what I cannot change, I cannot remember what
I can change, what I can change has not become a certain memory.
So, I transcend each “present” accordingly.
-579-
Question 105.
Why do not we have power over the past and future if we are
transcendent?
Answer 105.
Things similar to knowledge in this respect apply to power. I should
also add the following: Our actions for each present depend on its
relative past and relative future. So, for example, if at time t2 I am
trying to find a good job as a civil engineer, at time t1 I must have
chosen a college. Therefore, there are also limitations to the
transcendence in terms of action.
Question 106.
Can God create regions where servants have the powers causing the
above inconsistencies in respect to time?
Answer 106.
Said Jesus, the son of Mary, "O Allah, our Lord, send down
to us a table [spread with food] from the heaven to be for us
a festival for the first of us and the last of us and a sign from
You. And provide for us, and You are the best of providers."
Allah said, "Indeed, I will send it down to you, but whoever
disbelieves afterwards from among you then indeed will I
punish him with a punishment by which I have not punished
anyone among the worlds."
(Quran: 5/114-115)
Yes. But in this region, there would be limited security and
understanding for servants.
-580-
Question 107.
If the agent did not commit an evil up to a certain point, but at that
point he committed a big crime. Was he evil before that event, or did
he become evil at that point, and did he become evil starting from
the happening of that event, or starting with his existence? If he was
evil starting with his own existence, then was he not to be evil? What
could he do when he was a baby while he is considered evil? If he
has become evil starting with the commitment of that crime, then,
was he a different person before that crime?
Answer 107.
Islam does not teach the A theory of time. As we explain elsewhere,
time is not a distance for God. If it is not a distance for God, then it
has a unitary reality at least from a perspective. Hence, ontologically,
and in an absolute sense, the extension of the agent within time is an
obvious extension; there is no absolute distance between his birth
and his death. This is similar to unilocality observed in quantum
realm.
Regarding his unity, we can consider as if he lived his entire life in a
“moment”. The set of evil deeds and good deeds that he produced,
are the benchmark about what he is. He is the same person all along;
yet he has the power to choose the good or evil.
If he is ultimately evil, he becomes evil starting with his very being,
but the evilness of his very being when he is a baby depends on what
he did decades later. If someone does a bad act with his right hand,
we cannot distinguish his left hand, since it is the same person who
has both hands. In terms of time also it is like this.
-581-
3.5.6.8 Capacity
Allah does not charge a soul except [with that within] its
capacity.
(Quran: 2/286)
The human being has been given the capacity to find the truth and
to comply with it. He is held responsible to the extent of this capacity.
The human being is responsible in accordance with his capacity.
Further details about responsibility are explained in part 3.7.6.
3.5.6.9 Mobility Between States and Degrees
And for all there are degrees [of reward and punishment] for
what they have done, and [it is] so that He may fully
compensate them for their deeds, and they will not be
wronged.
(Quran: 46/19)
We have certainly created man in the best of stature;
Then do We abase him (to be) the lowest of the low,
Except for those who believe and do righteous deeds, for they
will have a reward uninterrupted.
(Quran: 95/4-6)
You will move from state to state.
(Quran: 84/19)
The agent depending on his wills and acts, may be in different states.
-582-
For example, an agent may be in a good region which consists of
good beliefs and deeds, and proceeding in a still better direction as
shown in line 1 in the below figure. Or the agent may be in the bad
region consisting of false beliefs and bad deeds and yet going for
worse as in line 9. Or he may be going back and forth between good
and evil as seen in lines 5 and 7. There are also different states of the
agents that are represented in the below figure:
FIGURE-5: POSITIONS AND MOVEMENTS OF THE
AGENT BETWEEN GOOD AND BAD
Upon the death of the agent, what he ultimately is is sealed and fixed.
His state at the end has the most weight: For example, if he is a
disbeliever at the end of his life, he is a looser. Since nobody knows
when he will die, this is an important motivation for improvement.
With the ultimate end, the quality of the agent becomes clear, in a
way that transcends time.
Also, the agent may be good in some ways, may be evil in some ways.
The agents have a reality of their own which transcends time. As an
example, we will mention the related explanations of the Quran. The
Quran starts with a classification of human beings according to their
-583-
compliance with truth. This classification will give us an idea about
the concept of responsibility, and we will have the opportunity to
address certain important issues about responsibility and free will:
In the introductory parts of the Quran, we see the following
classification of people: The righteous believers, the disbelievers, the
hypocrites, the jews, the Christians, adherents of other religions. In
the following parts, we also see other classifications among them,
such as those who believe in God but disbelieve in the prophets, those
who are doubtful, and those to whom no divine message came.
Some of the related verses are as follows:
This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance
for those who ward off129 (evil).
(Quran: 2/2)
Indeed, those who disbelieve it is all the same for them
whether you warn them or do not warn them they will not
believe.
(Quran: 2/6)
And of the people are some who say, "We believe in Allah
and the Last Day," but they are not believers.
(Quran: 2/8)
Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or
Christians or Sabeans – those [among them] who believed in
Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness will have their
reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning
them, nor will they grieve.
129
The righteous, the careful.
-584-
(Quran: 2/62)
Indeed, those who have believed then disbelieved, then
believed, then disbelieved, and then increased in disbelief
never will Allah forgive them, nor will He guide them to a
way (of truth).
(Quran: 4/137)
Those who disbelieve in God and His Messengers and desire
to make division between God and His Messengers, and say,
'We believe in part, and disbelieve in part,' desiring to take
between this and that a way –
Those are the disbelievers, truly. And We have prepared for
the disbelievers a humiliating punishment.
(Quran: 4/150-151)
Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul.
And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of
burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would
We punish until We sent a messenger.
(Quran: 17/15)
That you may warn a people whose forefathers were not
warned, so they are unaware.
(Quran: 36/6)
The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not
of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are
astray.
(Quran: 1/6)
-585-
They were satisfied to be with those who stay behind, and
their hearts were sealed over, so they do not understand.
(Quran: 9/87)
Indeed, those who do not expect the meeting with Us and are
satisfied with the life of this world and feel secure therein and
those who are heedless of Our signs,
For those their refuge will be the Fire because of what they
used to earn.
(Quran: 10/7-8)
And when it was said, 'Indeed, the promise of Allah is truth
and the Hour [is coming] no doubt about it,' you said, 'We
know not what is the Hour. We assume only assumption, and
we are not convinced.' "
(Quran: 45/32)
Question 108.
A person may be believing and later he may be disbelieving and then
again disbelieving. But it is possible that a person who does not
believe, dies upon that state, though maybe later he would be
believing. So, is not it unjust for two similar persons who are in
alternating states, one of whom dies when he is upon the disbelieving
state and ends up in hell, and the other dies upon a believing state
and ends up ultimately in the paradise?
Answer 108.
This situation is similar to two persons who from time to time drive
while being very drunk. But while one of them drives, a pedestrian
-586-
crosses the street carelessly and the first driver hits and kills this
pedestrian whom he would not have killed if he was not drunk. And
for the other driver, no such event occurs. The first driver ends up in
prison for his whole life as stipulated in the law of his country, and
bears the pain of being a killer his whole life.
They both know and take the risk of undergoing the same accident.
But one of them somehow does not meet that situation, so, he does
not end up in prison. But if he was in the situation of the first driver,
he would also be a killer.
The issue of doing good or evil is not personal. It has been an extra
favor for the person who did not kill the pedestrian; he may also have
deserved some punishment just because he drove drunk.
The person who although has been subject to the message of God,
does not believe sometimes, takes such a risk of dying upon that state.
So, he will bear the consequences in case he dies upon that state. If
he does not die upon such a state, then this may be a favor of God.
Note that we are continuously within His favors for which we did
not do anything to deserve. It is also possible that there is some good
in him that Allah protected him from dying in that state.
If the conditions are obtained, the agent is responsible for being good
in every moment of his life. What matters is the actual state.
Some do a certain amount of evil, and they stabilize as an evil person.
So, they can be thieves, killers, drug dealers, or disbelievers insulting
God who neither doubt nor regret what they do. Is there a potential
of being good? Yes, there is such a theoretical potential. But the
actual, is what happens and finalizes. And it is the duty of the servant
to make the actual the optimal. The potential does not have much
implication in terms of the results. Everybody has the potential of
being better or worse.
-587-
As underlined in the following verse, approaching the limits is
forbidden as transgressing them, and risk management is important:
These are the limits [set by] Allah, so do not approach them.
(Quran: 2/187)
Question 109.
Is not it unjust to hold someone responsible for belief in God if there
is no evidence for God?
Answer 109.
According to the Quran, everything at every layer is evidence for
God: An atom, an eye, a planetary system… The question implies
that God provided no evidence. Yet, if God is true, if nothing could
exist without being sustained by God, then this already means that
everything is evidence for God. A claim that everything is not
evidence for God may be possible only if there is clear or probable
evidence about the self-sufficiency of everything or about a candidate
other than God who can sustain everything.
So, if a person finds himself about being punished by God for
rejecting Him and His evidences, there will be no issue of injustice
for being held responsible without evidence. Because it will be clear
that that person has been presented convincing evidences. Because,
it will be clear that the gravity, the spatiotemporal relationships, the
matter, or whatever he replaced God with, had no self-sufficient
power to exist or to produce any effect, and that everything was
sustained by God. It will be clear that that person assigned some selfsufficient power or probability of some self-sufficient power to those
things without any evidence. It will be obvious that he behaved
emotionally, and that he had very low effort and weak intention to
comply with the truth and divine values.
-588-
The believer is required to search actively the truth, mitigate risks,
and say every day to his Lord, “Guide us to the right path”, at least
when he recites the first chapter of the Quran which is obligatory to
be recited in the daily prayers.
Question 110.
A person may be a robber. But he will enter the hell, and the hell
seems to be very awful place, causing much more pain than the sum
of pain caused by that robber. Is not this unjust?
Answer 110.
This question is answered in part 3.7.6.3 about hereafter.
Question 111.
What is the state of an agent if his wills and acts are distributed
among the good and bad regions?
Answer 111.
The allegory of those who disbelieve in their Lord: their works are
like ashes in a violent wind, on a stormy day. They gain nothing
from whatever they earn; such is the farthest straying.
(Quran: 14/18)
The wills of the agent may be heavily distributed in the bad region.
For example, an agent may be a killer, robber, disbeliever.
Or the wills of the agent may be heavily distributed in the good
region. For example, he may be active in benevolent activities, he
may be good to his relatives, he may be good toward his Creator.
-589-
On the other hand, a person may be good to his children, but be
getting bribes, he may be a robber; a person may be good in his work,
but a disbeliever. So, from different perspectives, he may be good and
bad in the same time.
We can illustrate the latter type in the following way:
FIGURE-6: WEIGHTS OF GOOD AND EVIL BEHAVIORS
In the above figure, the arrows with number 1, represent the wills
and acts of agent 1; the arrows with number 2 represent the wills and
acts of agent 2.
The important thing to notice in that figure is that the wills do not
all have the same weight which is emphasized by the thickness of the
lines. Especially, the wills that relate to fundamental issues have big
implications. Furthermore, the wills of each agent are connected as
depicted with the curved lines, and each will has implications for
other wills of the same agent. For example, a good act of a believer
along with the act of recognizing God, may have different value
compared to the similar will of someone who rejects God. The one
who helps the poor may be believing that it is the right of the poor
to receive that help in a legitimate way as taught in the Quran, that
-590-
the real owner is God, and that this will also helps the betterment of
the society. The other one may be simply believing that it will
produce just some material benefit, which will be reflected to himself.
So, the same act may have different implications and may be related
to different values.
Additionally, for example, a person may be thankful to his colleagues.
But he may be rejecting God. Supposing that on the judgment day
He witnesses that God is true, the weight of his thankfulness toward
his colleagues will be incomparably small relatively to his
ungratefulness against God who created him, who sustained him,
who gave him eyes, ears, and so on.
A reductive physicalist who reduces everything to deterministic or
indeterministic behaviors of particles bumping one onto another,
cannot claim doing good, since “good” is no more than an illusion,
since the real thing is assumed by him to be the particles bumping
one onto another. So, to what extent this agent can go in doing good?
On the other hand, a person may claim believing in God and moral
good; but he may be cheating, stealing, and so on. This may mean
that the choice of belief is not effective and sufficiently strong; it is
only in words. This is underlined in the following verse:
Do they [then] wait for anything except that the angels
should come to them or your Lord should come or that there
come some of the signs of your Lord? The Day that some of
the signs of your Lord will come no soul will benefit from its
faith as long as it had not believed before or had earned
through its faith some good. Say, "Wait. Indeed, we [also] are
waiting."
(Quran: 6/158)
-591-
As seen in the above examples, there are different weights of wills
and choices. They have different implications for the agent, and for
the whole of the wills of a specific agent. And we can say that some
key wills will have important implications over the secondary wills;
and some seemingly secondary wills may be evidence about the truth
of fundamental wills. In any case, according to Islam, Allah knows
our intentions, what our wills and acts deserve; we have to try to do
our best and expect the favor of Allah.
3.6 Inputs of Free Will
And if We had willed, we could have elevated him thereby,
but he adhered [instead] to the earth and followed his own
low desire.
(Quran: 7/176)
Do not obey one whose heart We have made heedless of Our
remembrance and who follows his low desire and whose affair
is ever [in] neglect.
(Quran: 18/28)
A relevant definition for “input” in our context is: something that is
put into a machine or system130.
Before going into the details of the inputs, we have to see their
relative position in respect to the system.
130
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
-592-
Agent's Essentials
• Consciousness
• FWP
• OTBT
• Reasoning, knowledge power
• Reality-Being
Inputs
• Sub-FWPs feed
• Alternatives
• Reasons-conclusions
• Conscious experience
• Knowledge
• OTBT
• Reality-Being
FIGURE-7: RELATIONSHIPS OF THE AGENT’S
ESSENTIALS AND INPUTS RELATED TO FREE WILL
POWER
In the above figure, black area in the center represents the essentials
necessary for the exercise of the FWP to be owned by the agent:
It is important to distinguish some of the points which look similar
between the essentials and inputs. For example, we see the
consciousness under the essentials, and we see the conscious
experience under the inputs. In this context, consciousness means
the power to be conscious. Conscious experience as input is some
specific conscious experience that is related to the specific will
situation: The embarrassment that a failing student has against his
parents is a conscious experience as input. This may be an input in
his wills related to study. Consciousness as an essential is the power
of the agent to be aware of himself as an agent, to be aware of the
willing situation, to be aware of all kinds of accessible inputs or
potentials… In this respect, consciousness is very important because
everything passes through the window of consciousness. This is a
-593-
brief information about the distinction between the essentials and
inputs.
Let us explain briefly the essentials of the system of the agent:
Consciousness is a key essential.
It is a power which reflects the unity and reality of the agent and all
of its components in a colorful way. It also has the potential to
encompass all of the relevant accessible aspects of a will situation. It
finalizes a will situation and approves it. It encompasses and approves
not only the willed alternative, but also that which the agent has to
give up. Its transcendent aspect which has to encompass in unity the
actual or potential alternatives is necessary for the finalization of the
will. Not only the alternatives, but also the timing of finalization is
related to the consciousness power. This may be considered as the
closest power to the essence of the agent.
Consciousness and FWP need each other: In many contexts, some
aspects of the consciousness need FWP. For example, consciousness
needs FWP in determining whether to be conscious or not such as
in willing to sleep, to determine what to be conscious about, or to
determine the intensity of consciousness. On the other hand, FWP
also needs consciousness. For example, FWP needs consciousness in
order to transcend the range within which to turn toward a certain
direction.
Again, the agent must have his own consciousness so that there may
be an ownership of the will by the whole of the agent. There are
important reasons for this:
(1) The will power must have had the possibility to serve the agent.
If the agent has not had the possibility to benefit from the FWP for
his goals, we cannot say that the agent owned the FWP. The end
point in this respect, is whether the agent is satisfied or not in his
-594-
consciousness about the outcome. If a will attributed to the agent
occurred without the agent being conscious of, the agent may say “I
am not aware of the alternatives, of their implications, of the benefits
and costs, and of this will. I do not own it. I did not assess it in terms
of my goals.” The will must be recognized by the agent. This is an
important way to connect the will to the agent. The implication of
the will regarding the whole of the agent is of key importance.
(2) The will must originate from the agent. The unity of the agent
and his access to his whole’s resources is represented and confirmed
by the essence of the agent and its consciousness. The agent must
have had the opportunity to access to the available resources of his
whole. The actual availability of some resources is of secondary
importance in our context. Because, if for example reasoning power
is objectively inaccessible, this will reduce his responsibility and
freedom of will. There is a need to have a benchmark for the
origination of the will by the agent. As an outsider, we can observe
that there is a whole. But this cannot be sufficient for concluding that
we have a whole. Because, the parts of the agent may be behaving on
their own, and there may be a coincidental harmony in what we see
as a whole. So, like in the signature of the contract, there has to be
at least the confirmation by the agent about his access as a whole to
his whole consisting of related parts. As consciousness relates to the
sovereign whole, the only experience and witness about a sovereign
whole is the sovereign whole itself and its essence. Also, the only one
witnessing that that sovereign whole willed a specific will is that
sovereign whole.
If like in Libet experiments, before consciousness appears, it is told
to the agent that he willed a certain thing, the agent will rightly say
that he did not finalize and approve it or that he is not aware of it.
Actually, lots of will suggestions come to us as the outcome of free
will powers (FWPs) of our sub-modules. This does not mean that as
a distinct sovereign whole we have approved hence owned it. In other
-595-
words, offers/ recommendations come to us from our sub-modules,
but unless there is the acceptance by the unity and essence of the
sovereign whole, they do not become under our ownership. We do
not own the positive and the negative aspects of the offer from our
sub-modules unless we approve them as our sovereign whole’s will.
For example, a recommendation to buy a luxurious car may have
come as a recommendation from a sub-module; and it may have been
detected in a Libet type experiment. But if it has not reached my
essence, its consciousness I cannot be required to own it as my will.
As explained in detail in part 3.5.3 there are sovereign wholes at
different layers, so some wholes have sub-wholes who have their
FWPs. The FWPs of our sub-modules are not our FWPs. They can
produce FWPs for themselves, and also FWPs as recommendations
to be presented to the essence and sovereign whole of the agent. For
example, a relevant sub-module may produce a recommendation to
listen to the music. That module is not aware of the other modules.
The offer of the sub-module which recommends listening to the
music may be rejected. If one offers to sell his car to me, unless I am
aware of the offer and my acceptance of it, I will not be the owner.
Here, unless I have access to the conscious experience of these, the
whole has not been constituted. My exercise of FWP may happen
based on that.
In the following verses we see the differentiations and struggle
between the essence of the person and the outputs of the person’s
sub-modules’ FWPs producing to the sovereign whole low desires to
be followed by the sovereign whole:
But whosoever feared the standing before his Lord and
prevented the self from low desires,
(Quran: 79/40)
-596-
So do not let one avert you from it who does not believe in it
and follows his low desire, for you [then] would perish.
(Quran: 20/16)
Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own low
desire? Then would you be responsible for him?
(Quran: 25/43)
The following verse makes reference to the FWPs of our submodules:
And they will say to their skins, "Why have you testified
against us?" They will say, "We were made to speak by Allah,
who has made everything speak; and He created you the first
time, and to Him you are returned.
And you were not covering yourselves, lest your hearing
testify against you or your sight or your skins, but you
assumed that Allah does not know much of what you do.
(Quran: 41/19-22)
Let us also examine the FWP in this context: FWP and consciousness
are direct and non-separable powers of the essence of the agent. They
are non-separable, because the actor which exercises these powers is
the essence of the agent. Furthermore, if consciousness and FWP are
separable, then, the actor for an evil deed will be the FWP, but the
one who will be punished will be consciousness. So, such a
separability, would be a problem, in worldly and religious terms.
Can the whole of the agent finalize and complete an exercise of FWP
before the agent is conscious about it? If the whole of the agent is
not aware of the relevant will, then that will has not been
encompassed by the unity and essence of this agent. So, a sub-module
of the agent may have prepared and finalized the exercise of a FWP,
-597-
but it is not the FWP of the whole of the agent. Because, either the
essence of the agent is not aware of his “I”, or the “I” has not
exercised his FWP. The essence of the agent does not need to activate
all of his potential powers of reasoning, or observing, or testing the
recommended will to a great extent. To assess or not, to activate or
not those powers are within the scope of the agent’s essence’s FWP.
As to the reasoning power and power to know, regarding FWP, they
are only necessary to distinguish one alternative from the other. They
are not necessary to distinguish which alternative should be better
for the agent.
Remember from the earlier parts that for the existence of FWP, it is
sufficient that the agent is able to distinguish that one alternative is
different than another alternative. The core of FWP does not
necessitate the existence of powers to assess whether the alternatives
are in harmony with the OTBT of the agent. But in order to be
successful, the sovereign whole and the essence of the agent must use
the FWP to access the relevant resources and powers as reasoning,
knowledge.
The reality-very being of the agent: This is the underlying reality of
the agent which comprises all of the knowns and unknowns of the
whole of the agent, the active and passive parts, its design and so on.
This influences the “I”, the OTBT, FWP, consciousness, and
reasoning power. Regarding FWP, we see that it is active in many
stages of FWP. For example, the colors of the two candies subject to
FWP, go through the nerves of the agent which are elements of the
reality of the agent.
Above, we have gone briefly through some essential functions of the
agent; we will examine them further in their relation to the inputs
and outputs of will power. We will examine them only as much as
they relate to the free will power.
-598-
Let us go through some general aspects of the inputs. And then, we
will take each type of input under separate headings.
Regarding FWP, if the agent has to exercise his FWP on touching a
white candy or a red candy, these two alternatives, their colors,
positions, his hands, are some of the inputs. Regarding the
fundamental level of FWP, he does not need to consider which one
would be better.
However, for the exercise of FWP at a practical level, the agent must
engage his other powers through FWP.
Regarding the practical level of FWP, we can give an example of
someone who has to will to buy the car C1 or the car C2. C1 has a
more reasonable mileage, C2 is less expensive. The agent may
exercise his FWP in any case. But supposing that his goal is not to
see whether he has FWP, and as he is vulnerable, he will use other
inputs. For example, he will use his past and possible conscious
experience: How will he feel if C2 causes more repair costs, or how
will he feel if he cannot sell it when he needs to sell it? Also, he will
consider his OTBT: He cannot work harder if there are unexpected
repair costs. He will reason and his reasoning process will produce
further inputs.
There may be many kinds of inputs: Accessible, necessary, sufficient,
potential, internal, costly, coercive and so on.
Many inputs must be accessible for the exercise of FWP so that the
agent may be responsible, not for the existence of FWP.
Some inputs are produced by using FWP as well: The agent may use
his will power about whether to collect some information or not.
Some inputs directly relate to the powers of the agent: For example,
the consciousness, knowledge, reasoning powers of the agent are
used to produce some of the inputs.
-599-
Question 112.
How do we know that our sub-modules may have FWP?
Answer 112.
The main reasoning behind this is explained in part 3.5.3 about
sovereign wholes. On the other hand, part 3.4.12.1 about negation
experiments and brain observation experiments explains how FWP
interacts with the universe. It also shows that our brains have the
necessary plasticity for this. And there is no reason that a hypnotized
person would not be successful in negation experiments and brain
observation experiments in demonstrating his sub-modules FWP.
3.6.1 Conscious Experience
But Allah bears witness to that which He has revealed to you.
He has sent it down with His knowledge, and the angels bear
witness [as well]. And sufficient is Allah as Witness.
(Quran: 4/166)
Allah is witness over all things.
(Quran: 22/17)
And they forbid it, and keep afar from it, and it is only
themselves they destroy, but they are not aware.
(Quran: 6/26)
And He it is Who has created the heavens and the earth with
truth, and on the day He says: Be, it is. His word is the truth,
and His is the kingdom on the day when the trumpet shall
be blown; the Knower of the unseen and the seen; and He is
the Wise, the Aware.
-600-
(Quran: 6/73)
The dictionary definition of consciousness is as follows: (1) The
quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself.
(2) The upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as
contrasted with unconscious processes.131
When I say conscious experience, I mean the contents of our
consciousness.
As conscious agents, we feel ourselves, and also, we feel the external
universe. Consciousness is our window that opens to our internal
and external world, it is also a source of motivation for our existence.
Conscious experience are inputs for the will. It is an input of FWP
in that it helps in distinguishing one alternative from the other, and
in giving values to the alternatives in terms of the preferences of the
agent. We can will an alternative, that alternative may happen, but
what matters is how we feel about it? This feeling does not need to
be about something that benefits us; it may be a public benefit, a
compliance with some values.
Conscious experience as an input of FWP, may be actual or a past
experience, or a foreseeable future experience. The alternatives may
be present, or the agent may use his memory in order to process the
implications of the alternative, or he may guess what the future
conscious experience would be.
Some conscious experience related to a will may be processed by submodules, the FWP may choose not to retrieve their vivid details on
each willing situation. When we try to drive carefully, we do not
retrieve from our memory any relevant experience we had in the past,
which in fact has an influence on our level of attention.
131
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
-601-
Consciousness is also an important input especially regarding the
rights of others, because with consciousness the agent can know what
the other agent will feel on a specific situation, and whether it is good
or not, whether he would want the same thing done to him or not.
Consciousness is important for FWP.
Some aspects of double slit and delayed choice quantum eraser
experiments in quantum physics are interpreted as consciousness
interacting with the physical entities and waves. As explained in part
3.5.3, these observations may be not only exceptional, but the
extension of the general working of all the universe and sovereign
wholes.
It is transcendent and unitary as opposed to some of its infinitesimal
contents being infinitesimally instantiated in divided point-like parts
of our brains.
It feeds the will module. It interacts with that module.
According to Islam, everything has some kind of consciousness, and
consciousness is not considered as a fundamental component of will
only specific to human beings.
Consciousness is one of the constraints of free will and one of its
qualifiers.
3.6.1.1 Consciousness Is Real and Effective
Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is
exalting Allah, the Sovereign, the Pure, the Exalted in Might,
the Wise.
(Quran: 62/1)
In Islam, consciousness is real and it is not an illusion. Consciousness
has effects on the real world.
-602-
If we did not have the qualia of pain or joy, people would not be
using pain killers, or would not party. A reductionist may say that
even if we did not have consciousness, through biological and
physical mechanisms we would behave the same way. But this is not
an empirically supported claim. It is not demonstrated that if each
point-like signal coming from a beautiful view into point-like parts
of our brain without being united within the wholeness of our
consciousness as a whole would cause a pleasure and cause us watch
it for hours. As explained in part 3.5.6.4.2, reductionism is false; part
3.5.6.4.2.8 demonstrates that there can be no self-sufficient
spatiotemporal bottom elements (SBE) to which consciousness may
be reduced.
Similarly, if we assume for a moment that evolution is fully true, if
consciousness did not have an effect and did not provide a survival
advantage, then it could not develop as a common property through
natural selection.
If consciousness and qualia are illusions then is the physical also an
illusion, since there is no channel between us and the physical other
than the consciousness?
As explained in part 3.4.12.1 about the negation experiments and
brain observation experiments, the consciousness interacts with the
spatiotemporal world through will power.
Some argue that consciousness is an illusion. Illusory observations
are by definition shown and accepted to be false as underlined in the
following verse.
But those who disbelieved their deeds are like a mirage in a
lowland which a thirsty one thinks is water until, when he
comes to it, he finds it is nothing but finds Allah before Him,
-603-
and He will pay him in full his due; and Allah is swift in
account.
(Quran: 24/39)
Yet, such illusions are also real as illusions, and they are subject of
consciousness.
But these illusions are shown to be inconsistent with the real world,
while we experience our consciousness which is consistent with our
empirical observations. There are many scientific findings and
machines we are aware of which continuously and consistently
confirm each day beyond doubt that what we perceive is not illusion:
For example, the design of a car works for millions of people for
years.
Question 113.
Is not it possible that consciousness is a means for survival and
outcome of natural selection? It may be possible that for example,
those life forms which felt pain ran away from a threat to life
survived, and those who did not feel it died; hence, consciousness
that receives such qualia evolved.
Answer 113.
Indeed, We have warned you of a near punishment on the
Day when a man will observe what his hands have put forth
and the disbeliever will say, "Oh, I wish that I were dust!"
(Quran: 78/40)
Indeed, the criminals will be in the punishment of Hell,
abiding eternally.
-604-
It will not be allowed to subside for them, and they, therein,
are in despair.
And We did not wrong them, but it was they who were the
wrongdoers.
And they will call, "O Malik132, let your Lord put an end to
us!" He will say, "Indeed, you will remain."
(Quran: 43/74-77)
Firstly, according to evolutionists, life forms do not escape because
of consciousness, but those that escape survive, and those that do not
escape disappear. The changes happen in the physiology of the life
forms. Survival does not require consciousness according to the
evolution theory. Most physicalists would reject a claim that
consciousness is an effective aspect and/or substance of the physical.
On the other hand, survival is not the ultimate point of life forms.
Consciousness has its own implications that are beyond survival.
Many people would give up their lives for some things that are the
subject of their consciousness.
Beyond a certain level of pain, a life form may lose its consciousness,
though it should not if the survival is the ultimate point. Even, a
human being may want to die, declare it, or commit suicide if there
is a pain beyond a certain level. Sometimes, people even commit
suicide as a result of their conscious thinking and end their lives.
The above verses also contain similar examples.
132
Malik is the name of an angel of hell.
-605-
So, survival is not a goal of a living creature but surviving with peace.
Thus, peace is a need of the agent even if it negates survival. So, peace
is real and not necessarily an emergent property.
If consciousness is an outcome of evolution, then consciousness
would be effective. If it is not the outcome of evolution, this entails
that it is a power irreducible to the spatiotemporal. In both cases, it
is obvious that transcendence is a real aspect of the existence.
3.6.1.2 Assignment of Consciousness to Things
And [mention, O Muhammad], the Day when the enemies
of Allah will be gathered to the Fire while they are [driven]
assembled in rows,
Until, when they reach it, their hearing and their eyes and
their skins will testify against them of what they used to do.
And they will say to their skins, "Why have you testified
against us?" They will say, "We were made to speak by Allah,
who has made everything speak; and He created you the first
time, and to Him you are returned.
And you were not covering yourselves, lest your hearing
testify against you or your sight or your skins, but you
assumed that Allah does not know much of what you do.
(Quran: 41/19-22)
The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is in them
exalt Him133. And there is not a thing except that it exalts
133
Since some human beings do not exalt God according to the known
consciousness, it is likely that there are different layers of consciousness unless
the exaltation in the verse is an unconscious exaltation.
-606-
[Allah] by His praise, but you do not understand their [way
of] exalting. Indeed, He is ever Forbearing and Forgiving.
(Quran: 17/44)
The consciousness is not only the attribute of human beings.
The following verses show the Quranic teaching that same
consciousness within our actual bodies, can be rebuilt within other
bodies, if our previous bodies are lifeless. Note the statement about
receiving provision in the sight of Allah, and note also that some
deceased persons have almost all of their faculties they used within
their worldly bodies, while we witness that their bodies within our
presence are lifeless:
And never think of those who have been killed in the cause
of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord,
receiving provision,
Rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His
bounty, and they receive good tidings about those [to be
martyred] after them who have not yet joined them that there
will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.
They receive good tidings of favor from Allah and bounty and
[of the fact] that Allah does not allow the reward of believers
to be lost.
(Quran: 3/169-171)
The above verses show that the same consciousness may be
reconstituted in another spatiotemporal body. So, there is a common
essence between these two bodies regarding that consciousness. Note
that the spatiotemporal is only a small part of the reality of the agent.
Consciousness or its essence does not need to be located in a spatial
place, since space is not the very fundamental reality.
-607-
Question 114.
Is not it difficult that every particle has consciousness?
Answer 114.
Allah makes things like in an automated system. So, for Him giving
consciousness to one thing or trillion things are not different in terms
of difficulty. These are easy for Him.
Your creation and your resurrection will not be but as that of
a single soul. Indeed, Allah is Hearing and Seeing.
(Quran: 31/28)
And We did certainly create the heavens and earth and what
is between them in six days, and there touched Us no fatigue.
(Quran: 50/38)
3.6.1.3 Relationship Between the Consciousness and the
Spatiotemporal
Supposing that a conscious being and its consciousness are reducible
to the spatiotemporal substance and properties, do its particles
perceive/understand things (1) by their spatiotemporal states being
changed or (2) without being changed?
If (1), then is there anything beyond the change in the spatiotemporal
state which influences the conscious perception? If there is then what
is it? If there is not, then is this perception just an illusion in a
physicalist reductionist account? Yet, then the same questions are
applicable to this illusion, since it is real and nothing less than
consciousness: For example, it is unitary, it is consistent, in
correlation with the spatiotemporal, and it interacts with the
-608-
spatiotemporal as shown in part 3.4.12.1 about the FWP negation
and brain observation experiments.
If (2), that is, if the perception is not correlated with or influenced
by any spatiotemporal change, then what is this perception which is
beyond the spatiotemporal change?
If the spatiotemporal and conscious were not related, then we would
observe that things that are pleasant and unpleasant would
continually and randomly happen, without us having any ability to
change anything that we feel. In this respect, there are many
questions that cannot be answered in a physicalist framework: Did
the relationship develop through evolution? At what point would it
have arisen? How infinitesimal point-like instantiations of things in
the group of the particles of the conscious agent would cause specific
and related conscious experiences? How physical points would
contain different conscious states as sorrow, joy, seeing…? How
moving left or right would cause a conscious state or a “part” of a
conscious state?
While good and bad things do not happen randomly irrespective of
the spatiotemporal, we also see that we are not reducible to the
spatiotemporal. For example, we see that there are sometimes
tensions between what happens spatiotemporally, and what has to
happen according to our consciousness; an addict distinguishes
between the effect of the subject of his addiction, and of other things
to which he is not addicted.
So, either the spatiotemporal has a property of consciousness; or it
interacts with a substance of consciousness, wherefore, again it has a
property of consciousness.
Hence both mental and physical are dimensions/elements of the
same reality; they interact, and they are not essentially of separable
-609-
nature. As they interact, physical entities and events “only within
their physical dimension” cannot be predicted, since that which is
only within the physical dimension will be only one part of a whole
and hence it will be incomplete.
For the same reason, the mental also will be incomplete if considered
as totally distinct from what we call the physical. They will be each a
constituent of a whole.
In fact, the distinction of the physical and the mental, and seeing one
superior to the other or more fundamental is unsubstantiated. As
explained in part 3.5.6.4.2.6 about physicalism, the physical cannot
be thought of separately from the mental. For some, the mental seems
to be more fundamental, yet this also arises from a separatist
approach.
The transcendent dimensions of both the physical and the mental are
the dimensions of the same reality. Therefore, the physical has
transcendent aspect as the transcendent reality of which it is just a
dimension that we experience.
As this reality transcends ranges with equal encompassing capacity
for entire ranges, to some extent there is no fully separable
spatiotemporal ordering or sequencing for it. So, deterministic
mechanisms and calculations are not fully applicable so as to presume
the existence of absolute separations like the past and future, or here
and there. It is like the non-locality observed within quantum
phenomena.
Consciousness has its truth as anything else and this issues from the
Truth of Allah which is also related to His unity. And some
knowledge, freedom, and guidance are given to everything. The unity
and transcendence of consciousness produce a meaning and reality
-610-
for what it encompasses. Without it, that meaning and reality do not
exist. The consciousness has an effect in this respect, and is real.
Question 115.
How can God make another being have consciousness?
Answer 115.
That things have consciousness is an empirical truth. God’s existence
does not depend upon conscious beings. And it is observed that there
are conscious beings; and as explained in part 2.2.1, they are created
and sustained by God. We may not know how God gives
consciousness to other beings, but we can know that He makes them
conscious.
Can consciousness appear if things are organized spatiotemporally in
a certain way? This cannot happen unless we recognize that they can
be encompassed and combined in a unitary dimension, since
consciousness is unitary.
3.6.1.4 Transcendence of Consciousness Through Space
Have an object in front of you, maybe a table, or a mug, or another
one, and look at it. As you may notice, that object extends through
space. Now let us suppose that parts of the object are instantiated
within different neurons in our brain, and within different atoms…
If this is the case, and if the spatiotemporal is as the physicalist
claims, then each point of our brain being defined separately than
the others would contain something different; hence, as such, they
could not produce a unitary whole of that object. Yet no matter what
is the number of these neurons, or atoms…, it is not multiple particles
wherein each part of the object is instantiated separately; our
consciousness transcends all of those instantiations. This exemplary
object might be replaced by the milky way, or by a set of numbers,
-611-
or by an equation… What we are conscious of might be a sound, a
smell, a novel, an equation, a number, a letter, a point in a space…
The same applies to feelings, such as pain or joy: We transcend the
waves and their parts from a burning finger, or from a delicious food.
The created consciousness may be related to the physical structure in
that the physical provides some data that the consciousness needs.
Yet this does not mean that the created consciousness is limited to a
certain structure of a universe, it may have access to any kind of
universes but it cannot be like the consciousness of God who is
necessarily one and can create real things thanks to His necessary
unity as reality relates to this necessary unity.
These are important because they show with what kind of inputs our
will modules deal, and in what ways. On the other hand, they are
also important in better understanding the multipotential causality
of the agent in terms of his will.
3.6.1.5 Transcendence of Consciousness Through Time
Similar to the previous section, watch a falling object, or a flying
bird… Do you transcend multiple moments of the process? Or is
each second of the act confined separately to what happens within
each process of each second in your brain? Is your consciousness
divided for each time slice? If you think that these have been gathered
within the memory sections of your brain, do you transcend only
what happens in zero-width time brackets in your memory cells? Or
do you transcend in a continuous way what is going on through an
extended bracket of time?
We can also reproduce an act that we did through time. This
imitation also shows that our consciousness transcends time.
We obviously transcend events through time, though time is not very
distinct from a structured set of relationships within space.
-612-
Consciousness is not limited with time, other than in degree in
accordance with the designed limitations. We feel we are now.
Actually, the continuity of our personality and consciousness in time
and our transcendence even though the atoms or smaller parts of our
bodies are replaced continuously give us an idea about the time
transcendent nature of consciousness.
