Consciousness and the experienced present: SMM/DTT and Ibn Arabi’s metaphysics

01The question behind the comparison

The experienced present is usually richer than an isolated instantaneous sensation. A spoken word, a rhythm or a movement is apprehended through relations among successive phases. SMM/DTT’s production/completion distinction offers a language for asking how an integrated event becomes available, but it does not make the experience of a present identical to a fundamental cosmic completion. A conscious observer is a complex physical and interpretive subsystem with its own memory, expectations and report capacities.

Three questions should be distinguished. Which neural or functional processes allow information to be integrated? Which processes make that information available for report and action? Why is the process accompanied by experience at all? A theory may make progress on one without settling the others. DTT can contribute a general account of record formation and nested dependencies. To become a theory of consciousness, it would need a specific bridge linking those structures to a subject’s experience. The number of inner levels alone does not select a duration of awareness or a neural mechanism.

A completed record can also exist without a person presently noticing it. A measuring instrument may register an event and store a stable result. Whether that is enough for consciousness is precisely the kind of question on which competing theories disagree. Keeping record formation distinct from conscious awareness avoids assuming the desired conclusion. It also lets SMM/DTT compare different observer models on a common basis: what information is retained, how it is integrated, when it is accessible, and what additional property is claimed to make the state experiential.

02The single-source and nested-time proposal

SMM begins with one nonspatial generative source. DTT distinguishes its inner production from the outer order in which completed results become accessible. The six inner levels are nested functional dependencies within that production; the seventh denotes outer completion. They are not six independent clocks, six spatial directions, or six simultaneously occupied temporal axes. This distinction makes the framework more specific than a general claim that everything changes: it asks how a world of persistent relations can be generated before its spatial representation is taken for granted. ^[2]

03The comparator’s explanatory structure

Ibn Arabi’s writings examine the relation of divine reality, manifestation and the forms through which reality is known. The translated passage on barzakh offers a particularly useful primary example: mediation can distinguish two orders while relating them. This is a metaphysical and interpretive relation, not a measured extra spatial direction.

For SMM/DTT the historical connection is direct, but the modern reconstruction must still state its own contribution. A source state, retained memory and a completion rule are mathematical commitments whose validity depends on definitions and argument. They cannot be attributed to a medieval text merely because a familiar metaphor can illustrate them. Conversely, translating every spiritual expression into a physical variable can lose distinctions the text was intended to preserve. The most illuminating comparison identifies a shared question about unity and manifestation, then explains what the modern temporal construction adds to that question. It also avoids simply identifying the Single Monad, any created intermediary and divine reality without attending to their different roles. ^[1]

04The precise agreement and difference

Ibn Arabi’s attention to modes of knowing and manifestation gives the experienced present a significance that exceeds clock duration. SMM/DTT can relate this to the way a completed world becomes available to an observer. The shared concern is not simply how many milliseconds perception lasts, but how an appearing world and a knowing perspective belong together.

The distinction between a metaphysical present and a psychological integration interval remains essential. A person hearing a phrase retains earlier sounds and anticipates its continuation; this structure can be investigated phenomenologically and physically. It does not by itself establish a universal act of cosmic completion. DTT’s useful contribution is to place the observer within generation rather than outside it. A careful comparison then asks how the observer’s capacities mediate access to the generated world. Spiritual accounts of presence can illuminate the quality and orientation of that access, while a formal model explains the conditions of record and memory. Neither should be reduced to the other merely because both use the word present. ^[1]

05Worked example: what follows and what does not

Hear the three notes C, E and G in sequence. At the third note, the first two are no longer physically arriving in the same way, yet their temporal relation contributes to hearing an arpeggio. If only the current acoustic sample existed for the listener with no retention, the musical relation would be lost. If the notes were all treated as simultaneous, their order would disappear. The experienced present therefore includes a differentiated relation to what has just occurred. This example motivates a memory-sensitive model of temporal experience, while leaving open whether the relevant unity is explained by neural integration, phenomenological structure or a deeper metaphysical account.

06What this comparison contributes

The strongest DTT contribution is an explicit account of how a record-bearing observer is itself generated and maintained. That can clarify why different accessible timescales coexist in one world. Claims about phenomenal consciousness should then specify what the source architecture explains beyond generic memory or information processing. This comparison respects the reality of experience while making the proposed explanation assessable, and it avoids turning every act of registration into an unexplained cosmic awareness.

THE SAME QUESTION, DIFFERENT STARTING POINTS

The comparison at a glance

Continue on SMONAD

• Observer and record: making observation part of the model →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of experience.

• Physical Time and Spiritual Time →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of experience.

• The 'Chest' of Time →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of experience.

• When memory can be represented by one time →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of experience.

• Time Chest →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of experience.