Ibn Arabi and metaphysical cosmology: SMM/DTT and Integrated information theory

01The question behind the comparison

SMM/DTT draws its central inspiration from Ibn Arabi’s account of existence, manifestation and renewed creation. The comparison is therefore partly internal: how does a modern source-based reconstruction develop a metaphysical vision into a proposed mathematical and physical programme? The historical text and the modern model have different aims and vocabularies. Respecting that difference makes the connection stronger, because a reader can see what is inherited, what is interpreted and what is newly constructed.

Metaphysical cosmology asks how multiplicity depends on unity, how meaning and form are related, and how the human perspective belongs within the whole. Physical cosmology asks for dynamical models connected with measurements of a universe. The questions can inform one another without being identical. A symbolic account of levels of manifestation can motivate a nested architecture, but it does not itself determine a metric tensor, a quantum Hamiltonian or an observational likelihood. Conversely, a successful physical equation does not exhaust the meaning of a theological account of creation.

The six nested inner levels and outer completion are particularly important in this translation. They express the modern DTT proposal’s generative organization. They should be explained as such rather than retroactively assigned to every historical passage about sevenfold order. The philosophical continuity lies in making differentiation dependent on a common source and treating creation as an ongoing relation. The mathematical novelty, where established, lies in particular models of retained structure, readout and dynamics. These achievements require their own definitions and proofs.

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

IIT proposes that experience corresponds to an intrinsic, irreducible cause-effect structure. Its formal analysis concerns a specified system, its state and counterfactual transitions under a chosen modelling scale. It should not be reduced to the claim that more stored bits mean more consciousness. Integration, information and the identification of a subject are separate requirements within the programme.

Consider two independent memory banks storing the same file. Their data agree, but agreement is not the same as an integrated causal organization. Connecting them through reciprocal operations changes the causal model even if the visible file remains the same. This distinction is useful for SMM/DTT: a common source or a completed archive need not constitute one conscious subject. A bridge to IIT would require a transition structure and an account of system boundaries, then a reason to accept IIT’s proposed identity with experience. The mathematical calculation and that identity claim should remain distinguishable. ^[1]

04The precise agreement and difference

IIT begins with an account of experience and proposes a formal identification with intrinsic causal structure. Ibn Arabi-inspired SMM begins with a metaphysical account of source and manifestation, then develops a generative programme. Their starting questions and inferential directions differ, even when both discuss unity. This makes the comparison valuable: it shows what a bridge to a contemporary consciousness theory would actually require.

DTT would need to produce a specified causal substrate, not simply a symbolic hierarchy. Its states, interventions and system boundaries would then be available for an IIT-style analysis. A philosophical interpretation could ask whether that structure illuminates a psychical aspect of manifestation. The result would remain distinct from a historical claim that Ibn Arabi anticipated IIT. The six inner levels are also not an integrated-information measure. The strongest SMM development is an explicit connection between generated access, causal organization and experience, with each step independently argued. This respects the metaphysical origin while allowing the proposed consciousness relation to face the same precise comparisons as other modern theories. ^[1]

05Worked example: what follows and what does not

A historical account may compare the world to images in a mirror. The image depends on conditions of manifestation and is neither simply identical with the object nor an independent object behind the glass. A modern model might represent a readout map R from a source state to an observable configuration. The map captures one feature of the analogy: dependence of appearance on a generating relation. It does not establish that the historical author intended a mathematical operator, nor does it preserve every theological meaning of the mirror. The example illustrates a disciplined translation that can generate new ideas without treating interpretation as historical prediction.

06What this comparison contributes

A strong article therefore carries two forms of accountability. Its reading of Ibn Arabi should remain sensitive to context, terminology and the relation of divine transcendence to manifestation. Its physical construction should stand on its explicit assumptions and results. SMM/DTT can be distinctive precisely at this meeting point: a metaphysical research motivation leads to formal questions about how a coherent observable world is constituted, while the formal answers remain open to criticism and revision.

THE SAME QUESTION, DIFFERENT STARTING POINTS

The comparison at a glance

Continue on SMONAD

• Preliminary Outline of Ibn Arabi's Cosmology →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of Ibn Arabi.

• Introducing Ibn al-Arabi's View of Time →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of Ibn Arabi.

• Reading Ibn ‘Arabi — Time and Cosmology →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of Ibn Arabi.

• The Contrasting Approaches of Sufism and Philosophy →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of Ibn Arabi.

• History of time and cosmology →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of Ibn Arabi.