The above correspond to the question on “how the spatiotemporal
parts of the brain produce the transcendent, subjective, and unitary
experience of consciousness” which is coined as the hard problem of
consciousness by Chalmers (1995)134. He underlines his point as
follows: “Why is the performance of these (brain) functions
accompanied by experience”. The easy problem is claimed to be
finding the correlates of the brain that correspond to specific
cognitive functions. This underestimates the easy problem, and
overlooks the facts that the allegedly hard problem depends on the
unity of the agent, and that this unity is at the core of the easy
problem as the basis of the relationships within the correlates, within
cognitive functions, and between the two groups. It also overlooks
the fact that the existence of the cup is not less than the agent’s
subjective conscious experience about the cup. It represents this
aspect of consciousness that relates to the allegedly hard problem as
something exceptional in the universe. But in fact, what is going on
under what is called the easy problem is more fundamental and
difficult; and the solution of the allegedly hard problem depends
upon a satisfactorily complete solution of the easy problem. Once the
allegedly easy problem is solved, the allegedly hard problem will be
easily solved. Chalmers’ formulation assumes that what is going on
in the physical brain in terms of physics and the related relationships
are relatively easy. It is easy to find out in detail which neurons are
activated when we see a bird, or try to remember a friend’s name.
Yet, it is easy if we overlook its unitary aspects that overlap with the
134
(Chalmers 1995)
-613-
hard problem. Also, if we “question” what is time and what is space,
and why there are real brains and objects of the consciousness, then
we will see that the unitary aspect of time, and existence of the brains
are not easier than the allegedly hard problem. Even if we take the
easy problem to be concerned with the mere relationships between
the physical brain and cognitive functions, explaining a mere synapse
in the brain is not easier than the allegedly hard problem. The unity
and the lively content of the consciousness are common and at the
center for each problem. Once we can address the issue of
transcendence and unity, both the easy and hard problems will be
understood; if we cannot address these, then none of these problems
will be understood.
3.6.1.6 Consciousness Has Unity.
Consciousness encompasses a range of things in a unity. The
alternatives are encompassed within their unities as well. The final
will is also encompassed as a will within a unity. The unity of the
essence of the agent is reflected within the unity of the consciousness.
The agent coordinates the elements of the whole of the agent in his
unity.
3.6.1.6.1 Split-Brain Patients
Experiments show unity in consciousness even though there are split
brains. Some further details on this have been given in part 3.5.1.1.2.
3.6.1.6.2 Consciousness in Dreams
If the essence is taken away in sleep as said in the Quran, how do we
dream? Are there multiple consciousnesses within one agent?
As we explained earlier, we have sub-modules. These sub-modules
may even have their distinct consciousnesses and FWPs. It is also
-614-
clear that these modules communicate with the essence and whole of
the agent.
There are different types of dreams. Some of them are special and
relate to the essence who is shown certain real things sometimes in
metaphors in a different realm. Dreams of Prophet Joseph (PBUH)
explained in part 3.8.1.4.4.3 are examples in this respect. There are
also dreams that may be the outcome of the inner workings of the
sub-modules which are written to the memory. These may be
accessed by the essence of the agent.
It is likely that the sub-modules or the essence exercise some FWP
in the dreams.
These do not mean that the agent or his sovereign whole has
multiplicity.
3.6.1.6.3 Unity of Consciousness and Differentiation
If consciousness has unity, and if it encompasses many things or
ranges, then how can a differentiated thing be instantiated in a nondifferentiated thing?
Creation has aspects involving unity and multiplicity simultaneously:
A dog has legs, tail, mouth… But it is one animal. Its leg is also one
organ. The cell of his leg is also a whole. So, what we see as
multiplicity is in fact overlapping unities which are united in a unity.
Absolutely separate and multiple things cannot produce unity since
they would not be within the same space, same time, and they would
not be surrounded by any common thing. But unity can produce
unities. If I have a kind of a unitary power of relating to two points,
I can imagine a space.
Any differentiation, requires the definition of the differentiation, its
unit, the definition of one thing in terms of other things. Hence, all
-615-
those things constitute a unity. So, differentiation originates from
unity.
Therefore, the differentiations within consciousness are unitary.
For further details see part 3.5.3.1 and 2.2.1.3.
Question 116.
If the essence is also differentiated, then where will be the
transcendent power in unity? If we have a transcendent power in
unity, as we are many, and as God also has a transcendent power in
unity, then does not this mean that ultimately there are more than
one decider on what happens, then how can there be only one God?
If there is no room for another God, then how can we have distinct
power to will things? Does not this limit the will power of God?
Answer 116.
Even if there is differentiation in the essence, there is also
transcendent unity. We have a difficulty to reconcile multiplicity with
unity. Because we generally see what we see, and we do not see our
own essence. We see also the creation, and we do not see the Creator.
When we see the tail of the dog, we see that it is not two meters
ahead of the dog, we see it in a unity. Although our consciousness
encompasses its entire parts, the parts are limited. And whatever we
encompass is limited with distances. But if we do a careful
introspection, we will notice that the unity of our consciousness not
only is reconciliable, but also necessarily constitutes a unity with the
multiplicity of the parts of the dog. Had we not had our unity that
produces our consciousness power, then we could not be conscious
of the dog, since we could not bring together his tail and leg and
mouth… and their components within each organ’s unity. They
would be instantiated ultimately within separate parts of our brains.
-616-
If we focus on the Creator and the creation, we will also conclude
that not only multiplicity and unity are reconciliable, but also, that
multiplicity requires unity: The distances that we observe are not
other than unities overlapping upon unities. In accordance with the
thinking of Parmenides: That which is, is; that which is not, is not.
Hence, there is no nothingness that may be a distance between things
so that we can talk of a real multiplicity.
Let us go into some further details. Let us examine “differentiation”:
If the soul is differentiated within itself, how can it have a distinct
and permanent identity if its internal relationships are changed?
These differentiations are not absolute differentiations, they are just
differentiations when we look from a limited perspective through our
eyeballs, not through our unbiased minds. The soul’s unity while it
has differentiations, is like the unity of our consciousness which
contains differentiations of its object. As explained above, actually
they are overlapping unities encompassed with the overall unity of
our consciousness. Similarly, the differentiation of the soul and its
unity are consistent.
Contents of the conscious experience cannot be reduced to the
spatiotemporal. Because the spatiotemporal has a total quantity Q1
of states and sub-states of its own. Now, let us say that the agent A1
has a quantity Q2 of states of qualia as the feeling of “redness” and
let us suppose that that feeling is not an element of the
spatiotemporal; that is, regarding the “red”, the spatiotemporal
contains only the frequency and so on properties of the related
photons and the related medium. If this is true, then the
spatiotemporal consisting of Q1 states and sub-states, will have to
contain Q1+Q2 states which is contradictory. So, the qualia cannot
be reduced to the spatiotemporal. Adding more spatiotemporal
universes or dimensions will not end the contradiction since the same
-617-
will apply in any case for that which is added. This shows clearly that
there is also the dimension related to the consciousness.
To put it in a simpler way, let us suppose that all else being the same,
if a particle moves to the right in the brain of the agent, this
corresponds to consciousness of seeing the “red”. Now, the agent
observes that the particle moves to the right and the agent is
conscious of “red” + “seeing that the particle moves to the right”. The
observations contain the qualia and the total physical states; but the
observations in a realm of qualia is denied by the physicalist. Hence,
they must be observed in the realm of the spatiotemporal. So, the
spatiotemporal is inconsistently overburdened.
Our distinct power to will things does not happen in the realm of the
divinity. It happens in the realm of the creation. For example, if I
imagine a book, this has its distinct reality as an imagination. But it
does not reduce the room of my imagination.
For further details see parts about God.
Question 117.
If God is One and His unity is essential for the creation and
sustaining of anything, and everything is necessarily connected to
His unity, then how are things identified and limited as distinct
things? If even distances are elements of unity, then how can things
own their distinct existence?
Answer 117.
We can conceive of a number of sheets of paper that is more than
the neurons in our brains, or even we can easily conceive as if every
electron in the universe is expanded into sheets of paper. Obviously,
these sheets are not instantiated each within a specific neuron, they
-618-
are connected within the unity of our consciousness, yet they are
distinct.
On the other hand, no matter how we explain and conceive of the
distinction of objects or other things, we will necessarily fill them
within a kind of unity. So, the unity itself is what makes things
defined, hence distinguished.
The existence of distinct things depends on the power of God. We
empirically observe that beings who have distinct will powers have
been created. When we try to create in our imagination a being who
has his distinct will power, or subjective conscious experience, we
will not succeed in imagining a sovereign whole who behaves
perfectly on its own. But, when we imagine just a being like this, we
seem to be able to make something distinct than us: It is not me, yet
it had its eternal place in the existence as an imagination. It is not
me; it is an imagination. Yet, it is real as an imagination. And, I made
it although by the power given and sustained by God. It did not
create itself, but it has its own distinct existence, its own nature. I
exercised the power to make such a thing as opposed to another
thing. Actually, we do such things every time we exercise our FWP.
This is a simple example which shows that at least some distinct
features of a distinct thing may be produced by another agent. But
creating beings who have sovereign FWP and subjective
consciousness is something much bigger.
Further details about this unity are given in part 2.2.1.
3.6.1.7 Consciousness and Responsibility
Consciousness is closely related to responsibility, though it is not a
sufficient condition for responsibility. If a person is unconscious, we
do not think that punishing or rewarding him in this state will be an
exercise of responsibility. If a person does an act without being
conscious, then we normally do not hold this person responsible.
-619-
Here, by consciousness I mean the consciousness about what an
agent wills or does not will; hence the consciousness of the whole of
the agent, not of his sub-modules.
Someone may forget to make an important phone call at a certain
time. He may be busy doing something else. This is irrelevant with
the aspect of consciousness I am talking about in this sub-section.
This specific situation rather relates to the action side, and the ability
to do a certain will: The agent might write somewhere, he could set
up an alarm, he could ask someone to remind the phone call.
On the other hand, some things that relate to consciousness may
influence the will power through the sub-modules. A specific type of
car may cause someone drive fast, though the agent is not aware of
this influence. These are of secondary importance in respect to
consciousness that I am talking about in this sub-section.
3.6.1.8 Relationship of
Spatiotemporal
Consciousness
with
The
The will power has a potential to produce a change in the world. It
is expected to produce an act upon the will, otherwise, it is followed
by zero 'work' as a physical term:
And that there is not for man except that [good] for which
he strives
(Quran: 53/39)
The will power is important in this respect. It is tightly connected to
the physical world and it should produce effects. Consciousness gets
the data generally from the physical world. The will power exercises
changes. The physical is like the extension of the mental. There is
continuity between them.
-620-
Hence, objectivity, benchmarks, comparison, and interaction are key
aspects of the physical. Consciousness is a single window. But it is
the end point. The physical and the consciousness complete each
other.
Some try to explain consciousness by complexity. However, there are
single cell organisms which are not very different regarding their
activities, than many animals we see around like dogs and cats. The
paramecium which has no brain does almost all life functions of a
bird. On the other hand, there is no reason to claim that a particle
moving in a certain way does not produce consciousness, but many
particles moving in a complex way would produce consciousness. A
person who weighs twice another person, does not report having two
or more consciousness when heavy. When we gain or lose weight, or
when we grow after a certain period, we do not notice any change in
consciousness.
Yet, it is clear that consciousness and the physical interact: If one
drinks tea which is too hot, he will feel pain; if one eats certain things,
he can hallucinate…
One may posit that shape evolved to show that reaction; however, if
that shape evolved like that to produce behaviors necessary for
survival, then consciousness would be redundant and unnecessary.
Yet, we observe that we have consciousness. Why a redundant
attribute would evolve if evolution is true? If it correlates with certain
structures of a human being, then the human beings who would
evolve to accommodate more useful functions than consciousness
would survive better, hence, the consciousness would disappear.
There is no reason to claim that structures more compliant with
useful functions would overlap with development of consciousness as
well. Hence, we can conclude that if evolution is true, then
consciousness would be an effective additional capacity.
-621-
But if evolution is false, then, consciousness is a distinct capacity
which has not evolved through physical interactions of particles.
Again, if evolution is false, then consciousness is not supervenient
upon the physical components, and it is an additional thing which
gives the organism some additional input.
So, the considerations on evolution demonstrate that in any case,
consciousness has a distinct effect no matter what structure or
substance is responsible for it.
If consciousness corresponds to the physical in a random way, then
we would not expect an animal eaten alive feel pain, it might feel joy
in that situation if it was coincidental or it might be indifferent. So,
the animal is real, and its consciousness is real and functional. If it
felt joy when it was being eaten, then animals would not survive. So,
some physical/ biological states correspond to some conscious states.
Therefore, conscious states have distinct implications. A physical
state does not randomly correspond to a certain conscious state. This
also leads us to non-reductionism: An animal has different
implications, not only physical implications. It has a tendency to
survive, unlike the movements of atoms. On the other hand, this
tendency is not instantiated at the level of atoms or electrons… We
cannot say either that a living organism is like rocks rolling from a
high place of a mountain. Rounder rocks roll more and become
rounder and roll more… But there is no reason to claim that while
the rock becomes rounder a consciousness will develop so that when
it loses some parts and becomes less round, that consciousness will
feel pain.
See part 3.4.12.1 about the negation experiments and brain
observation experiments which also demonstrate the contradictions
of considering consciousness reducible to the physical.
-622-
Question 118.
Are not the will power and any other power relative and like
imaginary? Is the only existent just consciousness equal to a passive
observation capacity?
Answer 118.
Relativeness of things does not mean that they are not real and
effective. Rejection of God, would reduce them to a kind of an
illusory, relative whole without any basis. But with the necessary God
who is obvious, then everything has a basis. Their relative values
which allow usage of units, show their consistency. And, as they have
a sound basis, they are effective.
Moreover, as there is objectively observable change, even if the
change was just in the form of qualia, there would be a power
underlying it. So, even if it or what we experience of it is small, there
is no limit to its nature based on the unity of God. So, when we feel
the thunder it is not imaginary. Even an illusion is real as an illusion
and it requires concrete energy.
3.6.1.9 Consciousness and The Freedom of Will
3.6.1.9.1 Is Consciousness Necessary for The Free Will
Power?
Consciousness is our power to receive the reflection of states within
our self and unity in a way which is meaningful, communicable, and
usable for us. Qualia are what we perceive as the representation of
states. Consciousness is also a power that provides input for the will
power. Qualia are also recorded in memory. When we form a will,
this memory is used as input. Another usage of consciousness is at
the moment of the will. Sometimes, at the moment of the will,
consciousness may not be present except as a control. For example,
-623-
when we drive and take a wrong exit because of focusing in another
activity, our consciousness about driving may become active again.
Or, when we focus on talking with the friend while driving, if there
is an abrupt accident in front of us, our consciousness may be
directed through FWP, to the accident and activate related areas of
skills and memory in our brain. Consciousness may cause a will, for
example when we perceive an earthquake happening, it may initiate
specific wills in order to be safe.
Consciousness often affects our wills. Without evaluating alternatives
through our consciousness, the alternatives are not sufficiently
defined. We often do deep evaluations about the influences a specific
will may have on our conscious experiences in the future.
If I go to a certain event as opposed to another, I may try to find
answers to the following: Is it likely that I will meet someone I enjoy,
shall I have hard time in the traffic while returning home?
Sometimes, an event which happened years ago and which had a big
conscious impact at that time, may have been forgotten. However, it
may be influencing our present wills even though we do not have an
apparent conscious remembrance about that event. Psychologists try
sometimes to discover such past conscious events. So, that we do not
remember a consciousness related past event does not mean that it is
not an input on what we will years later. It may have a conscious
experience aspect that influences a current will, however, we may be
unaware of it now.
Likewise, as we see in the following verse, there have been some
events that we experienced in some parts of our existence, yet, we do
not remember those events as of now:
And when your Lord brought forth from the children of
Adam, from their backs, their descendants, and made them
bear witness against their own souls: Am I not your Lord?
-624-
They said: Yes! we bear witness. Lest you should say on the
day of resurrection: Surely, we were heedless of this.
(Quran: 7/172)
Yet, they may have positive or negative contribution in the formation
of our wills. But if they have implications, this means that their
contribution is realized within our subconscious to some extent even
though we are not aware of them. Hence some unconscious processes
must be undergoing, triggering certain things, and producing results.
However, an important thing in the above verse is that the
recognition of the God is something inherent in the soul and nature
of human beings, since, although there is no invitation, evidence, or
teaching about God, at that point, we merely gave a positive answer
to a question. Hence, as also underlined in the following verse, some
wills occur directly based on our nature:
Therefore, you shall devote yourself to the religion of strict
monotheism. Such is the natural instinct placed into the
people by GOD. Such creation of GOD will never change.
This is the perfect religion, but most people do not know.
(Quran: 30/30)
Indeed, in what form can an average person be conscious of the
tendency of the pure depth of his self, while it is buried under the
noise of all kinds of structured messages?
Although the above verses show some positive influences, as noted
in the following verse, responsibility requires a certain degree of vivid
consciousness:
And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.
(Quran: 17/15)
-625-
A key aspect of responsibility is the ability to assess “what happens
if I will this”, and “what I will feel if my will happens”. Therefore,
the conscious perception of the result and agency is an indispensable
ingredient of the responsibility. But these are not necessary for the
existence of the free will power. If at the agent level there is
consciousness about the fact that one alternative is different than the
other, this is sufficient in terms of consciousness for the existence of
the free will power.
When we experience an object of consciousness, we record that
object, that feeling, that qualia in a kind of memory, so that the next
time we can use it when necessary. Yet, often we may need to spend
some efforts to retrieve the relevant record of conscious experiences
from the memory. So, sometimes, even if we will something without
related consciousness, we can blame ourselves for not being able to
use it, to remember it. For example, if we miss an exit while driving
toward a destination, and we feel unhappy and regret for not being
careful enough, this may have an effect the next time we drive to the
same destination. It is an element of learning process. A memory of
hidden conscious experience is not non-existent; it may often grow
by consciously experiencing similar events.
And sometimes, we forget that we were conscious, but later we
remember that we were conscious where the necessary event
happened.
There may be conditions which harm the processing of
consciousness-related inputs by the will power, in the subconscious.
This may be due to a health problem, drug usage, and so on.
Sometimes consciousness or recalling it may come after we declared
the will or completed the related act. In these situations, we may
correct thaü will or that act if possible.
-626-
The will as an act of the agent is complete with the consciousness
power.
Consciousness is necessary for FWP. Consciousness is not a
sufficient element of free will power. And freedom of will is not a
necessary or sufficient element of consciousness.
Consciousness is necessary for responsibility in having sufficient
comprehension about the object/ alternatives and implications of the
will. Consciousness helps form the content of what one is free about.
Question 119.
Is not it possible that the agent is not conscious of what he wills but
that there is freedom in inner modules of the agent?
Answer 119.
Inner modules may have freedom but it will be their freedom. Agent
is another whole. To be free it has to transcend the alternatives. If
lower modules have freedom then they should be responsible as well
if they can satisfy the conditions of responsibility; but if they are
responsible, their responsibility will be limited to their specific
domain. One module may be coming dominantly to the land of the
whole of the agent. Other modules and their alternatives being
suppressed. Yet the module of the whole of the agent has the power
to suppress the dominant one under normal conditions. This is
because the whole of the agent can transcend those alternatives. The
transcending module which covers all alternatives encompasses the
conscious implications of those accessible alternatives.
Even if sub-modules are considered to have some kind of will, in a
reductionist approach, they may compete until one of them
suppresses others, since there will be only one alternative that will be
willed. Hence, if the whole of the agent is rejected, there will be a
-627-
winner alternative that cannot be changed by the whole of the agent,
since there is no effective whole of the agent.
3.6.1.9.2 Libet Experiments and Follow-Up Experiments
Often times, the opponents of FWP propose the Libet and Libet-type
experiments as an argument against free will power.
3.6.1.9.2.1 The Experiments
A summary of the Libet and Libet-type135 experiments is as follows:
The test subject is asked to do simple acts like moving his finger at
times he decides within some time brackets of like 10 seconds. He is
also asked to identify at what moment he was conscious of his related
wills. A mechanism like a fast running clock is used for this. On the
other hand, the brain activity of the agent is measured in order to
find out whether there was any electric activity in his brain prior to
the conscious will which correlated with the will and the
consciousness about it, whether the brain activity would enable the
prediction of the will of the test subject before the agent was aware
of it. In more sophisticated experiments, the test subject is required
to press either the right or the left button on a keybord, and which
parts of his brain becomes active is detected.
Futhermore, in some experiments it is measured whether the agent
could veto his will before it was executed or stop during the
execution.
The findings are as follows:
There is an electrical activity which is called “readiness potential”
which starts to build up approximately 500 miliseconds before the
135
Benjamin Libet did some of the early forms of these experiments.
-628-
agent consciously wills the related act. In some kinds of experiments,
before 10 seconds it is possible to predict what button the agent will
press with in 60% of the cases. The test subject is able to veto the
will predicted based on his brain activity if he is informed to veto,
until 200 miliseconds before the act.
3.6.1.9.2.2 Interpretation of The Experiments in Respect
to Free Will
When I willed something, did my brain form that will even before I
was aware of it, and did I just become conscious of it after it was
finalized, without having any additional effect of my own on that
will, but thinking that I have produced it?
This fundamental question has been very important regarding free
will power.
Many opponents of free will power, strongly argue that Libet-type
experiments empirically and convincingly support that the answer to
the above question is positive: If before the agent is conscious of any
will to move his hand a physical activity builds in the brain, and if
only afterwards he feels that he wills to move his hand and then he
moves his hand, this shows that the consciousness is a product of
that unconscious physical activity. Or, if before ten seconds we can
predict based on the physical activity in some parts of brain, with
60% accuracy that the agent will press the red or black button, this
means that the consciousness depends on such physical activity.
These show that the will is based on and reducible to the physical
and deterministic processes. They argue that when there will be more
sophisticated means, we will be able to increase the accuracy.
In the following sub-sections, we will see the flaws of such
interpretations of Libet Experiments against free will.
-629-
3.6.1.9.2.3 The Flaws of The Interpretations of Libet
Experiments Against Free Will (ILEF)
Note that the following flaws are in the context of using the Libet
experiments against free will.
These experiments may prove consistent or useful in studying the
functioning of the brain and its modules. This latter point is not
analyzed here, since it is beyond the scope of this work.
Also note that the following considerations are based on the free will
power as defined in part 3.1.2. So, they may be inapplicable in the
context of some other definitions of free will.
3.6.1.9.2.3.1 Libet Experiments’ Design Which make These
Experiments Irrelevant for the Existence of
FWP
It may occur to a lady to will to cook meat-balls for dinner. But
suddenly she may remember that there is no meat at home, but there
is fish. Such are routine willing mechanisms. Our sub-modules
propose draft wills. When our whole, or our essence which is the
leader of our whole gets such a draft, it evaluates it by probing other
sub-modules which may be relevant. Furthermore, it may get external
data, such as checking if there is meat in the fridge if the memory
does not return something certain. Or a motherhood module may
say that the smallest of the children does not like meat so much, and
that he did not eat anything at school.
In this respect, Libet experiments correspond to asking the subject
“will to cook fish at non-periodical intervals”. That is, the subject is
required to use her sub-modules, not the FWP of the essence of her
sovereign whole. And ILEF concludes that the agent does not have
FWP. So, Libet experiments as such are totally irrelevant to free will
-630-
power, they cannot be used for or against the free will of the agent.
Therefore, trying to use Libet experiments against free will is trying
to disprove the existence of a thing by using an event which cannot
contain that thing.
ILEF assumes that the outcome of the sub-module’s free will power
is equal to the outcome of the agent’s free will power.
However, the whole of the agent and his essence assesses the draft
will by its consciousness and the other powers. The default work of
free will power is like this. We do not do whatever comes to our
mind. But Libet experiments ask the subject to do whatever comes to
his mind; hence, they ask the subject to do a behavior which is not a
normal exercise of free will power.
If the accounting department of a company prepares a fraudulent tax
declaration, and if it does not become effective before the top
authority in the company approves and files it, then the company
and that authority cannot be said to have no freedom just because it
was prepared prior to the awareness and approval of that authority.
They had the freedom, but of course not about something that did
not reach them. So, unless Libet experiments prove that the will
power at the agent level is executed, even before the agent is aware
of it, they are not relevant to the free will power. If they claim that
the conscious involvement of the agent is not effective on the will
just because the will became predictable to some extent before the
agent became conscious of it, this is false since veto tests demonstrate
the opposite.
Can the experiment be redesigned so as to test the existence of a real
and normal free will power? Of course, it can be. But, when it is
redesigned so as to test a normal free will power, then there will not
be any need to conduct the test, since the outcome of the test will be
clear before it is run:
-631-
For example, to test really the free will power, in each round, the test
subject must be informed of the prediction of the readiness potential,
and he must be required to assess the variable implications of the
outcome and finalize his will about moving his hand or not according
to those implications. Such a realistic test recognizes that the willing
process normally includes (1) an awareness about the draft will, (2)
its control and assessment according to other modules and external
data, and (3) approval or rejection stages.
The FWP of the sub-module observed in the readiness potential is
not a coercive thing upon the FWP of the essence of the agent. It is
not even at the level of the overall FWP. It is just one of the inputs.
It may be accepted or rejected.
Question 120.
After being conscious of the first will, I may have a second will to
change the first will; however, that second will may also have been
prepared by my brain before I have been conscious of this second
will. So, why would my ability to reject be an argument against ILEF?
Answer 120.
The second will will necessarily process the consciousness aspect of
the first will and related alternatives. But as the unity of the
consciousness and of the whole of the agent is logically and
empirically substantiated, and as there cannot be an upward infinite
regress, we can say that once the draft will is encompassed by the
whole of the agent and presented to other available modules, and
assessed by them, then the whole of the agent has encompassed all
that is possible to encompass. The second will encompasses the first
will’s consciousness aspects and implications. Consequently, we
cannot say that the brain produced the will deterministically or
indeterministically, without the conscious involvement of the agent.
-632-
3.6.1.9.2.3.2 The Test Subject Is Aware of The Wills Since
the Beginning and Before the Readiness
Potentials.
ILEF do not consider the will of the test subject at the start of the
test. If the test subject was told to injure each person in the test room
at different intervals, probably he would not do it. So, when he agrees
to proceed with the test, he is conscious already of what he will do,
and he gives the relevant command to his brain at the start. He wills
what to do, and he just left to a module the timing of the hand
movements. He has also commanded to the relevant modules any
restrictions. Therefore, he encompasses almost all things in terms of
consciousness at the beginning. If a new thing occurs during the test,
this will be incorporated within things to be willed and done.
Otherwise, everything is settled in his consciousness in the
beginning. If someone shouts during the test “Stop! Do not move
your hand any more!” then the readiness potentials will change
according to the conscious will of the test subject.
3.6.1.9.2.3.3 Libet Experiments Prevent the Test Subject
from Using His Consciousness.
These experiments are structured so that the consciousness of the test
subject is excluded from the tests at the beginning as well.
When we plan a will, we say “I will do it next week”, or “I will do it
when an event happens”, or “I will not do it”… Then when
conditions appear, we develop more specific wills.
The test subject is not allowed in his main will when starting the
experiment to form his secondary wills for each movement based
upon certain patterns. For example, he cannot will to move his hand
precisely at the end of five seconds intervals. Or he cannot decide in
-633-
his main will, to move his hand upon hearing a noise. The
experiment tries to artificially separate the will from the
consciousness. Then the subject cannot do anything other than
“hiring” a sub-module which maybe sets up a certain timing such as
each 20 seconds plus minus 5 seconds.
It is clear that his secondary wills of each movement are tied to his
main will. There is no possibility to say that the agent cannot
incorporate his consciousness in his main will while determining the
passage of time, or the noise as the thing upon which his secondary
wills would depend. If instead of moving his hand, he was required
to move a table from one side of the room to the other side, he would
determine a different timing, and he would obviously have time to
change his mind until he reached one side. So, his consciousness is
active to some extent in the formation of his readiness potentials.
If the test subject was told to will anything freely, and if he decides
to move his hand every 5 seconds, what will be the position of
readiness potentials? Was he not conscious of each will at the onset
of the experiment? Did he have free will power when he is set free?
So, if he is not forced, he can be free and independent of readiness
potentials.
Hence, when interpreted against free will, the Libet tests do not allow
the test subject to incorporate his consciousness in his wills, so as to
conclude that the test subject wills without consciousness. It does not
look any different than putting a bird in front of the test subject and
telling him to move his hand each time the bird moves, and then
concluding that his conscious will was dependent on the movements
of the bird, since the movements of the bird were detected to be some
miliseconds before his conscious will to move his hand.
-634-
Obviously, some wills may be organized so as they depend on an
external or random factor. However, this does not mean that all wills
are like this.
Therefore, ILEF are not scientific and objective.
Anyway, Libet experiments which measure the vetoing ability of the
test subject confirm to a limited extent the obvious effects of FWP
observed in our daily lives.
3.6.1.9.2.3.4 Insufficient Precision
Let us imagine a test subject who is laying on his right, awake on the
bed. We can predict that he will will to change his position. Because
if he stays like that for too long, he may feel uncomfortable or even
pain. Does this mean that he does not have any free will regarding
his position on the bed? As explained in part 3.4.10, a minimal
difference in will may make a big difference in the outcomes. And
this big amplification power combined with reasoning may produce
all that the agent needs in order to be effective on his own.
Likewise, if the test subject had the urge to move his hand at a certain
moment in correlation with the readiness potential, does this mean
that he could not delay or cancel it? Actually, the tests show that the
test subject can cancel or delay these wills.
Readiness potential does not produce high predictability. The
predictability is slightly over the random. For example, in the lateral
experiments in the form of willing a or b, only 60% of the predictions
is true. An unqualified guess would give 50% already.
On the other hand, the more the readiness potential makes the will
predictable, the more obvious will the negation of the test subject be.
The stronger the prediction on readiness potential, the stronger will
-635-
be the argument in the negation tests in part 3.4.12.1136. The weird
implications of 100% predictability explained in that part shows that
a sufficient predictability to support ILEF cannot be obtained in Libet
type experiments objectively structured in order to identify the
reducibility of FWP to unconscious brain processes.
Can a prediction based on readiness potential have 100% accuracy?
According to quantum physics and Heisenberg uncertainty, this is
impossible. About this impossibility there are two approaches: One
of them claims that even if we had full knowledge about a previous
state, we cannot predict the future state. The other one claims that
we cannot predict, but this is due to the impossibility of having full
knowledge about the previous state, because any measurement
changes that which is measured. Both ways, the impossibility of
100% predictability of a future state is agreed upon as a wellestablished principle, by almost all physicists. Anything less than
100% predictability in Libet experiments will be insufficient to
support ILEF.
Question 121.
Even if there is no 100% accuracy the prediction, but there is 99%
accuracy. Is not the impossibility of full unpredictability trivial in this
context? In other words, maybe in very exceptional cases the agent
can override the physical, hence it may be possible that often the
agent cannot overcome what readiness potential entails.
136
Note that the negation thought experiments in part 3.4.12.1 are different
than veto in Libet experiments in that the negation experiments in that part
refute the full determinism as well. Veto experiments would be trivial in that
veto power of the agent might be considered within determinism according to
the determinist.
-636-
Answer 121.
As long as there is no 100% predictability, free will claim will not be
weakened. Because in terms of our tests in part 3.4.12.1, it is kind of
a matter of black and white for the opponent of free will: If the agent
is told that he will will the blue candy, and if he can will the red
candy once in a million, this means that he can do this negation
always, and this one test will show that he has the free will power in
principle. Anything less than 100% predictability will not be proof
for deterministic processes.
3.6.1.9.2.3.5 The Ability to Veto Shows That Consciousness
Is Effective in Wills.
And [by] the soul and He who proportioned it
And inspired it [with discernment of] its wickedness and its
righteousness,
He has succeeded who purifies it,
And he has failed who buries it [in corruption].
(Quran: 91/7-10)
And We have already created man and know what his soul
whispers to him, and We are closer to him than [his] jugular
vein
(Quran: 50/16)
The readiness potential is not a coercive factor. It is a part of the
agent and it produces an inspiration to the essence of the agent. Yet,
essentially the agent may negate it.
-637-
Even in the simplest wills, the time bracket of miliseconds allows the
tests subject to veto what the readiness potential entailed. So, whether
it is a will about timing of a movement, or whether it is a will
involving lateral development of multiple readiness potentials, the
agent has the capacity to veto the product of the readiness potentials.
Hence, if within milliseconds an agent has this ability, then regarding
issues where freedom of will can be exercised within minutes or
hours or even years, the agent almost always incorporates his
consciousness.
On the other hand, it should be noted that even after an act is
committed, the agent may revisit it, and change himself or the act.
But whoever repents after his wrongdoing and reforms,
indeed, Allah will turn to him in forgiveness. Indeed, Allah is
Forgiving and Merciful.
(Quran: 5/39)
3.6.1.9.2.3.6 Conscious Experience in The Form of Memory
Can Interact with The Will Power.
ILEF takes into account only the real-time consciousness: Even if we
assume readiness potential builds with no real-time consciousness, it
certainly interacts with the conscious experiences accumulated in the
form of memory. For example, in many cases, psychologists find out
some events of childhood which influence wills decades later even
though the agent does not have vivid consciousness about that event.
So, in the initiation and build-up of the readiness potential the
wholeness of the agent may have some influence.
-638-
3.6.2 Agent’s Ought to Be Truth (OTBT)
And Allah eliminates falsehood and establishes the truth by
His words.
(Quran: 42/24)
That He should establish the truth and abolish falsehood,
even if the criminals disliked it.
(Quran: 8/8)
This then is Allah, your true Lord; and what is there after the
truth but error; how are you then turned back?
(Quran: 10/32)
And say: 'The truth has come, and falsehood has vanished
away; surely falsehood is ever certain to vanish.'
(Quran: 17/81)
We have a specific being, truth, and structure. According to these
some states ought to be: We have to drink water; we have to eat
something. Many other states ought to be truly and objectively
according to our truth. These states can be in different degrees, and
there are optimal states within the combinations of these ought to be
truths (OTBT). Our free will power (FWP) does not only assess what
we are conscious of as to the alternatives in the external world, but
also transcends and navigates freely upon the OTBTs. In this respect
our FWP works closely with our consciousness whom it constitutes
a unity since the runner of both is the essence of the agent. It also
transcends and navigates through reasons and knowledge.
-639-
When FWP transcends and navigates through two alternatives, it can
also transcend and navigate through OTBTs which are inputs for
FWP.
In the negation experiments and brain observation experiments, we
saw that FWP has sovereignty in willing to touch the white or red
candy. Likewise, FWP has sovereignty to stop processing any OTBT
or to stop at any stage of the processing.
OTBT is not an overall coercive input or cause. As demonstrated in
the FWP negation experiments, the agent can override even the
spatiotemporal states of his brain; so, he can override such states that
relate to the OTBT or ought not to be truth.
To be successful, the will of our essence is to be in harmony with the
OTBT. There are objective OTBTs.
A human being’s acts may be in harmony with its nature, or not in
harmony with it. We can test that: We can ask thousands of people
their preferences for jumping into the fire, or in the middle of ocean
in extremely cold weather. And we will get significant and definite
results which will show that there are intrinsic tendencies of human
beings in harmony with their design.
Some may consider living in luxurious houses, having delicious food;
going to beautiful places, and so on as the OTBTs. According to
Islam, these are comprised within the OTBTs also as things that will
be had in the paradise. However, there are bigger OTBTs as loving
God and invoking His love and satisfaction, complying with divine
values, submitting to Him for the ultimate truth and goals.
Through evidence and help of the All-Knower, Wise Allah, we can
reach a relevant true knowledge which will help us be successful:
Surely with Allah’s remembrance are hearts satisfied.
-640-
(Quran: 13/28)
The following verse contains the elements of the biggest success:
Allah will say, "This is the Day when the truthful will benefit
from their truthfulness." For them are gardens [in Paradise]
beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever,
Allah being pleased with them, and they with Him. That is
the great success.
(Quran: 5/119)
On the other hand, we all wish by default the permanent and best
for ourselves, for the ones we love, and for whatever is good. There
necessarily is a best for us. We will to will wills that we will ultimately
approve and not regret.
However, though the will of the objectively best is intrinsically good
for us, we are not always forced to will it.
Question 122.
A person generally does not know why he thinks what he thinks. So,
how can he have any power over what he thinks and what he wills?
Answer 122.
There are some who know why they think what they think, and there
are some who do not. We have the ability to know why we think
what we think.
The question assumes that the agent is in a reactive position.
However, there are objective truths: An agent must will what is good
for him. “What is good for him” can be defined as “that which he
will not regret”, or “that which a specific agent ultimately wills”. Or
it can be defined in any other way according to the understanding of
the “objective” of the definer. Everybody since childhood experiences
-641-
good and better, bad and worse. So, by default he has to look for the
better if he is not low in effort and seriousness.
The agent has his own truth in accordance with his design and
circumstances. There is a list of things that he has to think about,
and an objective priority within what he thinks.
Since there are objective truths, the agent has to think about certain
things. He must be proactive and since we are all vulnerable, there is
always an open channel to be proactive. If he thinks about the
optimal things that will be useful, then he will not regret that in any
case. If he thinks about small or wrong things, then he will regret;
but he can change what he thinks for the better.
So, the agent may know why he thinks what he thinks: He is
vulnerable, so he has to find out the optimal truth for himself. The
life will make him face lots of bifurcations. If he is proactive, then he
will assess according to his objective truths the implications of going
through each road. And he will know that he thinks those things
because he is vulnerable as taught by many event and conditions each
day. If he is reactive, and arrogant, and he overlooks his vulnerability,
then he will not know why he took a certain road, he will not know
why he thinks what he thinks. But if he is proactive, he will notice
that there is a truth of himself, and that he has to think and perform
according to his truth because of his vulnerabilities.
Hence, recognition of truth is important so as an agent may know
why he thinks what he thinks.
Question 123.
You said: “Through evidence and help of the All-Knower, Wise
Allah, we can reach a relevant true knowledge which will help us be
successful.” But can we really reach such a true knowledge?
