How does loneliness affect your brain?

Spreng et al. The default network of the human brain is associated with perceived social isolation. Nature Communications. December 2020.

A recent study found fundamental structural and functional differences in the brains of lonely people. Researchers examined the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, genetics, and psychological self-assessments of over 40,000 middle-aged and older adults in the UK Biobank medical database. They then compared the MRI data of participants who reported often feeling lonely with those who did not. There were several major differences in the brains of lonely people which were primarily found in what is called the “default brain network,” a group of brain regions that are involved in inner thoughts such as remembering, future planning, imagining, and thinking about others. Detailed analyses of these regions showed that surprisingly, the default networks of lonely people were more strongly wired together and their grey matter volume in regions of the default network was greater. Moreover, bundles of nerve fibers called fornix that connects the hippocampus to the default network were better preserved in the brains of lonely people. These findings suggest that since lonely people are more likely to use imagination, memories of the past, or envisioning the future to overcome their social isolation they strengthen memory-based functions of their default networks through internally-directed thoughts and imagining social experiences. Loneliness has been increasingly turned into a major health problem, as other studies showed that older people who experience loneliness have a higher risk of cognitive decline and dementia. As COVID-19 related social distancing continues, isolation and loneliness could affect our society even more dramatically. Understanding how loneliness manifests itself in the brain at the structural and functional level, and how these paradoxical findings translate into late-onset brain pathologies, would be critical to prevent both neurological diseases and related social problems.

Human-made mass is about to exceed total global living biomass

Elhacham et al. Global human-made mass exceeds all living biomass. Nature. December 2020.

Humanity is rapidly approaching a new milestone in the history of our planet. The amount of manmade objects on Earth will soon outweigh all living biomass. A new study finds that each person alive today produces approximately the amount of manmade mass equivalent to their bodyweight every week. Our daily life objects such as roads, houses, cars, and clothes now weigh in at around 1.1 trillion metric tons, which is equal to the combined dry weight of all plants, animals and microorganisms on the planet. The production and accumulation of manmade objects, also known as anthropogenic mass, has accelerated since the early 1900s. The world’s plastics alone now weigh twice as much as the planet’s marine and terrestrial animals.

About 50% of the current anthropogenic mass is concrete. Bricks, asphalt, metals, plastic, and other materials make up about 19% of the total. Three major problems will arise from the outproduction of antropogenic mass. First, manufacturing consumes resources which will not be available for future generations unless objects are recycled or new raw materials are discovered. Second, even if we can achieve 100% recycling, pollution is generated and energy is used during manufacturing, so resources are still consumed. Third, many of the manufactured items will eventually be discarded which will cause serious disposal issues in the future. This is particularly alarming for the future. Nature is not infinite like so many of us would like to believe. If the current trend continues, anthropogenic mass will grow to three times the world’s biomass by 2040. In the next 20 years, we will generate as much waste as from the last 110 years together. These huge waste flows could lead to massive environmental catastrophes. This study demonstrates the brutal scale and impact of human activities on our planet. Humans are modifying the planet to such an extent that we might have already started a new geologic epoch likely called the Anthropocene.

Drug repurposing by artificial intelligence

Liu et al. A deep learning framework for drug repurposing via emulating clinical trials on real-world patient data, Nature Machine Intelligence. January 2021.

Researchers have developed a machine-learning method that analyzes very large datasets to discover which existing medications could work for diseases for which they were not prescribed. This process is called “drug repurposing,” a popular strategy to find new purposes for existing drugs that offers a rapid transition from research to clinical care. Drug repurposing can lower the risk associated with safety testing of new medications and dramatically reduce the time and money required to get a drug into the marketplace for clinical use. However, discovering new uses for existing medications still requires time-consuming and expensive randomized controlled trials to prove that a drug that is effective for one disorder will also be useful to treat another disorder. To overcome this challenge, a team designed a computational framework that works in two steps. First, it searches enormous patient care-related datasets with high-powered computation to arrive at repurposed drug candidates for a given disease. Second, it calculates and estimates effects of those existing medications on a defined set of clinical outcomes. As a proof-of-principle, researchers decided to focus on repurposing of drugs to prevent heart failure and strokes in patients with coronary artery disease. The edge of the machine learning approach is that it can analyze and compare thousands of human differences within a large population that could influence how a drug will work in the body. These confounding factors such as age, gender, race, and disease severity function as parameters in the deep learning computer algorithm on which the framework is based. This information is streamed from “real-world evidence,” which consists of longitudinal observational data about millions of patients captured by various sorts of electronic medical records. The team used insurance data for more than 1.2 million heart-disease patients. The algorithm analyzed each patient’s drug prescriptions and diagnostic tests for every visit and models input for drugs based on their active ingredients. The model yielded a total of 9 drugs with potential therapeutic benefits, three of which are currently in use and six new candidates for drug repurposing. Interestingly, two diabetes medications, metformin and escitalopram, have been found to lower the risk of heart failure and stroke in the model patient population. This study shows how artificial intelligence can speed up hypothesis generation and clinical trial processes. While this study focused on heart failure and stroke, the framework is flexible and could be applied to most complex diseases.

There are so many blessings in life, granted to us free of charge, which we take for granted. Eyesight, being able to see near and far distances, most certainly tops the list. But we do not have to be deprived of our sight in order to understand its wisdom and functioning, and to contemplate upon its true value and worth.

