1.2.2 The Single Monad Model
The Ph.D. was a remarkable turning point in my life, only because I believe the thesis was not ordinary, and I was not expecting it to pass, because it included two key chapters that I myself do not seem to fully understand even until the present moment: Chapter III (The Significance of the Week and Its Seven Days), and Chapter IV (The Actual Flow of Time). The examiners asked me all the possible questions from every page of the thesis, passing very quickly over these two key chapters. In the end, I exclaimed why they did not discuss these two chapters like the others, because I was worried that they may request significant modifications. Their answer was that they only needed to clarify ambiguous issues! The thesis passed without any modification, but in my own opinion, this was possible only due to the fact that it is similar to Ibn al-Arabi’s books, where it is quite often the case when the reader do not understand a word, yet he feels the truth slowly flowing into his heart in a way that he can not deny.
Nevertheless, after publishing the Single Monad Model in 2007, I was expecting that physicists and mathematicians are going to grasp the innovative concept of time and quickly develop it into a complete physics theory. Although some critical examples were already given in the final chapter to show, for example, how Zeno’s paradoxes of motion and plurality and the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paradox could be easily explained based on the new model, it remained all possible philosophical analysis, that fell way short from any direct physical applications.
In 2010, Prof. Shigeru Kamada, of the University of Tokyo, noted in his review of “Ibn Arabi - Time and Cosmology”: “The similarity between the world-view of modern physics and that of Ibn Arabi is interesting ... I wonder if Ibn Arabi’s theory could be successfully expressed in mathematical formulas. A work which succeeded in doing that would bridge humanities and science, and contribute to mutual understanding between the two fields of human knowledge.” Kamada (2010).
This sharp gap between science and humanities is narrowing, especially in subjects related to physical sciences, such as physics and philosophy. Physicists have developed sophisticated technical tools that make them unable to appreciate any analysis not expressed or supported by their rigorous mathematical formulas, while philosophers, who are usually interested in more diverse and wider subjects, find it extremely difficult to use these sophisticated tools. The new complex-time Euclidean geometry will enormously simplify the laws of physics, and make them cover other natural phenomena previously considered not physical.