-642-
Answer 123.
According to Islam, the truth that is relevant for us is obvious. We
are part of this universe; we know that we have not created ourselves.
We are conscious, we know what is transcendence, and its elements.
We design and make things, and we know the elements of design
and production. We are part of the causal chains; we know what is
necessary, what is contingent, what is sufficient. The knowledge
given by Allah is consistent with our experience and supported by
our experience.
When we observe the universe and reason, we can conclude about
the Creator and Sustainer of the creation. We conclude about His
attributes. We can conclude that He may have given us His guidance.
The knowledge of Allah is important in that it shows that there is an
ultimate truth, and that we must be sincere in our search for the
truth.
Some elements of this knowledge of Allah have been communicated
to the human beings. This communication contains certain guidances
as values such as justice, humility, truthfulness, thankfulness with
which we need to comply. Allah also set the stage by saying that
everything in our limited universe is the creation of Allah. Hence, we
have to respect all things in the appropriate measures that Allah set.
Furthermore, Allah determined our attitude toward the human
beings as an important benchmark of compliance with the truth and
with the divine values. Human beings have been given an important
status as noted earlier in that they have been given a potential to
encompass the truth to a great extent. They have been given the
potential to invoke the love of Allah to a great extent. Allah has even
called the human beings “the viceroys” of Allah. They have been
given a distinct capacity to know.
-643-
There is no reason related to the contents of the claimed guidance
from God to reject them.
Our observations upon the universe, our achievements confirm these.
Hence, we have the capacity to know, there is the truth to be known,
there is the Knower of the ultimate truth, there is the intention of
the Knower to share it with those who need it. There is no reason
for the impossibility to reach the knowledge of the relevant important
truth.
3.6.2.1 The Necessity to use FWP to Reach OTBT
O you who have believed, fear Allah and believe in His
Messenger; He will [then] give you a double portion of His
mercy and make for you a light by which you will walk and
forgive you; and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
(Quran: 57/28)
Free will power is a power that we necessarily use because of OTBT.
We cannot be indifferent in using the will power or not. There are
some obvious reasons for this:
Firstly, there are best states that we conceive of. There may also be
best states that we cannot conceive of. And our default will without
even knowing them, is to be in this best state. Also, there are worst
states that we conceive of, and worst states that we cannot conceive
of. We want by default to be saved from the worst, and get to the
best. We want to be successful:
Whoever is saved far from the Fire and admitted to the
Paradise has succeeded.
(Quran: 3/185)
-644-
Free will power enables us to move within a region, or among
alternatives. This region may be a region of geography, or good and
evil… If we suppose for example that determinism is true and we do
not have any free will power, we will be in a certain limited point.
With FWP, instead of being condemned to what happens outside of
ourselves, we consider the alternative points that we encompass, and
we determine where we want to be. Thanks to FWP, we transcend
and navigate through means that may be helpful to assess the truth,
and we may navigate through alternative truths to have an idea about
what our OTBT is and which region complies with this OTBT. States
of things limit us to certain regions, and FWP enables us to choose
between them. Hence, using our FWP to the maximum possible
extent will be useful in any case; and not using it will limit our
success.
Secondly, some wills are the opposite of others, and sometimes we
regret some wills seeing that they have not been in harmony with
our OTBT. Hence, there are situations where we have to exercise our
will power, since if we do not, the likelihood of regret will be higher.
Thirdly, we also need to use it in order to reach the truth: Knowing
the truth may increase the utility of the FWP. If we know the truth,
we can find out which alternative will be better in order to be more
successful. FWP does not just move freely through alternatives to be
chosen, but also through knowledge, and through the means to get
knowledge. For example, if we do not know well the way to our
destination, we can enter a wrong road and miss our appointment.
But using our FWP, we can use a navigation instrument and go
through the correct road. Hence, an appropriate usage of FWP will
enable us to be successful in our actions.
Fourthly, many wills are related in a hierarchy. Some are higher level;
some are relatively of lower layer. Some must be given priority
against others. We may want to be in destination D1. But if the wills
-645-
are not harmonized, then we may be unable to exercise an ideal will
power. If a will leads to D1, but another will leads to destination D2,
then the freedom in willing D1 will be reduced. To maximize success,
we need to harmonize the wills. But to harmonize, we cannot just
turn all wills in the same direction, because, we may redirect a
correctly oriented will in a wrong way just to harmonize. We have to
harmonize them taking into account the OTBT.
Indeed, those who have believed and done righteous deeds
they will have the Gardens of Paradise as a lodging,
Wherein they abide eternally. They will not desire from it any
transfer.
(Quran: 18/107-108)
At some points, the free power to will an alternative must be stopped
so that a better will may happen in a later situation.
As explained in the following verses, we need to purify ourselves from
unbalanced low-level wills, and evils so that our wills that relate to
our essence may be free. We have a whole that contains both this
essence and our other desires. In any case, we have our FWP. But if
our other worldly desires are dominant, then our whole will be
diverted from the right path by our low-level wills, and we will regret
the path we took:
And [by] the soul and He who proportioned it
And inspired it [with discernment of] its wickedness and its
righteousness,
He has succeeded who purifies it,
And he has failed who instills it [with corruption].
-646-
(Quran: 91/7-10)
[Iblees (Satan)] said, "My Lord, because You have put me in
error, I will surely make [disobedience] attractive to them on
earth, and I will mislead them all.
Except Your servants from among them, the purified ones.
(Quran: 15/39-40)
Have you then considered him who takes his low desire for
his god, and Allah has made him err having knowledge and
has set a seal upon his ear and his heart and put a covering
upon his eye. Who can then guide him after Allah? Will you
not then be mindful?
(Quran: 45/23)
3.6.2.2 OTBT And Related Concepts
The truth is from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.
(Quran: 2/147)
In this section, OTBT and related key concepts will be briefly
explained.
3.6.2.2.1 Ought to Be Truth
He sends down from the sky, rain, and valleys flow according
to their capacity, and the torrent carries a rising foam. And
from that [ore] which they heat in the fire, desiring
adornments and utensils, is a foam like it.
Thus, Allah presents [the example of] truth and falsehood.
-647-
As for the foam, it vanishes, [being] cast off; but as for that
which benefits the people, it remains on the earth.
Thus, does Allah present examples.
(Quran: 13/17)
Ought to be truth (OTBT) represents the objectively and truly
optimal state that ought to be, in accordance with the structure,
design, benefits, and implications of the agent. For example, to have
food within appropriate measures is an OTBT of an agent.
An important expression closely related to OTBT is the “ought to be
subjective state” (OTBS). OTBS is the state that ought to be
according to the subjective considerations of the agent.
Some OTBSs may overlap with OTBTs. But it is unlikely that all
OTBSs overlap with OTBTs. Yet, a diligent agent should try to get
his OTBSs closer to OTBTs. This requires efforts to find out the
OTBTs.
The agent has lots of inputs to be processed by the FWP.
Compliance of the alternative with OTBT means that the willed
alternative is “ultimately” preferable for the agent regarding all of its
benefits’ extent and permanence.
The distinct reality of the agent entails OTBTs for the agent that are
distinct than and free from the OTBTs of parts and of other things.
If we reject the OTBT, then all there is “that which happens”. That
which “ought to be” or “must be” and that which “must not be”
become useless and ineffective. However, that which ought to be is
an indispensable part of our lives and of our actions.
An important input is the existence of the OTBT of the agent. With
OTBT, the agent’s alternatives get a truth value. And with OTBT,
-648-
the free will may be productive and efficient. Without assigning this
kind of value to the present alternatives, the FWP is like having no
input. Therefore, to make good use of FWP, the agent must assign
truth values to the available alternatives by assessing them by his
OTBTs. Also, based on his truth framework, he has to try to find out
whether he has a good set of alternatives. Some OTBTs may be
unknown by the agent, some can be approximately known. Some
OTBTs may be used to find other OTBTs. An agent may determine
his OTBT as “To have maximum possible utility for myself and for
the good.” This can be a general but useful OTBT; it can be useful
in determining more specific OTBTs.
OTBT appears because of our transcendence, existence, power,
consciousness, and the existence of multiple states that are
transcended: At the root level, even if there are multiple states which
are equal, to experience one or more makes a difference. When we
transcend a positive region consisting of different elements or subregions, there are alternatives and necessarily a will potential. Even
experiencing all possible situations is just one alternative. So, the pure
existence of transcendence and power on a region produces a room
for OTBT upon which we can exercise our FWP. Compared to these,
the design of our being in a specific way and its implications are
secondary: Whether we are designed so as to live under the water, or
on another kind of planet, or as vulnerable to health, or not is
secondary. So, at its very origin, OTBT is the outcome of our very
existence and fundamental attributes. So, fundamentally, that we
have power and that we can transcend any extended region which
contains any differentiation, hence, our will power, is at the origin of
OTBT.
OTBT comprises the ultimately beneficial goals in harmony with the
design of the agent. OTBT of the agent, are those OTBTs that the
agent must try to find out and aim in harmony with his capacity.
-649-
The agent is expected to cause things not because of absolutely
coercive attributes, but by exercising his FWP. He has been shown
certain goals. To reach these goals, he has been given the free will
power as well.
If the agent has powers, effects, goals, and needs of his own, then
these are not reducible to other things. This means that the agent
does certain things that his parts or past are unable to do.
In some situations, we may be indifferent regarding the alternatives
upon which we exercise our FWP. We may be indifferent to eating
the red candy or white candy. Or as in the “indifference curve”
studied in economics, theoretically in choosing between alternatives
we may have almost infinite numbers of sets of alternatives any of
which is not different than others regarding the net benefit we get
from them. A person may be indifferent between having a car C1
plus an apartment A1 and having a motorcycle M1 plus a villa V1.
In cases where the agent wills between alternatives to which he is
indifferent, he evaluates the OTBT as well.
Note that the evaluation about indifference also takes into account
the OTBT.
What ought to be is relatively to available alternatives. If the
alternatives are 5 apples and 10 oranges, the agent may choose 10
oranges. But if the alternatives are 10 oranges and 40 pears, the agent
may choose the pears.
Say: "Everyone acts according to his own disposition: But
your Lord knows best who it is that is best guided on the
Way."
(Quran: 17/84)
-650-
3.6.2.2.1.1 Accessible OTBT
So do not let one avert you from it who does not believe in it
and follows his desire, for you [then] would perish.
(Quran: 20/16)
Accessible OTBT is the OTBT related to the will that the agent can
access with reasonable efforts.
Under normal conditions, there is no barrier between the agent and
some OTBTs of the agent. For example, the agent has access to his
need of safety.
Responsibility requires that the relevant OTBT is accessible to the
agent.
There are optimal decisions from an objective point of view. The
optimal may be either normally knowable, or not. If it is knowable,
and if one diverges from it, then there is a situation that will cause
negative consequences where someone may be held responsible.
3.6.2.2.1.2 General OTBTs
And not equal are the blind and the seeing, nor are those who
believe and do righteous deeds and the evildoer. Little do you
think.
(Quran: 40/58)
And it is He who placed for you the stars that you may be
guided by them through the darknesses of the land and sea.
We have detailed the signs for a people who know.
(Quran: 6/97)
-651-
And there is no creature on [or within] the earth or bird that
flies with its wings except [that they are] communities like
you. We have not neglected in the book a thing. Then unto
their Lord they will be gathered.
(Quran: 6/38)
There are certain ought to be truths (OTBT) that relate specifically
to the well-being of the agent. There are also general OTBTs that
relate to other agents and other beings and things. According to the
design of Allah, other beings are also His servants, and also should
live and serve certain purposes. Furthermore, there are values which
are important in respect to OTBT.
Some OTBTs relate to the objective goals according to the nature of
the subject: The person who smokes and becomes cancer, will suffer
because of cancer, his children will be orphan, his wife will be widow
earlier, and he will suffer because of these. The nature of the subject
requires to maximize the positive feelings, and to minimize negative
feelings.
On the other hand, as the entire universe is the creation of the same
God, to consider just one subject would be a shortsighted approach.
A person who commits a crime may enjoy sometimes the
consequences of this crime from an individual point of view.
However, there is also a reality of the whole nature of the creation of
God. And some of these are related to the act of an agent. Hence, the
agent must appropriately care for other things as well.
There may be things bigger than the agent’s personal OTBTs. The
agent may sacrifice himself for a good which is bigger than his own
benefit. However, the agent’s OTBT is also related to all other goods
that the agent considers good. For example, if the agent is in a
position to sacrifice his own life for his country, or for his religion,
or for his family, then these are considered by the agent bigger goods
than the agent’s own survival. In Islam, the highest truths of the
-652-
agent are in compliance with the guidance of Allah. If the agent dies
as a member of mafia in order to save his drug trader boss, this
obviously is not in harmony with the benefit of the society, or
generation, or religion.
Here, “Ought to be” relates to the mission of the human beings who
are assigned as the viceroys of Allah on earth to establish the good.
Things that “ought to be” in this respect are called in Islam as “The
Objectives of Islamic Law” (Maqasid-i Sharia’ah). These objectives
consist of enhancing 5 elements: Religion, life, offspring, wealth, and
intellect.
There are also ought to be truths that relate to the position of Allah:
Allah must be respected, thanked, obeyed… These are non-personal
truths since Allah does not need anything. These are also closely
related to the OTBT of the agent and divine values.
Also, there may be other things who are loosely related to the OTBT
of the agent. However, these also may be related to the OTBT of the
agent under certain circumstances.
There are values that Allah promotes, and there are qualifications
that Allah warns against as noted in the following verses:
Allah loves the good-doers.
(Quran: 2/195)
Surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He
loves those who purify themselves.
(Quran: 2/222)
Allah loves the righteous.
(Quran: 3/76)
-653-
Allah loves the patient137.
(Quran: 3/146)
Surely Allah loves those who trust [in Him].
(Quran: 3/159)
Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
(Quran: 5/42)
Surely Allah loves not the aggressors.
(Quran: 2/190)
Indeed, Allah does not love everyone treacherous and
ungrateful.
(Quran: 22/38)
Allah does not love the corrupters.
(Quran: 28/77)
Indeed, He does not love the arrogant.
(Quran: 16/23)
Allah does not love the evildoers.
(Quran: 3/57)
For each [religious following] is a direction toward which it
faces. So, race towards good deeds. Wherever you may be,
137
-654-
Or steadfast
Allah will bring you forth [for judgement] all together.
Indeed, Allah is over all things competent.
(Quran: 2/148)
An agent who knows suffering is not good, would need to defend the
fact that making someone suffer unjustly must be prevented. If he
says, “in case I am the victim, I defend this rule, but if I am not the
victim, I am indifferent; if I gain by making someone suffer unjustly,
then I am against that rule”, then he does not recognize objective
truth. However, if someone believes in his vulnerability or in the
eternal justice, he cannot defend such a statement.
There are such rules that extend beyond the agent, that may be
applicable for other things in specific or general situations, or realms.
For example, similar rules may be applicable in the world of animals,
or other planets. Good and evil exist, they are real, and not equal.
According to Islam, the agent should recognize this truth, and
general OTBT. These are connected to the OTBT of the agent. The
agent should behave in harmony with both.
The agent’s OTBT and general OTBTs generally overlap. For
example, if individuals act in harmony with moral principles, then
there will be a good and safe society which in turn will help the wellbeing of individuals.
However, in this world they do not always overlap. For example, it
is possible that a person who adopts justice may get little worldly
goods, while a person who uses unjust means may be much richer.
But on the judgment day and in the following life, the person who
adopts justice will be in better position than the other one who will
end up in the hell who will pay for his injustice, and suffer for his
rebellion against his Creator.
-655-
3.6.2.2.2 OTBT And the Nature of The Agent
Say: "Everyone acts according to his own disposition: But
your Lord knows best who it is that is best guided on the
Way."
(Quran: 17/84)
That is because Allah would not change a favor which He had
bestowed upon a people until they change what is within
themselves. And indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
(Quran: 8/53)
Many OTBTs relate to the being and nature of the agent. We might
have been created as beings who naturally lived under the sea. In this
situation for example some of our OTBTs would be different. Hence,
it is important to recognize our being. This will be explained further
in the following sections.
3.6.2.2.3 Ought Not to Be Truth
Those who disbelieve and repel from the path of GOD, He
nullifies their works.
And those who believe and do righteous deeds and believe in
what has been sent down upon Muhammad and it is the truth
from their Lord He will remove from them their misdeeds
and amend their condition.
That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood, and
those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. Thus,
does Allah present to the people their comparisons.
(Quran: 47/1-3)
-656-
There are also “ought not to be truths” of the agent, which are the
opposite of OTBTs. But this is essentially a matter of wording. For
example, we may say the OTBT of the agent is “not to burn alive”
instead of saying the “ought not to be truth” of the agent is “to burn
alive”.
3.6.2.2.4 Ought to Be Subjective State (OTBS)
And those who are constant, seeking the pleasure of their
Lord, and keep up prayer and spend (benevolently) out of
what We have given them secretly and openly and repel evil
with good; as for those, they shall have the (happy) issue of
the abode
(Quran: 13/22)
The agent may determine anything as his ought to be subjective state
(OTBS), even though that OTBS is the outcome of factors that are
not related to the essence and reality of the agent and even though
that OTBS is the outcome of factors external to the essence of the
agent.
For example, smoking originates generally as an addiction from the
lack of balance and bad functioning of the agent’s brain. It may also
be an outcome of bad reasoning or smoking friends. Hence, it is not
the outcome of his healthy, balanced, and pure state. It also harms
his well-being in the future. However, as smoking as an alternative
is different than non-smoking and the agent knows this and wills
smoking as opposed to not smoking, he exercises his FWP while
smoking. However, OTBS can also overlap with OTBT on many
occasions.
OTBS should be considered also as it relates to responsibility: If there
is difference of opinion as to the OTBS, then there may be some
responsibility in broad terms. For example, if the agent who is a mafia
member does not (will to) deliver the drug, he may be blamed and
-657-
expelled by other mafia members or mafia leader. However, as OTBS
is only subjective, this cannot be an ultimate basis for a really
deserved blame or praise.
All wills are not equal in terms of truth. According to Islam, there
are ultimately some truths. Using and selling drugs which harms the
intellect, is according to Islam not an OTBT, it is against the
objectives of the Shari’ah and of the Quran; it is an OTBT. Ultimately
it will be apparent for the drug dealers that selling drugs is an evil
act.
The direction of the pure essence of any human being as an agent
and the pure essence of the society indicates the evilness of selling
drugs. Hence, if some temporary benefits move an agent into a
direction of selling drugs, then the pure essence of this agent and his
optimal well-being has lost its direction and is dominated by external
influencers which pull toward less than the optimal. The essence of
the human being is enabled with a power to get closer to the truth.
By letting those which do not have such an ability govern him, the
agent is diverted from its pure, and inherent path. He has gone astray
from the path that he has to follow. He left the rope extended to him
to save him from falling from the cliff just to get and smell a small
flower in a small rock, and he has fallen from the cliff.
Hence, when we talk about responsibility, we do not talk about the
subjective responsibility that is based on OTBS.
OTBTs should not be generally considered on a line but on a road
with a certain width regarding our responsibility evaluations: It may
be discussed whether to marry a girl at 17. But it is clear that someone
cannot marry a person who is just 5 years old.
-658-
3.6.2.2.5 Optimality in OTBT
And for all are degrees from what they have done. And your
Lord is not unaware of what they do.
(Quran: 6/132)
The ones who have believed, emigrated and striven in the
cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives are greater in
rank in the sight of Allah. And it is those who are the
successful.
(Quran: 9/20)
There are degrees within OTBTs, all of them are not same. Some of
them are more important. These are the ones that will give the agent
the best and most permanent well-being and success according to
divine values, his design and conditions. Some OTBTs may be less
important: For example, the agent may have to drink water at a
certain time; yet, if he drinks later it will not be a big problem.
There is a nature of the agent, and some wills which are truly and
causally related to the results. Some results are objectively better and
more beneficial for the agent than other results.
If different OTBTs may produce different benefits for the agent, then
there is room for optimization in the composition of those OTBTs.
Let us take a simple example: The agent needs to drink something.
According to his circumstances, he can drink water or he can drink
orange juice. If he has already excessively taken the ingredients of the
orange juice other than its water, then drinking water will be the
OTBT. However, the agent may will to drink orange juice even
though there is no objective benefit in it because of some
physiological disorder or just to enjoy it for the moment. Here, note
that the OTBT is the objectively optimal one. That the agent prefers
orange juice does not mean that it is the OTBT. We assume here that
-659-
continuing to behave like that in total may cause health problems,
and at the end he may regret what he once preferred. Yet, we cannot
discard the subjective evaluation. Because the OTBT is expected to
give the agent the optimal subjective experience when all benefits and
harms are considered. The agent may have considered his ought to
be subjective state (OTBS) as his OTBT and he may be wrong. If he
did his best to use his FWP and other resources, then he may not be
responsible. But if he did not use them, then he will be responsible.
As the agent has FWP, he can will to will according to the OTBT or
against the OTBT.
OTBT exists almost within any will situations. The agent should get
closer to this. However, in practice, it is generally impossible to know
all data related to the optimal composition of OTBTs. Also, the agent
may not have enough processing time to determine it and act
accordingly. The agent is responsible only with a pragmatic approach
to get what is within his capacity. Hence, unless otherwise noted,
OTBT mentioned in this book means optimal OTBT within the
capacity of the agent.
The divergence from the optimal, may be due to conflicting partial,
low-level, or short-term goals of the agent. There may be choices in
favor of such goals instead of long term and bigger goals. Generally
wrong wills are due to the immediate and strong pressure of such
low-level goals. In such cases, there is a will which is the result of
wrong reasoning, wrong knowledge, and bad performance in using
the FWP.
3.6.2.2.6 The Truth
Say, "Who provides for you from the heavens and the earth?"
Say, "Allah. And indeed, we or you are either upon guidance
or in clear error."
-660-
(Quran: 34/24)
The Day they are thrust toward the fire of Hell with a
[violent] thrust, [its angels will say],
"This is the Fire which you used to deny.
Then is this magic, or do you not see?
[Enter to] burn therein; then be patient or impatient it is all
the same for you. You are only being recompensed [for] what
you used to do."
(Quran: 52/13-16)
So, they will admit their sin, so [it is] alienation for the
companions of the Blaze.
(Quran: 67/11)
The dictionary definition of truth is as follows: (1) The body of real
things, events, and facts. (2) The state of being the case. True is
defined as follows: Being in accordance with the actual state of
affairs.138
The distinction between truth and error is a very important concept
in the context of free will and responsibility. Even if we have FWP,
in case there is no true and false, it would be impossible to claim that
someone did or willed a praiseworthy or blameworthy act. It would
be impossible to say that someone benefited from his FWP.
If we do something good, it must be truly good. It must not be an
error, or erroneous good. If someone kept his promise, the promise
must be true as a promise. If it is nothing but only interactions of
particles, then it is not a promise. If someone claims to have said the
138
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
-661-
truth, believes that he is reducible to particles, then the truth he
claims to have said is an error, since the contents of what he said as
truth, do not exist as truth. Because, even if he said something about
certain particles, they would be just epiphenomenal things.
Truth in regards to OTBT relates to the truth value contained within
a statement, and the facts to which this truth value corresponds. As
the mental and physical are not fully distinct from each other, the
existence of truth that no human being stated, or truths that exist
only as statements are also possible. Allah is Obvious Truth, and that
which is created and sustained by Allah, that which exists within the
transcendent unitary knowledge of the All-Knower is truth.
Truth is a key concept in the Quran, and is an important element
thanks to which FWP139 may exist and act regarding the truth. Going
astray from the truth, is an important factor which causes negative
responsibility. And to be in harmony with it is an important element
for positive responsibility.
Truth is a core element of responsibility, a core reason to use FWP.
It produces the possibility of being wrong, the possibility of having
willed that which will be unwilled, regretted, the possibility of
inconsistency.
A person may will to smoke, may choose to be wrong. And in some
cases, at the end we cry that this had not to happen, which
demonstrates a truth besides the physical truth, because according to
physical there is no “had to be” or “had not to be”.
The truth may be a being, object, state, statement, or any other thing
which complies with the knowledge of God. The most relevant
139
As explained earlier, FWP requires at least that the agent is able to assess
that one alternative is not the other alternative. That one alternative is not the
other one is also an aspect of truth.
-662-
attributes of God in this context are All-Knower, Designer, Creator,
Sustainer, One, Obvious Truth. For example, if there is no dog in a
specific room according to the knowledge of God, then that there is
a dog in that room is false. If there is a dog in a specific room, then
a statement that there is no dog in that specific room is false. In the
latter case, a statement that there is a dog in a specific room is true.
Some elements of the agent are essentially changeable and
contingent. For example, human beings might have been created in
a form of fish, living under the water, dying outside if unaided, yet
they might have current mental powers. Some changes may also be
partial or temporal. For example, someone may develop a new allergy
to a certain food. Some such changes may be done by the agent
himself. OTBT of the agent also may depend on these changes, and
change accordingly.
Some structural and partial changes may be necessary for the overall
good of the agent. Sometimes, the partial aspects of the agent may
negate the big goals of the agent. For example, if there is a tumor
that caused the agent to be a pedophile, he may want it to be
removed.
The agent must know well his vulnerability and seek refuge in the
truth and hold fast to it at all times. If he finds a truth, this may be
a strong link to the OTBT and correct will.
If there was an event by which the agent constructively experienced
that the fire must be avoided, this pattern-like relationship will help
the agent to exercise his FWP productively.
The subject may make use of the patterns, relationships, and
attributes of things to find his way.
-663-
3.6.2.2.6.1 The Truth Exists
Guide us to the straight path.
The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor, not
of those who have evoked [Your] anger or of those who are
astray.
(Quran: 1/6-7)
Would one of you like to have a garden of palm trees and
grapevines underneath which rivers flow in which he has
from every fruit? But he is afflicted with old age and has weak
offspring, and it is hit by a whirlwind containing fire and is
burned. Thus, does Allah make clear to you [His] verses that
you might give thought.
(Quran: 2/266)
According to Islam, there is truth. The truth originates from the
“Manifest Truth” who is Allah. Our claims are not reducible to or
supervenient upon the spatiotemporal behavior of particles that exist
within our bodies and brains. Likewise, our goals, feelings, the evil
and the good are not epiphenomenal or reducible to those things
either.
There are fears and hopes. There are objective truths in different
layers. It is objectively true that there are subjective fears and hopes.
And that at the end there may be a fearful or happy situation is also
an objective truth. And the wills about an end depend on these. Even
if someone claims that there are no objective truths, this is necessarily
claimed as an objective truth: In other words, he means “the state of
affairs, independent of me, is so that there are no objective truths”.
If this is not claimed as an objective truth, then it would have been
uttered merely as a noise, not as a noteworthy claim.
-664-
As each of us experience joys and pains, we can say that in any case
there are objective truths in this respect.
Our consciousness or structure might be designed so as to be
indifferent to anything. But there is truth and a specific direction: For
example, our consciousness/ structure produce “unwilled states” as
pain under certain circumstances. Thus, there is “must be” or “good”
or “preferable” states and the opposites. Also, there are consistent
and inconsistent statements related to the agent. These constitute the
truth about our consciousness and structure regarding what is the
good situation which is consistent with them.
But what if consciousness itself is an illusion?
Consciousness is directly related to OTBT.
If we had no consciousness, and whatever happened to an agent was
like whatever happened to a rock, and if there was no agent who
would distinguish a rock from a human body, then could we talk
about any “ought to be” thing, any preference, any good, or any bad?
So, it is useful to revisit here the ontological status of consciousness
as it relates to the truth. Does it have any causal effect, or is it just
epiphenomenal? If it is just epiphenomenal, then, OTBT of the agent
would also be epiphenomenal since it is tightly connected to the
consciousness. But can consciousness be epiphenomenal and/or
supervenient upon the physical?
Obviously, it cannot. Let us suppose that we advanced our
technology so well that we found out that if objects/ particles are
structured a certain way, they cause the qualia of a consciousness
seeing the “red” color. Any time we form that structure with those
objects, this feeling happens repeatably and testably. Let us suppose
that we can access the feeling of that structure. Would this
demonstrate that consciousness is supervenient upon the physical?
-665-
No. In this case, we would have only seen a correlation between the
appearance of that qualia and the corresponding physical structure.
However, then where would the qualia be located, in which regions
of that structure? At what point in the change of the structure would
it appear? Why would it not be another color? What would the “red”
“thing” be? If the physical structure would have these qualifications,
then instead of the consciousness being supervenient upon the
physical, we would rather say that the physical is not distinct at all
from the consciousness, because, then we would have to recognize
and assign a transcendent unity to the physical, both as a qualia
receiver and as a qualia producer. The spatiotemporal would have a
nature of being a conscious receiver, and that would be inherently
qualified with qualia instead of being propagators of qualia-free
waves. In this situation we would be talking about a different nature
which is neither physical nor conscious as understood by the
physicalist. This shows us that consciousness is not epiphenomenal
or supervenient upon the physical/ spatiotemporal. This would also
show us that the spatiotemporal has unitary locality, transcendence,
and unity. Hence, consciousness does not appear out of nowhere or
out of nothingness. It has an origin which contains consciousness.
So, OTBT which is related to consciousness must also be like this, it
has an origin which can produce what “ought to be”. Such
fundamental, non-epiphemonenal aspects or alleged substances
cannot arise from nowhere. If they were not existent, then they could
not produce themselves. And something that does not have an
essence which encompasses consciousness cannot produce them.
Therefore, the basis of “ought to be” exists eternally. Hence, the truth
exists.
To recognize the truth within physicalism is impossible because there
is no transcendent and real understanding of things in a separated
framework of the spatiotemporal. The point-like things being
instantiated on point-like things, and all being exclusively no more
than such point-like interactions, there is no room for
-666-
“understanding” which requires integrating, transcending,
conceiving, and unifying multiple facts. Bumping one onto another
does not change its nature when more numerous and complex are
the numbers of bumping. Chinese room example is relevant in this
respect140.
In physicalism, there cannot be any noteworthy claims either, since
the agent is no more than a group of particles bumping one onto
another. However, recognizing the existence of truth within a
consistent system is important for the healthy functioning of free will.
Question 124.
Does Islam maintain the existence of truth based on any one of the
correspondence, coherence, or pragmatism theories?
Answer 124.
Correspondence and coherence theories are reminiscent of dualism.
Therefore, they raise some unnecessary problems as follows:
The correspondence theory, postulates that there are facts outside of
the mind, and the exclusive tools of the mind are true as long as they
correspond to those facts. This creates problems like the following:
What is the truth of negative statements, or counterfactual statements
such as “if you had come, you could have eaten the cake”?
Regarding coherence theory of truth, which postulates that the truth
depends on the coherence of the related propositions, the problems
are as follows: (1) There can be many coherent systems in the mind
that are not true. (2) If coherence is contained only within the
140
(Searle 1980)
-667-
mental, then how can we exit from the mental and check the external
world, since in any case, the external world is a reflection in the mind.
In Islam, although the mental and the physical have some different
aspects, they are yet the parts of the same system. Therefore, the
problems within the correspondence framework are easily addressed
as follows: The negative statements that do not exist have a truth
within the transcendence of the mental. When we check that there is
no moon in the car, or when we claim that there is a specific thing
in the car, and nothing else, according to certain definitions, these
claims form a whole with the physical; so, the mental and physical
complete each other. The transcendence of the mental, and the
physical are both real and they are not fundamentally separated.
Likewise, counterfactuals are also real and can be taken together with
the physical.
As to the coherence, there can be many mental conceptual systems
which are coherent within themselves yet false. But, as the external
and the mental constitute a whole, they can be checked by each other
whenever there is a sign of inconsistency. On the other hand, the
mental and its fundamental dynamics are not different than the
fundamentals of the external/ physical. They are combined and
constitute a unity. So, there is no need to differentiate fundamentally
between the mental and physical in this context. The connection
within each of them and between them requires a fundamental
unitary basis/ power. This is God.
Therefore, if they are both elements of the same system, then there
is no problem of deficiency when the allegedly deficient, incomplete,
or false parts/ aspects within each of them can be amended or
eliminated by the other.
Regarding the pragmatic approach which says in summary that
something is true if it is useful, we can say that it is incomplete.
-668-
Because it has ambiguous elements, since usefulness is not general
and impartial enough to define a broad concept as the truth. For
example, the same statement may be useful for some and harmful for
some, or may be useful at some time, and harmful at another time.
Relatives of a patient who is about to die may hide from him what
the doctors told, so as not to make him upset. Yet, in the last hour,
the patient may hate that they lied, because he could not do some
things that he could do had he known the truth.
Question 125.
Is not explaining truth by God moving the goal post? Is not it
explaining something with another thing which is unexplainable?
Answer 125.
Without God, whatever explanation we make, will require a meta
and God-like explanation in any case. Every relationship requires
unity. Unity and transcendence cannot be explained by anything else.
Explaining unity with multiplicity will be complicating it, without
any added value. Explaining things is making them simpler in a
consistent and reasonable way. For example, when we explain a
machine, we disclose the connections between a part and another, a
process and an outcome, so we display the unities. To explain it,
means to make it simpler by presenting each relationship which
embodies, connects, and causes many things and aspects. This way
the student understands, transcends the connections and goals. So, if
it does not work, he can determine what interrupts the unity in its
working; or when necessary, he can shorten some of its processes and
make it more efficient. Hence, the point-like interactions which look
separable, are in fact encompassed within a unity. Then how can this
unity be explained other than by recognizing this unity and
recognizing its being more than what we can contain, since our
-669-
unities are also contained within a unity? The unity and
transcendence of our consciousness is similar this.
Therefore, in any case, there will be a final explanation based on a
transcendent unity, which cannot be rendered any simpler in terms
of unity, which also encompasses all potentials and actuals.
Question 126.
Considering our deficiencies, if we claim that something is true then
there will be a contradiction in our claim. Furthermore, we do not
access all truth. So, if we say that we say the truth or know the truth,
then what we say will be based on our incomplete and maybe
inconsistent knowledge. So, how can we claim that something is true?
Answer 126.
We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within
themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth.
But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over
all things, a Witness?
(Quran: 41/53)
"Read your record. Sufficient is yourself against you this Day
as accountant."
(Quran: 17/14)
We are not outside of existence or reality. Our inner world is a part
and a model of the entire universe and has similar properties. In it
we can find unity, multiplicity, consistency, dependency... If they
happen within our inner world, then there is no reason for claiming
that it cannot be outside of us. We do not need to encompass the
entire existence to know some all-encompassing fundamentals. Some
-670-
things can be rationally generalized with consistent, unbiased, and
correct methods.
We have the power to transcend a premise and its opposite,
formulated so that one of them must be true.
Say, "Who provides for you from the heavens and the earth?"
Say, "Allah. And indeed, we or you are either upon guidance
or in clear error."
(Quran: 34/24)
Regarding such formulations, some group will be upon the truth,
some will be upon the error. What we need to do is to try to do our
best. Regarding all worldly matters we do like this. In big truths also
we need to behave like this. Allah tells us that the truth which is
relevant for us is findable thanks to the signs provided by Him. And
He tells us that He will let us know the results and the truth, as
underlined in the following verse:
So, vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah you will
all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein you
differ.
(Quran: 5/48)
As in a computer calculation we know that there is a truth beyond
us even if we cannot jump outside of our self/ mind/ control/ power.
We can make a computer do a very difficult calculation, that we may
do manually may be within days. Yet, this computer which is
different than us, does it. We can check whether it is real or not by
many means. So, we know for sure that we are not dreaming of a
computer, we know that it is true. Hence, truth and error are not
equal, and we can distinguish to some extent.
Yet, the computer also has limitations. We can observe the unity and
consistency within ourselves, and outside ourselves. We discover
-671-
certain relationships that are all-encompassing. We use them in our
daily life successfully, and they have proven themselves successful.
We use them consistently. We have to have a sound reason for not
using them in a specific context. Our deepest being cannot be
without that unity and consistency.
By using empirical evidence, our deepest features, and fundamental
laws of thought, we can conclude about the unitary source of all, as
explained in part 2.2.1.3. Then, based on this source, we can
understand all things in a systematic way.
Allah says the truth, and He guides to the [right] way.
(Quran: 33/4)
Allah knows that indeed they are liars
(Quran: 9/42)
So, rely upon Allah; indeed, you are upon the clear truth.
(Quran: 27/79)
3.6.2.2.6.2 The Importance and Superiority of Truth
Have you not considered how Allah presents an example,
[making] a good word like a good tree, whose root is firmly
fixed and its branches [high] in the sky?
It produces its fruit all the time, by permission of its Lord.
And Allah presents examples for the people that perhaps they
will be reminded.
And the example of a bad word is like a bad tree, uprooted
from the surface of the earth, not having any stability.
-672-
(Quran: 14/24-26)
True servants of the Compassionate (Allah) are those who
walk on the earth in humility and when the ignorant people
address them, they say: "Peace".
(Quran: 25/63)
Truth is dominant and superior. It adjusts things. If one changes the
regions of his brain so that two plus two equals three, then three will
mean four. And in the course of time that which corresponds to “two
plus two equals three” will be something else.
Truth has infinite checkpoints. It unites everything within its unity.
The common point of “existing” of all true and existing things will
clarify all that does not exist: If “an ordinary elephant cannot be
squeezed in an ordinary bottle”, and if someone claims the opposite,
either the first claim is true or the second. If the first is true, then we
need to discard the second. If the second is true, then we need to
redefine ordinary and other words in order to be able to reconstruct
a unitary structure which complies with our empirical observations.
Imagine you inspect your brain and a certain state of neurons/
atoms… correspond to 2+2=4. You rearrange them so that they
correspond to 2+2=3. Shall it stay like that? And will you keep
believing the latter? Or will they be restored to the previous state?
Why? And if other factors or laws push them to the previous
equation, why do these factors and laws comply with it? And why
would the particles/ waves/ states comply and return to the first state?
Note also that the need to explain truth and everything is contingent.
Some time later, there will arise inconsistencies within him, and he
will be pushed to conclude that 2+2=4.
-673-
The agent has inherent features/ criteria/ direction/ truth as in the
above example on 2+2=4, for the determination of the best
alternative.