Years of research and hard work were dedicated to develop cameras and multi-featured objective lenses. Initially, one to three lens objective cameras were used for simple shots, whereas today, objectives with seven to ten lenses are being used to take better photographs from a snow drop falling onto a flower to a buzzing bee resting on a flower. I wonder to what extent human beings are aware of the pair of eyes that has been bestowed upon them by God, and its ability to see different colors and shapes both near and far. Unfortunately, as people who often understand the true value of things once they are lost, we understand the blessing of being able to see near after the age of forty when we cannot read the newspaper without glasses and when we cannot put a thread through a needle.

So why is it that we can still see far after the age of forty but fail to see near? In order to understand this we need to examine the structure of the eye and its functions.

The structure of the eye and the ability to see

The exterior part of the eye is made up of a translucent layer (cornea) at the front and a white protective layer (sclera) behind it. The vascular layer of the eye (uvea) is located in the middle of the sclera. The most inner part of the eye is made up of the retina, the light-sensitive layer of tissue responsible for converting light rays into electrical signals. The hole located in the center of the iris, the colored part of the eye, is called the pupil. Behind the pupil is the crystalline lens. For a clear vision, lights reflected from objects need to be focused on the central part of the retina (fovea). While cameras have lens systems to focus the image on the film, it is the cornea and crystalline lens that are responsible for the same function in the eye.

Refraction power of cornea is constant and around 43 diopters. The refraction power of the eye lens when resting is around 20 diopters. Light rays coming from outside refracts at a set ratio and manages to focus on the retina. The light rays coming at the retina are then coded into electrical signals. Afterwards these signals are routed towards related regions of the brain via optic nerves. Most of the stimuli relayed by the optical nerve arrive at the visual center of the brain (occipital cortex). These coded electrical signals then become vision when they reach the optical lobe of the brain.

The function of the lens and accommodation

The refraction power of both the cornea and the lens (43+20+63 diopters) is sufficient to focus an image on the retina when looking at objects farther than 6 meters. Extra refraction power is needed for closer distances in order to focus images on the retina. Mobile lens systems enable this job to take place in camera objectives. Since refraction power of the cornea in human eye does not change, this additional task of refraction is set to be provided by the ocular lens. It is built as a flexible structure without any blood vessels. Aqueous humor (lens fluid) which is secreted by the ciliary body is responsible for lens nourishment, removal of waste products and toning of the eye since the lens does not contain any blood vessels. This internal fluid has low oxygen concentration therefore the lens is made to derive its energy supply mostly from anaerobic metabolism.

The iris is positioned in a suitable place where it can change the shape of the internal lens behind the pupil. The lens in this special place is suspended into position via zonule of zinn ligaments attached to the eye as a ciliary body. The ciliary body contains ciliary muscles where zinn ligaments are attached. Only 0.5 mm of space exists between the lens and the ciliary body. Zinn ligaments are tight when ciliary muscles are resting and this enables a flatter configuration of the lens. Upon contraction of ciliary muscles, zinn ligaments become relaxed and the diameter of the lens decreases along with an increase in its thickness. Thicker lens becomes more globular and this increases its refractive power, thus enabling vision of the closer distances. This increase in refractive power of the lens in order to see closer objects is called “accommodation.” If the stimuli of the ciliary muscles expire, ciliary muscles then relax making zinn ligaments tighter, reducing thickness of the lens, making it flatter and therefore less refractive. This reshapes it to focus on distant objects for a clearer vision.

Accommodation mechanisms and loss of accommodation during aging

The vision blurs temporarily when one takes an immediate shift from staring at an object in the distance to another object nearby. As soon as this blurry image reaches the occipital cortex, stimuli generated here arrives first at the Edinger-Westphal nucleus via special nerve tracks and then to the ciliary muscles of the eye. In a very short time, this blurry vision is corrected and becomes clearer without us even noticing with optimal increase of refraction in the internal lens. In a time as short as 0.35 seconds, for thousands of times in a day, this mechanism is set to function in such a perfect manner to spur those thoughtful minds into reflection and wonder.

Accommodation ability is at its highest point in children and this feature of the eye decreases with age. Refractive power of the lens can increase up to 34 diopters with a 14 diopters accommodation power along with 20 diopters of resting refraction during childhood. This way, children can clearly see objects as close as 7 centimeters. Accommodation power decreases with age. It reduces to 4-8 diopters after the age of 40 and 2-3 diopters around the age of 50. It is widely accepted that refractive power disappears entirely after the age of 60.

In the advanced stages of aging, the eye lens loses its transparency, becomes cloudy as it develops cataract. Eye lens in this poor transparent stage is removed via cataract surgery, to be replaced with an artificial lens to carry out the refracting task. Unfortunately today, technology is still unable to produce an artificial lens that is capable of all the tasks that a human eye can perform. Artificial internal eye lenses that are used in surgeries today cannot carry out accommodation functions. Majority of these lenses can only focus on one point at a near or far distance. Newly developed multifocal lenses can utilize various mechanisms to see both near and far distances yet they are not in any position to replace the human lens completely.

Ocular motions when looking near and far

Thanks to ocular movements, we do not have to move our head constantly while looking around. The eye movement involving both eyes in which each eye moves in the same direction is referred to as version type movements. Another movement type is called vergence, and this is when both eyes move in opposite directions. Vergence type movements are a type of ocular motility coded in a special center part of the brain. It is called convergence because the eyes get closer to each other when looking at closer distances, and called divergence when both eyes focus on the same spot by directing away from each other. If eyes only moved in the same direction without this convergence mechanism, both eyes would not be able to focus on closer points and would not be able to develop three dimensional visions (depth perception).

