Time and creation: SMM/DTT and Islamic occasionalism

01The historical causal challenge

In discussion 17 of The Incoherence of the Philosophers, al-Ghazali challenges the claimed necessity of familiar cause-effect connections. The fire-and-cotton example asks what observation establishes and what additional inference is being made. The argument should not be reduced to rejection of every regularity or to a complete summary of all his views on causation. It concerns necessity and divine power within a theological dispute. ^[1]

02What the SMM/DTT distinction contributes

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.

Continuous creation is a claim about dependence: the world does not sustain itself independently of its source once an initial act is finished. SMM/DTT develops a temporal version in which observable configurations are renewed through inner generation and outer completion. This can make persistence a dynamic achievement rather than the passive endurance of an unchanged material core. The central question is how novelty and reliable continuity coexist. A renewed world must explain why yesterday’s records constrain today’s events.

Renewal has several possible meanings. An entity may remain numerically the same while its properties change. A pattern may persist through replacement of its material components. A new token may reproduce an earlier form while inheriting a causal history. A metaphysical account may hold that all three depend continuously on a source without describing replacement in physical time. DTT is most distinctive when it specifies which of these meanings belongs to its generative law and which belongs to its theological interpretation. The difference matters for conservation laws and for the identity of persons. ^[2]

03Observation and necessity

Suppose every observed contact between suitable fire and dry cotton has been followed by burning. This supports a regularity under relevant conditions. Observation alone does not settle whether the connection is metaphysically necessary, sustained by divine action or realized through contingent natural powers. These interpretations can agree about the sequence. A scientific model adds a mechanism and counterfactual predictions: changing moisture, oxygen or temperature changes the outcome. The theological question concerns the ultimate ground of that order.

04The SMM/DTT difference

DTT proposes a more specific organization than the assertion that events depend on divine activity. Its six nested inner levels and outer completion aim to explain how a coherent world is constituted. A physical source update must recover the reliable dependencies through which fire, materials and records behave. Common origin should not make every effective cause disappear. The model can instead derive local causal powers as stable relations in generated dynamics, making source dependence compatible with a serious account of natural mechanisms.

05A productive philosophical position

SMM can preserve renewed creation as an ontological claim while physical laws describe the structure of completed events. The important question is whether those laws are necessary consequences of the architecture, contingent features of a selected model or calibrated approximations. Each is a defensible kind of claim when accurately stated. This comparison strengthens DTT by clarifying necessity, regularity and local causation. It does not provide historical proof of a digital universe, and a mathematical source model does not settle every theological debate about the possibility of exceptional events.

06A further conceptual benchmark

A river maintains a recognizable course while different parcels of water pass through it. Calling it the same river can track location, causal continuity, ecological organization or a legal identity. None requires the same water molecules to remain. Now imagine a sequence of perfectly similar rivers with no causal relation between them. Similarity alone would not supply the history of one river. The comparison shows what a renewal theory needs: an inheritance relation that explains why a later configuration continues this process. SMM/DTT can express that relation through source memory and completion. The analogy establishes a criterion for persistence, not a physical proof that the universe is recreated in discrete frames.

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.