If FWP through its navigation finds such a truth, then this truth will
help the agent to be free from the influences of non-coercive causes
that may lead to error.
3.6.2.2.6.3 The Criteria to Distinguish the Truth from The
Error
Say, "Who is Lord of the heavens and earth?" Say, "Allah."
Say, "Have you then taken besides Him allies not possessing
[even] for themselves any benefit or any harm?" Say, "Is the
blind equivalent to the seeing? Or is darkness equivalent to
light? Or have they attributed to Allah partners who created
like His creation so that the creation [of each] seemed similar
to them?" Say, "Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is
the One, the Prevailing."
(Quran: 13/16)
The agent needs to develop the criteria based upon the relevant truth
that is accessible to himself in order to find out the OTBT. The unity
and consistency of the existence based on the unity of the Creator is
important in trusting the truth.
The Quranic teaching gives us lots of details about these benchmarks.
Many of them are explained in this book as they relate to different
aspects of free will. Some of them are unity, empirical and logical
consistency, reasonability, completeness, objectivity, balance, being
free from the emotional influences of our society and ancestors.
-674-
3.6.2.2.6.4 Objective Versus Subjective Truth
But those who disbelieved their deeds are like a mirage in a
lowland which a thirsty one thinks is water until, when he
comes to it, he finds it is not aught but finds Allah before
Him, and He will pay him in full his due; and Allah is swift
in account.
(Quran: 24/39)
They will say, "Our Lord, You made us lifeless twice and gave
us life twice, and we have confessed our sins. So, is there to
an exit any way?"
(Quran: 40/11)
Indeed, those who have believed and done righteous deeds
they will have the Gardens of Paradise as a lodging,
Wherein they abide eternally. They will not desire from it any
transfer.
(Quran: 18/107-108)
And Allah will establish the truth by His words, even if the
criminals dislike it.
(Quran: 10/82)
According to the Quran, there is the truth according to the AllKnower Allah. Human beings also claim that they have some truths.
And obviously, in some contexts there are differentiations between
what Allah knows and what human beings know as truth. So, there
are also errors. Actually, regarding the claims where the law of non-
-675-
contradiction applies, one claim is true; and the opposing claim is
false, hence only subjectively true.141
So, according to Islam efforts to comply with the objective truth are
extremely important. In this respect, the FWP becomes very
important and necessary.
According to the Quran there are objectively good and bad states. To
be immersed into sea water for a certain fish is objectively good for
that fish, while to be immersed into sea water for an unaided human
being longer than a certain time is objectively bad for a human being
under normal conditions. The goodness and badness are in
accordance with the design of Allah: For example, there are angels
assigned to hell. Yet, this is no problem for them.
3.6.2.3 Key Role of OTBT Regarding Responsibility
And recite to them, [O Muhammad], the news of him to
whom we gave [knowledge of] Our signs, but he detached
himself from them; so, Satan pursued him, and he became of
the deviators.
And if We had willed, we could have elevated him thereby,
but he adhered [instead] to the earth and followed his low
desire. So, his example is like that of the dog: if you chase
him, he pants, or if you leave him, he [still] pants. That is the
example of the people who denied Our signs. So, relate the
stories that perhaps they will give thought.
(Quran: 7/175-176)
141
This sub-section deals with the types of effective truth claims that can
diverge. There may be some subjective truth as the preference of a person for
a certain color. This is a truth as a subjective preference, and it is not very
relevant to this section.
-676-
Do not, then, follow your low desires, lest you swerve from
justice: for if you distort [the truth], behold, God is indeed
aware of all that you do!
(Quran: 4/135)
[We said], "O David, indeed We have made you a successor
upon the earth, so judge between the people in truth and do
not follow [your own] low desire, as it will lead you astray
from the way of Allah. Indeed, those who go astray from the
way of Allah will have a severe punishment for having
forgotten the Day of Account.
(Quran: 38/26)
And as for him who fears to stand before his Lord and
restrains himself from low desires,
The Garden is surely the abode.
(Quran: 79/40-41)
A person is not praised or blamed ultimately for being free, but for
complying or not complying with optimal truth. This is the ultimate
thing. Freedom relates to the causal connection between the related
will and the agent. Freedom is more like a condition and a means,
while the content of the act and its connection to the OTBT is the
essence for praise or blame.
In the context of a will and existence of relevant truth, the agent is
either going astray from the truth or not. If he does not go astray,
then the OTBT requirement is satisfied.
If he is going astray, then, OTBT is either knowable/ achievable or
not.
a. If it is knowable/ achievable, then,
-677-
i. Either the person did not do his due diligence or
ii. He is assigning higher value to his subjective
truth. And he is assuming responsibility.
b. If it is unknowable/ inachievable, then he is not
responsible.
c. Or the cost of due diligence may be higher than expected
benefit from optimisation. This may be an alternative
cost. The alternative cost may be unknowable by the
subject. For example, a disbeliever may be disliking a
higher power, and even the fire may have little weight and
implication for him compared to complying with or
submitting to this power. If he changes his mind while in
hell then he admits he was wrong in the beginning as
well, the magnitude of the error, the magnitude of the
obviousness of the truth, and the potential to access this
truth are important elements to consider in this context.
For responsibility, it is necessary that the alternatives are defined or
definable in terms of truth and have different truth values: Suppose
that there are two boxes, and in one of them there is a good thing
and in the other a bad thing. If I chose between the two without
knowing what are inside them, did I exercise my free will? Assume I
have FWP to choose one of them. But knowing simply only that
there are different alternatives inside them, I am not having the object
of my will, I cannot relate each box with the OTBT.
Question 127.
Why would I be blamed or praised for my wills that originate from
my OTBT?
Answer 127.
Generally, OTBTs are the same for every human being. Freedom or
responsibility is not applicable for why one has specific OTBTs. They
-678-
are applicable in the context of responsibility because of the potential
deviations from them. The agent can exercise his FWP to stay on the
track of OTBT or deviate from it. If he uses the FWP to stay on the
track of OTBT, then he will be successful and praised; otherwise, he
will fail and be blamed. Hence, OTBT, its accessibility, and knowing
it are important for responsibility.
3.6.2.4 Key Role of OTBT As an Input of Free Will
And it is He who placed for you the stars that you may be
guided by them through the darknesses of the land and sea.
We have detailed the signs for a people who know.
(Quran: 6/97)
For those who recognize truth, FWP has real importance. Because
then there will be true and false. And for them a will may be
differentiated from an opposite will in a fundamental way.
The needs and main processes related to the OTBT to know, to be
aware of and/ or to be run by a serious and diligent agent would be
as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The vulnerability of the agent,
The relevant OTBT,
To search for relevant alternatives,
To compare and evaluate relevant alternatives,
To will the best alternative.
The truth of the agent requires the above by default. None of the
above is dubious and unknown; and all of them are practiced by the
normal agent in many situations in the daily life.
Unmindfulness, low effort, and omission in any of the above steps
will cause the influences of other and lower influencers be bigger
than and prevail over the free will power of the agent.
-679-
So, if the agent wants to bring any excuse based on the influencers,
he should take into account that the default and biggest influencers
should be his OTBTs. Hence, statements as “his father was violent
so he committed that crime” are not very rational. Because the closer
truth and influencer is his own self which does not like to be subject
to violence. This nearness and defaultness of the OTBT are what
make the crime evil.
Some conditions related to OTBT may cancel the evilness of an act
which under some conditions would be evil. Legitimate defense can
be given as an example to this.
3.6.2.4.1 Need for Continuous Focus on The Fundamental
OTBTs
This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who
guard (against evil).
(Quran: 2/2)
He has certainly succeeded who purifies himself.
(Quran: 87/14)
The default state for the agent is noticing his vulnerability and his
need for searching for the relevant truth, and behaving according to
it. If the agent overlooks his vulnerability and is arrogant, then this
is an active position against the default state. And if the agent did not
search for the OTBT and related alternatives, he would be responsible
for not searching these. Because, in any case searching these or not
searching these is also a choice. If the agent aborts his “operating
system”, then this is a bad choice.
For example, it may occur to a student to call his friend and to have
some chat. Without evaluating whether he should act upon this
thought, he may call him; or he may consider whether he should call
-680-
him. If he keeps his focus on his vulnerabilities, and does the second,
then he may find out for example that he has an exam next day, and
he has not studied enough. So, he can delay the call. If he calls him,
he may chat for a long time and may do something that he could
equally do later.
This discipline is important for success in all areas and many people
practice it. But there are layers about this. Do we exercise this
discipline at the most important layer of vulnerabilities?
According to Islam, our biggest vulnerability is against God. He
poses opportunities and threats to us which may be big and
permanent. There are obvious and permanent reminders about these
in the universe, and in His messages in this respect.
So, the initial and permanent focus for a human being should be,
“what is the best I can do to make a big difference that will be in
regards to God?”, “what should be the prime goal of my life so that
my God and I can be satisfied to the maximum extent”, “Am I upon
the biggest truth, or struggling toward it?” According to the Quran,
these should be the main initiators of our life strategies, and main
controls over the triggers that have the potential to divert us into less
than optimal trajectories. The following verse sets the main OTBTs:
Allah says, “This is the Day when the truthful will benefit
from their truthfulness. For them are gardens [in Paradise]
beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever,
Allah being pleased with them, and they with Him. That is
the great success.”
(Quran: 5/116-119)
-681-
Question 128.
Every agent is presented with some alternatives, and through his
nature and nurture, he makes a choice from among those limited
alternatives. So, why would the agent’s freedom among these
alternatives be relevant for responsibility? Why would the agent
search deeper within his nature and nurture a motivation for a
straight path? He could be using his will according to his parent’s
teachings, and the alternatives available in his society. How could he
see for his will an alternative journey beyond those things?
Answer 128.
So, when the Horn is blown, no relationship will there be
among them that Day, nor will they ask about one another.
(Quran: 23/101)
There are alternatives, nature, and nurture. But within the nature of
the agent, there are also the facts that he is vulnerable and that all
alternatives do not lead to the same amount of good. And also, that
there are things which can be understood to be obviously irrational
when we reason about them and when we consider the evidence.
If one fails in a will and if it is seen that he failed because he did not
access or use accessible knowledge then it is clear that it was the
agent’s fault. This may be the case for example if throughout his life
he spent more time thinking about which trousers to wear instead of
the big truths. Because it was true that more knowledge and better
reasoning would make him get better results and that the truth had
to have most influence. The main reasons for responsibility here, are
low effort and arrogance. As the agent’s vulnerability and OTBT
pushes him to accessing the accessible knowledge, he stops and
overrides this push by choosing to be arrogant instead of choosing to
be careful.
-682-
If those who went astray blamed their leaders there will be infinite
regress, because everybody can blame someone else. Yet, everybody
has some responsibility of his own. Everybody has to accept that he
is among the causes. It is likely that everybody is additionally a
previous non-coercive cause for some other people’s evil. OTBT
breaks the connection between the previous causes and the present
state of the agent, since they are not coercive causes; hence, it pushes
the agent to restart himself. The Quran motivates a human being not
to adopt the first alternative he meets. It shows that the predecessors
might be wrong:
When he said to his father and his people, “What are these
statues to which you are devoted?”
They said, “We found our fathers worshippers of them.”
He said, “You were certainly, you and your fathers, in
manifest error.”
(Quran: 21/52-54)
Everybody on many occasions sets aside what a specific nature or
nurture entails for another thing.
The Quran encourages the agent to transcend the alternatives. It
encourages him to take the initiative since he will bear the
consequences of his wills, not his fathers.
3.6.2.4.2 The Processes Between OTBT and FWP
The agent continually receives, scans, and transcends the inputs
related to the OTBT. The agent is alert about some threats against
his OTBT. The range where FWP power can move is also the range
marking responsibility boundaries. Upon scanning alternatives, the
agent may will to block some of them. So, to transcend different
alternatives is necessary in order to exercise FWP. Within these
-683-
alternatives known or knowable by the agent there are those which
are harmonious with the truth of the agent. These alternatives are in
different degrees of importance.
The essence of the agent by using its FWP, also determines tasks for
reasoning power, and some other related modules to consider all the
time what 'is' and what 'ought to be'. And the agent is able to see
alternatives that ought to be/ ought not to be, be indifferent to them,
prioritize them, and make changes. If the player structures his
strategy so as to focus on low-level targets then he will fail. The FWP,
reasoning power, and consciousness are also functional together
within the whole of the agent, to introspect and assess whether the
internal structure is consistent within itself and with the external
world. The FWP which determines a will, acts also as a task manager
upon the other powers of the agent. However, it is a very interactive
process since to act as a task manager, it also needs to get feedback
from the related powers. FWP in this context represents the freedom
of the essence to redirect any ongoing process by returning when
needed to the most important, instead of becoming the puppet of any
flow of processes.
FWP is also active in a reasoning process to determine the truth: For
example, let us suppose that the agent made a conclusion as in the
following syllogism: “(1) Pigeons are white (2) My bird is white (3)
My bird is a pigeon.” All parts of the syllogism are like wills. For
example, he might have concluded that pigeons are not always white
and use it in his reasoning. The reasoning process involves the use
of knowledge and FWP at its roots. At any stage, the agent either
accepts or rejects a premise. If he does this being supervenient upon
particles which bump one onto other deterministically or
indeterministically, then since the particles do not have any
knowledge and transcendence, we cannot say that he exercises any
freedom of will. Hence, there will be no reason to conclude that his
conclusions represent any transcendence, consistency, unity, and
-684-
correspondence with OTBT or any other truth. But if the agent has
a power to transcend colors and a default hypothesis that the pigeons
may be of different colors, and he has the sole capacity to reject the
proposal which came from a sub-module that the pigeons are white,
then he may have the potential to determine that the pigeons are not
always white. This determination corresponds to his “will” to use this
premise in his reasoning, hence, is related to his FWP. While the
agent can terminate an established premise thanks to his FWP, he
can also keep it stable against other influences which may terminate
an established premise, like particles bumping one onto other as
claimed by the physicalist.
If the essence sees at a certain time that the agent is structured badly,
like entailing 1+1=5, looking at the internal and external world, it can
see that the truth is in fact 1+1=2. Then by FWP and other powers,
it can rearrange its structure so that it corresponds to 1+1=2. The
agent, through his modules and confirmations, should notice that a
truth reigns over all things.
According to Islam, the agent should see the origin of the truth which
is based on unity, all-encompassing, and consistency; and he should
and seek refuge in that Obvious Truth, who is also aware of the agent.
There are general truths, like for example that the fire burns; earth
rotates; birds can fly… We learn these through our observations, and
we learn how to learn since our childhood through our thousands of
experiences. We can take into account the truth that we learnt. But
also, we have the capacity to overlook the truth; we can say cheating
is not good, and must not be done – especially when we experience
it against ourselves –. Yet we may be tempted to cheat and then cheat
while knowing that it is bad, must not be done.
-685-
3.6.2.4.3 Assessing the Alternatives’ Relevance to the
OTBT
Surely (as for) those whom the angels cause to die while they
are unjust to their souls, they shall say: In what state were
you? They shall say: We were weak in the earth. They shall
say: Was not Allah's earth spacious, so that you should have
migrated therein? So, these it is whose abode is hell, and it is
an evil resort,
(Quran: 4/97)
If an agent does not have any power about which set of alternatives
he will have, is not this a big limitation on free will? If the set of
alternatives contains only bad alternatives, then what will be the use
of the free will power? If there is no good and bad among the
alternatives, if the good is not among the alternatives, or if the bad is
not among the alternatives, then what may be the use of FWP? If the
starting point is bad, how can the agent find the right, how can he
be connected to the right, how can he have a fresh start? Why would
not the agent say “If I am misled, it is God who misled”, since He
has caused the conditions that misled the agent? There may be the
FWP, and the alternatives, but there may be no motivation,
encouragement, requirement to find the right path, no urge to use
the FWP power. Should not God direct him, or some others direct
and convince him onto the right path? Does not what we think come
from outside? How we can choose what we think? So, if we do not
have any power over what we think, how can the agent have any
freedom to determine what alternatives to assess? Hence, how can
we have any freedom?
The pagans invite you to the fire, but God invites you to
Paradise and forgiveness through His will.
(Quran: 2/221)
-686-
There are different triggers which inspire different thoughts. Yet,
they are inspirations, not generally coercive factors. Everyday and
maybe every moment, there are the triggers of optimal OTBT. The
problem is not that there are no triggers necessary to start an
evaluation about them. The problem is that some pathways are
suppressed, misinterpreted, and blocked.
If someone was given a precious item, he would ask where does it
come from, and how he should use it. Likewise, everyone is given
many precious things, such as eyes, ears, hearts, brains… Yet these
may be suppressed or misinterpreted as triggers in the context of
OTBT.
Furthermore, God gave messages through His messengers to clarify
further what needs to be done. But these may be overlooked as well.
By using our abilities that relate to FWP we can control them.
Normally, we should always be using our OTBTs as the starters and
filters for what we think. This requires a discipline, energy, and effort.
The easiest may be to be dragged in the current of the river instead
of resisting it. We often fail to make the assessment of what is the
most important.
Because of insufficient focus on this, lots of people determine low
level tools or means as the main target, and their starting point. For
example, a person may have determined “earning money” as his
starting point. He starts every day, every hour by having “earning
money” as his OTBT and main filter. Another person may have
determined vaguely and unseriously having any kind of fun as his
OTBT. However, there are always more alternatives since we have
FWP. The first person discards many things that the second might
think about, and vice versa.
-687-
Many of us do not deliberate on whether what we think about is
comprehensive enough. We do not consider that there are many
alternatives other than what just comes to our mind. Though there
are many other alternatives, we limit them to what comes from some
sub-modules of our minds. We process simply whatever occurs to us
through the environment, people, hormones, irrational triggers… Of
course, this does not mean that there are infinite alternatives. But it
is clear that many just focus on having a temporary good time instead
of searching the truth.
We lack sufficient awareness of the fact that we can make a difference
for us and for the existence. We do not recognize that God wanted
to use our service in some areas to give us degrees:
And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to serve
Me.
I do not want from them any provision, nor do I want them
to feed Me.
Indeed, it is Allah who is the Provider, the firm possessor of
strength.
(Quran: 51/56-58)
We lack sufficient awareness of the fact that truly there are better
potential states that we can actualize. So, we let ourselves to be driven
by whatever trivial triggers that may come to mind.
The starting point should be the optimal OTBTs from different
perspectives: What are they, how they can be used?
Through reasoning power and OTBT we can determine alternatives
and their priorities. We can think in accordance with these or
according to what comes to mind from anywhere. OTBT tells us the
alternatives that we have to think about but we are free to take them
-688-
into account or not. We have the information that we can be healthy
or not. And that to be healthy is preferable. And the time frame to
be healthy may be limited and its extension in time is a function of
certain variables. We can connect to these the information that
smoking is harmful for health. An announcement against smoking
may trigger such thinking. But also, we can keep alive our awareness
against smoking, even though some hormones push to shut down
this awareness and reduce its intensity.
Also, we can start to develop a lifestyle for better health on our own
by initially seeing and feeling our needs. We may have experienced
a respiratory problem or seen a friend have such a problem, which
may trigger such thinking. We are continuously subject to such
inputs from different angles, we can be indifferent to them, or we can
put them into good use.
If we keep obeying our low desires as emphasized in the following
verse, they will be blocks preventing us from perceiving the right
path:
Have you then considered him who takes his low desire for
his god, and Allah has made him err having knowledge and
has set a seal upon his ear and his heart and put a covering
upon his eye? Who can then guide him after Allah? Will you
not then be mindful?
(Quran: 45/23)
3.6.2.4.4 Assessing an Alternative in Respect to the OTBT
So, give good tidings to My servants,
Who listen to speech and follow the best of it.
-689-
Those are the ones Allah has guided, and those are people of
understanding.
(Quran: 39/17-18)
A will is cognitive in nature, and it is related to truth. For example,
one may feel the need to smoke. But this feeling as a feeling does not
have any truth value. The feeling cannot be right or wrong. However,
the decision to smoke of an intelligent being can be right or wrong.
Especially if there is sufficient accessible knowledge about its effects
to health.
For example, a truth is that fire makes suffer if touched. If there was
no truth, then it might be unjust to blame the agent if he jumped
into the fire because of his hormones, brain structure, or his past.
But the truth and together with it the OTBT frees the agent from
hormones and so on. So, everybody other than the abnormal tries to
not fall in a fire. But if a rational person jumps into the fire, then if
he blames his past or his hormones for being burnt, then he will not
be considered rational or honest. Because that knowledge and truth
override all those influences.
In order to exercise free will power, the agent must know that the
alternative A1 is different than the alternative A2. And it must be
true that A1 is different than A2. If A1 is exactly equal to A2, and if
they are the only alternatives for the agent, then in respect to this
specific situation, the agent does not have free will power that may
entail responsibility. If the agent is not able to distinguish that A1 is
different than A2, then again in respect to this specific situation, he
does not have free will. On the other hand, free will power is
exercisable upon false alternatives.
The agent discovers knowledge and adopts/ internalizes it by
learning, trial, and so on. There is some true knowledge that the
agent adopts, and some true knowledge that the agent does not
-690-
adopt. There is some false knowledge that the agent adopts, and some
false knowledge that he rejects.
True knowledge adds to the freedom of action of the agent whenever
it helps the agent evaluate the alternatives, what they are, how they
relate to the OTBT, and the ways to those alternatives correctly in
accordance with the OTBT of the agent. With FWP and seeing which
one works, we select the one that works and we are consistent.
And also, with our values we choose which one to adopt: An arrogant
person may have difficulty in adopting the guidance of God, and
bowing down in front of Him. But a person may discover that
arrogance is not a good attribute. There are some objective truth and
related knowledge that the agent may discover if he is good. Because,
if he is good, he should know what is good through the immediate
knowledge about what he wants to be done to him.
But if he admits being evil and he sees himself non-vulnerable, then,
he can reject the true knowledge knowingly:
As for Aad, they were arrogant upon the earth without right
and said, “Who is greater than us in strength?” Did they not
consider that Allah who created them was greater than them
in strength? But they were rejecting Our signs.
(Quran: 41/15)
(Muhammad), warn the people of the day when torment will
approach them and the unjust will say, "Lord, give us respite
for a little time so that we may answer your call and follow
the Messengers." (The answer to their prayer will be), "Did
you not swear before that you would never perish?”
(Quran: 14/44)
-691-
Some inherent knowledge exists for all. And some of this leads to
useful will if not instilled with corruption, mostly willfully. The
capacity to distinguish between the different alternatives in terms of
their different OTBT values and each alternative’s OTBT value is
necessary for responsibility. If the agent is able to distinguish the
alternatives but is objectively unable to distinguish which one has
higher OTBT value, then the agent does not have responsibility. To
have this distinction, there must be such knowledge in the first place.
There is struggle within the agent regarding the alternatives. Often
OTBTs do not exist without opposition. A person must be healthy
and not smoke. But if he is addicted, then he will feel a strong urge
to smoke. Different urges have different strengths and weaknesses.
Rational side of the agent must struggle with different tools. Under
certain circumstances, he can and should prevent himself from being
alone in the same room with a specific woman. But if he does not do
that, he may not be able to fight against his emotions. His inner side
may stop the struggle once in the same room with that woman, and
he can commit a sin.
But if the rational side knows this and prevents his self from being
exposed to certain urges, then the self may choose to not search
intensely for such urges under different circumstances. The
emotional side of the self is shortsighted. But once the target is in its
vicinity, the urge to commit a specific sin may become very strong.
So, the rational side of the agent should study its self, its
environment, and related relationships. The self also must be satisfied
with legitimate means. The person needs both parts. And the rational
side and the emotional side depend on each other.
Regarding some cases like whether to eat the white candy or blue
candy, there may be no implications of the OTBT.
-692-
OTBT as basic attributes of a human being is not generally
determined/ willed by the agent. For example, he does not determine
that he should not be in fire. There are inputs that an agent can
change with his FWP and there are inputs that he cannot. Therefore,
to assess the alternatives, he can consider the inputs that he can
change.
3.6.2.4.5 OTBT Is Not A Coercive Limitation on Our FWP.
No! But you love the immediate
And leave the Hereafter.
(Quran: 75/20-21)
“O my people, this worldly life is only [temporary]
enjoyment, and indeed, the Hereafter that is the home of
[permanent] settlement.”
(Quran: 40/39)
Ought to be subjective state (OTBS) and ought to be truth (OTBT)
do not always overlap. OTBT requires some effort. To determine his
OTBT, the agent needs to look beyond, to consider many data, to
engage many of his intellectual powers, sometimes to spend money,
to resist the low and short-term desires, and to make many other
efforts. But OTBS is almost always available with no effort. So, while
the OTBT is an input that “should be” taken as an input, OTBS is
almost always taken as an input. For example, an agent who smokes
may need to search for learning some implications of smoking
against health, may need to resist the urges to smoke regarding
OTBT. But after each dinner his hand automatically grabs his
cigarette and light it with no big effort.
-693-
Although the agent knows that there is the better and worse, and
although he is often reminded of the need to search for the better
that ought to be, it is up to him to search for it or not.
Fundamentally and by default, we will that which is better; and what
we will is that which is better for the moment. But what we will for
a moment, may entail what we do not will for many moments later;
yet, if the agent does not consider his vulnerability and the
implications of OTBT, then the OTBT will not be an input for the
FWP. Consequently, it will not have any impact on the FWP; and it
will not have any coercive effect.
On the other hand, the FWP determines whether OTBT will be taken
as an input or not. Therefore, OTBT does not have a coercive effect
upon the FWP.
Also, even though the agent sees OTBT and the negative implications
of not complying with the OTBT, he is able to will the opposite of
what it entails.
The definition of FWP does not contain an assessment of the
alternatives’ implications for the agent. Hence, the OTBT aspects of
an alternative do not necessarily affect the exercise of FWP.
If the agent wants to exercise his FWP based on his OTBT, then the
OTBT will have influence as an input as long as he keeps his
intention. Likewise, if he wants to exercise his FWP based on his
OTBS, then the relevant OTBS will influence as an input as long as
he keeps his intention.
Furthermore, if the agent exercises his will based on his OTBT, then
he will have a possibility of living more and having more potential to
exercise his FWP on many more situations. From this point of view,
OTBT enhances rather than limits the FWP even though it blocks
some of the alternatives.
-694-
Moreover, even though the OTBT causes the agent to not smoke at
a certain moment, this is not a net added limitation. Because, in any
case, the agent would be either in the region of smoking or not
smoking at that moment by the exercise of his pure FWP. OTBT
does not limit the exercise of FWP since it is exercised in any case,
since, FWP is not reduced to the deterministic or indeterministic
behavior of reducibility bases which coercively cause him to will a
certain will. OTBT as an input enables the exercise of the FWP in a
more beneficial way.
Additionally, OTBT issues from the very being of the agent. The
FWP serves the very being of the agent. The being of the agent is the
cause of FWP’s existence. The range of the FWP is produced by the
very being of the agent. Hence, the very being of the agent and his
OTBT cannot be considered as ultimate limitations on the FWP.
They are the causes of any positive range that the FWP may have.
The FWP will is a tool given to the agent, a part of his disposition,
so that he can reach his goals which should be in harmony with his
own being, nature, values, and truth.
The implications of the nature of the agent are important inputs that
will be processed by the FWP. Compared to a naturalist view, Islam
makes a clear distinction between the whole of the agent and his
parts. For a naturalist, the hormones, the neurons, and anything that
relates to the nature are the same with, and equal to the agent, not
less than the agent.
According to Islam, the agent has a reality and design of his own,
and therefore, not all parts of the agent serve necessarily the agent.
The agent must distinguish those that are essential and intrinsic to
the agent and those that should be distinguished from the reality of
the agent. For example, some hormones of the agent which are
considered as part of the nature of the agent may cause the agent to
be addicted to a substance. This may cause the agent will a harmful
-695-
act. According to naturalism it is difficult to make a fundamental
distinction between this and the reality of the agent. However, Islam
is not limited to the spatiotemporal, and according to Islam, there
are essential “ought to be” states specific to the agent. The agent is
not equal to his spatiotemporal body.
The FWP is at the service of the agent. It is to give the agent the
freedom from going into wrong paths that his sub-modules inspire.
So, using his FWP and OTBT as its input, he can change his wills or
the causes of his wills so that he can enhance his well-being and reach
his other goals.
3.6.2.5 Free Will Assisted with Truth
And We will have removed whatever is within their breasts
of resentment, [while] flowing beneath them are rivers. And
they will say, "Praise to Allah, who has guided us to this; and
we would never have been guided if Allah had not guided us.
Certainly, the messengers of our Lord had come with the
truth." And they will be called, "This is Paradise, which you
have been made to inherit for what you used to do."
(Quran: 7/43)
On that Day Allah will pay them the recompense of their
deeds in full, and they will know that Allah, He is the
Manifest Truth.
(Quran: 24/25)
And so those who were given knowledge may know that it is
the truth from your Lord and [therefore] believe in it, and
their hearts may be humble to Him. And indeed, is Allah the
Guide of those who have believed to a straight path.
-696-
(Quran: 22/54)
Allah as the source of all truth, and as the most obvious truth, is
called the Manifest Truth. Allah also is the Guide. The agent may
choose to ask for the guidance of the Guide and follow His guidance.
In order to be upon the OTBT, there is nothing wrong in asking for
help. Asking for help and benefiting from the help does not abort
freedom.
We as human beings have limited knowledge on some issues, though
we can also have some reliable knowledge on some issues. No matter
how smart we are, we have to make some decisions, we can make
errors, and there is no return to the past. So, for all of us there is the
risk of being very far from the optimal. However, the God who is the
Obvious Truth gives us the hope to overcome this difficulty to reach
the good by seeking refuge in Him:
And seek (Allah’s) help through patience and prayer, and
indeed, it is difficult except for the humble.
(Quran: 2/45)
It is legitimate to ask for help, and this supplication does not limit
overall freedom including the freedom of action. Because, it is the
agent who asks for help.
Someone who believes that there is no helper and who assumes that
he has no free will power can theoretically claim lack of
responsibility. But if in reality there is helper than he will have
rejected truth and the free handle which can give freedom from error.
The Obvious Truth, Allah, does not have the limitations of
knowledge that we have. So, the agent who has FWP, by choosing to
follow the guidance of the Obvious Truth can also overcome some
difficulties caused by his ignorance.
-697-
3.6.2.6 Ability to Know or Discover the Truth
Say, "Are those who know equal to those who do not know?"
Only the people who use reason take heed.
(Quran: 39/9)
Say, "Travel through the land; then observe how was the end
of the deniers."
(Quran: 6/11)
Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul.
And whoever errs only errs against it. And no bearer of
burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would
We punish until We sent a messenger.
(Quran: 17/15)
And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the
Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the
Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, "This
is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. And they speak
untruth about Allah while they know.
(Quran: 3/78)
The truth is knowable. For the truth that is not knowable, the agent
is not responsible. Also, some people knowingly behave against it.
They exercise their FWP against OTBT, and they suppress OTBT.
Hence, they do not activate the power to know and the knowledge
about OTBT. They follow their low desires.
For example, many people know that they are vulnerable, yet they
behave as if they are the biggest, self-sufficient, and permanent. Many
people know that making a person suffer unjustly is not a good act
-698-
as a rule, since they do not want to be tortured. Yet, knowing this,
they make people suffer unjustly. Instead of the truth, they choose to
follow their emotions. In this respect, they can also distort different
layers and priorities of truth.
Some even say, this is Allah who caused us be evil. Actually, this way
they contradict themselves: If they comply with what Allah did, why
would they blame Allah and say that Allah should not have caused
them to be evil. If they did not comply and have the capacity to not
comply with Allah and therefore with the evil that Allah caused them,
why did they do that evil? In other words, if they have the power to
go against God, why did not they oppose God; if they do not have
the power to go against Allah, then why can they and do they blame
Allah?
Actually, the reason they blame Allah, is because of the potential or
actual existence of punishment. They just present an excuse because
of punishment. Otherwise, they would not put forth such
contradictory claims.
3.6.2.7 Immiscibility of Truth
Do not mix truth with falsehood and do not deliberately hide
the truth.
(Quran: 2/42)
And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not
become divided.
(Quran: 3/103)
Those who have gone astray will not harm you when you
have been guided.
(Quran: 5/105)
-699-
Do they await except its result? The Day its result comes
those who had ignored it before will say, “The messengers of
our Lord had come with the truth, so are there [now] any
intercessors to intercede for us or could we be sent back to
do other than we used to do?” They will have lost themselves,
and lost from them is what they used to invent.
(Quran: 7/53)
Say: The Truth has come, and falsehood neither originates,
nor reproduces.
(Quran: 34/49)
The truth is immiscible ultimately. There may be lots of influences,
but the truth, hence the OTBT can generally be distinguishable from
the ones who lead to error. It is like an information written on a piece
of paper which wavers in the wind. The atoms of the paper are
influenced because of the wind. However, the writing on it is not
influenced at all.
The true word is not influenced coercively by non-truth; if one holds
fast to the truth, then he or she will be free from misleading
influences. The truth and contents of optimal OTBT are like maps
of truth containing good wills which are the connections between the
agent and the ultimate success. How to bypass the things that may
prevent success is also within this map. The existence of such a map
is important.
Truth is like a strong rope or handle that FWP can find out together
with knowledge and reason, and thanks to which the agent will not
be badly influenced by random waves.
With being an agent there is initial guide and truth. Vulnerability is
an important element of this guidance which is immiscible. Our daily
experiences, reasoning, and realism enable us to perceive and be
-700-
certain of our vulnerability. Arrogance and stopping some reasoning
processes prevent us from perceiving our vulnerability.
Every rational and sane human being has the feeling and
understanding of hope and fear. Other influences can never replace
or overcome this guidance if the agent does not leave it. The default
and the initial is this guidance. Neurons will not lead to entering fire.
If they lead and the agent approves, he cannot blame others for being
misled.
3.6.2.8 OTBT And Consciousness
Beautified for those who disbelieve is the life of this world,
and they ridicule those who believe. But those who fear Allah
are above them on the Day of Resurrection. And Allah gives
provision to whom He wills without account.
(Quran: 2/212)
It is unlikely that what our consciousness finds enjoyable overlaps
always with the truth. Sometimes it may be hard to find out the truth,
sometimes, it may be hard to comply with it even if it is clear,
sometimes both difficulties may be present.
Sometimes we see a road that leads to both truth and short-term
pleasure, sometimes, we see two opposite roads, and that we can only
go through one of them.
The Quran teaches that most of relevant truth is obvious and
accessible. And it teaches us that we always have to give priority to
finding the truth and being in harmony with it even if we have to
give up short term pleasures.
-701-
3.6.3 Reason
Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the
alternation of the night and the day are signs for people who
use reason.
Those who remember Allah standing and sitting and lying on
their sides and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the
earth: Our Lord! You have not created this in vain! Glory be
to You; save us then from the chastisement of the fire.
(Quran: 3/190-191)
The likeness of this world's life is only as water which We
send down from the cloud, then the herbage of the earth of
which men and cattle eat grows luxuriantly thereby, until
when the earth puts on its golden raiment and it becomes
garnished, and its people think that they have power over it,
Our command comes to it, by night or by day, so We render
it as reaped seed; produce, as though it had not been in
existence yesterday; thus do We make clear the
communications for a people who reflect.
(Quran: 10/24)
Those who guard against evil, when a visitation from the devil
afflicts them, they become mindful, then lo! they see.
But as for their brethren142, they shall continue them in error;
and afterwards they shall not preserve themselves therefrom.
(Quran: 7/201-202)
142
of the devils
-702-
But when they are told, "Follow what God has bestowed from
on high," some answer, "Nay, we shall follow [only] that
which we found our forefathers believing in and doing." Even
though their forefathers did not use their reason at all, and
were devoid of all guidance?
(Quran: 2/170)
Dictionary definition of reason is as follows: The power of
comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational
ways: Intelligence143
Like the reality of truth and error, the human being and his reasoning
power are also real. Reasoning power given to us by Allah based on
the fundamental unity, enables us to transcend things, make
comparisons, produce concepts and names, use chains of thought,
reach conclusions, evaluate whether something is true or false.
Reason is an input for FWP.
3.6.3.1 Reasoning Power Is Irreducible.
In the previous part about the truth, we saw that regarding the goals
of the agent, the agent is not reducible to his parts, his neurons,
atoms, electrons, and so on. There are distinctly and truly good
things and evil things for the agent.
The same applies for the agent’s reasoning power. The reasoning
power of the agent is not reducible to the parts of the agent, it is not
reducible to neurons, atoms, electrons, and so on though they are
interacted with by the reasoning power.
All things are grounded in and sustained by a unity wherein
inconsistent things cannot fit permanently. As there is truth, there is
143
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
-703-
also error. Truth and error are not epiphenomenal upon the
spatiotemporal.
The spatiotemporal which allegedly behaves in point-like
instantiations, cannot transcend multiple things within unity. The
spatiotemporal represented as such, cannot encompass that which is
and that which is not, that which is true and that which is false. This
spatiotemporal cannot assess what must be and what must not be. It
cannot transcend here and there, now and later within a unity.
We are not like computers unless they are assumed to have
transcendent powers like us.
If reasoning power is reducible to the behavior of particles, then
concepts, premises, conclusions, statements, what is true, what is
false, operators, are not but at most epiphenomenal things. In other
words, if they are reducible, they will be recognized as things which
are like illusions, which have no intrinsic effects, causal power, and
real implications. In this case, we will not be able to say any statement
with truth value.
Chinese room example of John Searle144 illustrates this issue very
well145:
In this example, there is a person in a room who speaks neither
Chinese nor English. From one window a Chinese person gives him
papers on which Chinese words are written. Outside, at another
window, there is someone who speaks English. The Chinese and
English persons can only communicate through the papers delivered
through the intermediary person in the Chinese room. The
intermediary person who receives Chinese words from the Chinese
144
145
(Searle 1980)
I changed the example slightly to make the point more understandable in
our context.
-704-
person, must give corresponding words from among the papers that
contain English words he has in the room. He also has a
correspondence table which shows which shapes (words) in Chinese
correspond to which shapes (words) in English. The person in the
room enables both persons understand what the other one meant.
However, he understood nothing at all from the communication.