In addition to accommodation and convergence, when we look closer, our pupils get smaller (Miosis). Light rays coming from outside objects get improved focus on the retina via this constriction of the pupils. This way, a clearer image is provided.

When we look closer, accommodation, convergence and miosis all happen at the same time in a synchronized manner to provide a clear vision. The details of these complicated chains of events have yet to be understood.

Conclusion

The fineness of refractive power of the eye with a single lens, accommodation ability and sensitive balances of ocular motility is only a few of the blessings of the eye granted to humankind. The ability to see near being at its peak during young ages when learning is most active is another dimension to this miracle. These wisdom-filled capacities given to the eye makes one ponder upon the importance of the eye for survival, in addition to being a reminder to those with an open mind and heart to gaze upon the natural world and contemplate upon the Almighty.

Octopuses are equipped with a very powerful sensing system in addition to their sharp vision. For example, an octopus whose vision is obstructed can sense the size of objects and the distance between them. Regulation and synchronization of vision is realized with internal and external movement of the lens contrary to human beings. When it faces a threat, the octopus releases dark blue-black ink and tries to repel its enemy. Immediately after the spray, its color changes and it carefully leaves that spot. The secretion glands found in the inner face of the bladder have been programmed to secrete ink the moment the animal becomes frightened. Another function of the ink is to blunt the attacking animal’s sense of smell. Even if the animal touches the octopus at this time, it cannot recognize it.

Another striking and important ability given to the octopus is its ability to camouflage. In some situations it tries to protect itself from danger by hiding itself with this capability. If it has not been able to find a suitable place to hide, the octopus swims among the corals and, taking on the color and shape of its surroundings with the help of color cells comprised of richly colored matter (chromatophores) found under the skin, it camouflages itself perfectly.

At first glance the suckers of an octopus are no different from suction cups vacuum pressed onto smooth surfaces. However, in reality this organ is more complex than it appears to be. This organ was not created just for the purpose of sticking on objects. By means of muscles unique to it, the octopus is able to make various maneuvers.

There are approximately 200-250 suckers in two lines on each arm of the octopus. This means there are approximately 2 thousand suckers on its eight arms. There are two small chambers on each sucker. The external chamber is called a cone and the internal one is called a pot. When it sights its prey, the muscles of the external cone take the shape of the surface of the prey and completely cover it. The muscles of the internal pot structure are full of water and, disconnected from the outside world, decrease the inner pressure. This difference from the outside pressure has the effect of a vacuum. The external muscle structure enables the octopus to turn from an erect or parallel angle by decreasing the pressure difference around the object and without destroying the functional structure of the sucker.

In addition to possessing the complex muscle structures explained above, the suckers have an amazing nerve system. The chemical receptors found on the edge of the suckers (chemo-receptors) give feedback regarding the taste of the object, and the pressure and position receptors give information regarding pressure and touch. The nerves of these receptors, gathered in a node, act as a tiny brain. The chain structure extending the length of the octopus’ arm connects the suckers and nodes and synchronizes them. This structure enables the animal to lift and raise its arms without need of a command from the main brain. How this amazing task is accomplished by the brain, arm and suckers is a subject that needs investigation.

Only considering its suckers, the octopus appears before us as a creature adorned with perfect artistry and special capabilities. The characteristics of these animals being in a wise and most appropriate form is one of the clearest proofs of the blessings and benefaction of a compassionate and merciful Creator.

Canoglu is a freelance writer from Turkey with a degree on zoology.

Art, on its quest for refinement, is the expression of the ethos and values of society. It serves to remind us that life must be permeated with physical, spiritual and emotional beauty. The objects in these Met Galleries are the memoirs of civilization, yet they are not cast in the amber of the past. They pulse with life. They help us to understand how the cultures touched by Islam were built and evolved through the present day. A balanced display of objects of all types and techniques leads the visitor on a rich ride through the artistic, cultural and religious contexts of regional spheres stretching from Rabat to Ulan Bator, from Trabzon to Jakarta.

A paradise of artistic delight

Selecting these outstanding pieces must have been an emotional and challenging experience for the curators. How to choose only 1200 pieces from the Museum’s vast collections of 12,000 objects to tell the story of the interlinking themes across centuries and continents? The galleries explore the richness of Islamic art in objects big and small: from monumental bronze salvers of princely palaces to humble ceramic bowls, from stylish illuminated manuscripts to Qur’an pages filled with graceful calligraphy, from steel sabers to gardens of textile delights.

Some of the stunning artifacts on exhibit include miniatures from the most famous series of paintings in Islamic art, the celebrated 16th century Shahnama of Shah Tahmasp, ornamental doors from the 9th century royal residence at Samarra in Iraq, a monumental 12th century Seljuk feline incense burner from Iran, a 12th century astrolabe from Yemen, and carved stucco panels from a 10th century house in Nishapur, Iran. Turkish and Mamluk carpets are presented in a room under a newly-assembled wooden ceiling from a 15th century Spanish monastery crafted by Muslim artisans, offering visitors a constellation of stars above and below.

Architecture, one of the most visible and unifying manifestations of the Islamic heritage, has a place here as well. Peeking into the Damascus Room, an intact 18th century reception room from an upper-class Syrian Ottoman house, gives insight onto the daily life of the era. The 11-foot high turquoise tiled prayer niche from a 14th century theological school in Isfahan has been moved to a more prominent place in the galleries (and respectfully reset to its correct kibla orientation), which allows visitors to feel its architectural impact. One of the most popular attractions is the Moroccan Courtyard – a room built from scratch to resemble a 14th century home interior, with intricately carved niches and a bubbling fountain. This graceful gem was created by craftsmen from Fez brought in especially for the project.

