Having watched this lecture, How geometry builds understanding of modern physics, immediately Ibn ‚Arabi’s concept of letters as building blocks of creation come into mind, are they elements, which origin in a completely different understanding of the worlds or are they the same as this geometrical concept of (non-)euclidean postulates, from another view point?
The Symbolism of Letters and Language in the Work of Ibn ‘Arabī
Or is this concept of geometry and modern physics just an answer to where when things are in relation to other things whereas Ibn ‚Arabi’s understanding of letters shows from where things come from and what is their essential meaning?
Triumphantly, the speaker of the lecture repeatedly exclaims that mathematics, and in particular its sub-science, geometry, is the language with which nature is made. His claim is based on a quotation from Galileo, who said that mathematics is the alphabet with which God has written the universe.1
The participle construction of the quotation is interesting, is written, why is not called in the present tense, writes the universe? Ibn Arabi’s understanding that language is the building principle of divine creation is based on the literal understanding of Qur’anic expressions: „Verily, when He intends something, His command is: „Be“, and it is!“ 2 Just as a side note, unlike Galileo’s past tense, the Quran uses the present tense.
1 GalileoGalilei 1564-1642, [The universe] cannot be read until we have learnt the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word. See: Opere Il Saggiatore, p. 171
2 Qur’an, Sura 33 verse 82, and other
See here the working on the topic:
Euclidean Geometry & Ibn ‚Arabi’s letters
Tessellations of the Hyperbolic Plane and M.C. Escher
Omar Khayyam and the parallel axiom –> Struik, D. (1958). „Omar Khayyam, mathematician“. The Mathematics Teacher, 51(4), 280–285
Der Mythenspiegel 
Hinterlasse einen Kommentar