If for example the Chinese said and proved that there will be a big
tsunami and that everybody must run away, the English person
would run away thanks to the intermediary person. However, the
intermediary person who saved the English-speaking person, would
have understood nothing and would be drowned even though he
saved the English-speaking person.
A computer is assumed to work like this intermediary person: Inputs
go in the computer, pass through certain lines, and produce
corresponding signals. It can translate any language without
understanding any word. Because not even a letter is transcended in
a unity by any part of the computer; yet, it can output the letters in
the order that human beings want.
According to a physicalist approach, we cannot be more than that
intermediary person: Signals come from the outer world, and
corresponding effects are returned through the chains of atoms,
electrons. There is supposed to be a point-like instantiation for each
signal which comes to a separate point in our brain where there is
no transcendent unification. In fact, even point by point instantiation
would also require some transcendence since point also is defined by
many transcendent things including space.
And in this chain, there would be no agent, the concepts, the
premises, and so on since none of them are instantiated within unity.
-705-
The reasoning module can use its own FWP and return conclusions
to the agent, or it can be driven by the overall FWP of the agent.
In part 3.5.6.4.2 there are detailed explanations about why
reductionism is false.
3.6.3.2 Reason Has the Unity as The Common Background
with The Existence.
In the universe we observe a unity: Until the free-falling rock reaches
the ground, the earth rotates a certain angle. Ceteris paribus, this is
a strong pattern. Our reasoning power, has such a fundamental unity
that has a wide coverage, and that is similar to the unity behind the
working of the universe. Many things in the universe also have such
a unity.
The unity of Allah covers all of His powers, and He creates and
sustains things; this unitary power produces the implications of units,
speed, size, and so on. We have been given it in a limited way and as
sustained by Allah. In our logic we have been authorized to use it to
a certain extent. Thanks to the unity aspect of our reasoning we
detect the unities within the existence, and can distinguish that which
does not display this unity and consistency.
We can transcend things. So, as we transcend the small and the big
in unity, we can make a comparison to a certain extent. As we can
transcend the true and its opposite, we can think about “what is” and
“what is not”. This is a power given and sustained by God.
Thanks to the unitary essence of reasoning power, we notice the
connections between the actually accessed truths, their consequences,
possible alternatives, their consequences, and their truth values.
-706-
3.6.3.3 Relationship Between Consciousness, Reason, Will
Power, And Responsibility
Reasoning power is not inferior to will power. They constitute a
whole whenever they are present for an agent.
We can choose to use our reasoning power or not to use it. The
Quran encourages us to use our reason.
There may be changes in the outcomes of reasoning processes. If an
agent honestly finds out some problem in his reasoning, or
knowledge that he had, then he can change his reasoning and the
related will. Even if he has committed a bad thing, then he can repent
sincerely. Allah may forgive this. However, sometimes, in the
beginning he foresees the consequence and risks, and accepts the
consequence by also assuming responsibility. For example, a criminal
may kill an innocent person in order to rob something, knowing that
it is a crime and that he would not want the same thing done to
himself. However, when he gets caught, he may say “it was because
of my past, so I am not evil”. But if his past is effective, and he is not
effective, what is that which tries to prevent a punishment? What is
the superiority of the past compared to the present in terms of
effectiveness? And, although he knew at the time of the crime that
his past was bad and his past might be causing a bad event, he did
not try to prevent himself from committing a crime by applying to
relevant institutions or experts; or tell the law enforcement that he
could commit a crime. Actually, he would also try to prevent
someone with a similar background who would try to do the same to
him.
The agent determines his goal, it may be good or bad. The reasoning
power can be used for good and bad ends.
-707-
And man supplicates for evil as he supplicates for good, and
man is ever hasty.
(Quran: 17/11)
The reasoning power may show the consequences of a behavior. A
person will be held responsible if he has the ability to reason. An
objective lack of reasoning power removes responsibility in Islam.
FWP, consciousness, and reasoning are some of the top-level powers
of the agent:
FIGURE-8:INDIRECT INFLUENCE OF THE WILL’S RESULTS ON THE FWP
As illustrated above, the results of wills are fed in consciousness,
hence, in the essence which is the runner of FWP. The results of
FWP is often fed back as input into FWP after the FWP is exercised.
This process is an important cause of the independence of the FWP
from the OTBT to a certain extent, which enables the essence to
expose how good or evil he is without being forced by the very
personal implications of his will. Because of this, he also develops
himself in a direction freely. Had the result been immediately present
at the time of the will and act, the agent could not expose himself
freely. The following verse underlines this point:
And let not those who disbelieve ever think that We extend
their time it is better for them. We only extend it for them so
that they may increase in sin, and for them is a humiliating
punishment.
-708-
(Quran: 3/178)
FWP interacts with the reasoning power. However, to use it or not
or to what extent to use it depends on the FWP. When FWP
interacts, it is the essence which runs it. Reasoning power has also
its own FWP which runs on its own when necessary. FWP can use
and command the reasoning power to evaluate the alternatives and
their relationships. FWP can ask the memory to bring some
information. So, we cannot say that the reasoning drives FWP. FWP
is not inferior to reasoning. Neither consciousness, nor reasoning
power precontrol the FWP.
As the outcomes of the behavior of FWP returns to FWP as input
and after some time elapses, we see people who spend knowingly
more that their budgets, people who take risks independent of their
implications…
3.6.4 The Very Being of The Agent
He is the One GOD; the Creator, the Initiator, the Designer.
To Him belong the most beautiful names. Glorifying Him is
everything in the heavens and the earth. He is the Almighty,
Most Wise.
(Quran: 59/24)
The very being of the agent is one of the key ontological facts that
should be processed by the FWP. Under his very being, his essence,
powers, unity, transcendence, abilities, needs, weaknesses are
important inputs for the will power. His very being includes the
physical, biological, mental, form, substance, feelings, preferences,
values, sensual and other constituents of the agent.
The OTBT of the agent is founded on the structure and very being
of the agent.
These may influence the will power or may be influenced by it.
-709-
There may be a tension between the OTBT of the agent and the goals
of different elements of the very being of the agent. Since, these
elements are part of the nature of the agent, there is a big risk of
being misguided by them. Therefore, the agent must keep in mind
that the elements of his structure do not equal his whole. He must
keep in mind that these elements are essentially short-sighted, and it
is his whole and distinct power which is responsible for doing a good
management of the elements of his structure. In this sense, the
recommendation for the agent to clean his self, requires that the
agent does not enter under the sovereignty of the elements of his very
being.
Therefore, he must prevent negative changes, and he must work to
create positive changes.
The following statement in the Quran requires that the agent changes
himself:
Allah does not guide the unjust people.
(Quran: 61/7)
If the agent does not do the changes that he can, then Allah will not
help for the changes that he cannot.
And as explained in the following verse, one has to purify himself
from law desires:
He has certainly succeeded who purifies himself.
(Quran: 87/14)
3.6.4.1 Enhancing the General Structure and OTBT
The agent should find out about his structure; accordingly, must
determine his OTBT; and then accordingly reform his structure.
-710-
As explained in the Quran, the agent can change the elements of his
structure:
Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until
they change what is in themselves.
(Quran: 13/11)
3.6.4.2 Controlling Emotions and Low Desires
In this life, no matter how well one changes himself, there will always
be the threat from emotions and low desires to push the agent toward
the evil. This is an expected result of the agent being a sovereign
whole, and as such containing other wholes and sovereign wholes
which are his parts. Therefore, the agent must always hold fast to the
truth, and be alert against the low desires. These efforts will help
improve the structure of the agent, and make him stronger if he is
upon the right path.
The muslim is commanded by Allah to recite the following
supplication in every daily prayer as long as he is alive:
Guide us in the right path.
(Quran: 1/6)
Those on the wrong path do not work on their structures, and do
not hold fast to the OTBT. Hence, their FWP may go between OTBT
and low desires as if this agent is indifferent between the two. Then
naturally there will be lots of inconsistencies: He will do big errors
in this world that he will regret in the hereafter. This is not because
of a difficulty to discern these errors, but because of insufficient
analysis of himself, and because of this, letting the low desires to have
sovereignty over the FWP and reason.
-711-
3.6.5 Alternatives
Blessed is He who has revealed the criteria (for discerning
truth from falsehood) to His servant so that he could warn
mankind.
(Quran: 25/1)
An alternative is defined as “one of two or more things, courses, or
propositions to be chosen”146.
In order to exercise the will power, there must be alternatives. And
these alternatives must be distinct.
So, a mere freedom to determine an alternative as a choice is not
even possible before alternatives are known. While they are not
defined the will will not be free. As a requirement of mere free will
power, the agent must know at least the difference between the
alternatives. A blind person who is not aided does not have free will
in willing red or white candy in front of him unless they are explained
to him. Or a person who does not know right and left does not have
freedom of will in willing the candy to the right or left.
The agent must determine the implications of the alternatives in
respect to his OTBT so that he may be successful.
The alternatives may be ready or may be developed by the agent. The
agent may be indifferent about the alternatives, or he may have
criteria for preference.
FWP is an actual power to will a set of alternative(s) instead of other
set(s) of alternative(s) within a range of at least more than one
possible sets of alternatives. It corresponds to a power distinctly
owned by the agent to make a change in the universe that is
146
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
-712-
observable by that agent and sometimes by other agents. Constraints
may diminish the number of alternatives.
If the agent is just a unipotential cause, if there is just one possibility,
then he cannot have will power.
Every theoretical possibility may be the object of the will power.
Someone may have a will to go to the edge of the spacetime. He may
even start to do some necessary work. He may be wrong in his
considerations. Yet, this may be a valid will.
The agent assigns values to alternatives. He may assign subjective
values, or try to assign objective or optimal values. Nobody other
than him is normally entitled to assign these values. He owns his
power. But at the end, he will see the consequences.
Implications related to the chosen alternative will be explained in
part 3.7.
3.6.6 Knowledge About Other Things
The people who truly reverence GOD are those who are
knowledgeable.
(Quran: 35/28)
Follow not the way of those who do not know.
(Quran: 10/89)
And when it is said to them, "Come to what Allah has
revealed and to the Messenger," they say, "Sufficient for us is
that upon which we found our fathers." Even though their
fathers knew nothing, nor were they guided?
-713-
O you who have believed, upon you is [responsibility for]
yourselves. Those who have gone astray will not harm you
when you have been guided. To Allah is you return all
together; then He will inform you of what you used to do.
(Quran: 5/104-105)
Knowledge is very similar to conscious experience. Some of the
dictionary definitions of knowledge are: (1) “the fact or condition of
being aware of something”, (2) “the fact or condition of knowing
something with familiarity gained through experience or
association”, (3) “the circumstance or condition of apprehending
truth or fact through reasoning”147.
Hence, many things said in the context of consciousness apply to
knowledge as well as input. Especially its relationship to its being
encompassed within the unity of the agent is very important
regarding the free will power.
The 3rd definition above shows that it is also closely related to
reasoning.
In this respect, all of the other inputs above have aspects relate to
knowledge, because in any case, they become an element of
knowledge processes.
Because of the importance of knowledge, it is also useful to manage
knowledge as a value distinctly from its contents.
According to the Quran, knowledge is a very special asset of human
beings. In the beginning verses of the Quran, Allah underlines the
superiority of human beings upon the angels in their knowledge
potential:
147
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
-714-
And He taught Adam the names all of them. Then He
showed them to the angels and said, "Inform Me of the names
of these, if you are truthful."
They said, "Exalted are You; we have no knowledge except
what You have taught us. Indeed, it is You who is the
Knowing, the Wise."
He said, "O Adam, inform them of their names." And when
he had informed them of their names, He said, "Did I not tell
you that I know the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the
earth? And I know what you reveal and what you have
concealed."
(Quran: 2/31-33)
Hence, seeking knowledge and engaging in related intellectual
activities is of top importance in Islam as long as it is done within
appropriate prioritization: A supplication of the Prophet Muhammad
(PBUH) was “O Allah, I seek refuge in You from knowledge which
does not benefit, from a heart that does not entertain the fear (of
Allah), from a soul that is not satisfied, and the supplication that is
not answered”.148 Also, ignorance is not a desirable thing as the
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) supplicates to Allah: “My Lord, forgive
me my errors and my ignorance, forgive excess in my actions and
those things You know better than me.”149
Knowledge power is transcendent. A computer does not know
anything if it does not transcend within its unity concepts, qualia,
relationships… If an image’s parts are separately instantiated in
infinitesimally small parts of brain, then there would be no awareness
148
149
(Saheeh-i-Muslim .)
(Bukhari .)
-715-
and knowledge about the whole image. For details, see the about
Chinese room example in part 3.6.3.1.
The above things about knowledge are also applicable to
“information” to a great extent, since, information cannot be formed
either without unity.
Regarding responsibility, ability to know is as important as
knowledge. An agent is required to search for knowledge if he does
not have it, as clarified in the above verses and in the following verse:
So, ask the people of the message if you do not know.
(Quran: 16/43)
Regarding free will, knowledge is important in that without it, it will
not be possible to comprehend and assess the alternatives. However,
to know the evilness of something does not mean that the person will
necessarily refrain from doing or willing that evil. The knowledge
about the alternatives or means does not determine deterministically
what the agent will will.
That the knowledge is accessible to the agent is sufficient to consider
the agent responsible in terms of knowledge, as shown in the
following verse:
Those who have gone before them belied, yet they did not
reach a tenth of what We gave them.
(Quran: 34/45)
There is some necessary knowledge, such as the knowledge to
distinguish one alternative from another, and one means from
another. And some further minimum necessary knowledge has been
given by default to most of agents: At least the agent knows that he
is vulnerable and that he must reach something that he will be
satisfied with, objectively or subjectively.
-716-
Some knowledge accessible by the agent may be an actual or potential
input, including things that relate to the agent's structure, other
properties, constituents, and powers.
If the agent did not have a minimum transcendent knowledge
encompassing more than one point then he could not have free will
power. This power is non-separable from the free will power. For
success, it is necessary that the knowledge resources are well accessed
and efficiently used.
3.7 Outputs Related to the Free Will Power
In this section we will examine the outputs of the will power, which
are closely related to the definition of FWP.
3.7.1 The Alternative That Will Be Actualized
The ones who prefer the worldly life over the hereafter and
avert [people] from the way of Allah, seeking to make it
(seem) deviant. Those are in extreme error.
(Quran: 14/3)
Alternatives as inputs of FWP are explained in part 3.6.5. In this
section, we will examine an alternative as an output of exercising the
FWP and its implications.
Alternatives may have different features. They and their results may
be knowable, unknowable, their results may be foreseeable.
unforseeable, acceptable, unacceptable, achievable, inachievable,
compliant or non-compliant with the OTBT of the agent.
In the following diagram, note the difference between the general
alternatives and knowable alternatives:
-717-
All Alternatives
Knowable alternatives (KA)
Known alternatives
Wilfully achievable
alternatives (WAA)
OTBT compliant alternatives (OCA)
FIGURE-9: ACCESSIBILITY AND ACHIEVABILITY OF
THE KNOWLEDGE AND MEANS RELATED TO FWP AND
RESPONSIBILITY
The OTBT is essentially objective, though sometimes unknown
before or from a partial point of view. A smoking person might not
know some centuries ago whether he would be cancer because of
smoking. However, as of today, he knows that there is such a risk.
Some decades ago, the risk might be totally unknown and
unknowable. So, in those times, if he had cancer because of smoking,
he might not be blamed for being cancer. However, if he keeps
smoking while the risk is known, then he is responsible for being
cancer. And such truth and knowledge are essentially immiscible
with biological urges; for example, if he has a strong urge so smoke,
his knowledge about this risk is not deleted.
-718-
Knowability here means the knowability about some indicators and
accessibility of information through reasonable effort. For example,
a person who just slightly coughed from time to time in old times
because of smoking, and who could have learnt by travelling to a far
country that smoking is seriously harmful may not be considered as
responsible if he has health problems related to smoking, because the
harms of smoking is rather unknowable for him.
In the above diagram the intersection of willfully achievable
alternatives (WAA), and OTBT compliant alternatives (OCA) gives
us the set of alternatives which if achieved will entail a positive
responsibility and praise for the agent. Note that in this figure and
its explanations, the achievable alternatives and the willable
alternatives are considered under WAA.
The region within WAA but outside OCA are wills that require a
negative responsibility, and blame for the agent. In this region, the
agent also generally produces a contradiction: He regrets what he
willed upon seeing the bigger negative consequences if this happens.
In worldly terms, this may not happen always though. For example,
a smoker may die in an accident and does not see the big negative
health problems of smoking. So, his subjective positive feelings he
got from smoking may be bigger.
Yet, according to Islam, all evil deeds (wasting in the case of
smoking) and all good deeds will produce their consequences for the
respective agent. So, everybody will regret the evil they did on the
judgment day and afterwards.
So, besides this regret, the second inconsistency is in having done an
evil act.
-719-
3.7.2 Action by The Agent
And they said, "No matter what sign you bring us with which
to bewitch us, we will not be believers in you."
So, We sent upon them the flood and locusts and lice and
frogs and blood as distinct signs, but they were arrogant and
were a criminal people.
(Quran: 7/132-133)
The will power causes a change in the universe. The first change will
be in the agent. This may be a decision, an act of the agent. For
example, the agent who willed to apply for a job may send the
application letter and his CV, take the necessary exams and
interviews.
Then there is change in terms of expected end results. We will see
them in the following parts.
3.7.3 Change in The Universe
When the agent performs an act as the result of his will, then there
are certain changes in the universe. For example, the company who
receives the job application invites the applicant to an exam or an
interview. In this example, act of the agent and of the hiring company
interact as a consequence of the will of the agent.
3.7.4 Mental Outputs
The FWP which works together with reasoning power produces
outputs such as ought to be states: FWP is also a driver of reasoning
power in its navigation through its resources and when it reaches
certain conclusions. So, the FWP may settle upon a conclusion that
his parents must be given priority. So, even though it does not
-720-
become a specific will related to a specific action, it is a determination
of FWP and reasoning power as an ought to be subjective state.
3.7.5 Results as Achieved and Not Achieved Goals
The changes produced as the outcome of the act of the agent are
expected to end up in certain changes that have been targeted by the
agent. These may have happened or not.
On the other hand, seldom do the targeted results contain only
positive elements; alternatives are generally packages which contain
positive and negative aspects for an agent. The agent considers all of
them for each alternative.
Also, willing and acting for one alternative, entails mostly giving up
other alternatives’ positive implications. So, one package of an
alternative contains the negative value of these missed alternatives as
alternative cost.
Sometimes, the alternatives contain inherent risks. For example, the
agent may get the job or not, although he had many exams and
interviews. In the case of a crime, a criminal must see the enforceable
sanctions as part of the alternative of committing that crime, because
of which, if caught, he cannot blame the judge for condemning him.
Because he willed the package of that crime, if he does not want the
sanction aspect afterwards, he will be contradicting himself. Another
example of risks is that the initial conditions related to an alternative
may change during or after the willing process.
3.7.6 Responsibility, Confirmation,
Punishment, and Reward
Praise,
Regret,
Indeed, they are to be questioned.
(Quran: 37/24)
-721-
And from [part of] the night, pray with it as additional
[worship] for you; it is expected that your Lord will resurrect
you to a praised station.
(Quran: 17/79)
And I swear by the soul which is (self-)blaming.
(Quran: 75/2)
So, We took him and his soldiers and cast them into the sea,
and he was blameworthy.
(Quran: 51/40)
In this part and generally in this book, the word responsibility is used
to mean retrospective responsibility.
The word “responsible” originates from “respondere”, “to respond”
related to accountability for one’s actions. It also has meanings as
reliable, trustworthy, answerable. It also relates to the meaning of
obligation.150
Dictionary definitions of responsible are as follows: (1) Liable to be
called on to answer, (2) Liable to be called to account as the primary
cause, motive, or agent, (3) Liable to legal review or in case of fault
to penalties, (4) Able to answer for one’s conduct and obligations.151
Responsibility or accountability means that the responsible being has
a causal role and that upon an act, a trust, contract or promise, he
can have a duty, or he may be subject to praise, blame, reward, and
punishment.
150
151
(Etymonline.com 2020)
(Merriam-Webster.com 2020)
-722-
Free will and responsibility are different things. And responsibility
necessitates free will; free will does not necessarily entail
responsibility.
Responsibility is not a matter of free will alone. Force majeur, selfdefense, and other issues may remove responsibility. However, we
will not get into the action side and other additional details of these
since we take responsibility as much as it relates to free will.
In the earlier parts, physicalism, reductionism, determinism, and
indeterminism are explained in detail. All of those remove the
possibility of responsibility. If agents are reduced to spatiotemporal
relationships and entities which can have no truth, goodness, evilness
value and no sovereign freedom, we cannot talk of responsibility. All
of these isms are also non-compliant with the Islamic system, since
in Islam truth and sovereignty of God and of the agents have a
fundamental place. As those isms are explained in detail, they will
not be given a separate place in this section.
If the agent is unable to discover the consequences of his will, or
compare them, then there is no responsibility.
When the will produces a result, the agent may be ultimately
confirming and happy about it. Or, he may regret it. He may blame
himself for not heading for another alternative. He may be
inconsistent in having willed that alternative in the beginning, and
in regretting his will at the end. He may think at the end that he
underestimated the negatives and overestimated the positives of the
willed alternative. Or he may think that he did a good job in assessing
the alternatives throughout the willing process.
He may continue the following steps of the will, or he may want to
cancel or change it. The agent may find out that his boss is a very
-723-
harsh person, so, he may regret that he has not opted for the other
position in another company.
On the other hand, people may applaud him, praise him, or blame
him as well. Or if it is a crime, he may be punished; if it is a
rewardable will and act, he may be rewarded. They may be indifferent
about the will as well. All these relate to the responsibility.
Most of these relate essentially to the agent himself though they look
targeted to the related will or act. The will or the act are not aware
of the blame, praise, or reward. It is the agent who did them, and it
is the agent who is responsible for them, and it is the agent who can
be aware of the praises, blames, rewards, and punishments. It is the
agent who is expected to continue such successes, and end such
failures if applicable. It is the agent who has the necessary
consciousness, reasoning power, knowledge power, performance
power that can process the praises and blames. Hence, recognizing
the distinctness and irreducibility of the agent is very important
regarding responsibility.
3.7.6.1 Consistency of
Responsibility
The
Agent
About
the
The main thing that influences will is the expected result as long as
the agent can foresee it or its probability. And the expected result is
only owned by the agent. If he wills something in the beginning and
does not will it at the end after executing it, then there is nothing
which will give priority to the final will in terms of responsibility,
other than exceptions such as forgiveness. Actualized will will have
priority.
The will after the result fully or partially occurs is another will if the
agent changes his will. Because, otherwise the will will be having
-724-
contradictory contents which would make the first stage will
inconsistent with its continuation.
At a later stage the will will be different in its constituents: For
example, a person may have bought an option, and then there was a
development which made the exercise of the option impossible. Thus
he cannot say I changed my mind so I do not want to pay the price
of the option, or I am willing to buy it now for less. When the will
has been finalized, then the consequences become within the region
of responsibility of the subject.
Likewise, if a disbeliever while entering hell regrets what he did, this
will be invalid. Because as of then, if he goes back or in front of the
hell if he behaves well it is not possible to know whether he sincerely
regretted what he did and whether he became grateful and just, or he
just wants to protect himself from the punishment.
3.7.6.2 Ownership of Will and Responsibility
Ownership of the will is an important issue regarding responsibility.
If a person who willingly jumps from the 3rd floor says “it was not
my will since determinism is true, so I ask for compensation for my
bones being broken”, he will be inconsistent. Because he willed to
jump, and he asserts that his bones being broken is not something
good, and he had not to jump in the first place. If the outcome is
foreseeable, there is inconsistency. And the ability to foresee the
outcome removes the possibility to blame something else, and
requires the agent own his will.
The agent takes into account the negative aspects, positive aspects,
and risks. If there is something that objectively he cannot see, then
he is not responsible about it. Regarding the things he sees, he is
responsible. So, he buys these things altogether. As he is only
responsible for what he can foresee, if he changes his mind in the
-725-
hereafter about his wills whose implications were foreseeable, this
constitutes a dishonesty. Because all is equal except for his having
received the benefits, and the remaining things being the negatives
and risks.
Let us go through an example to see some inconsistencies of a
criminal blaming others for a crime:
A criminal plans before the crime, what he will say if he is caught,
as: “If someone blames me at that time, then I will say that it was
because of my parents and neurons!”. This means that he is doing
that evil because he thinks that his neurons and his past with his
parents are coercive causes. If he recognizes the evil at the time of
the crime, he has to find a way to balance and remove the effects of
those causes. Or at the time of the crime, he should be making sure
that nobody will say in the future that it is a bad behavior. But to
make sure that this is not a bad behavior, he must know that if that
act is done against him, he would not be opposing to it. And he
knows that he would oppose to it if he is the victim, if it is a bad
behavior. Therefore, this is a matter of objectivity, balance, and
consistency. If he opposes the punishment, then he is inconsistent
within himself, since the judges are not responsible either as they also
have parents and neurons.
Again, if that crime is bad and he blames someone else for it and
other than that he cannot reject its evilness, why does he commit it
in the first place, and blame someone else? If he had the power to
recognize that it is a bad act, then why did he commit it at the
beginning? If he did not have the power to recognize that it is a bad
act, then why would he consider the punishment or the blame of the
blamer as a bad act? And if it is a bad act, why would he reject
responsibility in that future?
-726-
In responsibility the results become actual. And the wills are finalized
and the agent may show reactions either by confirming earlier will
or negating it. Under normal conditions, if he says that he regrets his
will which he might not will, then either he admits his error and
blames himself; or he contradicts himself. If the laws of nature caused
him to choose that will, then it is likely that the laws cause him to
blame something else.
It is like a tradesman who took the delivery of the goods he bought,
and when it is his turn to pay, he refuses to pay. It is like asking a
thief while he is stealing something do you want to be a thief, he says
no I want to be a good person, and he continues his stealing action.
The reason he changes his mind is that he already got the benefits,
and he wants to avoid the negative consequences.
Pharaoh seems to have regretted his previous will just before dying
according to the following verses:
And We took the Children of Israel across the sea, and
Pharaoh and his soldiers pursued them in tyranny and enmity
until, when drowning overtook him, he said, "I believe that
there is no deity except that in whom the Children of Israel
believe, and I am of the Muslims."
“Now? And you had disobeyed [Him] before and were of the
corrupters?”
(Quran: 10/90-91)
The change in the will of Pharaoh was not due to a change in his
personality; it changed just because of the conditions he was in. He
was dishonest, inconsistent. He had given priority to his low desires
rather than his reasoning.
-727-
After the will process has been completed and results have been
produced, benefits reaped, and costs occurred his words have little
value.
In a normal situation where blame/praise has been finalized, can the
agent say based on coercive causes152: I did not have free will power
when I committed that crime? If he says this, then he means that at
that instant he has free will, he means that he has the ability to “do
or will otherwise”. If he has free will at that instant, then what is the
cause of the absence of free will at the time of the blamed or praised
will?
And whoever desires the reward of this world We will give
him thereof; and whoever desires the reward of the Hereafter
We will give him thereof. And we will reward the thankful.
(Quran: 3/145)
Someone who gives priority to his low desires instead of his
reasoning power, and fires the gun toward himself cannot blame
anything else for getting injured. Likewise, if he injures another
person, he cannot blame anything else because of the negative results
against himself. Each alternative is a package containing also its
potential implications. When someone gets a benefit for having
willed and done something, he does not donate them in the names
of their ancestors or for their neurons; he owns them.
In cases where the result of a certain act is determined, the person
acts as in a contract; that is, he willed the result at the beginning, he
is assumed to be ready to accept the probable consequences of his
will.
152
In this section, it is assumed that the situations that may remove
responsibility are not present.
-728-
The judgment about the goodness or evilness of a specific act, must
be made on a typical act, not based on the agent who committed the
crime nor according to who the victim is. As in the example of the
following verse, the biased opinions constitute no reason to shift the
blame between the sides of a behavior:
When you voice an opinion, be just, even though it be
[against] one near of kin.
(Quran: 6/152)
3.7.6.3 Hereafter
O mankind! If you should be in doubt about the
Resurrection, then [consider that] indeed, We created you
from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot,
and then from a lump of flesh, formed and unformed that
We may show you. And We settle in the wombs whom We
will for a specified term, then We bring you out as a child,
and then [We develop you] that you may reach your [time
of] maturity. And among you is he who is taken in [early]
death, and among you is he who is returned to the most
decrepit [old] age so that he knows, after [once having]
knowledge, nothing. And you see the earth barren, but when
We send down upon it rain, it quivers and swells and grows
[something] of every beautiful kind.
(Quran: 22/5)
These are the verses of Allah. We recite them to you, [O
Muhammad], in truth; and Allah wants no injustice to the
worlds.
(Quran: 3/108)
-729-
The hereafter is relevant for many important questions: Will our
beings and identities end when we die? Were we created for a reason?
Will the good and evil end up in the same way? Is the universe for
nothing? Is there any price for what we have been given in this
world? Is this world an opportunity to grow? Shall we disappear
forever without having learnt the truth, the error, and with so many
questions? Are all our efforts just to end up in being dust?
According to Islam, this life is not in vain. There is no reason that
Allah gives just temporary favors. Allah will establish the truth, and
inform us about it and its implications.
O mankind, your injustice is only against yourselves, [being
merely] the enjoyment of worldly life. Then to Us is your
return, and We will inform you of what you used to do.
(Quran: 10/23)
Shall We make the righteous as the criminal?
(Quran: 38/28)
We live in this world, and we get a qualification about how close we
get to the truth, how sincere we are, what values we adopt. And
accordingly, on the judgment day we are judged and transferred to
the place that we deserve.
We shall own what we did. To this end, we have been given the free
will power. We can use it however we want. We can do best things;
we can do worst evils.
Allah is not unjust to them, but they are unjust to themselves.
(Quran: 3/117)
Verily, We showed him the way, whether he be grateful or
ungrateful.
-730-
(Quran: 76/3)
In this world, we can keep ourselves pure or we can bury ourselves
under corruption. And we end up as a whole which is good or which
is evil or in between.
And for all are degrees from what they have done. And your
Lord is not unaware of what they do.
(Quran: 6/132)
At one point, Allah seals what we are. So, our unity has a degree. We
are changeable, but the matter will not be open forever.
Question 129.
Is not it unfair that the disbeliever servant who is informed about
God and hereafter faces the hell as an eternal punishment?
Answer 129.
There are 7 points to be emphasized regarding this question:
Firstly, our behaviors are important in being indicators about who
we are, but the very important thing is that they are indicators about
our attributes and how we would behave if we had been given bigger
responsibility. Our positions in the hereafter are determined based
on who we are, at what degree we are.
Acts in this limited world are in any case small by themselves, they
are temporary. But they are indicators about how we would behave
if our free will power was not constrained.
The actual pains caused by a criminal do not reflect the entire degree
of the evilness of that criminal. It is possible that the criminal is so
evil that if he could live forever, he would do evil forever under some
conditions. Maybe he is ready to make suffer the innocent, good,
defenseless people forever if this crime benefits him. That he keeps
-731-
doing this evil all his actual life although he is rich, is an objective
indicator of the level of evilness in him. Allah knows his degree of
evilness and he will judge accordingly and justly.
A person who had billions of dollars and tried yet to suck unjustly
the single loaf of the poor, or who tries to declare war to them cannot
be said to stop his evil if he had hundreds of trillions of dollars.
The following verse explains this issue properly:
For this reason, We made it a law for the children of Israel
that the killing of a person for reasons other than legal
retaliation or for stopping corruption in the land is as great a
sin as murdering all of mankind. However, to save a life
would be as great a virtue as to save all of mankind. Our
Messengers had come to them with clear authoritative
evidence but many of them thereafter started doing wrong in
the land.
(Quran: 5/32)
In worldly punishments also we consider the identity and continuity
of the criminal. Otherwise, what would be the reason to produce a
consequence to an act that has happened in the past?
Secondly, the problem with the foundations of evil people is more
dramatic: Some people lack the basis of goodness. They do not
believe in responsibility, they do not believe in truth, they do not
believe in reason, they do not believe in efficiency of consciousness
and reality of pain and joy… How can a person who rejects the
conscious truthful basis of existence have a sound foundation about
being good? How can a person who believes that he and other beings
are not but particles bumping one onto another have a sound
connection to the truth? Can a person who rejects a precise
responsibility be careful about the justice? Can a person who is not
thankful to his Creator who deserves the biggest of thanks be
-732-
thankful to another one? Can a person who is arrogant against his
Creator be humble to the creation?
Some like the above may claim to have their foundations for morals
and responsibility; however, according to the knowledge of the
author, there is no convincing sound basis for morals and
responsibility without the hereafter and God.
The third point is about the nature of the punishment of God: There
are in our context two types of punishments: (1) There may be
punishments declared in the beginning, and (2) punishments not
declared in the beginning.
If the punishment is declared in the beginning, then the act of the
criminal becomes a decision which belongs fully to the criminal, and
whose consequences must be fully owned by the criminal. He takes
the risks of his act. It is like entering a road marked as “dangerous”,
to reach a nice recreational area. The implications are all set and
declared, and the will to enter it, or to be careful on it or not, belongs
entirely to the agent who enters that road. That the government did
not build a nice road to every nice recreational area will not make
the government responsible in case an accident happens on one of
the dangerous roads where there are many warning signs.
But, if the punishment is decided after an act whose consequences
were not declared previously has been done, then the punisher enters
the scene as another willer. Depending on the specific conditions of
the situation, the one who commits the act may be responsible or
not.
They do not wait aught but that the angels should come to
them or that the commandment of your Lord should come to
pass. Thus, did those before them; and Allah was not unjust
to them, but they were unjust to themselves.
-733-
(Quran: 16/33)
In the case of God, He exactly clarifies what will of the agent will
lead to what personal consequences for the agent. Hence, the
judgment of the servant about the fairness or unfairness of the God
is irrelevant.
If a person chooses to smoke knowing its harms, or without
searching its implications though he can search and find, it is also a
similar choice. If he becomes cancer, he cannot say “why did Allah
create tobacco?”, “He should not have created it, so He is responsible
for my being cancer.” Allah creates it for many reasons that may be
relevant to the agent or irrelevant to the agent. Allah’s will is in a
totally different context.
Indeed, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to avert
[people] from the way of Allah. So, they will spend it; then it
will be for them a [source of] regret; then they will be
overcome. And those who have disbelieved unto Hell they
will be gathered.
That Allah might separate the impure from the good, and put
the impure, some of it upon the other, and pile it up together,
then cast it into hell; these it is that are the losers.
(Quran: 8/36-37)
And they shall say: Had we but listened or pondered, we
should not have been among the inmates of the burning fire.
Thus, they confessed their sins. Woe to the dwellers of Hell.
(Quran: 67/10-11)
So, they were able to conceive of what else could have happened.
They are of the same nature then, and in the present life.
-734-
The fourth point is this: If there is an eternal reward for a person
who meets certain requirements, this is like an eternal punishment
for the one who missed that reward by not meeting those possible
requirements. Likewise, to be protected from the hell for eternity is
another favor that the good person received. So, the possibility of a
kind of eternal punishment is indispensable in any case, if there is
eternal reward for the good.
The fifth point is that if a disbeliever claims that Allah will have
behaved unjustly against him in the hereafter, this means that he
accepts the existence of the just, unjust, evil, good. If there is just,
unjust, good and evil which are not epiphenomenal and which can
transcend the material, then he will be inconsistent in a detailed
analysis in himself. Because, he indirectly accepts something that
transcends the material that should lead to the recognition of God.
If he claims injustice or evil as merely epiphenomenal things, then
blaming God on these, will be just a claim with no substance.
The sixth point is this: A person transcends time, extends in his time
span with no limit. So, any limited pain or any punishment within
infinity would be zero. But the person would be evil in infinity.
Hence a temporary punishment within infinity would be relatively
like zero punishment. We perceive the eternal punishment within
our temporary life, so we perceive it as too much. We have to
conceive it within an eternal life.
The seventh point is that Allah gives the guarantee that there will be
no injustice on the judgment day. We may be limited in evaluating
the level of an evil act; for example, if we have not been victim of a
specific crime which causes lots of pain due to specific conditions, we
will never evaluate it sufficiently. But Allah evaluates perfectly.
-735-
3.7.7 Changes Following the Results
But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and
perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah
Knows, while you know not.
(Quran: 2/216)
The wills may produce expected results, and also unexpected results.
A person may have got the job. Having the job produces some
expected goals, and unforseeable further results. The person may be
receiving a good salary as he has foreseen. He may meet in his new
office the woman who will be his wife with whom he will have a
happy life. Or, he may have an accident while going to work which
may cause him to be disabled all his life.
Therefore, whatever a muslim wills, he must do a good job in
considering all of its aspects, yet, he should ask God for making it a
will that produces good results.
3.8 Means and Influencers in The Formation of Free Will
Say, "It is He who has produced you and made for you
hearing and vision and hearts; little are you grateful."
(Quran: 67/23)
And it is He who placed for you the stars that you may be
guided by them through the darknesses of the land and sea.
We have detailed the signs for a people who know.
(Quran: 6/97)
And those who disbelieve say, “We will never believe in this
Quran nor in that before it.” But if you could see when the
wrongdoers are made to stand before their Lord, refuting each
-736-
other's words. Those who were oppressed will say to those
who were arrogant, “If not for you, we would have been
believers.”
Those who were arrogant will say to those who were
oppressed, “Did we avert you from guidance after it had come
to you? Rather, you were criminals.”
Those who were oppressed will say to those who were
arrogant, “Rather, [it was your] conspiracy of night and day
when you were ordering us to disbelieve in Allah and
attribute to Him equals.” But they will [all] confide regret
when they see the punishment; and We will put shackles on
the necks of those who disbelieved. Will they be recompensed
except for what they used to do?
(Quran: 34/31-33)
“And you were not covering yourselves, lest your hearing
testify against you or your sight or your skins, but you
assumed that Allah does not know much of what you do.
And that was your assumption which you assumed about
your Lord. It has brought you to ruin, and you have become
among the losers.”