Innovative objectives

A desire to rethink the presentation of the galleries prompted the museum to close them for renovation in 2003, two years after the events of 9/11. The curatorial staff set out to sensitively join the galaxy of cultures touched by Islam, and to make its appreciation more accessible by the general public through a judicious intermingling of art objects. The curators chose three major strategies to achieve this monumental task.

Firstly, the official name change from the former reductive “Islamic Galleries” was a bold one. The new name is indeed a mouthful, but it removes the stigma of Islam as opposed to the West and alien, as well as the stereotype of an art produced only in relationship to religion. It effectively dismantles the notion that Islamic art is a single, uniform production.

Secondly, intelligent architecture, using an open plan, created more square footage and brightened the former dim and mysterious rooms into a light and positive space. Lattice screens made in Egypt point the way and provide awareness of the mutual visibility of the cultures. The floors are paved in a different stone for each section, ranging from Egyptian marble inlaid with stars to soft Indian sandstone. Created as well are two new galleries, one linking Spain and North Africa, and the second for the South Asian sphere. The circular path though the galleries encourages visitors to make intuitive cultural interconnections as they rove.

Lastly, and most importantly, the curatorial approach is groundbreaking. The galleries are arranged not in a chronological order, but attempt a more geographical transverse. Particular attention is paid to display objects that emphasize the exchange of artistic influences with surrounding cultures. One gallery is devoted to depicting the imprint of the late Roman, Sassanid and Coptic traditions on the formation of this art. Objects from the Byzantine Empire, China, and Europe are skillfully sprinkled in the cases to highlight the interplay of cultures. Particularly intriguing is portrayal of the hybrid Buddhist-Jain-Hindu-Muslim-Colonial context of the Indian subcontinent. Effort was also paid to present objects which highlight secular and cosmopolitan aspects, not just those exclusively linked to liturgical needs.

In this fashion, the Met galleries help us break with the idea of art compartmentalized solely in reference to a single religious or cultural tradition. Our eyes are lifted towards a more universal vision. The voyage through trans-regional history presented in these Galleries opens new lines of conversation and leads us to contemplate the artistic and historical traditions of our own practices in relation to those of a different civilization.

A reinterpretation of misconceptions

Interpretation of Islamic art in the past by the Western world has often dismissively focused on the visual differences of this art: Islamic art “bans human representation,” Islamic artists “did not understand perspective” in their miniature painting, Islamic art is limited only to the “flat surface” and to the production of the “minor arts,” and “uses only geometry and calligraphy” to express the aesthetic, and so forth. The current presentation allows visitors to see the contrary, persuading them to make up their own mind about how these artists sought to depict the divine and mundane in ways different, yet just as powerful, as those in Western art: flowing calligraphy soars off Qur’an pages as high as the arches of Gothic cathedrals, glass mosque lamps sparkle with the intensity of a king’s gold treasure, colossal wall tiles shine forth with the same inspiration as stained glass windows, and carpets sing as brightly as a Cezanne or Klee painting.

The revised perspective of these galleries, filled with a respectful, reconciliatory motivation, allows visitors to appreciate the distinctive themes and the monumentality of this production, as well as the complexity and diversity of artistic expression. By providing objects illustrating the universal human aspiration towards beauty and refinement in society, we are led to reassess our present relations to these cultures accordingly.

Many examples here illustrate universal human aspirations and the interconnection of the peoples of the earth. Through excellence in craft, these objects poignantly illustrate the hope-filled quest of the honored verse of the Qur’an: “We created you nations and tribes that ye may know one another.” (49:13). The first piece visitors view upon entering the galleries is a large, 10th century white ceramic bowl from Nishapur in Iran, inscribed in a boldly powerful black calligraphy. It sets the tone for harmony, for the potter and the calligrapher needed to work closely hand in hand to produce such a masterpiece. On an Iznik plate from 16th century Ottoman Turkey, the artist has depicted 4 types of flowers – a rose, a hyacinth, a honeysuckle sprig and a tulip – all gracefully springing from the same clump of roots. A special grouping of manuscripts side by side explores the triple traditions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity that lived together harmoniously in medieval Spain. A folio illustrating the preparation of medicine from honey, copied in Baghdad 1224 from the Greek medical manuscript De Materia Medica by Discorides, illustrates the respectful heritage of scientific thought from one culture to the next. A judiciously-situated doorway pulls visitors out of the Egypt/Syria gallery into the room containing the Met’s 19th century “Orientalism” collection. These paintings depict the Middle East as seen through the eyes of European painters. Pausing to look at these colorful and often fanciful interpretations forces us to ask ourselves how we view these cultures today.

A Courtyard of Hope

The mainstream portrayal of Islam is not always kind, and does not usually deal with transcendent beauty, refined ornamentation, or intricate arabesques. Yet one of the most famous hadith, or sayings of the Prophet declares: “God is beautiful and He loves beauty.” Should it thus come as a surprise that this culture has led to the creation of so many great works of art? Perhaps the art at the new Met Galleries will close some chasms and conflicts that plague Muslim-West relations, especially over the last 10 years. Instead of blaring headlines on a newspaper article, perhaps scrutiny of the elegant calligraphy of a Qur’an page will offer grounds for reflection of the other face of the story and provide hope for well-needed harmony. The spiral of galleries ends in the serene Moroccan courtyard. Visitors are invited to linger there a moment and take home with them its restorative light and spirit of tranquility.