(Quran: 41/22-23)
Under the part about “inputs of free will”, we examined some inputs
which are directly related to the agent. These are generally processed
as inputs by the agent. In this part, we will examine the influencers
that can be effective in the formation of wills. Note that there is no
sharp distinction between the inputs and the influencers that we will
examine here: For example, the very being, structure, design of the
agent can be processed as an input by the agent; but also it may
influence the will of the agent even if the agent does not take it as an
-737-
input within his will process. Therefore, an input can be an
influencer, or both an input and an influencer regarding a will; also,
an influencer may be an input, or both an influencer and an input
regarding a will.
There are also other influencers such as memory, observing power,
guidance of God. In this section, we will examine some of these
influencers.
An obese person may feel strongly for food but may take for example
surgical or psychological steps to lose weight. A person who feels
happy because of others being tortured may take necessary steps to
find the cause and be cured by removing that cause.
Past causes or other causes are not necessarily coercive causes. If a
bad behavior is caused by an agent’s past, as long as the badness of
that behavior is knowable, that cause will be only a non-coercive
influencer except if there is an impossibility in terms of action which
prevents the removal of the effect of that cause. Because the accessible
OTBT is immiscible with error, and if the cause may be removed, the
agent should remove it or its effects.
As long as there is an influencer the free will rejecter may trace the
will back to the influencer. But is it a non-coercive influencer or a
coercive cause? The answer will be found with the following question:
If the agent is informed about the influencer and its influence can he
negate it? If objectively he cannot negate it, then it is a coercive cause.
If he can objectively negate it at least with some accessible help, then
it is a non-coercive influencer. The influencers may affect the free
will power as coercive causes as well.
3.8.1 Allah
And whoever Allah guides for him there is no misleader. Is
not Allah Exalted in Might and Owner of Retribution?
-738-
(Quran: 39/37)
And seek help through patience and prayer, and indeed, it is
difficult except for the humbly submissive [to Allah]
(Quran: 2/45)
Indeed, Allah [alone] has knowledge of the Hour and sends
down the rain and knows what is in the wombs. And no soul
perceives what it will earn tomorrow, and no soul perceives
in what land it will die. Indeed, Allah is Knower and Aware.
(Quran: 31/34)
We created the human from a liquid mixture, from two
parents, in order to test him. Thus, we made him a hearer
and a seer.
Indeed, We guided him to the way, be he grateful or be he
ungrateful.
(Quran: 76/2-3)
Allah is the biggest influencer. He set up the framework we are in.
He gave us the alternatives. He gave us a mission of being either on
the side of the rectitude or on the side of error. He showed us the
paths and where they lead. He may be pleased with us, reward us,
and save us from punishment; or He may punish us, be displeased
with us, and block us from reaching His favors. He enabled us to
own our wills and their results, however, all of them are with His
permission. He may help us and he may block us from truth in
accordance with our behaviors, values, and our basic approach. He
wants us to be good. Yet, He does not force us to be good.
-739-
3.8.1.1 No Act Finalizes Without the Approval of Allah.
No disaster strikes except by permission of Allah. And
whoever believes in Allah He will guide his heart. And Allah
is Knowing of all things.
(Quran: 64/11)
And if Allah should touch you with adversity, there is no
remover of it except Him. And if He touches you with good
then He is over all things competent.
And He is the subjugator over His servants. And He is the
Wise, the Aware.
(Quran: 6/17-18)
We produce wills so as to put them into action and then receive some
results. The relationship between the action and result is based
generally on some patterns that Allah has created. These patterns are
generally contingent. Without those patterns, our wills would not
have much use. Hence, Allah is active on our wills from this angle as
well.
Allah sustains the universe, our energy, our consciousness… On the
other hand, Allah says the last words over what happens finally. But
the agent is given freedom to will anything. What happens ultimately
is with the approval of Allah.
According to Islam, our wills are very important in that even if they
and our related acts do not produce the results we expect, we can
reach positive consequences if it is a good will. If it is a bad will and
we put it into action but cannot produce the related result, we can
-740-
again be responsible. As the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said:
“Actions are according to intentions.”153
On the other hand, the following verse implies the distinct
importance of wills:
To Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is
in the earth. Whether you show what is within yourselves or
conceal it, Allah will bring you to account for it. Then He will
forgive whom He wills and punish whom He wills, and Allah
is over all things competent.
(Quran: 2/284)
So, in cases where the action or result does not overlap with the will,
there may be responsibility or forgiveness by Allah. Yet, note that
this responsibility relates mostly to the hereafter or sanctions
executed by Allah. Because, in worldly terms we are not able to have
access to such details. An important implication of the verse is that
we must be careful about keeping our inner world clean. We must
try to produce good wills and stop any bad wills from growing within
us. Even if we cannot do the act or the result in parallel with our will,
there is responsibility about good or evil wills even if they have not
been acted upon.
The following verses emphasize also the purity of our inner world:
On the Day of Judgment when neither wealth nor children
will be of any benefit
But only one who comes to Allah with a pure heart.
(Quran: 26/88-89)
153
(Bukhari .)
-741-
Question 130.
Does God ultimately learn things on us like we learn through tests
in laboratories?
Answer 130.
God is All-Knower. He knows whatever happened and whatever that
will happen. He also knows all potential wills, acts, events, probable
combinations of chains of events that are probable to result based
upon any actualized wills, settings, and conditions. Of course, He
determines what He will do upon certain conditions.
God asks many questions on many occasions in the Quran. For
example, He asks Moses (PBUH):
And what is that in your right hand, O Moses?
(Quran: 20/17)
And He sometimes asks for help:
O you who believe! If you help (in the cause of) Allah, He
will help you, and make your foothold firm.
(Quran: 47/7)
Allah as God interacts with His servants in many layers. Sometimes
He gives the opportunity to His servant to have a dialogue with his
Lord; sometimes, He gives the opportunity to His servants the
opportunity to collaborate with their Lord. Sometimes He asks
questions to encourage them to thinking, and so on. Of course, if we
do not have free will, His asking for help would not be meaningful.
Yet, He does not learn anything from us. Further details on this will
be given in the following parts.
-742-
3.8.1.2 Our Will Power, and the Power of Allah
And you do not will except that Allah wills. Indeed, Allah is
ever Knowing and Wise.
He admits whom He wills into His mercy; but the
wrongdoers He has prepared for them a painful punishment.
(Quran: 76/29-31)
Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people
(Quran: 2/258)
Would not the will power of God be limited if we have free will
power? How can we have free will power if God has full control over
whatever happens?
These concerns are at the basis of origination of the marginal sect
called Jabriyyah which rejects the FWP of the human being.
According to the Quran, Allah has power over all things. Everything
happens within the permission of Allah. So, whatever He does not
permit cannot happen. Yet, we have a freedom within the circle
surrounded by the permission of Allah. Our wills are also surrounded
by the permission of Allah. Our acts also are surrounded by the
limitations of the permissions of Allah. For example, in a specific
situation, we may be allowed to will a certain will, but we may not
be allowed to do the relevant act. Or we may do the relevant act, but
its result may not happen because God has not planned for it to
happen. So, there is also an interaction between our wills and God’s
wills.
-743-
Though not always, God’s wills may be as a reaction to our wills. He
also knows all alternatives he opened to us and their implications154.
And our wills may be as a reaction to God’s wills.
We will within the limitations set by God. Our wills may or may not
happen. But we are responsible for our wills. The will of God always
happens.
And Allah is predominant over His affair, but most of the
people do not know.
(Quran: 12/21)
Wills of people may also produce opposite results. We may want
result R1 to happen but result R2 may happen because of the
circumstances outside of our control. So, if our wills are real this does
not prevent God from making and executing his plans. Even our wills
may cause the opposite of what they are intended for. God has
control over all of the alternatives. The agent cannot choose any
alternative that Allah did not make available/ possible.
If the universe was deterministic, then it would mean that Allah has
fixed every event in the past, and we would not have any freedom.
However, patterns are like limited commands, and the default is the
multipotential causal power of creation. Hence, deterministic
predictability is not part of nature, and Allah interacts with the
creation while patterns enable us to see our paths in a balanced way.
All potentials and all related feelings are known to Allah. So, He is
not surprised with anything.
Allah ever knows the future as if it has happened. He also knows all the
probabilities from different points of view.
154
-744-
God may on certain occasions intervene with the wills. Such
examples will be explained in the following parts.
Nothing that Allah does not approve can happen. Allah is Powerful.
Question 131.
Does not the following verse mean that we do not have freedom as
to whether evil or good things come to us?
(Muhammad), if God afflicts you with hardship, no one
besides Him can save you. If God grants you a favor, no one
can prevent you from receiving His favors. God bestows His
favors upon whichever of His servants He wants. God is Allforgiving and All-merciful.
(Quran: 10/107)
Answer 131.
The above verse starts with “If”. Of course, if “Allah” intends a
hardship upon one of His servants, then nobody can prevent this.
But the ultimate evil comes from the servant: If a hardship comes to
the agent as a punishment, then this was caused by the agent. If a
hardship comes as a test, or in accordance with the expiration of the
resources assigned to the agent, and the agent is patient, and manages
how to behave upon this hardship, then this hardship is not evil. But
if the agent rebels against it, then it becomes ultimately evil. Allah is
never unjust; so, any event becomes evil because of the action or
reaction of the agent. For example, Allah may cause one to enter hell;
or He may cause one be disbeliever because of his arrogance, these
are ultimate evils. Yet, if Allah causes such things, this means that
the servant acted wrongly in the first place to deserve these troubles.
And “if” Allah causes those hardships, nobody can remove these
hardships if He does not allow their removal or remove them. In the
-745-
Quran, Allah shows the solution: The agent must transform himself
for good; and he has to seek refuge in God.
Question 132.
Is Islam fatalist? If not, what are the differences between fatalism and
the teachings of Islam?
Answer 132.
As explained above, according to Islam, there are certain events that
we cannot change. And there are certain events that we can change.
In regards to this question, we will use the definition of fatalism as
the subjugation of all events and actions to the predestination.
There are definitions of fatalism so as “some” instead of “all” events
and actions are subjugated. However, this would not be a relevant
definition in this context, since, hardly anybody believes that he can
change all events or actions.
So, regarding the definition of fatalism that we use, Islam is not
fatalist. Islam is based on freedom of will as explained up to here in
this book. Also, in the following parts, I will explain further aspects
of Islam that emphasizes the freedom of will. We will also examine
the omniscience of God in detail in this respect.
Question 133.
If God is powerful, then can He do evil? If He cannot, then how can
He have free will?
Answer 133.
Say, "To whom belongs whatever is in the heavens and
earth?" Say, "To Allah."
-746-
He has decreed upon Himself mercy.
He will surely assemble you for the Day of Resurrection,
about which there is no doubt. Those who will lose
themselves [that Day] do not believe.
(Quran: 6/12)
Allah is Able to do all things.
(Quran: 29/20)
God is able to do all things. Yet, being able to do all things is not
equal to or does not necessitate actually doing all things. He may will
not to will and not to do the evil things even though He is able to
will or to do them.
Would someone who is not able to do anything except the good
things be considered as a good being, without having the freedom of
will and action?
Many people may subjectively assess some actions of God as evil.
However, Allah is the one who defines the evil and the good.
For some, even the very fact of the existence of God is evil and unfair:
How can a Being have so much power over other beings? However,
such arrogant evaluations and low desires have no weight over the
truth:
And should the truth follow their low desires, surely the
heavens and the earth and all those who are therein would
have perished. Nay! We have brought to them their reminder,
but from their reminder they turn aside.
(Quran: 23/71)
-747-
To produce a result, Allah does not need to force someone to be evil.
Had not Adam (PBUH) slipped, Allah might create another human
being who has free will besides him, or a third one. So, in any case
God could execute His will while giving full freedom and
responsibility. Allah is able to do what He wills without being evil.
Had Allah willed, everybody on earth would believe. This does not
mean that He makes people disbelieve. He gives freedom and does
not need to interfere with it.
For example, the agent A1 happens to be good and the agent A2
happens to be evil. They may be within the universe of potentials or
within their childhood. Allah may make one survive and the other
one die. And both are free. God cancels one and allows the other.
This does not make the evil caused by God as long as God does not
push them. That God creates a being without coercing it to evil, with
an unbiased nature does not make God the coercive source of evil.
Hence, He may produce good or evil deeds by just permitting the
existence of one of them, without Himself forcing anyone to be good
or evil.
Allah is the ultimate cause of all things. Some things will be superior,
some things will be inferior. That some things are sad for being
inferior is not evil, since in any case, they had some net positive
experiences.
Allah is the giver of all well-being. So, if He takes back what He gave,
He cannot be considered evil for taking back what He gave.
3.8.1.3 Allah’s Guidance and Misleading
I will turn away from My signs those who are arrogant upon
the earth without right; and if they should see every sign, they
will not believe in it.
-748-
And if they see the way of rectitude, they will not adopt it as
a way; but if they see the way of error, they will adopt it as a
way.
That is because they have denied Our signs and they were
heedless of them.
(Quran: 7/146)
O you who have believed, fear Allah and believe in His
Messenger; He will [then] give you a double portion of His
mercy and make for you a light by which you will walk and
forgive you; and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
(Quran: 57/28)
He misleads many thereby and guides many thereby. And He
misleads not except the defiantly disobedient.
(Quran: 2/26)
By which Allah guides those who pursue His pleasure to the
ways of peace and brings them out from darknesses into the
light, by His permission, and guides them to a straight path.
(Quran: 5/16)
Indeed, Allah does not guide one who is a transgressor and a
liar.
(Quran: 40/28)
Allah wants no injustice for [His] servants.
(Quran: 40/31)
-749-
Allah thus sends astray those who are transgressors, doubtful.
(Quran: 40/34)
As we see clearly in the above verses, Allah does not interact through
acts only, but also, He is active in interfering with our wills. God
leads to certain behaviors, wills, based on certain wills and attributes
of His servants.
Some attributes of Allah are reactive. If He did everything and we
did not have free will, then He would not be interacting with His
creation. He is Forgiver, Thankful, Helper, Lover, Judge, Lord. These
and other names of Allah demonstrate that He interacts with His
creation. Hence, He creates sovereign beings. Actually, all of His
attributes require the reality of what He creates. Though He interacts,
whatever He creates do not constitute a limitation on Him as
explained above.
Allah helps the ones who ask for His help appropriately. However,
the servant has to do certain acts in any case. For example, Moses
(PBUH) needed to hit the sea with his stick.
In some situations, Allah creates tests which will influence the wills
in an unbiased way. For example, a hardship may befall a person. If
the person is good, he can be patient and increase his degrees in the
sight of God. If he is impatient and rebels, then he may get away
from God.
Question 134.
How can Allah influence wills? If He knows that a certain will will
happen, then it has to happen because of the omniscience of God,
and if it will not happen according to His knowledge, then it must
not happen.
-750-
Answer 134.
Allah observes the agent who has potentials. Allah may want to
interact with the wills. So, if the developing will is a will Allah does
not allow then something that prevents the formation of that will
may happen. If he tends toward one of the wills Allah would allow
then it will not be prevented. If Allah wants the agent will a specific
will, or a will from within a specific set of wills, then a situation which
will force the agent toward that will or toward that set of wills may
happen.
On the other hand, the omniscience of Allah encompasses Allah’s
acts as well. So, if the agent is about to will the will W1 and Allah
will block it with a certain event, this event is also contained within
the knowledge of Allah.
By doing evil permanently one gets used to it so that he sees it good.
So, there are patterns like this as well so that we can foresee and
manage and have responsibility on these. But this does not mean that
they are outside of Allah. Allah may mislead through these patterns
as well those who keep repeating their bad deeds. Satan also misleads
by manipulating and using such patterns.
Other issues related to this question will be explained in the following
parts in detail.
Question 135.
Why would God care about us or what we do, since we are very small
within the entire universe, let aside the entire existence?
Answer 135.
Allah is not limited like us. When we zoom out to see the universe,
we lose focus on smaller things. However, this is not the case for
-751-
Allah. He encompasses each atom as fully as He encompasses the
entire existence.
When we conceive the entire universe, we feel that the human beings
or some other things are small. This relative smallness or
insignificance is due to the limitations of what our perception can
contain: When we conceive more and more things, their relative sizes
or values become smaller, because, we cannot contain all of them
keeping same levels of detail, because we are limited in what we can
contain. If we see something small from far this is the shortcoming
of our limitedness in knowledge and perception. For God, when He
conceives an infinite number of things, this does not force Him to
have less detail for each thing.
3.8.1.4 Divine Knowledge
But if they intend to deceive you then sufficient for you is
Allah. It is He who supported you with His help and with the
believers.
(Quran: 8/62)
3.8.1.4.1 Allah Knows Our Future
Certainly, the Romans will be defeated.
In the nearest land. But they, after their defeat, will overcome.
Within a few years. With Allah is the Decision, in the past
and in the Future: on that Day shall the Believers rejoice(Quran: 30/2-4)
Only God has the knowledge of the coming of the Hour of
Doom. He sends down the rain and knows what is in the
wombs. No soul is aware of what it will achieve tomorrow
-752-
and no soul knows in which land it will die. God is Knower
and Aware.
(Quran: 31/34)
Allah knows all things
(Quran: 64/11)
And there is no creature on earth but that upon Allah is its
provision, and He knows its place of dwelling and place of
storage. All is in a clear register.
(Quran: 11/6)
The above verses demonstrate that according to the Quran, Allah
knows the future. He does not know only the possibilities about the
future, He knows all the specifics as well.
When we say “Allah knows the future”, this is used to mean that He
knows “our” future. Since for Him, there is no absolute time which
is limiting Him, or which is confining Him outside of future, or
which is a barrier for Him. Time is no distance for God. He
surrounds all.
Our depictions in the graphs of physics that contain time are
misleading. When we see time 't' as an axis, we use an assumption
that time exists by itself and serves as a basis to other events by itself
as if it is self-sufficient, we also assume that time is in this way
superior to other things. But if we depict it as second hand, ticks it
would help us not to be so misled. Because we would use a more
realistic depiction where the event that we actually use as time
measure, is of the same nature as that which is measured. Same
applies for space. Hence, neither the space nor the time are higher in
kind than other sovereign wholes, entities, events; and they do not
have any causal power and superiority over things so as to absolutely
-753-
separate them. And this way we would understand that there is One
Power sustaining all these relationships, and we understand the need
for this power.
Question 136.
Molinism says that God knows whatever a person would will under
any specific circumstances. Does this work according to the Quran?
Answer 136.
It does not work. Because if there is a specific will for each set of
circumstances, then the person does not have free will. In this case,
he cannot do but what the specific circumstances necessitate. The
knowledge of God about the wills of an agent is as a knowledge about
a will that has been willed; not as a knowledge about a will that has
not been willed yet in accordance with an allegedly absolute time.
Question 137.
If God knows all, how can He change anything He knows? If He
cannot change anything He knows, how can He be Omnipotent?
Answer 137.
Knowing power of God is not separate from doing power of God.
God is an essence, knowing and doing powers are His attributes.
There is no necessity to consider the Power and Knowledge of God
as separable attributes, or separately exercised powers.
Is infinite bigger than two times infinite? God’s infinite knowledge
and His infinite power overlap. When we do something, sometimes
we regret. Because there is change in us or in what we know. But the
knowledge of Allah is ever full.
-754-
God knows the future as something that happened, He knows our
future wills as willed. These are like historical knowledge for Him,
except for things that He plans to do or limit in any case by His
sovereign power. About things that overlap with His plan, He knows
them and makes them happen. Regarding other things, He makes
feasible or willable only those that He approves. He also has full
knowledge about the conditions that will enable any will, and
conditions that will prevent any kind of will. He has full power over
those conditions. He also knows the outcomes of potential wills.
Question 138.
It is possible to know some future events based on the nature of
beings. Does not this remove free will? For example, I may know that
Hatice will not jump onto the street without looking around. Does
not this knowledge entail that Hatice does not have free will power
regarding jumping into the street without looking around?
Answer 138.
Free will “power” is considered in respect to the person. As explained
earlier, as a normal person Hatice has FWP. She also has her
reasoning power. So, I know that it is likely that she will consider
her OTBT and normally will not jump into the street without looking
around. Free will power does not entail to be free to will or do
everything.
On the other hand, supposing that her OTBT requires that she does
not jump onto the street, then if she jumps onto the street, there will
be a room to blame her, because she will be considered to have FWP
under normal conditions. In this situation, if she does not jump, we
do not praise her, but this is not because she does not have FWP, but
because complying with that OTBT is quite easy. However, if for
example there was a kitten on the street and she carefully jumped to
save it and was successful then she might deserve praise.
-755-
Additionally, as explained in part 3.6.3.3 the will power is indirectly
and non-coercively influenced by the implications on the
consciousness of the essence of the agent.
Question 139.
Open theism claims that if we have free will, the future is undecided.
So, God cannot know what is undecided. Why would not this be
true?
Answer 139.
There have been many approaches which claimed this in many
religions. The Quran as we explained above claims otherwise.
The distinction between the past, present, and future is just based on
our subjective limited experience and feelings. In reality, if we ask
what past is, we will define it as “what has passed according to now”;
but if we ask what is now, we will say it is what we perceive now.
And now is “now” as of “now”. It is past as of the future. It is future
as of the past. What about if everything stops? So, will there also be
a flowing time?
Furthermore, is “now” a time bracket with zero thickness of time? If
it was so, then there would not be a time direction. So, obviously,
“now” is not like that. It contains elements of future in any case. We
notice an event happening now, we make a projection about the
future based on what is happening now, and based on this future, we
adjust our behavior now. The future has an influence on our present
behavior. We just have a limitation to encompass the future because
of our nature.
Hence, it is obvious that time is not as we perceive.
In the following parts more details will be given on this point.
-756-
Question 140.
If God made all changes at once and knew them, can He add new
changes, new states to that?
Answer 140.
There can be no change that God does not know. Because what God
did was with His full knowledge and included all changes we can
conceive of. God is not limited within an instant. We conceive an
instant, because we perceive that our powers are limited in moments.
So, we tend to think that God is also limited within moments; but
there is no reason for this. We assume our time concept as absolute,
and we assume that wherever we go in time or in space in our
imagination, there must be something more beyond our reach. In
our time concept, because of our limitations, there is a future which
is beyond us. We feel that there are moments in which we are, and
there are moments which are beyond our grasp. Therefore, when we
did something, we see a potential thing to do because we are
surrounded by and limited in time. We conceive that infinity truly
exists but we cannot locate it, we cannot reach it. But for God infinity
is not as something He cannot reach. Allah is “who ever is”. And
“that which is not”, is not. Allah is more than infinite; He creates the
infinities. Hence, there is no infinity beyond His reach. He
encompasses eternally whatever is new for us, from our perspective.
And Our command is but one, like a glance of the eye.
(Quran: 54/50)
And [He promises] other [victories] that you were [so far]
unable to [realize] which Allah has already encompassed.
And ever is Allah, over all things, competent.
(Quran: 48/21)
-757-
It is Allah who has created seven heavens and of the earth,
the like of them. [His] command descends among them so
you may know that Allah is over all things competent and
that Allah has encompassed all things in knowledge.
(Quran: 65/12)
3.8.1.4.2 The Future Exists Within the Sight of Allah
If Allah knows the future, if determinism is false, and if free will is
true, then the future must be existent as an actual reality.
If determinism was true, then Allah might know the future based on
any state in the past and based on the allegedly permanent laws even
though the future does not exist.
If determinism was false, but there was no free will and Allah had
specifically determined everything without deterministic processes,
then again, the future might not be present while Allah knows it.
However, if there are even partially sovereign and free will based
events, and if Allah knows the future, then the future must be
existent for Allah.
The question “does the future or past exist as of now?” is like saying
“does the universe exist in the earth?” Past, present, and future events
are one and non-separable in terms of time used as a measure and a
relation. Past, present, and future exist within this time’s whole and
unity. But as I am limited, within my limited actual extension into
time, only a limited time frame can fit and exist. That is why I cannot
fit the future in me and I cannot feel its existence in my mind. So, I
tend to think that the future and the past events do not exist. Because
that something exists would mean that I have some control on or
some interaction with it. However, my bracket of extent is quite
limited. But within the extent of God all exists.
-758-
Hence, the A theory of time is not acceptable. Yet, the existence of
the future is not exactly like in a deterministic B theory of time where
the future is fixed and where there is no free will: In the Islamic
teaching, the agent is active at any related stage. Though not exactly
the same, a similitude of a block time running all simultaneously or
in a synchronised way from the perspective of God resembles the
teaching of the Quran. However, the B theory of time is not
acceptable either, since according to the Islamic teaching, things and
events are real and laws are not necessary and binding on God. C
theory is not possible as well, since design is not limited by any
design element or order.
Hence, the future is accessible to God wherein both God and we are
active. But we as parts of the creation do not have direct access to it.
For further details on the activeness through time, see part 3.5.6.7.
Question 141.
If the future exists, then, while time passes, do we go into the future?
Answer 141.
We are active only once within each moment as explained in part
3.5.6.7. If we would go into the existent future, then we would be
changing it. We are part of some future. We do not move within
time. We act on and observe each future moment within the future
when it is formed first, we have a unitary existence throughout time
as explained in the part about transcendence indicated above.
The agent who dies as a disbeliever is disbeliever as of now as well,
though now his apparent aspect may look like a believer. Because he
has a unitary being throughout time. Yet, his action in the future is
real. The following verse is related to this point:
-759-
Indeed, those who disbelieve it is all the same for them
whether you warn them or do not warn them, they will not
believe.
(Quran: 2/6)
His future and present state are one with like their head being their
future, and feet in now. But his end point defines what he is all along
essentially.
When the agent undergoes a meaningful event in time t2, it
influences the backbone of the agent all along.
Any sovereign agent produces his effects on the points of time
through which his active life extends. However, the access of our
effective agency and consciousness present at time t1 is specific to t1
and does not extend to the events at point t2. Likewise, the access of
our effective agency and consciousness present at time t2 is specific
to t2 and does not extend to the events at point t1. Yet, our soul or
the backbone which is the essential actor is the same and active at
both t1 and t2. This is like the different wheels of the same car
touching different points on the same road. Further details of this
point are in part 3.5.6.7.
Question 142.
If the future exists, it exists for how long?
Answer 142.
A thing cannot be located in time relatively to Allah. Because in this
case Allah would also be relative. If we say this happened because
Allah willed at time t1, then Allah would be locked inside a time
bracket relatively to Allah, which is absurd.
When an object is created, it is created with its space. Can we think
of an object which does not have its inside and outside space? Like
-760-
the surrounding space is part of something, surrounding time toward
past and future is part of an object or of an event. When two objects
or events are combined, their spaces and times are also combined.
Therefore, the times and spaces of things or their combinations are
not absolute. They are relative155 and specific to their contexts. They
are never binding or limiting God. There are spatial relationships
between things like big, small, far near. Likewise, there are time
relationships between events. And they are originated by and visible
within a unity that surrounds all.
Therefore, we should not try to assign an absolute location in time
to an object or an event or a bundle of events which already contain
their time, while these times are relative.
Question 143.
If the future exists now, then what does God create?
Answer 143.
Future exists because God creates it. There is no absolute time
outside the power of God with an absolute beginning. God’s creation
is relatively to the stages within the existence. God is not bound with
those stages.
The future does not exist within “our now according to our
perception”. Every future range has its own nows; our perception of
now reflects our subjective and limited perception of now. It is not
possible to fit the future within our limited now or within our limited
past. Every moment and its sovereign elements have their dinamics.
We cannot expect the future to fit within our limited now. Future
exists in its “nows”. However, the unitary knowledge of God
The word relative is used in this context because neither space, nor
anything else can be an absolute limitation for God; and God is like nothing.
155
-761-
encompasses the future as He encompasses its nows, as in something
which looks for us like a metatime.
Also, there are in fact interwoven chains of slices of time which
contain each now, its own past present and future. This is like our
selves which have unity with our immediate past and future.
Furthermore, we should think about what the future is? Is not today
also future relatively to yesterday? Will the future be yesterday? Was
not yesterday also future? We define the future from the limited
perspective of human beings. But if what we experience is real, then
it cannot be only subjective. It has to have an objective reality. And
this reality is sustained and known by the One God.
There is no absolute frame of reference for time. If we suppose that
everything goes billion years backwards in terms of time, we cannot
define or distinguish that.
Question 144.
God uses in the Quran the present tense and future tense regarding
certain things that will happen. Does not this mean that God will do
certain things which do not yet exist?
Answer 144.
God communicates with us as human beings. We have a limited
perspective and we are within the limitations of our relative time
perception. Therefore, God uses our language to deliver us
understandable messages. Time-like relationships are within created
things. However, God sometimes uses words from His perspective as
well. In such cases, we see that He uses the past or present tense for
future events. The following verse is an example to this:
And Hell was displayed for the wrongdoers.
-762-
And it was said to them: "Where is what you used to
worship?"
(Quran: 26/91-92)
There are many verses like this in the Quran. However, note that
such verses are mostly translated in future tense by the translators.
This may be because their general reader is not expected to be wellacquainted with the philosophical or scientific implications of such
specific usage.
3.8.1.4.3 Allah’s Knowledge of The Future Does Not Abort
Free Will
He is the First and the Last, and the Outward and the Inward;
and He is Knower of all things.
(Quran: 57/3)
If God knows what I will will tomorrow, then how can I have any
free will, how can I will something other than what Allah knows?
The above question relates to God as an influencer upon wills. In
fact, the question alludes to a claim that if God knows the future,
then His knowledge is a coercive cause upon our wills.
We feel that our direct power, experience, and knowledge are
confined within a moment, not within a duration or time bracket. A
similar feeling applies to space regarding which we have difficulty
even to imagine how we can equally focus on two or more locations
at the same time. Even if we feel that we have an actual power over
a time bracket, we feel that it is very short. Therefore, we
automatically tend to expect God to be like us. And we see the time
as an absolute barrier. And we conceive of the time sequence so that
God would be in a time bracket, and the future would be in a
different time bracket. So, because of this wrong framework we do
-763-
not understand how God can know an event which is not yet within
our time bracket, except if God preordains it.
As we are not able to actively encompass, access, and interact with
what is beyond our moment, we conclude that the entire reality must
be like this, and we assume that God is like us as well. So, we assume
that God can only know the future if He creates a structure and
causal links which will connect His knowledge in His “past” time
bracket coercively with His entire “future”. We feel that this way He
may foreknow “His future”, that if there is no such link, then He
may not know “His future”. And then we think that if there is such
causal link, we cannot be free.
Also, as our knowledge and scope are limited, and as we are used to
consider that “we are, while the future is not”, we have difficulty in
understanding how God's knowledge about our future may exist
while the future event did not yet exist. Consequently, the only
apparent solution which seems plausible to us is this: God must have
a plan which contains our wills, and the power to execute that plan.
It is true that a future event cannot be known by default by an agent
who is limited and confined like us within a previous time bracket
TB1. To have such knowledge requires full determinism, full power,
and knowledge over all things within that TB1 or over the future
event. In this case, if that future event is an act of willing of a creation,
then this will cannot be other than what TB1 entails, hence, it cannot
be free. However, that future event can be known as an event which
has happened without causing in inconsistency with the freedom of
will. But if it can be known as an event which has happened, then
would not the knower be within the future of that event? Not
necessarily, if that being does not need to be confined within any
time bracket.
Let us explain this with a simple example:
-764-
Let us suppose that Jane will go to a car dealer tomorrow (Tuesday)
and buy a car.
Does God know today what car will Jane buy, and have on
Wednesday?
If yes, then there are two possibilities: (1) God knows it today because
He will cause Jane and other circumstances -for example He will
make sure that she will not be sick tomorrow- so as she will go and
buy the car that God knows today. (2) God knows it because God
created someone called Zayd who exists tomorrow and on
Wednesday with a time machine, and after he video-recorded what
happened on Tuesday and Wednesday, has traveled to today, and
gave that recording to God. Zayd does not have any power to do
anything else.
In both scenarios, God knows what Jane will will. In the scenario (1),
Jane cannot have free will. Because she cannot overcome God’s
power. In the scenario (2), today’s knowledge of God does not
necessitate that she does not have free will. Because, the knowledge
of God depends on the will of Jane. This dependence is a logical
dependence. In actuality, God knows all information about all events
as if they are historical/ past events as well. So, God ever knows all
about Jane, in His unity as a God who surrounds all things.
Now, let us suppose that Jane’s decision also has some important
aspects for God, for example, it is possible that she buys a cheaper
car to save some money which she may give to her poor neighbor,
or she may not think about this and buy the best car she can. In this
case, let us suppose that God wants to test Jane. He arranged so that
today someone brings his car to the car shop so that there is a nice
but cheaper car tomorrow in the car shop, and a poor person will
pass by Jane so that she remembers her neighbor. And it will occur
to Jane an opportunity to think about this while another person will
-765-
come and keep the car dealer busy so that Jane may think sufficiently
about his neighbor. But buying the more expensive car is better for
Jane in worldly terms.
This arrangement is necessary for seeing the actual reaction of Jane
to the situation. Without it, it is impossible to expose and judge
objectively enough her true reaction to such a situation. As free will
is true, and as Jane has not yet made clear definitely how good or
evil, she is, it is unfair to behave as if she would buy the expensive
car, or as if she would buy the cheaper one. In any case, the actual
situation and the actual reaction of Jane will constitute an objective
data about her degree of goodness at least for her, but also for God.
This is about the logical dependence of the knowledge of God about
the attitude of Jane in such a situation, even though He knows what
will happen as if it has happened since He encompasses the future.
The following verse is an example about this logical necessity:
We sent Our Messengers with clear evidence (to support their
truthfulness), and sent with them the Book and the Balance
so that people would maintain justice, and We sent down iron
- in which there is strong power and benefit for the people so that Allah would know who would help Him and His
messengers without seeing the unseen. Allah is All-powerful
and Majestic.
(Quran: 57/25)
Regarding the ever-present knowledge of God, at the very point God
decreed to test Jane, Zayd brings from the future his video recording.
And supposing that this point of decree is today, God watches the
video about which car Jane bought156. Note that from the perspective
of God, the point of decree cannot be located within any point of our
156
Remember that video recording is only a similitude. God directly watches
whatever the video-recorder records, Jane’s inner voice, and more.
-766-
time perception. But from our perception, we can say that certain
behaviors of Jane caused God to test her in more difficult ways, at a
certain point of our perceived time.
God is not limited with any single perspective or point of action. We
process data we receive with both of our eyes. We can raise
something with both hands. Likewise, God observes things and
influences things through whatever points He wants.
As noted in the following verse, some replace God with time as if
time is an effective thing. Allah rejects this claim:
And they say, “There is not but our worldly life; we die and
live, and nothing destroys us except time.” And they have of
that no knowledge; they are only assuming.
(Quran: 45/24)
The following verse shows also that time is not an all-encompassing
absolute thing. Some things undergo change, some do not. For
example, the food and drink in the following verse do not undergo
change. And there is no need to take some of them as superior to
others.
Or [consider such an example] as the one who passed by a
township which had fallen into ruin. He said, "How will Allah
bring this to life after its death?" So, Allah caused him to die
for a hundred years; then He revived him. He said, "How
long have you remained?" The man said, "I have remained a
day or part of a day." He said, "Rather, you have remained
one hundred years. Look at your food and your drink; it has
not changed with time. And look at your donkey; and We
will make you a sign for the people. And look at the bones
[of this donkey] how We raise them and then We cover them
-767-
with flesh." And when it became clear to him, he said, "I
know that Allah is over all things competent."
(Quran: 2/259)
Time is a unit and an outcome of design like a designed machine.
Logically and empirically, for God there is no limitation to have any
knowledge that relates to the future. Time is not an absolute distance.
Things do not happen because time passes, but time passes because
things act. So, time is derived, secondary, element of design, and a
measure. It is not something that can divide or limit God.
The existence of any speed and related vector is sufficient to show
that time is not a distance. Change is an essential element related to
time. Generally, this change occurs in space, hence for example, the
term spacetime is generally used. If a point in space can be subject to
change in terms of movement, then the change cannot be defined by
less than at least two points. To define a simplest movement as a
change we need two points in space, hence in time. Without them
we cannot have direction and movement. Therefore, the minimum
thickness of a time bracket cannot be zero. If it is zero and things are
in time, then nothing would be able to interact and be interacted.
The minimum thickness will have a non-separable unity, because if
there is this minimum unity, then we cannot talk about time as
something bringing new things on its own. Because, the relationship
between these two points necessarily exists between the second point
and a third point. Consequently, within a chain of events and their
sub-parts, all points of time must be non-separable. So, all points of
time will be as if they are in the same common point. Actually, Bell’s
inequality experiments confirm a non-localism which is in harmony
with this unity. Therefore, it is not correct to try to divide time into
parts and think that God is squeezed in such a part.
-768-
Question 145.
If God decrees to test Jane, He instantly sees the future. But does not
He know what Jane will do before He decrees that? If He knows this
before this decree, then is not He obliged to take this decree?
Answer 145.
Time does not divide God into compartments. All acts of God are as
if instantaneous since time is not over God. The similitude of God
may be like a set of equations where one equation is fundamental
and others depend on the fundamental one. There is no
differentiation within the fundamental one. Note that this is just a
very limited similitude to give an idea about the non-existence of any
logical inconsistency.
God's knowledge of future does not cause Jane to do what God
knows. Likewise, God's knowledge of the future does not cause God
to do what He knows.
Let us assume that God is not Omniscient, and He makes all else.
And assume that in this case there is free will. Now, let us add the
omniscience of God in this whole structure. How the addition of
omniscience would influence the free will?
God’s access to all things is like instantaneous in our terms.
Respectively to God there is no before or after. Event (a) which is
before event (b), is before in its relationship to event (b). However,
God has instant access to event (a) and event (b). Allah is the basis
of the connection between these two events. Same Allah is also the
receiver of the outcome of this relationship. And Allah is not divided.
Knowing the future when we are in the past is like knowing
something in another location. It does not cause anything as mere
knowledge without relating to an act, without being combined with
-769-
energy or will. That I know that the glass cup I made fall will be
broken in a second does not make the breaking the result of my
previous knowledge. Subjective previous knowledge does not have
any causal power about the future. Knowledge is in no place in a
previous time slice.