A new game

One of the most engaging pieces on display is a 12th century chess set from Iran, one of the earliest to come down to us. Crafted from glazed clay, the modern-looking pieces challenge us to a game. Yet, we cannot play because one piece is missing. Somewhere along the march of time, through earthquakes, Mongol invasions, wars and strife, one pawn has gone missing from this stunning set.

Looking at this chessboard, one cannot help but reflect on the still-charged game of misunderstandings which pits East and West on opposing sides. Does the loss of this representative of castles and conflicts auger a more peaceful society? Perhaps this missing foot soldier can presage the beginning of a new game, one where we are all on the same side of the chessboard; a game without confronting pieces and with reconciliation as the victor.

May the art in these Met Galleries inspire us to write the rules for this new Game of Peace.

Katharine Branning is the author of a series of essays on Turkey, “Yes I would love another glass of tea” and the curator of the exhibit “Song of Stones” dedicated to Seljuk art held at the Turkish Cultural Center in New York in the fall of 2011.

In this article we will review these three concepts and the relations among them by giving examples from the realms of both physical and metaphysical concepts.

Even though there is no universally accepted definition of analogy, or metaphor, or literal similarity, the purpose of their use is unanimously defined as “throwing light on an unfamiliar concept or situation using a familiar one.” The past few decades have witnessed several attempts of redefining these terms or at least extending a definition that is somewhat agreed-upon to an all-encompassing one. In so doing, researchers tended to employ mathematical structures that are by no means simple. What seems to differ from one approach to another is the method used in the process of establishing a correspondence between the familiar and the unfamiliar. Our purpose is not to give a full account of these approaches here, as there are so many of them, but rather to adapt one that is more convenient for conveying our examples.

Analogy: The word analogy is derived from the Greek word analogia. Originally, this was a mathematical (actually a musical) term before becoming a grammatical and linguistic one, meaning “proportion” (Szabo 1978, 23). An example of Aristotelian analogy is “spine is to fish as bone is to animal.” This simple analogy is generally formulated as A:B = C:D. We say, in this case, A and C are analogous. The sense in which A and C are analogous could be a property they have in common as well as the similarity between their relations to B and D, respectively. In the spine and bone example above we observe both. In the analogy “feet are to animal as wheels are to automobile,” however, feet and tires have virtually nothing in common, but they are analogous with respect to their functions within the bodies that they are part of, i.e., both are used as a means of transportation. Therefore, common relations are essential to analogy, but common objects are not. (Gentner-Markman 1997, 46).

One of the recent approaches to analogy which is widely used is the structure-mapping theory (SMT) (Dedre Gentner, 1983). It presumes a mapping between the familiar (domain or base) and the unfamiliar (target). The domain and the target consist of objects and relations among objects. SMT establishes a one-to-one correspondence between the objects of the domain and the target in a way that preserves the relations between objects (Those who are familiar with the category theory in mathematics will notice the resemblance of this mapping to a “covariant functor” between two “categories”). This is a “structural alignment” between the domain and the target (Gentner-Markman 1997, 47). In the “feet and wheels” example the mapping occurs between a body and an automobile. It maps feet to wheels and the relation TRANSPORT (feet, body) to the relation TRANSPORT (wheels, automobile). One can find more matching elements between a body and an automobile. For instance, we can match the heart of the body to the engine of the vehicle and observe that the relations RUN (heart, body) and RUN (engine, automobile) are preserved.

One might ask where do the arms get mapped? The answer is “nowhere.” We do not expect this mapping to match every object in the domain to an object in the target. The “power of the analogy” is not in the number of objects that are matched or the common attributes that the objects share. It is rather the degree of matching among relations that makes an analogy more powerful (Gentner 1982, 110).

Having introduced the concept of analogy by using some simple physical examples let’s now consider a not-so simple metaphysical situation.

In the 1920’s two mathematicians proved a very interesting but at the same time very puzzling theorem, known as the Banach-Tarski Paradox. In plain English, the theorem states that it is possible to divide a solid ball into a few pieces and reassemble those pieces together to make two balls, each of which has the same size as the original ball that was divided. A more striking consequence of their theorem is (you may want to sit down before you read this) a solid ball the size of a small pea can be cut into a number of pieces and reassembled into a new ball the size of the sun! Strange as it may sound, it is a valid mathematical argument, not a myth. (We have to note that it is not something one can do at home using a knife and a cutting board, because some of the pieces have no volume!) The analogy that we would like to establish under SMT is to map that solid ball of the theorem to a small amount of water which could quench the thirst of an army of about 30,000 in Tabuk in year 631. This was a miracle given to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. A similar miracle of Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, is described in the Bible, Matthew 14:21 (Volker Runde, in the Sky 2 (2000), 13–15).

Metaphor: The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another. (Lakoff & Johnson 1980, 104) Simple examples are “What a sweet baby!” “Your car is a lemon, let’s take mine.” Obviously babies are not candies, nor are vehicles some sort of fruit. We use this sort of “identification” in order to communicate our ideas/feelings in a more striking way. Here are more examples of metaphors: “he is the apple of my eye,” “it’s raining cats and dogs,” “he has a golden heart,” “she cried rivers” etc. As these examples show, the distinguishing characteristic of metaphors is substitution, for example, rivers taking the place of tears in the last example. And this substitution takes place between different domains. If we say “a nightingale is a bird,” that’s not a metaphor; it’s a literal categorization, as both nightingale and bird signify the same domain (Gentner 2005, 200).