The thing that confuses people is that if someone is informed by an
omniscient being about what he will do tomorrow, and if he cannot
negate that info, then this means that his free will is of course does
not exist about that info. If Zayd was informed that he will will to
eat the red candy instead of the white candy, and knowing that and
in the presence of both candies, he was not able to see the white
candy, or touch the white candy, if he was experiencing a power
prevented him from willing the white candy, then that info would be
like a coercive one aborting his free will. Because that way, that info
would have entered into the causal chain157 - though in fact a
knowledge would never influence with any physical energy what
Zayd would do, and it would be something else which would execute
that knowledge to become true -. But otherwise, if he could will to
eat the white candy then that info would be ineffective on his free
will power. So, the alleged free will and omniscience paradox can
happen and be solved only in an actual situation that is explained
above. In such an actual situation it will be seen whether there is a
coercive omniscience coerced with a power, or the free will of Zayd
overcomes that info. The normal solution is that the knowledge of
God about our free wills are dependent on what we will, unless it is
communicated to the agents so as it is deliberately made coercive by
the coercive power of God.
157
If such a thing happened, this would mean that either there is a
deterministic relationship or someone who has this knowledge and the power
to make this knowledge come true and to make it come true, he would exercise
his power. So in any case, the foreknowledge would not be compelling Zayd
to do anything.
-770-
The following verses in the Quran are relevant to this paradox:
Knower He of the Unseen, and He discloses not His Unseen
to anyone,
Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed,
He sends before each messenger and behind him observers,
That he may know that they have conveyed the messages of
their Lord; and He has encompassed whatever is with them
and has enumerated all things in number.
(Quran: 72/26-28)
If Allah informed any info, then it would come true. And it would
generally remove the responsibility. So, other than exceptions, Allah
does not share His knowledge about the future with anyone.
If Allah shared such a foreknowledge, then it would be possible to
try to negate this foreknowledge. And if God is the giver of this
knowledge, then He would have the power to prevent the agent from
negating the foreknowledge. In this situation, there would be an
exercise of power over the power of the agent. And he would not be
free. But when such a foreknowledge is not shared, then there is no
inconsistent will of the agent with any foreknowledge which contains
the will and approval of Allah. Hence, there is no need to suppress
the will power of the agent.
Question 146.
Time travel back in time causes some paradoxes. For example, if it is
possible, then someone may go back in time and kill his mother so
that he will not even exist so as to go back in time and kill his mother.
So, given this paradox, how can we say that God is able to create
such a time machine?
-771-
Answer 146.
Such paradoxes are applicable for multiple agents who are limited
within time. In fact, this may be a reason for why God limits His
creation in their transcendence through time. For example, a person
P1 sees that tomorrow the extremely successful CEO of the company
he invested in would have an accident, and die, and that company’s
stock prices would plummet. Upon that P1 immediately sells his
shares to another person P2. P2 also sees the future, and goes to the
future and saves the CEO, and also sees that the company would
have a key patent which will double the company’s profits. On the
foreseen accident’s actual day, P1 sees that the accident does not
happen. He goes to the past, and cancels his order to sell the shares.
So, what happened and what did not happen? So, in the presence of
many agents who can travel through time, either nothing happens
conclusively, or things happen in a metatime. But then the metatime
becomes the time and if they can travel through time, then they
would also travel through metatime. In this case, metatime also
becomes non-conclusive. Note that precise transfer of information
from unfinalized states to the present would also produce similar
results. Therefore, each one of the multiple agents is limited to his
own time bracket in terms of will and action.
On the other hand, if the active transcendent power through time
belongs to the One All-Knower Creator, then there will be no such
paradoxes. Because there will be no need for Him to negate His will
since there will be no new information once all probabilities are
known.
Furthermore, it is obvious that transcendence through time for the
Creator is necessary and actually observed: Without a transcendent
power through time, this universe would not exist in the first place.
We precisely compare today’s events with tomorrow’s events in
physics. We can calculate the movements of galaxies, atoms, and so
-772-
on. Without a power transcendent through time, we would not be
able to calculate things through time. We do the same for events in
separate locations as well.
Furthermore, our observation that the time is extended is also
subjective and limited because of our multiplicity. Time cannot be
the addition of moments one after another where only those which
enter within the zero-width time slice of the present exist actually.
Such a view would produce many contradictions and absurdities like:
What would be the glue between moments? What is the glue between
the moments of each regions of space and entities? If moments are
separate, then how can we talk of a direction of a moving object?
How can anything be with zero extension in time, since things are
necessarily combined with vectors in time?
So, in fact, God does not need to create Zayd and his time machine
as we described the event in a simple way. God an All-Encompassing
Power, is present both today and on Wednesday. The passage of time
is only our subjective observation. Our observation is designed so as
to be limited because of the paradoxes mentioned above.
Such paradoxes are not applicable to God since He is One.
Question 147.
Did God know that Jane would buy that car even before He created
the universe?
Answer 147.
The scale is not important. The same explanations apply for all scales.
-773-
Question 148.
If Allah knows that He will create the universe, and Jane, and that
Jane will buy that car, then does not He depend on this knowledge?
If He has this knowledge and if He ever knows all things correctly,
then can He choose to not create the universe and Jane?
Answer 148.
Allah’s power of knowledge is not separate from His power to do.
He is an essence, omniscience and omnipotence are His attributes.
There is no necessity to consider the Power and Knowledge of God
as separable attributes, or separately exercised powers. We as human
beings plan something now and do it later, because we are limited by
the flow of events which are beyond us. Therefore, we tend to do a
faulty generalization about this limitation so as to include God.
The question presumes that God is squeezed within a time bracket,
since the tenses are used as if this presumption is true.
As noted in the above verse, time is a unit, it is kind of a language
element. It is not something that absolutely limits things. Allah
creates and sustains the relationships of time. He is not restrained
within chambers of time.
Claiming that He cannot choose to not create Jane, implies that He
was not present as the One Creator, Sustainer, and Observer when
she existed.
Time does not exist as a coercive thing by itself over all things.
Because of our subjective limitations, we tend to perceive and
consider time as something absolute which limits all things including
God.
-774-
The existence of Jane depends on God. But the existence of God does
not necessitate the existence of Jane. God is necessary, and Jane is
contingent. The plan of God to create Jane and give her FWP does
not ultimately compel God to do those things, because He is the One
who plans.
Question 149.
Did God know that decree about Jane before He made that decree?
Answer 149.
Time does nod divide God into compartments. There is no change
in God. So, for God to have that decree at a point in “a time” is not
meaningful. The all-encompassing knowledge and will of God are
like in a single instant. Yet, this knowledge and will comprises all of
His decrees specific to any universe, stage, layer.
The creation and resurrection of (all of) you is the same as
that of one person. Allah is Hearer, Seer.
(Quran: 31/28)
Question 150.
Do logical steps or requirements form distances and barriers for
knowledge, and do such knowledge mean necessities for following
logical steps?
Answer 150.
Though logical steps and requirements may have a hierarchy, they
are instantaneous, they are not absolutely separated by time or by
anything else as limitations upon God. It cannot be said that one
logical step must be before in time and another after in time. So
-775-
logical bases can be surrounding other steps. Hence, they do not form
barriers nor distances for God.
Question 151.
Let us suppose that the internal time within the universe does not
constitute a distance for God. But what about God’s state before
creating the universe, and after the change of the creation of the
universe? Is not there a distance/ difference of stage? Does not the
knowledge about the universe exist in the knowledge of God before
He created the universe?
Answer 151.
Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a
matter, He only says to it, "Be," and it is.
(Quran: 2/117)
Between God and His saying “be” and His act there is no earth
rotation or any other absolute event nor absolute time. God’s saying
“be” and the result is like the influence of 2s on 4 in “2+2=4”. There
is no time distance between the two sides of equation unless Allah
defines a distance. But nothing makes Allah absolutely distant to
anything. On the other hand, the knowledge of Allah is not indexed
to His speaking or acts. And His word 'be' and what happens are
also united based on the unity of Allah. And the events are not like
the separate frames of a movie. The feeling of separation arises
because of our limitations. Nothing can be conceived of as a
separated instant with zero extension in time. There are units of
intervals or beings that transcend intervals.
Question 152.
If God tells someone what he will will, then can the agent negate
that?
-776-
Answer 152.
As a general rule, God does not share such information. Once such
information is shared with the creation, then the creation is given the
opportunity to test the knowledge of God, and since God cannot be
proven wrong, He will probably compel the result against the
creation’s wills and acts.
In this respect, let us change the time machine example as follows:
(1) Jane has free will, and without any prediction she has chosen to
buy the expensive car. (2) Zayd comes to the past with his video
recording and informs Jane that she will choose to buy the expensive
car at a specific time in the future. Jane finds this very important.
Because if there is someone who can video-record the future and
bring to the past, then she can earn billions quickly for example on
the stock exchange. So, she needs to test whether Zayd really has
such a machine. To test this, she wants to see what will happen if she
does not want to do what is on the video-recording.
In the scenario where Zayd fails in his prediction, the time she goes
to the car dealer comes according to the video-recording. And Jane
does not go to the car dealer, and at the time of the deal on the videorecording, she does not buy the car.
In the scenario where Zayd does not fail, she cannot behave other
than what the video-recording shows, even though she wanted to test
by not buying the car. She wants not to go, but she wills all sub-steps
to go; she wants not to buy, but she wills to sign the contract…
So, the state containing the communication of a true prediction about
a future state is essentially different than a state where this prediction
is not communicated. If there is someone or a mechanism which
underlies such a prediction, then the person subject to the prediction
will lose his free will to a certain extent. The one who has such a
-777-
knowledge capacity and communicates such a prediction, must have
the power to make it true no matter what the previous states are.
Hence, other than exceptions, God does not share His knowledge
about the future with His creation, as underlined in the Quran.
But in exceptional cases, God gives such information to His prophets
as noted in the Quran. For example, in the following chapter, God
informs about Abu Lahab, the uncle of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)
and the wife of his uncle that they will enter hell:
May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he.
His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained.
He will [enter to] burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame
And his wife [as well] the carrier of firewood.
Around her neck is a rope of [twisted] fiber.
(Quran: 111/1-5)
Since if they believed, under certain conditions they might be
forgiven and not enter hell, we can assume that this chapter
prophesies that they will not believe and that they will not correct
themselves sufficiently, ask for forgiveness, and be among those who
do not burn in the hell. In fact, though they lived for many years
after this chapter was revealed, they died as disbelievers. Could they
negate these verses?
There are two main possibilities: (1) If by these verses it is meant that
they will enter hell as disbelievers, then they could not negate by
believing, since in this case they would have proven Allah wrong. (2)
If by these verses it is meant that they will enter hell not as
disbelievers, but just to pay for their past sins and injustice, then they
-778-
could not negate the verses, because the verses would not mean that
they will die as disbelievers.
If the first possibility was true, then this would mean that because of
their past attitudes, they passed a threshold in their disobedience, and
Allah closed the door to belief. Because the historical knowledge
known by Allah about the future contains the fact that they are given
this prediction. As this prediction depends on their disbelief, they do
not have the power to believe and falsify the knowledge of Allah.
So, in cases where Allah clearly and specifically informs such an end,
then there is no return. Other than such, we should have hope, but
there is no guarantee for forgiveness or guidance, especially if we do
big sins.
If the second scenario is true, then they would not have contradicted
the prediction of Allah.
Though regarding the above chapter, it may be argued that the
second scenario is possible, the following verse contains a clear
prediction about the future disbelief state of some people:
And it was revealed to Noah that, “No one will believe from
your people except those who have already believed, so do
not be distressed by what they have been doing.”
(Quran: 11/36)
Regarding this verse, we do not know for sure whether this
communication was also communicated to the people of Noah
(PBUH). So, the like of the above scenario (1) may be true.
Nevertheless, we should note that the additional influence of these
predictions is not in the direction of making them believe. On the
contrary, even if someone subject to these verses would tend to
believe -which should be very unlikely since God does not intend to
-779-
be unjust to His servants who may tend to believe-, these verses
would create a paradox for them. Because, if they chose to be
believers against the predictions of these verses, then this would
mean that the God who revealed these predictions did not know the
future. So, these verses could be considered also as Allah being
involved in blocking them against belief; however, it is also possible
that according to the knowledge of Allah, they would not tend to
believe in any case. These are just possibilities according to my
limited understanding; Allah knows the truth.
Time regarding its aspects relevant to free will is examined in part
3.5.6.4.2.6.5 .
3.8.1.4.4 Destiny
And ever is the command of Allah a destiny158 decreed.
(Quran: 33/38)
He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the
earth and who has not taken a son and has not had a partner
in dominion and has created each thing and determined it
with determination.
(Quran: 25/2)
They say, “If there was anything we could have done in the
matter, some of us would not have been killed right here.”
Say, “Even if you had been inside your houses, those decreed
to be killed would have come out to their death beds.”
158 Transliterated as “Kadar”, “kader” or “qadar” from the original text
of the Quran. The word predestination is generally used synonymously for
the word destiny. The word qada’ is also used sometimes in the same
meaning. However, qada’ is closer in meaning to execution, completion, and
judgment.
-780-
(Quran: 3/154)
Say, “Never will we be struck except by what Allah has
decreed for us.”
(Quran: 9/51)
3.8.1.4.4.1 Description
And not absent from your Lord is any [part] of an atom’s
weight within the earth or within the heaven or [anything]
smaller than that or greater but that it is in a clear register.
(Quran: 10/61)
The destiny is made by Allah and it is a comprehensive and clear
record of the creation and the events created by Allah. The destiny
has many different aspects:
In one way it is a register that includes also both worldly and
religious cause and effect relationships and definitions. Physical,
biological definitions of objects, physical laws, and the relevant
relationships or the relationships between bad deed and the relevant
punishments may be cited as examples in this respect. This is
partially explained in the following verses:
Exalt the name of your Lord, the Most High,
Who created and proportioned
And who determined and [then] guided.
(Quran: 87/1-3)
[Pharaoh] said, so who is the Lord of you two, O Moses?
-781-
He said: Our Lord is He Who gave everything its nature then
guided it.
(Quran: 20/49-50)
And of the people is he who disputes about Allah without
knowledge and follows every rebellious devil.
For him it is written down that whoever takes him for friend,
he verily will mislead him and will guide him to the
punishment of the Flame.
(Quran: 22/3-4)
As understood from the following verses, regarding the acts of Allah
the destiny is also like a plan:
And for every nation is a [specified] term.
So, when their time has come, they will not remain behind
an hour, nor will they precede [it].
(Quran: 7/34)
So, he159 invoked his Lord,
“Indeed, I am overcome, so help.”
Then We opened the gates of the heaven160 with rain pouring
down,
And caused the earth to burst with springs,
And the waters met for a matter already destined.
159
160
-782-
Noah (Peace be upon him)
Sky
(Quran: 54/10-12)
Allah has written down: I will most certainly prevail, I and
My messengers.
(Quran: 58/21)
Furthermore, the destiny has the feature of a budget for the
distribution of resources as mentioned in the following verse:
And there is no creature on earth but that upon Allah is its
provision, and He knows its place of dwelling and place of
storage.
All is in a clear register.
(Quran: 11/6)
On the other hand, the destiny is like a historical record161 from the
perspective of Allah who knows and witnesses the future without
any limitations of time. So, although we have free will to a certain
extent, everything is ever known by Allah. In the following verses
there is a reference to such knowledge of Allah:
No soul knows what it shall earn tomorrow, and no soul
knows in what land it shall die. Surely Allah is Knower,
Aware.
(Quran: 31/34)
He knows what is before them and what is after them, and
they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what
He wills.
(Quran: 2/255)
161
While it includes the future
-783-
Indeed, Allah is ever, over all things, a Witness.
(Quran: 4/33)
Allah encompasses all things.
(Quran: 4/126)
To Allah belongs the command before and after.
(Quran: 30/4)
Also, the destiny has the property of Allah’s permission for any
wills and acts of His creations. Nothing can happen contrary to His
will as seen in the following verse:
And it is not for a soul to believe except by permission of
Allah.
(Quran: 10/100)
3.8.1.4.4.2 The Reason for Destiny
No calamity [or blessing] occur on earth or in yourselves
without being [written] in a Book before We bring it into
being. This is certainly easy for Allah.
In order that you not despair over what has eluded you and
not exult [in pride] over what He has given you. And Allah
does not like everyone self-deluded and boastful
(Quran: 57/22-23)
Say: “Naught shall visit us but what God has prescribed for
us; He is our Protector; in God let the believers put all their
trust.”
-784-
(Quran: 9/51)
Who, when disaster strikes them, say, “Indeed we belong to
Allah, and indeed to Him we will return.”
(Quran: 2/156)
No calamity [or blessing] occurs except by permission of
Allah. And whoever believes in Allah He will guide his heart.
And Allah is Knowing of all things.
(Quran: 64/11)
In any act of Allah, who knows all, including the future we can
assume that there are all positive aspects of a perfect plan in any
case, even if there was no register. So, we can expect everything He
does, to be consistent and balanced as something perfectly planned
even though there was no Book of destiny. The knowledge and
other attributes of Allah do not gain anything because of destiny.
The destiny has some implications for us as follows:
Writing/ recording gives us a feeling about a reliable medium of
communication and stability. Some may have difficulty of
conceiving a control over such a big universe even though the
controller is Allah. However, as an equation makes us understand
many physical events easily, the recording of such relationships
among other things in a register may help us better digest the power
of God over the universe.
Also, without such a framework, we might feel very unsecure. If
things were just emprisoned within deterministic machinery of the
universe, unable to do anything else, this would be devastating
psychologically. If things were random, then it would be a very
unsecure setup for us. We live on a planet which moves with a huge
speed. There are millions of variables, many of which if slightly
deviated would cause us to disappear immediately. If the universe
-785-
was a combination of both deterministic and indeterministic setup,
then again, we would be under the psychological pressure of the
bad aspects of both. However, with destiny, everything is under
control, so that we have a strong feeling of security. We expect to
live the next hour, the next day, the next year, and we can make
plans, we can make choices. On the other hand, even if certain
disasters happen, we would know that they are part of a plan of the
One God who is Wise; that they are not coincidental; that they are
already known at least by the All-Powerful and All-Knower; and
that they will serve certain higher goals.
As we see in the above verse 57/22, every event that occurs is
prescribed by Allah in a register.
As noted in the above verse 57/23, this gives a message to us that
everything is under control of God and in accordance with His goals
and values. This reflects the unity and consistency of all events
within themselves and with the goals and values of God.
On the other hand, as Allah is the Beneficent Creator of all,
whatever happens comes from Him and to Him all shall return as
noted in verse 2/256. Ultimately, nothing would come unjustly
from Him. And in accordance with verse 9/51, the servants should
be patient on things that may look hard at the beginning, and trust
in Him since everything is under His control.
We must own our wills, but in a balanced way. We may have missed
something because of our deficiency, we may feel like a hopeless
loser. But we could not get it in the first place without the
permission of Allah. Whatever we get or miss belongs to Allah, and
is ultimately under His control. In any case, it would be the favor
of Allah if we could get it. So, there is no need to panic in times of
difficulty, and in any case, when we die, we will return to Him and
if we are good, there is no fear about the end. So, we are not
hopeless.
-786-
If something bad occurs because of bad actions, then, either this is
to warn the servants, or to compensate for the evil, or for another
reason; it is under control and in accordance with justice. Again, we
must not be seeing what happens negatively, and we have to think
about our context, and as it is consistent, we have to try to find out
how it may concern us, and we have to improve ourselves.
These events may also push us to ask for help from Him, hence,
increase our nearness toward Him, especially if we have become
arrogant or forgetful about Him. Some difficulties may help us
become stronger by finding other solutions, other methods.
As we see in verse 57/23, the occurrences may also be positive.
In such situations, we must not be proud, we should also keep in
mind that they come under the control of God.
If we get rich, we must know that this was the plan of Allah though
our wills also were important.
We must be ready to share, and we must recognize the help and
favor of Allah.
Also, they may be tests, for example to expose whether we will help
the poor if we became rich, to see if we will become arrogant and
unjust, to see if we will trust our power and be ungrateful against
God.
Verse 64/11 explains the good or bad happenings in respect to the
permission of Allah. Whatever happens is with the permission of
Allah. The register is a means for this permission. For example, in
big organizations as government, for each expenditure there is a
budget, some approvals, some registry or papers where what will be
spent will be registered and signed by those who have authority.
Likewise, for each wealth to be given to a person or to a community
there are similar registration and approval processes. The destiny is
a means for this.
-787-
In conformity with the destiny, thanks to the patterns and
relationships in it, as we are in a well-organized and harmonious
framework with some predictability, we also can make plans, and
we can determine goals. Thanks to this we are able to think and to
have our own will. Otherwise, we could not have any continuity
thanks to which we could think and link event (a) to event (b) or
means to goals.
And thanks to this we know that something that we miss may go
to another one of His servants. Thus, we can relate everything to
the registry, and the registry to its Maker, and this Maker to
ourselves.
3.8.1.4.4.3 The Processes of Destiny
And she, in whose house he was, sought to seduce him. She
closed the doors and said, "Come, you." He said, "[I seek] the
refuge of Allah. Indeed, he is my master, who has made good
my residence. Indeed, wrongdoers will not succeed."
And she certainly determined [to seduce] him, and he would
have inclined to her had he not seen the proof of his Lord.
And thus [it was] that We should avert from him evil and
immorality. Indeed, he was one of Our servants, sincere and
purified.
(Quran: 12/23-24)
He said, "My Lord, prison is more to my liking than that to
which they invite me. And if You do not avert from me their
plan, I might incline toward them and [thus] be of the
ignorant."
So, his Lord responded to him and averted from him their
plan. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Knowing.
-788-
(Quran: 12/33-34)
Destiny is sometimes understood very simply as follows: God decreed
what objects, beings, events and so on bring into existence, and
prescribed them in a register, and then makes them happen.
According to the Quranic teaching the destiny is not so simple.
According to the Quran, the destiny is an interactive process. It is
not a one-way oriented process.
As explained in the above verse 57/22, every event before coming
into existence is prescribed in the register. However, before it is
finally prescribed there may be some interactions between God and
His Creation.
In the above verse 12/33 I gave an example verse which mentions the
supplication of Prophet Joseph (PBUH) to Allah. There are plenty of
verses in the Quran where Allah specifically orders us to ask help
from Him about past or future events. Hence, according to the Quran
it is obvious that we do not have in front of us a plan and a future
that cannot be influenced. We can influence the future.
But are not our supplications also registered and planned by God in
the Book of destiny? If everything is in that book then how can we
make any supplication that is not there?
The answer to this question is precisely and clearly given in the
following verse:
(Moses said) “And prescribe for us in this world good, and in
the world to come; we have turned to You.”
Said He, “My chastisement - I smite with it whom I will; and
My mercy embraces all things,
And I shall prescribe it for those who are godfearing and pay
the alms, and those who indeed believe in Our signs,”
-789-
(Quran: 7/156)
The above verse contains a part of a dialogue between Allah and
Moses (PBUH). Moses asks Allah to “prescribe” things. The word
“uk’tub” in the original Arabic text is the imperative form of “kataba”
which means to write. It also means to prescribe, to decree, to ordain.
The word used for “Book” which is also translated as registry which
corresponds to destiny is “kitab”. It is another form of the word
Moses (PBUH) used while supplicating to Allah so that He
“prescribes” certain things. Therefore, Moses (PBUH) asks Allah to
prescribe in that Book good things in this world and in the hereafter.
Hence, we clearly understand from this that this Book is not a Book
which has been finalized billions of years ago within our perspective.
Though Allah knows its final version, as explained in the previous
sections.
Furthermore, in the above verse the reply of Allah is very relevant
about this aspect of the book: Allah uses the statement “I will
prescribe” in His response to Moses. The word used here is the future
tense of the word “kataba” in Arabic which means “I will write”, “I
will ordain”, “I will decree", “I will prescribe”. Hence, at the time of
Moses, which as we know is much later than the creation of the
universe, Allah uses the future tense, and says that He “will”
prescribe His mercy to people who behave in good ways. We
understand that He will prescribe upon certain behavior of people in
the future as well. So, the behavior of people affects the mercy that
Allah will prescribe for them.
So, we understand without any doubt that the destiny or the Book is
a dynamic registry which is influenced by our supplications and our
behaviors if Allah responds to them positively.
Moreover, through the clarification in this verse, we understand a
very important mechanism about the relationships of our wills to the
destiny: If our supplications change that way the destiny, then do our
-790-
wills also change it? Of course, since the above supplication of Moses
was an outcome of his will power. And his will is expected to
influence the Book and what will occur based on it. And numerous
verses in the Quran make it clear that our wills change future events.
The following verse which invites to spend in the way of Allah is an
example:
If you loan Allah a goodly loan, He will multiply it for you
and forgive you. And Allah is Most Appreciative and
Forbearing.
(Quran: 64/17)
The following verse explains the outcomes of some bad deeds:
And [We cursed them] for their breaking of the covenant and
their disbelief in the signs of Allah and their killing of the
prophets without right and their saying, “Our hearts are
wrapped”. Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their
disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.
(Quran: 4/155)
As we have seen what the Quran says about the relationship between
Allah, the Book, events, and agents, let us now see how the
mechanism of destiny works through a specific example:
In the 12th chapter of the Quran called “Joseph” Allah explains in
detail what happened to him since his childhood until his maturity.
This chapter is extremely important for understanding how destiny
and God’s knowledge works. A person who wants to understand
these subjects, must read and try to understand this chapter well. I
will not go through all of it, but I will underline a few points from
among many important points mentioned in that chapter:
Prophet Joseph (PBUH) was created. He had no say about in which
family, in which geography he would be created -though note that
-791-
the supplications of Prophet Abraham (PBUH) may have been
influential in those matters-. Prophet Joseph was tested many times
by God. Each test situation consists of certain circumstances where
Prophet Joseph can will option O1 or option O2. If he chooses to
will O1, then there are secondary options as O1.1, O1.2, O1.3…
Allah knows all of these options. But once Prophet Joseph (PBUH)
prepared his will and proceeds to actualize it for O1, Allah may
approve it and prescribe its actualization for him or not. If He
prescribes it, then it is in the Book.
One actual test is told to us by God as in the following verse:
And she, in whose house he was, sought to seduce him. She
closed the doors and said, "Come, you." He said, "[I seek] the
refuge of Allah. Indeed, he is my master, who has made good
my residence. Indeed, wrongdoers will not succeed."
And she certainly determined [to seduce] him, and he would
have inclined to her had he not seen the proof of his Lord.
And thus [it was] that We should avert from him evil and
immorality. Indeed, he was one of Our servants, sincere and
purified.
(Quran: 12/23-24)
Prophet Joseph (PBUH) had free will. He was free to commit
adultery. But keeping in mind the ought to be truth which is not to
commit adultery and especially not to betray his master, he exercised
his FWP in harmony with his other mental powers. Yet, we see in
the above verses that it was a real test and tempting situation, and he
might tend to commit that sin.
We should also note that in the verse Allah mentions His help.
Hence, the will of Prophet Joseph (PBUH) was with the help of
Allah, however, this help also relates to his general attitude. We see
-792-
in the above and following verses that he always feels the nearness of
God and always seeks His help.
He said, "My Lord, prison is more to my liking than that to
which they invite me. And if You do not avert from me their
plan, I might incline toward them and [thus] be of the
ignorant."
So, his Lord responded to him and averted from him their
plan. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Knowing.
(Quran: 12/33-34)
The above statement “he would have inclined to her had he not seen
the proof of his Lord” shows us that the help of Allah has been useful
in his protection against committing that sin.
So, as Prophet Joseph (PBUH) was pure and sincere and always
supplicating for the help of Allah, in the Book, Allah has written His
help for him. Yet, though His help is true, Prophet Joseph (PBUH)
needs to act with his own free will. Albeit the help, he had the
freedom of will to go astray.
As we see in the following verses about Prophet Muhammad
(PBUH), it is possible for prophets to go astray:
And if [Muhammad,] he had made up about Us some [false]
sayings,
We would have seized him by the right hand;
Then We would have cut from him the aorta.
(Quran: 69/44-46)
The examples of prophets such as Prophet Adam (PBUH) who
committed errors also show us that they own their free wills.
-793-
Hence, the good intention and deeds of Prophet Joseph, made God
help him further. Allah might not offer His help to him. Or He might
not permit him to refrain from that sin. His refraining from that sin
is with the permission of Allah. So, in accordance with the verse
57/22, his refraining from the sin became written in the Book before
he refrained, Allah permitted him not to sin in that context.
Note in the following verse, that had he not behaved well, his future
might be a disaster:
And they both raced to the door, and she tore his shirt from
the back, and they found her husband at the door. She said,
“What is the recompense of one who intended evil for your
wife but that he be imprisoned or a painful punishment?”
(Quran: 12/25)
So, had Prophet Joseph (PBUH) chosen the other option, then he
might be caught by the husband of that woman. And then let aside
being a personality whose name is mentioned in the Quran as a
praised person, he might be killed or be a totally worthless person.
In this situation, he would have been written in the Destiny Book
like that.
Though the Destiny Book is dynamic, we should also keep in mind
that there are many future events that do not depend necessarily on
our wills or behaviors.
Now that we have seen the gradual development of the Destiny Book,
we need also to consider this in its relation to the knowledge of Allah.
If the destiny Book progresses gradually, then how can Allah know
all eternally?
The same chapter gives us relevant information about this as well.
-794-
[Of these stories mention] when Joseph said to his father, "O
my father, indeed I have seen [in a dream] eleven stars and
the sun and the moon; I saw them prostrating to me."
He said, "O my son, do not relate your vision to your brothers
or they will contrive against you a plan. Indeed Satan, to man,
is a manifest enemy.
And thus, will your Lord choose you and teach you the
interpretation of narratives and complete His favor upon you
and upon the family of Jacob, as He completed it upon your
fathers before, Abraham and Isaac. Indeed, your Lord is
Knowing and Wise."
(Quran: 12/4-6)
In the above verses we see that even when Prophet Joseph (PBUH)
was a child, he saw in his dream that he would be a successful person.
As explained in part 3.8.1.4.3 in the similitude of time machine, Allah
is not confined within time brackets. But this does not mean that He
cannot interact through time brackets. Imagine a boss of a big
company who has screens that relate to him what is going on in tens
of departments of his factory; he is also able to talk to people in those
departments while he is sitting in his room. The fact that God is not
confined to time brackets, does not mean that He cannot act upon
those brackets. Allah asks Moses (PBUH) what is in his hand, or
Allah asks the help of the believers, and there are many instances like
this in the Quran. This is not because of the limitations of God, but
because of our limitations. We are in the bracket of the time; we can
conceive of limited things in limited ways; hence, Allah
communicates with us through those things. The same happens
regarding destiny. We need security, we need consistency, we need
peace, therefore as explained above, Allah makes destiny, and gives
-795-
us the mechanism of destiny so as we may be assured and feel more
secure.
Yet, this does not mean that Allah cannot make use of His eternal
knowledge in our context.
In the above verse we see that Allah incorporates His divine
knowledge within our world and destiny as well. Prophet Joseph
(PBUH) was given by Allah some information about the future.
Remember from part 3.8.1.4.1 that Allah knows the future. And since
He knows it, He can share it as well. But, as this knowledge of God
was dependent upon what happens in the future, this is not
necessarily causing effects in the real world. Could Prophet Joseph
(PBUH) commit that adultery and be killed though he saw that
dream? We should rather ask, could he see that dream had he
committed that crime? Probably not. The dream is not necessarily a
unipotential cause for what happens after it.
Anyway, the above thinking is based on the assumption that the
dream was known to be a true dream from God. Did they know that
it was such a dream?
However, the following verse of the Quran tells us an event related
to that dream which happened many years after it was seen:
And he raised his parents upon the throne, and they bowed
to him in prostration. And he said, "O my father, this is the
explanation of my dream of before. My Lord has made it
reality. And He was certainly good to me when He took me
out of prison and brought you [here] from bedouin life after
Satan had induced [estrangement] between me and my
brothers. Indeed, my Lord is Subtle in what He wills. Indeed,
it is He who is the Knowing, the Wise.
(Quran: 12/100)
-796-
So, a possibility is that the dream might not come true.
Note that there are other verses in the same chapter where Prophet
Joseph (PBUH) informs people about the events that will happen in
their future.
Another important thing to note is the possibility that there are
different kinds of registers under the heading of destiny. While Allah
informs us about the “Book”, He also talks about a tablet which is
protected in which things are recorded. The following verses mention
that book:
Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Quran that you might
understand.
And indeed it is, in the Mother of the Book with Us, exalted
and full of wisdom.
(Quran: 43/3-4)
Indeed, it is a noble Quran
In a Register well-protected;
(Quran: 56/77-78)
But this is an honored Quran
In a preserved master tablet.
(Quran: 85/21-22)
Some scholars say that it is the same as the Book related to destiny,
some say that it is of different nature. The thing that may be relevant
for us is that the record does not need to be one, and if there are
other books, then there can be some relationships between them.
-797-
We should also note that the knowledge of God is not limited to the
knowledge contained within these books.
3.8.2 Environment
O you who have believed, fear Allah and be with those who
are truthful.
(Quran: 9/119)
The environment is a very important factor which influences the will
power. In this context, the environment means the factors external
to the agent which may influence the wills of the agent such as
friends, society, economical, social, physical, technological, biological
factors and conditions. These may influence specific wills as well as
the general tendencies of the agent.
The environment often may offer positive influences. After all, we
survive and do most of what we can do thanks to our environment.
We also have the ability to make it more positive and enhance its
positive aspects. The following verse gives a general rule about the
need to try to transform our environment for the better:
Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good
instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed,
your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way,
and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.
(Quran: 16/125)
However, the environment may have negative influences as well: A
person who enjoys being with the criminals, will be influenced by
them. A person under the management of oppressors will also be
influenced. An environment with huge economical means or very
limited means will have influences upon the will power.
-798-
Most factors that may mislead a person do not have any coercive
causal power. The following verse gives the example of the words of
Satan:
And Satan will say when the matter has been concluded:
Indeed, Allah had promised you the promise of truth. And I
promised you, but I betrayed you. But I had no authority over
you except that I invited you, and you responded to me. So
do not blame me; but blame yourselves. I cannot be called to
your aid, nor can you be called to my aid. Indeed, I deny your
association of me [with Allah] before.
Indeed, for the wrongdoers is a painful punishment.
(Quran: 14/22)
But, in any case, there are things to do in order to manage the
environmental factors as they relate to the OTBT of the agent.
Therefore, the agent should consider the circles of the environment,
and if they are close to be coercive in a negative direction, he should
even think about emigrating into an environment which facilitates
his being in harmony with his OTBT as underlined in the following
verse:
And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the
earth many [alternative] locations and abundance. And
whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His
Messenger and then death overtakes him his reward has
already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever
Forgiving and Merciful.
(Quran: 4/100)
-799-
Sometimes, the negative influencers may be very near. For example,
the following verse explains how one would behave if his parents
force or invite to evil deeds:
But if they endeavor to make you associate with Me that of
which you have no knowledge, do not obey them but
accompany them in [this] world with appropriate kindness
and follow the way of those who turn back to Me [in
repentance]. Then to Me will be your return, and I will
inform you about what you used to do.
(Quran: 31/15)
The environment does not consist only of people. The following verse
gives an example of weather conditions that the agents should resist:
Those who remained behind rejoiced in their staying [at
home] after [the departure of] the Messenger of Allah and
disliked to strive with their wealth and their lives in the cause
of Allah and said, ''Do not go forth in the heat." Say, "The
fire of Hell is more intensive in heat" if they would but
understand.
(Quran: 9/81)
Wherever an agent goes, in any case, there will be many influencing
factors and conditions. So, an agent should learn how to change his
environment for better, how to protect himself from its bad
influences, how to benefit from its positive factors and conditions,
and should be active in these matters. Otherwise, an agent may lose
himself, his family, waste his life, and many other things.
3.8.3 Emotions
Emotions are closely related to consciousness which we had under a
distinct heading under the inputs of free will. However, as they are
-800-
very important, we will examine emotions here as an influencer of
the free will.
God intends to give us huge and permanent favors, rewards, and
degrees. And rewards require good servants who have deserved them
through big achievements, especially through adopting good values,
and through seeking it through the true source. These also require
challenges.
In the other parts I mentioned lots of such challenges. And one type
of those challenges arises from our own selves.
Our emotions deeply related to our own selves may be considered
among the biggest challenges. Because these are very close to us, they
originate within us, they are very intense. Yet, they are also closely
related to our ultimate goals. For example, the paradise and the hell
are closely related to our emotions.
Emotions also can be good as well as evil, hence, distinguishing the
good emotions from the harmful ones is a big challenge in itself. Our
OTBT relates also to our emotions. We want peace in the first place;
we may want to be superior in goodness; yet, we may also tend to
feel superior unfairly. We may risk mixing useful emotions with
harmful ones, and we may consider the harmful ones as if they
positively relate to our OTBT. Sometimes, the line between a good
emotion and a bad one may be very thin: For example, a person who
envies a successful person, may find himself being jealous of him and
working for his failure.
Each of us has some weaknesses. Each of us may be the victim of one
or more of the bad tendencies such as arrogance, oppression,
injustice, jealousy, hypocrisy, impatience, excessive love for money…
Allah invites us to recognize this risk, and to try to have them under
control, or to purify ourselves from them and from their causes.
-801-
And [I swear by] the soul and He who proportioned it
And inspired it [with discernment of] its wickedness and its
righteousness,
He has succeeded who purifies it,
And he has failed who buries it [in corruption].
(Quran: 91/7-10)
Have you then considered him who takes his low desire for
his god, and Allah has made him err having knowledge and
has set a seal upon his ear and his heart and put a covering
upon his eye. Who can then guide him after Allah? Will you
not then be mindful?
(Quran: 45/23)
Therefore, the routine practice of daily prayers, evaluating how we
behave compared to the divine values, strong and continual
introspection about our emotions, learning about human psychology,
allocating time to long term goals to balance the intensity of shortterms emotions are very important and necessary.
4
Implications of Quranic Framework of Free Will
The Quranic framework about free will and related areas have big
implications. In this part we will examine them.