As long as the correspondence is not purely attributional, but some relations are also preserved we can also talk about structural alignment for metaphors (Gentner 88, 49). From this perspective, many metaphors are in fact analogies, but it’s the form of the language that helps us differentiate them. For example, “the engine is the heart of an automobile” is a metaphor, but it uses the same structural alignment of the analogical comparison that we mentioned above.

Nonetheless, not every metaphor is of this sort. Consider, for example, the verse (48:10) “God’s hand is over their hands” from the Qur’an; this was revealed in connection to some 1,400 believers’ pledging allegiance to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, under a tree in Hudaybiyah in year 628 by giving their hands to him. Whatever “God’s hand” in this verse refers to, whether it is to His power, His victory, His protection and blessings for the believers, or His acceptance of their pledge, it is far from being a physical hand. Therefore, we can not imagine a relation between dissimilar objects (Gentner 1982, 109; Gentner 2001, 204) that is mapped to the relation (Hand, God) under a structural alignment using SMT.

Literal similarity: If there is a considerable number of common attributes that are shared by the objects of the domain and the target then the comparison is more likely to be a literal similarity (Gentner 1982, 110). For example the comparison in the following verse of the Qur’an is a literal similarity: “Indeed, the example of Jesus to God is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, “Be,” and he was” (3:59). In this example there are a great number of attributes that Jesus and Adam (peace be upon them) share but only one of them is the subject of the comparison here, which is that both Jesus and Adam had no father. If Jesus also had no mother this would be an “identity,” not a similarity (Gentner 1982, 110).

The statement “Jesus is like Adam” makes much more sense than “Jesus is Adam,” even if we make it clear in what sense we use this identification. Typically metaphors use the word “is” and literal similarity comparisons (similes) use either of the words “like” or “as.” Mathematically speaking, if metaphors are equalities, then similes are approximations (Casnig).

Even though metaphors are substitutions, they are not necessarily “two-way” identifications. In other words, most of the times they are asymmetric; i.e., there is a sense of direction in the “identification.” For example, we never substitute a car in the place of a lemon and say “this lemon is a car.” This is because the first and foremost requirement of any comparison is that it be informative. What information do we obtain from the statement “rose is love” or “iron is fist”? In that respect many metaphors are irreversible, like similes: “a butcher like a surgeon” is quite different than “a surgeon like a butcher.” One is a compliment but the other is not! (Gentner 2001, 224). Perhaps irreversibility can also be taken as a distinguishing character of (at least attributional) metaphors.

Mathematical and metaphysical examples: Although there is no consensus on how mathematical ideas come about, it is certain that they are introduced into our world of knowledge by symbolism. Whether we associate a symbol to something physical, such as the symbol 70 to the weight of an object or the letter g to gravitational force, or to an abstract mathematical concept, such as the letter i to √–1, we are substituting one thing to mean another thing. We even associate symbols to concepts we cannot even describe, such as the concept of infinity and the symbol ∝ that is used to represent what it signifies in mathematics. From this perspective, mathematical symbols can be viewed as metaphors (Pimm, David 1981).

On the other hand mathematical formulas preserve the relations among the objects or concepts that they represent. In that respect, it is possible to see them as analogies as well. Therefore, they can be subjects of structural alignment. In the next example we will use SMT to form an analogical comparison between infinity and human life in order to better understand a Qur’anic verse.

In verse (5:32) of the Qur’an reads: “…he who kills a soul unless it be (punishment) for murder or for causing disorder and corruption on the earth will be as if he had killed all humankind; and he who saves a life will be as if he had saved the lives of all humankind…”

In a sense this verse means “one equals many.” How can that be? How can one be equal to a million? Or a billion? Those who know something about mathematics with infinities will remember that it is a quite different thing from mathematics with ordinary numbers. For example, if we add two infinities we still get infinity, i.e., ∝+∝=.∝=∝, something that never happens with any finite number, except for 0 (0+0=2.0=0). Likewise, if we add any number of infinities together we still get infinity: ∝+∝+∝+…∝=∝.Therefore, for any positive number m if we write m.∝=∝ it would be a perfectly acceptable mathematical statement.

Now, everyone will agree that there is no value one can associate to human life. Therefore, it’s fair to say that the value of human life is infinite. Let’s map “∝” to “saving the life of one person” under a structural alignment and let counting people in the target correspond to adding infinities in the domain. Now, if m represents the total number of lives on earth then what element should we associate to saving them altogether? The answer is m infinities added together, in other words m.∝ But seeing that m.∝ is equal to ∝ we can say that saving the lives of all people on earth is no different than saving the life of one individual! That’s how one can equal many. Now, if we map “killing an innocent person” to “–∝” then we clearly see that the mathematical statement m.(-∝)=-∝translates into “killing all innocent people on earth is as grave a sin as killing one.”

Note that this “one equals many” situation is not a violation of the requirement that structure mapping be one-to-one (Gentner-Markman 1997, 47). It’s a relation that occurs between the objects of the domain and the objects of the target and that relation is preserved under a one-to-one structure mapping.

Another relation between infinities is that “∝-∝” is indeterminate. In particular “∝-∝” is not necessarily 0. Using the analogy we just constructed we can translate this as “killing one innocent person and saving the life of another does not balance out.” Then, “∝-∝” is indeterminate” translates as “we cannot know if God will forgive that person for saving a life or punish him/her for taking one; it depends on which ∝ is greater!” Indeed, those who have taken calculus will remember that “∝-∝” sometimes turns out to be a positive number and sometimes a negative number; as well as 0 or ∝ or -∝

One could ask, what about m.0=0? Isn’t this also true? Yes, indeed “the sum of m zeros is equal to zero” is another mathematically accurate statement. Then, what meaning could this equation be given? Perhaps this would be the “murderer’s” version of the Qur’anic principle that we mentioned above: “When the life of an individual has “no value” in your heart, killing one person or a million people should be equally disheartening (!)”

Another mathematical tool that would be helpful in interpreting the above-mentioned principle is a technique that is used in mathematical proofs. When proving a fact about a set of elements in mathematics one proves it for an arbitrarily chosen member of the set and it is automatically generalized to the rest of the elements in the set. For example, in order to prove the statement “the square root of every prime number is irrational” we choose a prime number, say p, arbitrarily and prove the statement for it. Once we do that it is as if we proved that √2 is irrational, √3 is irrational, √5 is irrational etc. It covers all the numbers in the form √p, where p is a prime number. In the same way, when one kills an innocent person the message that it is acceptable to kill “any” innocent person is given, as the choice of person has been made arbitrarily. Therefore, this can be likened to killing all of mankind because being able to kill one person is simply generalized to all people who could be in that person’s shoes.

Summary: In this article we have given examples of analogy, metaphor, and literal similarity and have tried to indicate some distinguishing characters that set them apart. We included some uncommon metaphysical phenomena which have been placed in analogical correspondence with mathematical quantities with the intention of showing that mathematics can be used to shed light on purely religious concepts as well.

Yusuf Ziya Gurtas is an assistant professor of mathematics in Queensborough Community College, CUNY.

References

• Casnig, John D. 1997–2009. A Language of Metaphors. Knowgramming.com. Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
• Gentner, Dedre. 1982. “Are scientific analogies metaphors?” in David S. Miall (Ed.), Metaphor, Problems and Perspectives, Brighton, England: Harvester Press, pp. 106–132.
• –. 1983. “Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy.” Cognitive Science, 7, pp. 155–170.
• –. 1988. “Metaphor as Structure Mapping: The Relational Shift.” Child Development, 59, 47–59.
• Gentner, Dedre & Markman, Arthur D. 1997. “Structure Mapping in Analogy and Similarity.” American Psychologist, 52, 45–56.
• Gentner, Dedre, Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. 2001. “Metaphor is like analogy” in D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. Kokinov (Eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 199–253.
• Gentner, Dedre & Bowdle, Brian F. 2005. “The Career of Metaphor.” Psychological Review, 112, pp. 193–216.
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Pimm, David. 1981. “Metaphor and Analogy in Mathematics.” For the Learning of Mathematics, 1, 47–50.
• Runde, Volker. 2000. “The Banach-Tarski Paradox or What Mathematics and Miracles Have in Common.” in the Sky, 2, 13–15.
• Szabo, A. 1978. The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.

When we look at the current situation, those who study science are required to have a philosophical background of secular concepts and judgments; all the scientific activities and the required methods to be carried out by this person are to be built on this secular basis.

The method of scientific research

In the course of history scientific methods developed first in Mesopotamia, the cradle of humanity and the prophets, then in Central Asia and Andalusia, and finally in Western Europe, with efforts to make use of science so that human life would be easier. Nowadays these methods have a universal character and they include observation, experimental observation, experimentation, measuring, statistics, definitions along international standards, analogy, development of theories, antitheses and others.

Surely, this is not the only way to learn about the universe, life, and humanity. Furthermore, the true source of information is the One Who created everything that is studied by science-all the world of existence and the physical laws-that is God, the Almighty, the All-Wise. The Lord of the worlds created causes as a thin veil over His divine power and He has given the universe to the use of humanity. He gave us consciousness, intellect, reasoning, and curiosity to explore, and then He sent us messengers to convey His commands. In this way He always invited us to reflection and to use our mind. So, one of the means of satisfying our inherent curiosity to explore, of benefiting from what has God given us, and of reaching the truth-the knowledge of God-has been the methods of modern science which are always open to criticism and reform.

Observation

One needs to fulfill certain standards in order to obtain reliable information about the subject that is being observed and to compare this information with the results of other observations. These standards require that the measurements (distance, time, atmospheric conditions, the quality and sensitivity of the tools of observation, etc.) be recorded and correctly evaluated. The observation-watching the objects in the sky or following the life of a lion family in the savannah for instance-might seem to be a passive and objective study at the beginning. When there is conscious human intervention, however, the time of observation, the experience of the observer, their attentiveness, the accuracy of their devices, and their purpose of study bears importance in terms of the outcome. In addition, different observers in theoretically equal conditions may come up with different results. In short, the observer is an indispensable part of what they observe and measure. According to Einstein the assumption that there is an outer world abstracted from the perceiver is common to all natural sciences. On the other hand, perception only through the senses provides indirect information about the outer world, and we can only understand physical reality through reasoning. As a result, our knowledge of the physical reality can never be conclusive.

Experiment, measurement, and universal statement

All experiments are a scientific study where the experimenter contributes actively (as a determining factor). The drawbacks which occur for observation also occur for experiments to an even greater extent. The conditions of the experiment may not be always under strict control and there could be some factors that have been overlooked which affect the outcome.