4.1 Argument for God from Free Will Power
In this sub-section, we will see the implications of free will power
(FWP) as an evidence for the existence of God. I should underline
that by FWP I mean the main FWP as defined in this book.
-802-
4.1.1 Methodology About Proving God
Some people claim that there is no evidence for God. And they argue
that the acceptable evidence for God must be scientific, and they also
argue that scientific evidence means testable and repeatable evidence
which God should display directly for Himself in order to prove
Himself, in areas other than the patterns and unity observed within
the creation of God.
In the first place, these arguments are not rational in themselves.
Because the God they would prove would be a kind of God who has
some compulsive obsessive disorder. And there is no claim by God
or by theists that God has any such disorder. He does not need to
necessarily repeat anything, and He does not need to repeat anything
in order to convince anyone. However, many different patterns and
differentiations within His creation as part of systems He created
already display the power that sustains and governs them.
In this context, the existence of free will as a real power which is not
based on repeatability, demonstrate that repeatability does not have
a fundamental or default position within the universe. It also shows
that repeatability is not the indispensable proof for the truth of God.
It also demonstrates that any scientific thing needs not be necessarily
deterministic or repeatable.
Hence, free will power (FWP) refutes from another angle the claim
that there is no evidence for God. The repetitive things in the
universe are not absolute, and they are and they can be based upon
the FWP of God. Free will shows that the laws and patterns are not
basic, all-encompassing, and necessary. They are not things that can
replace God.
If repeatability does not have a fundamental place, then the
disbeliever in God will have a duty of demonstrating that the universe
-803-
and repetitive things are self-sufficient, and that they are not evidence
for God.
Also, if the FWP is true, then the objection against the existence of
God becomes just a matter of degree, not a matter of kind. Because,
if FWP is true, then it is not reducible to the spatiotemporal. Either
it has a different nature than the spatiotemporal, or the
spatiotemporal also has a nature with some aspects that are like free
will. This nature is transcendent in unity. Once the possibility of such
a nature is recognized, then there is not much reason to reject God
who has this nature with the difference of being necessary, and being
the Only One in encompassing all things.
There can be arguments for the multiplicity or contingency of Godlike beings. However, such arguments will not be very acceptable for
reasons explained in part 2.2.1.
4.1.2 Argument for God from The Effectiveness of the FWP
We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within
themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth.
But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over
all things, a Witness?
(Quran: 41/53)
The Quran presents everything in the skies and on the earth as
evidence for Allah. The sun, the moon, the water, the plants, the
animals, the eyes, the ears… are all evidence for Allah.
Further evidence is that (at times) you find the earth to be
barren. When it is watered it moves and swells (to let the
plants grow). The One who brings it back to life will also
bring the dead back to life. He has power over all things.
(Quran: 41/39)
-804-
And the earth We spread it out and cast therein firmly set
mountains and made grow therein [something] of every
beautiful kind,
Giving insight and a reminder for every servant who turns
[to Allah].
(Quran: 50/8)
None of the above is self-sufficient, self-creator, and eternal; none of
them owns power and knowledge of their own. However, what we
observe requires knowledge, power, stability. Hence, a cause who has
powers to create, to determine and design what to create, and to
sustain the creation is necessary. This is the main line of thought for
the proof of God.
The following verse makes reference to the lack of self-sufficient
knowledge of the creation:
Allah brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers
when you knew nothing, and He gave you hearing, sight and
intelligence so that you may give thanks to Him.
(Quran: 16/78)
The following verse underlines the fact that whatever is replaced
instead of God does not have any power to create:
O people, an example is presented, so listen to it. Indeed,
those you invoke besides Allah will never create [as much as]
a fly, even if they gathered together for that purpose. And if
the fly should steal away from them a [tiny] thing, they could
not recover it from him. Weak are the pursuer and pursued.
(Quran: 22/73)
The following verses emphasizes the contradiction of self-creation:
-805-
Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators
[of themselves]?
Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they
are not certain.
(Quran: 52/35-36)
Almost all arguments for God are structured around the above facts.
They focus on different aspects of this universe. Some focus on
contingency, some on beginning, some on the fine tuning of the
universe…
Like everything which is part of this universe which is not selfsufficient, free will power is also an evidence.
Some of its aspects make it a special evidence. As explained in part
3.4.12.1 about the negation experiments and brain observation
experiments, FWP shows that not everything is reducible to
spatiotemporal things. It also shows that determinism and
indeterminism is false. The falsity of determinism, indeterminism,
and reductionism are also proven by many other arguments
presented in this book. FWP is a fact which disproves them.
Especially as a power belonging to all sovereign wholes, FWP shows
that unity, transcendence, multipotential causality are fundamental
aspects of the non-self-sufficient universe. These show that the
originator of the universe does not need to be spatiotemporally
complex, since, everything has a transcendent and multipotentiality
aspects no matter how simple they are in terms of spatiotemporality.
If we can transcend the spatiotemporal, then a transcendence over
the spatiotemporal is possible. The spatiotemporal is not an absolute
limitation.
-806-
If the material interacts with the FWP, then it must have some
aspects related to transcendence and unity. Since the material is
contingent, its aspects of transcendence and unity must be
originating from a necessary.
Actually, those who reject God, reject the properties that relate to
FWP. If the spatiotemporal is supposed to have FWP, then it would
not be much different than some types of god, since it would be
causing all future things even though it would be different than Allah
in terms of unity, eternity, self-sufficiency, and some other aspects.
FWP shows that things are not reducible to the spatiotemporal, and
therefore that the originator and sustainer of the universe is not
merely spatiotemporal. If we did not create our transcendence, and
if we are not reducible to the spatiotemporal, then there is a source
from which we get this power. We know that we have not created
ourselves, and we know that we are not eternal.
FWP also shows the reality of the preferences, good, evil, truth, error,
rationality, consciousness, responsibility, blame, praise. With the
absence of FWP, and with reducibility of judgment, moral values,
and acts to the spatiotemporal, all those things would be
epiphenomenal, illusory. FWP shows that they are effective and real;
with the FWP, they also become objectively observable and effective.
The reality of these demonstrate the need for a cause for them who
is beyond the spatiotemporal, and who has the corresponding
attributes.
The material can only exist based on a transcendent and unitary
essence as shown in argument from unity in part 2.2.1.3. The unity
necessary for FWP supports the argument from unity in that part.
Furthermore, FWP shows that nothing subject to FWP is necessary,
because things subject to FWP can be willed to be otherwise and
-807-
changed; hence things that can be subject to FWP are contingent,
conditional, hence, they need a necessary source.
FWP owners at the same layer and which can be multiple are also
contingent, since one FWP owner can interrupt another FWP owner
at the same layer. But if “every” thing is conditional and depends on
other things then there would be circularity and/or infinite regress,
and then there would be no existence. Therefore, there must be one
necessary being.
This necessary being must have a free will power, because (1)
otherwise it could not be able to cause free will power owners, (2)
the default should have no bias, and (3) arguments in part 3.4.1.2.2
show the falsity of determinism, and arguments in part 3.4.2 show
that indeterminism is false, arguments in part 3.5.6.4.2 show that
reductive phypsicalism is false.
4.1.3 Proof for God from FWP And Non-Existence of
Partial Nothingness
If there is FWP, this power cannot be surrounded by partial
nothingness, because partial nothingness cannot exist by definition,
since, nothingness does not exist, does not have any effect and does
not have any extension. This power can be originated, sustained, and
surrounded only by an infinite FWP owner. For further details about
the argument for God from the non-existence of nothingness see
(Tosun 2012).
4.2 Personal and Social Achievement
That no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another,
And that there is not for man except that [good] for which
he strives,
-808-
And that his effort is going to be seen.
Then he will be recompensed for it with the fullest
recompense.
(Quran: 53/38-41)
A human being or a society may be within advantageous or
disadvantageous conditions. Yet, when FWP is accepted, then what
affects the net success or failure will be the specific individual or
society. Of course, within the Islamic framework, the effort must
include the invocation of the help of Allah as well.
Hence, the initial conditions, deterministic laws, or indeterministic
behavior of particles are not what makes someone or a society
superior or inferior. Every being or society has challenges. Admitting
that what an individual produces is only the outcome of his past and
initial conditions, will make those born within disadvantageous
conditions hopeless, and the ones with advantageous conditions
arrogant at least for their luck. Yet, according to Islam, any person
or society should and can add to what the positive initial conditions
provide for him and should and can overcome many challenges of
independent variables.
Some say if we reject free will, then we can recognize the factors that
caused the evil things, and we can improve them. There are these
factors, this is clear due to the limitedness of free will. The Quran
recognizes these factors. But the Quranic framework also recognizes
our freedom to change those factors. However, those who reject free
will, contradict themselves when they say “if we can recognize the
causal factors that caused the evil or the good we can improve
things”, because according to them, we cannot will something on our
own other than what the particles deterministically or
indeterministically do. So, if free will is rejected, then there is no
room for improvement and for change that we can produce.
-809-
Also, a reductionist approach brings in the risk in a society that the
strong will promote lack of free will, because the lack of free will will
remove responsibility from them. Also, since they cannot be
responsible without free will, they may tend to be more oppressive.
On the other hand, the weak may tend to adopt the lack of free will
for denying their responsibility of their position. This may create a
vicious cycle, and the truth of free will may be undermined based on
misleading emotions. However, that someone feels more comfortable
with a thought has nothing to do with the truth of that thought.
4.3 Logic and Truth
That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood, and
those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. Thus,
does Allah present to the people their comparisons.
(Quran: 47/3)
FWP supports the logic and the claim of truth. If there is no FWP,
then any claim will be the outcome of either deterministic or
indeterministic processes. If a claim is the outcome of such processes,
then truth and logic cannot have any effect in the formation of a
claim. But FWP, combined with knowledge and reasoning powers,
can produce claims with truth value.
Further details about truth have been given in part 3.6.2.
Someone who claims the absence of FWP cannot claim that he is
rational and upon the truth. Because while he believes in the absence
of FWP, he must be assuming that he is no more than particles
bumping one onto another. So, his conclusion cannot be based on
logic. For the same reason, his emotions are just epiphenomenal and
ineffective. So, his conclusions cannot be even based on emotions.
Can he say that he put the hat of the believer in FWP while
reasoning, and saw that there are inconsistencies with the FWP? He
-810-
cannot, since, even if he feels that he puts on the hat of the believer
in FWP, the above apply.
On the other hand, can I as a believer in FWP reason and conclude
logically that the absence of FWP is true and then claim afterwards
that my conclusion was true and based on reason? Can I claim that
I was reasonable at least in a part of my life, and that I was upon the
truth when I made that conclusion?
No. Because, the moment I reach that conclusion, I will have to admit
that while I was thinking as a believer in FWP, I was wrong as a
believer in FWP; I was nothing more than particles bumping one
onto another. So, my conclusion was not the result of my FWP. All
of the concepts, premises, logical chains were in fact epiphenomenal,
supervenient upon the behavior of particles bumping one onto other,
they were not even wrong, and no logical chain, syllogism, premise
had any effect on my conclusions. More dramatically, according to
this, I would be nothing more than the particles bumping one onto
another.
So, the denial of FWP entails the rejection of truth and reason. The
recognition of FWP entails the recognition of truth and reason.
The absence of FWP can be postulated upon neither logical nor
emotional ground.
The recognition of reductionism, determinism, and indeterminism
entails the same with what the denial of FWP entails.
Question 153.
Does not an opponent of FWP reach correct conclusions as 2+2=4,
so why would not he be able to reach a correct conclusion about
FWP?
-811-
Answer 153.
He reaches such conclusions because he has FWP even though he
denies FWP. He can transcend 2+2=5 as well. And as he has the
necessary unity and transcendence as opposed to being reduced to
point-like infinitesimal instantiations, he can discard 2+2=5 and
conclude that 2+2=4.
Question 154.
Does not a computer produce a correct result even though it acts are
based on deterministic processes?
Answer 154.
If a computer does not produce a correct result, the human beings
detect the problem with its relevant parts, for example with its chips,
and fix the problem. The computer is just a tool of human beings.
They are not producing claims on their own.
4.4 Morals, Good and Evil
Whoever does an evil, he shall not be recompensed, (with
aught) but the like of it, and whoever does good, whether
male or female, and he is a believer, these shall enter the
garden, in which they shall be given sustenance without
account.
(Quran: 40/40)
4.4.1 Truth of Morals
If everything is "that which must be" according to determinism,
indeterminism, and/or reductionism, then there is no FWP. Hence,
the agent cannot transcend the good and evil, and compare them
effectively, and he cannot navigate freely between good and evil, he
-812-
cannot effectively design and produce concepts and definitions, while
thinking and willing. And he cannot put into action his will in favor
of good or evil. He cannot judge what is evil and what is good.
If we say “Being B must not be tortured”, our judgment is useless
without FWP, because our judgment does not exist distinctly. That
which must or must not be is only meaningful if we have FWP and
if FWP may have an implication. Without such freedom, the above
claim and the claim of someone who says “B must be tortured” are
equal, since they are just an illusion reducible to the behavior of
particles bumping one onto another.
Can we “behave as if there is FWP” while we say “this must be”? But
then this behavior would be based on a self-refuting illusion. We
would then be saying “FWP is not true but let us behave as if it is,
let us deceive ourselves”.
In the Quranic teaching, ought to be truth (OTBT) is consequential.
The moral and the immoral agents will bear the consequences of
their wills and acts. All acts and actors will be judged and the relevant
recompenses will be given.
Hence, acts subject to moral evaluations are not only subject to
subjective and arbitrary evaluation of other agents, and sometimes
inefficient judgment, investigation and sanctioning capacities of
human beings.
There is the truth, and there is the Knower of the truth.
There are the default and all-encompassing attributes of God that
relate to morals. Some of them are related to peace, beneficience,
justice, stability, judge, balance…
Surely Allah enjoins the doing of justice and the doing of
good (to others) and the giving to the kindred, and He forbids
-813-
indecency and evil and rebellion; He admonishes you that
you may be mindful.
(Quran: 16/90)
Indeed, He does not like the arrogant.
(Quran: 16/23)
These are the default truth, and the commands of Allah are in
accordance with them.
4.4.2 Acting Morally While There Is No Free Will
Let us examine the reasoning behind morally relevant actions while
rejecting free will with an example:
A child has fallen in a river. A person sees and he has a new expensive
mobile in his pocket. He can save the child, but if he saves the child,
the mobile will be useless or someone may steal it. He thinks: All is
deterministic and I do not have free will, what will happen will
happen in any case.
So, he waits calmly and the child gets drowned. And afterwards he
says: There was determinism, so I could not have done otherwise. If
he saved or not, he could not be praised nor blaimed according to
determinism. Again, if he chose to be determinist, then it is what had
to be.
But he could behave as if he had free will, but in fact this would not
make a difference in the deterministic universe. Although it is
deterministic, this faking free will would be also part of the
deterministic universe. But if he did not fake, this was what had to
happen against which he has no power at all. For him, even he does
not have the capacity to decide to fake, since this decision would not
-814-
be anything other than the behavior of particles bumping one onto
other.
Some claim that well-being is the basis of morals, not free will or
truth or anything else. If this is true, the man above has acted
perfectly morally. Since he did not lose time and he did not lose his
mobile; and from his perspective these were very important for his
well-being.
The above thoughts are in harmony with the denial of FWP.
A person who believes in FWP would say that he can make a
difference. And he would make a quick prioritization, and
considering the life of a human being is much more important than
a mobile, he would will to save the child and get into action.
In terms of the Quranic teaching, additionally the statement in the
Quran that I mentioned earlier which says that saving a soul is like
saving the whole mankind would be very important about what
action to take.
The Quranic teaching about FWP is necessary for the existence of
morals.
4.4.3 Sanctions, Morals, and FWP
Should a criminal feel ashamed? Should he regret what he did?
Should a raper be punished? Should a thief return what he has stolen
if he is caught? Should a killer be punished even if it is certain that
he will not kill anyone again? Should someone who signed a contract
to pay his supplier be blamed if he does not pay it though he can?
Without free will can we answer the above questions positively? If
the person does not have any power to not commit that crime why
would he be punished? Why then would he be ashamed, after all,
-815-
was not it the act of the particles bumping one onto other? Why
would that buyer who defaulted be blamed?
Sanctions, blame, praise are not justifiable if there is no FWP. They
cannot justifiable if there is only FWP which is defined according to
compatibilism.
Or can they be applicable for rehabilitating such people in a
pragmatic approach without any kind of retribution? If we do not
have FWP, then we are not in a place to do any change. So, if we do
not have FWP, then we cannot improve any person. We cannot even
“will” to rehabilitate any person, except as an illusion. Conversely, if
a denier of FWP believes that people can be rehabilitated for the good
of society, then why does not he think that the criminal should have
rehabilitated himself?
Hence, without free will, all bases of morals collapse, and morals itself
becomes no more than an illusion.
Consistently with the above, in the Quran, the necessity of sanctions,
rewards, blame, praise have been underlined strongly.
There are implications of the truth regarding the acts that are relevant
in terms of morals.
All wills and acts are known by God and they are recorded as noted
in the following verses:
He is with you wherever you are. And Allah, of what you do,
is Seeing.
(Quran: 57/4)
-816-
Or do they think that We hear not their secrets and their
private conversations? Yes, [We do], and Our messengers are
with them recording.
(Quran: 43/80)
And on the judgment day, there will be a precise judgment:
And We place the scales of justice for the Day of
Resurrection, so no soul will be treated unjustly at all. And if
there is [even] the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it
forth. And sufficient are We as accountant.
(Quran: 21/47)
Hence, in terms of morals, the Quranic teaching is very precise.
Morals is not something that is ambiguous. The criminal does not
get away with what he has stolen if he is not caught in this world.
There is an Authority who establishes the rules based on His divine
(more than universal), and default attributes. The rules will produce
their consequences justly, the evil and the good will not be the same
in their ultimate consequences. Therefore, the agent has to exercise
his FWP appropriately if he wants to be successful and to be among
the righteous in the hereafter.
The FWP of the agent puts a responsibility on the agent to comply
with the divine values. If he does not comply, then he will have
buried himself in evil, and transformed himself to evil.
Sanctions in the hereafter are very functional in terms of morals.
Punishment in the hereafter according to the Quran, is not like the
punishment in the secular criminology in some respects.
The goal of secular criminology is to deter people from committing
crimes, to protect the society and some other things, though the
indication of the degree of the crime may also be a side product. The
-817-
public authority is not interested in distinguishing the good and the
evil. For example, it is not interested in seeing who is so evil as to
commit a crime which requires a capital sentence.
The Islamic sanctions to be executed in worldly life contain the goals
of secular criminology such as deterrence. The Quran requires some
worldly sanctions for some crimes. This is consistent with the
recognition of the FWP of the agent.
However, the rejection of the free will makes worldly sanctions with
no basis and creates inconsistencies: The one who rejects free will
would need to compensate for the hardships that a criminal
undergoes for example in prison. And prisons must be very
comfortable. Because the criminals committed those crimes without
free will and they were victims of determinism. Hence, if there is no
free will, they must be compensated for being kept away from society
for the good of the society.
While the Quran stipulates worldly sanctions, these are limited in
scope. The essentials about sanctions are the principles and the
sanctions in the hereafter. These sanctions correspond to the
goodness or evilness of the agent besides the attributes of the actions.
Hence, these sanctions are more permanent in nature.
Regarding the sanctions in the hereafter, God’s framework is
essentially different than secular criminal sanctions.
Indeed, the Hour is coming I almost conceal it so that every
soul may be recompensed according to that for which it
strives.
(Quran: 20/15)
He creates an ownership of will by the agents by giving them freedom
and no immediate access to some facts which if accessed would
supersede the agents’ will that exposes his goodness or evilness.
-818-
Imagine the public prosecutor, judge, police officer, and executioner
waiting for the killer who would kill his victim; and the killer
knowing about them. But he would kill the victim if they did not
know and were not present. Therefore, the information being under
the monopoly of only One God who has power over all things, and
His hiding the information about the future makes a big difference.
If everybody knew and was exposed to the future, the hell, and the
paradise coercively, instead of being given the ability to know, accept,
and reject, then they would be deprived from free will. Then they
would lose their potential to be good or evil objectively.
The paradise and the hell are essentially options given by God to
human beings. God does not need the belief of a person, and He is
not harmed by the disbelief or sin of a person. However, goodness
and evilness are important and they will be compensated. Also, God
can guide human beings even if there is no punishment in hell, even
if they have their free will. Again, differently than secular worldly
sanctions, in a punishment after a person dies, it is not expected that
the person is rehabilitated for this world.
The punishment of the hereafter is also a benchmark to expose how
big and strong the negative attitude of a person is against God and
against morals. And the attitude against God is the biggest criterion
showing how good or evil a person is. For example, if a person insults
God, this is much heavier than insulting a human being. If a person
is arrogant against God, this has different implications about the
arrogance of that person compared to his arrogance toward another
human being. However, arrogance or insult against human beings
are also very important in reflecting the goodness or evilness of that
person.
The magnitude of the sanction for the crime that the agent dares
committing is an indicator of how intense he is in willing to commit
-819-
that crime. A criminal C1 who commits a crime whose sanction is 15
days in prison, may choose not to commit the same if he knows that
its sanction is 20 years in prison all else being the same. But another
criminal C2 may will to commit the same even if he knows that its
sanction is 20 years in prison all else being the same. C1 may refrain
from committing that crime if its sanction is 20 years. C2 is obviously
an eviler person in that even a big punishment does not stop him
from committing that evil.
Let us see a more specific example: If the sanction for driving while
very drunk was one dollar, then a person who drove while very drunk
would not be considered as a serious offender of the law. But if it
requires the suspension of the driver’s license, and a big fine, then if
he is stopped while he drives drunk though there is no accident, he
should be much more embarrassed.
There must also be a correlation between the seriousness of the
offense and the sanction. But only the magnitude of the sanction
gives a message in and of itself about the seriousness of the offense
and the level of disobedience of the offender to the rules. In the above
example, the magnitude of the sanction is important in that it is a
concise indicator and summary of the probable harms of driving
drunk to other people and their goods.
In parallel with the above, by the promise of hell, the evilness of the
evil person becomes more drastically shown since they commit their
crimes however big is the risk arising from it. If there was a very
limited punishment for those who reject or rebel against God, they
might say “well at the end it will be over, so now we can revolt and
I can take that risk”, but a permanent punishment shows how big is
the risk they undertake, how intense and willful they are for their
acts.
-820-
If the agent undergoes the punishment of hell, this means that he did
not exercise his FWP and related powers appropriately, and that he
transformed himself and his will power into an instrument of his low
desires. Hence, his low desires won in getting short term pleasures,
and the pureness of his essence has been buried, and its light has
been extinguished. He has failed to achieve the ultimate ought to be
truth (OTBT) and the moral benchmarks included in the OTBT.
By the opportunity given, human beings exhibit and demonstrate
who they really are. From this angle, Allah does not establish
punishment to deter or prevent them. He could prevent them with
no need for hell. As mentioned earlier, Allah says that had He willed,
everybody would be a believer. He chose to give us a higher degree
of freedom, hence higher degrees of reward and punishment. Hence,
we are free to some extent to reach what degree we will have in terms
of morals and we will see the consequences.
And let not those who disbelieve ever think that [because]
We extend their time [of enjoyment] it is better for them. We
only extend it for them so that they may increase in sin, and
for them is a humiliating punishment.
(Quran: 3/178)
Everybody may claim acting very morally. These claims will not
remain suspended:
(This) shall not be in accordance with your vain desires nor
in accordance with the vain desires of the followers of the
Book; whoever does evil, he shall be requited with it, and
besides Allah he will find for himself neither a guardian nor
a helper.
(Quran: 4/123)
-821-
4.4.4 Training the FWP And Related Powers for Morals
In order to be able to exercise FWP and related positive powers to
comply with morals, these powers must be developed. There is
continual training for this power in the Quranic teaching. Every
person has a potential to be good. But if these powers are weak, lowlevel modules may overcome. Hence, there needs to be some level of
training for these powers so that they may overcome the urges of low
desires and the agent may proceed toward his ought to be truth
(OTBT). In this respect, there are continual practices such as daily
prayer, fasting, charity, which enhance self-control, which help to
prioritize things and not do whatever comes to mind. These are also
some of the indicators about the agent.
4.5 Law & Secular Legal Systems
In a contract, rights and duties are agreed upon in the beginning.
The party who plans to receive some supplies to manufacture goods
to his client, or the party who plans to receive payment to pay the
workers may face a crisis, if the other party says “I did not have free
will when I signed the contract since the universe is deterministic, so
I am not obliged to perform my obligation”. If such an excuse is
acceptable, there would be no economy, no legal system, no
predictability, and no order.
Consistently with the recognition of the FWP, the Quran orders the
fulfillment of the contracts:
O believers! Fulfil your contract [obligation]s.
(Quran: 5/1)
Likewise, all laws other than divine stipulations, are like a social
contract. Hence, the rejection of free will would undermine the basis
of legal systems. Without FWP, the law-making people would be
-822-
considered reducible to their particles which bump one onto other,
and there would be no reason to comply with the laws which would
be the result of such blind and deterministic or indeterministic
interactions.
Free will does not relate only to the above. It relates also to almost
all legal instruments.
So, the recognition of FWP is necessary for the recognition of legal
systems.
4.6 Forgiveness
But if you pardon and overlook and forgive then indeed,
Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
(Quran: 64/14)
Allah does not charge a person except [with that within] his
capacity.
(Quran: 2/286)
Some say, if we reject free will, then we can forgive criminals or evildoers easily. As we said freedom of will is limited and it is subject to
the capacity of a person. In any case there are factors that may have
influenced a bad act or an error. So, there is no problem in
considering those factors and forgiving when applicable.
Yet, we do not need to deny the reality of the subject and his power;
evil is evil, and good is good.
Rejecting FWP will disable a person from forgiving, since, forgiving
is also a will and without FWP one cannot forgive except as an
illusion.
-823-
4.7 Stress Management
Allah does not charge a person except [according to] what He
has given him.
(Quran: 65/7)
Some say that having full freedom, creates a stress on the subject.
One may say: “I have the free will, so all was my fault, I am nothing
but a loser”. The Quranic teaching is very balanced in this respect.
Firstly, the door of forgiveness is always open other than precisely
declared cases. Secondly, Allah does not charge anyone beyond his
or her capacity.
Everything is according to the plan of God. Hence, the agent is not
alone with the blind forces of nature. He can communicate with the
Creator and sustainer of all, and seek refuge in Him. No matter what
we will, in terms of the outcomes what Allah wills occurs. And as the
All-Knower and Beneficent, nothing unjust will happen ultimately.
Something bad may happen to a person. But this is not a matter of
coincidence. Allah knows all. And as He is the giver of all favors, He
can take them back. So, whatever evil happens beyond the capacity
of the agent, the agent should submit to his Creator and see the good
in it. Either Allah may compensate for it, or we deserved it, or there
is another reason behind it that we may not see. The implications of
the destiny which are relevant on this point are explained in part
3.8.1.4.4.
A being as God, who has no fear may also cause stress for human
beings. However, that Being who gives us lots of favors gives us
indication that He will not be unjust. A good person would have
some stress for not being as good as God demands. However, if he
does his best, then he will be more comfortable. But an evil person
who would do evil things had he been a God, would rather be scared
-824-
of such a Being because he would expect that that Being might
behave unjustly against himself as he himself would do.
4.8 Problem of Evil and Argument for The Injustice of
God
Rejecting free will, produces the problem of evil. Because, if there is
no free will, then the only responsible becomes God. So, for
materialists who reject free will, a god who is claimed to be good is
not consistent with what we observe. Hence, some such materialists
who generally tend to reject God, may believe that by rejecting free
will, they have another argument against God.
As explained in this book, obviously, free will power is true. Hence,
the responsibility of evil belongs to the evildoers.
One may claim that the human beings do not have FWP but God
has. Therefore, only God would be responsible for the evil. So, the
claims for a good God are false. However, this person would be
contradicting himself, because he would be admitting that at least
one person may have FWP. So, in principle, determinism and/or
indeterminism are not the only option. Therefore, he has no basis to
claim that the human beings do not have FWP, since determinism
and indeterminism are not supported by complete empirical
observations.
A person who rejects free will, is in no position to claim that there is
evil. Because if there is no free will, then there is no evil, since, we
cannot say that someone who does not have free will power can do
evil, as we cannot say that a big rock which fell on a person is evil.
On the other hand, recognizing evil, entails recognizing free will.
Because, if there is evil, this means that things are not reducible to
spatiotemporal behavior of particles; pain, joy, and those who feel
them are real. But if this person says that they are reducible to such
-825-
behavior of particles, then his claim that there is evil has no truth
value as his claim would be nothing but the behavior of particles
bumping one onto other.
Those who pronounce the problem of evil like this, contradict
themselves in these ways, and seem to be confused.
Regarding the natural disasters which are also considered evil by
some, they are different than the above type of evil. The agent behind
them is God, and God only takes back what He has given. Hence, in
any case, there is a net good about them.
This chain of thought will lead to the recognition of free will.
Because, if actually what “must be” does not happen, and if what
“must not be” happens, this means that the agent diverges from the
spatiotemporal. He wills something other than the spatiotemporal.
Hence, his will is not supervenient upon the spatiotemporal, hence,
to some extent, he is free from the spatiotemporal.
This inconsistency of the one who rejects God based on the problem
of evil, shows us the consistency of the Islamic teaching in this
respect. Islam recognizes the free will, the good, and the evil.
4.9 Physics
Free will has important implications regarding physics. As explained
in parts related to determinism, indeterminism, reductive
physicalism, these are false. Naturally, these also have some claims
that relate to the physics. Hence, the issue of free will requires careful
attention in terms of physics.
The truth of “free will” power and multipotential causality entails
that new information appears, and old information may be lost. This
truth has important implications about the conservation of
-826-
information which is a key issue regarding all physical layers
including the electrons and black holes.
The truth of free will is also relevant for the transcendent nature of
the physical.
That everything has some kind of free will at the bottom, requires a
totally new look at the space, time, and matter.
In this respect, the command of Allah to all things in the creation of
the universe and afterwards, gives us an idea that instead of seeing
things as particles bumping one onto another, seeing them as
obeying certain commands along with some kind of free will will be
more realistic. The arguments presented in this book against
reductive physicalism, determinism, indeterminism support this.
Recognition of the free will of God, will also help us understand why
the universe is the way it is.
4.10 Technology
The teaching of the Quran that even objects have a kind of free will
so as to obey the commands of Allah opens a new horizon in terms
of technology. Hence, we understand that the artificial intelligence
which is really artificial as of now, does not need to be fully artificial.
4.11 Politics
And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have
believed, all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would
you compel the people in order that they become believers?
(Quran: 10/99)
In Islam, teaching and good communication is the way to promote
the truth, not coercion. An important thing is that people own their
-827-
decisions, approaches, acts. Numerous examples have been given in
this book in this respect. Hence, regarding politics and freedom this
is an important principle.
5 Conclusion
In this book, I tried to address important issues that relate to free will
power (FWP) in accordance with the Quranic teaching.
An important aspect of the FWP is its irreducibility to other things
and the irreducibility of the agent who exercises FWP. The
irreducible and distinct agent interacts with his parts and other
things. Hence, within a range, he can overcome the effects of other
factors, and he can determine one of the two alternatives as the one
to be acted upon. Within that range, there is nothing which can
coercively prevent him from willing the other alternative.
To demonstrate the FWP and its effectiveness, I followed two main
paths:
(1) The refutation of reductionism, determinism, and indeterminism:
I presented numerous empirical and logical arguments which show
beyond doubt that these are false. This is very important, because I
am convinced that the apparent paradox about free will arises because
of false and unquestioned presuppositions about the truth of those
isms. Their refutation is possible thanks to the alternative system of
Islam related to the ontological reality and its basis. Without such a
basis, refuting them might left many things up in the air.
(2) FWP negation experiments and brain observation experiments: I
designed certain empirical, thought, and combined experiments
which show that the FWP is distinctly effective.
I addressed systematically the key points that relate to the FWP such
as, the agent, his transcendence, unity, his sub-modules, their
-828-
interactions, the soul, its interaction with the spatiotemporal,
consciousness, the will mechanism, Libet experiments, space, time,
truth, knowledge, reasoning power, responsibility, hereafter, God…
Of course, I gave a definition of the FWP in accordance with the
Quranic teaching which lies at the basis of this work. The only thing
that FWP considers about the sets of alternatives is that they are
distinguishable from each other. This point is in harmony with the
distinct and holistic reality of the agent.
But as the essence of the agent who exercises FWP bears the
consequences of the wills, he has to exercise it in harmony with his
other powers. Hence, again with his FWP, this essence has to
navigate through his knowledge resources, conscious experiences, get
the feedback of his reasoning power, and so on. He has to act in
accordance with his ought to be truths (OTBT) as much as possible.
OTBT means what ought to be optimally and objectively within the
capacity of the agent under the present circumstances. However,
OTBT is not a coercive cause upon the agent.
This works also includes the divine omniscience and free will
paradox, and addresses it perfectly under the light of the Quran. In
this context, the destiny, and its implications are also addressed.
The conclusion is clear: We have our distinct existence as agents and
human beings; and we have our sovereign free will power in a certain
range.
-829-
Allah does not charge a person except [with that within] his
capacity.
He will have [the consequence of] what [good] he has gained,
And he will bear [the consequence of] what [evil] he has earned.
(Quran: 2/286)
-830-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berryman, Sylvia. «Leucippus.» The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition),. Editor: Edward N. Zalta
(ed.). 2016.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/leucip
pus/ (Accessed: 5 29, 2020).
Bukhari, Sahih-i. Sahih-i Bukhari. .
Chalmers, D.J. «Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness.» Journal of
Consciousness Studies. 1995.
http://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf (Accessed: 5 29, 2020).
Dictionary.com. «Dictionary.com.» Dictionary.com. 2020.
https://www.dictionary.com (Accessed: 5 29, 2020).
Encyclopaedia-Britannica-Editors. «Determinism.» Encyclopaedia
Britannica. 2020.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/determinism (Accessed:
5 30, 2020).
—. «Indeterminism.» Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2020.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/indeterminism
(Accessed: 5 29, 2020).
Etymonline.com. «Etymonline.com.» Etymonline.com. 2020.
http://www.etymonline.com (Accessed: 5 29, 2020).
Gatherer, Derek. «So what do we really mean when we say that
systems biology is holistic?» BMC systems biology. 12 3 2010.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2850881/.
Hitchcock, Christopher. «Probabilistic Causation.» The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition). Editor: Edward
N. Zalta. 2018.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/causati
on-probabilistic/ (Accessed: 5 29, 2020).
-831-
Hoefer, Carl. «Causal Determinism.» The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Editor: Edward N. Zalta. 2016.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/deter
minism-causal/.
Kim, Jaegwon. «Essays in the Metaphysics of Mind.» Kluwer Academic
Publishers. Netherlands. 1999.
https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=edYUDAAAQBAJ
(Accessed: 5 30, 2020).
Latham, Noa. «Physicalism and its Discontents.» 2009.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/physicalism-andits-discontents/substancephysicalism/D71564A1B2B2181BFA9E08FC67F69BE2#.
Lexico. «Lexico Dictionary.» 2020.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/transcend (Accessed: 5
29, 2020).
Lowe, E.J.,. «Dualism (Property Dualism, Substance Dualism).»
Encyclopedia of Neuroscience. Editor: Windhorst U. (eds)
Hirokawa N. 2008.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F
978-3-540-29678-2_1629 (Accessed: 5 29, 2020).
McDonald, J.H. «Handbook of Biological Statistics (3rd. ed.).»
Maryland Sparky House Publishing. 2014.
http://www.biostathandbook.com/hypothesistesting.html
(Accessed: 5 30, 2020).
Merriam-Webster.com. «Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary.»
Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. 2020.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ (Accessed: 5
29, 2020).
Nagel, Ernest. «The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of
Scientific Explanation.» Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
1961. https://www.iep.utm.edu/red-ism/.
-832-
Nida-Rümelin, Martine and O Conaill, Donnchadh. «Qualia: The
Knowledge Argument.» The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition). Editor: Edward N. Zalta
(ed.). 2019.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/qualia
-knowledge/ (Accessed: 5 29, 2020).
O'Connor, Timothy and Wong, Hong Yu. «Emergent Properties.» The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition.
Editor: Edward N. Zalta (ed.). 2020.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/proper
ties-emergent/ (Accessed: 5 29, 2020).
Oxford-Dictionaries. «Oxford Dictionaries.» Oxford-Dictionaries. 2020.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sovereignty
(Accessed: 5 29, 2020).
Pereboom, Derk. «Nonreductive Physicalism.» Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. 2005.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopediasalmanacs-transcripts-and-maps/nonreductive-physicalism
(Accessed: 5 29, 2020).
Robinson, H. Matter and Sense: A Critique of Contemporary
Materialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Saheeh-i-Muslim. «Saheeh-i Muslim.» .
Searle, John. R. «Minds, brains, and programs.» Behavioral and Brain
Sciences. 1980.
http://cogprints.org/7150/1/10.1.1.83.5248.pdf (Accessed: 5
29, 2020).
The-Holy-Quran. «Islam Awakened - English Translations.» Islam
Awakened. Following translators' translations were used,
Shakir, Muhammad Asad, M. M. Pickthall, Muhammad Sarwar,
Umm Muhammad (Sahih International) Rashad Khalifa,
Muhsin Khan & M al-Hilali, Arthur J. Arberry, George Sale
Yusuf Ali (1938 - 1985). . https://www.islamawakened.com/
(Accessed: 5 29, 2020).
-833-
Tosun, Ender. Guide to Understanding Islam. İstanbul, 2012.
Van Riel, Raphael and Van Gulick, Robert. «Scientific Reduction.» The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition).
Editor: Edward N. Zalta. 2019.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/scienti
fic-reduction/ (Accessed: 5 30, 2020).
Wikipedia, Contributors. «Outline of Energy.» The Free Encyclopedia
Wikipedia. 6 5 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outline_of_energ
y&oldid=955194621 (Accessed: 5 29, 2020).
-834-
-835-
-836-
-837-
-838-