Like observation, minimizing the mistakes of an experiment and expressing it in a universal statement depend on how much place has been given for standard measurements, mathematics, and common terminology. From the local environment to the world scale, the findings of scientific activity that has not been shared with others cannot be an inspiration for other original studies (science is a common value of humanity). Therefore, the developmental level of a science is understood from that science’s ability to use standard measurement techniques and mathematics, and then state the findings in internationally accepted ways.

In its broadest sense, measurement means numbering objects and events in accordance with certain rules. In any case, it should not be forgotten that these numbers represent those objects in only some aspects, not completely. The records taken during an observation or an experiment, particularly mathematical measurements, impose certain systematical limitations on the data and turn them into comparable values which give way to statistical analysis. Therefore, they pave the way for classification and generalization.

Generalization and induction

Classification and generalization are important schematic steps for they facilitate identifying the objects and events in the physical world, defining them, and understanding their function. The next step is to analyze things and events individually and this constitutes a reliable way of defining general rules, discovering the principle of the “system” that exists in the whole universe, and then obtaining complicated knowledge of the world around us. The deduction principle of Aristotle, which prevailed in Europe and the Muslim world during the Middle Ages, was replaced by this new understanding, namely the induction method. Induction is an analytical approach which studies events separately in order to reach a certain synthesis (an idea about the whole) for the sake of understanding nature and the universe. Particularly in natural sciences, generalizations require every thing and event to be tested one by one and then to be compared with the general rule; this way, important advancements have been made (e.g. after having tested all metals, the resulting principle was “all metals expand when they are heated”). However, the notion of accepting these generalizations as definite and unchangeable principles lost its reliability after Popper.

Theory, but how?

According to Popper, the verification of a scientific theory does not mean that it has been proven. Actually, what matters is not whether a theory is veritable or not, but whether a theory is disprovable or not. So to say that a theory is not open to criticism, that it cannot be disproved or tested is not scientific.

When we apply this to a concrete example, the theory of evolution, which is defined as a biological phenomenon that took place in the geological time scale, we find that it is not open to observation or experiment. Therefore, it cannot be proven in terms of natural sciences. More importantly, theory of evolution is not scientific, as it seems impossible to prove the opposite of what this theory suggests. We are not saying that we cannot prove the opposite; the theory is built in such a way that we have no chance to prove the opposite, and it is just not scientific.

Scientific data is accepted as an agreed value of humanity. The neutrality of science, or the neutrality of a scientist to be exact, suggests that things and events existing in the universe are all beyond personal and subjective judgments and they should be dealt with accordingly. Neutrality is in a way an honest attitude that has been adopted for seeking for truth with a skeptical approach while trying to reach a sound result. In any case, we need to keep in mind that in some branches of science we cannot remain absolutely neutral and our worldview may have an effect as well. Just as in daily life, our perception tends to be selective about what is happening around us in scientific activities as well. So neutrality in science cannot always be accepted as an absolute, but rather is something that is open for discussion.

The human conflict

The position of mankind presents a dual nature in the world which points to its Creator and the paths that lead to Him from every direction. Mankind has been created in a planet of negligible size in comparison to the vastness of the universe. We are just impotent guests. The sphere of our power is awfully narrow. On the other hand, our Creator gave the universe for our use, and He protects the planet where humans live against dangers in advance. He has bestowed upon us mental ability and the power to reflect upon the world, to explore, and to benefit from it. He has created all the living or non-living things and the physical laws for the sake of humanity. As mentioned before, we continue to explore the world around us and give this activity a name: “science.”

In spite of being feeble creatures, we human beings in time have taken the abilities granted to us, the scientific advancements, the achievements we made and the power brought by them as our own work and we have idolized our own bodies and mind. Then we claim that science is the ultimate reliable source, in spite of its being an activity with its own weaknesses. We began to see science as a separate being, independent from us, even from the Almighty Lord, and finally we take science as a conscious superior being that is able to explain everything, the only source of information, and a “sacred” concept, together with its methods. This outrageous ingratitude and rebellion against our Creator shakes the spiritual values of societies and causes them to degenerate by confusing minds, leading to the use of science against humanity in an uncontrolled way, like a dangerous weapon.

After Darwin, evolutionists began to explain the facts about all species in nature through the presumption of “evolution by natural selection.” However it is not correct to take natural selection as being deterministic. There is some partial truth in it; but it is not an ever-valid essential rule. The criterion of weakness for a species or an individual being cannot be clearly defined. Evolutionists had overlooked the fact that the species created in different structures and capacities in order to perform different functions in the system of nature could not be evaluated for a criteria of common weakness. So the natural selection mechanism they suggested was seemingly attractive, but a rough and over-generalizing assumption, chalk and cheese, were mixed together.

Seeing nature as an arena of struggle is another mistaken approach adopted by those who use scientific studies as a tool for denial which threatens the moral value of humanity (the mistake of adopting excessive approaches was constantly repeated through the history of Western philosophy). Nevertheless, the admiration we feel for nature shows how beautifully it has been created and kept alive. Being a perfectly working system with all its faculties, where solidarity and a cooperative balance play the major role, nature appeals to our heart and inspires aesthetically. In the physical or social systems we establish we try to imitate the examples nature presents us. Millions of different species, countless living things live in different habitats, in different ecosystems. All of them-big or small- are parts of a smoothly running system. Discovering and making detailed analyses of the micro or macro biological mechanisms that contribute to the system only became possible in the 20th century thanks to scientific developments. In any case these discoveries have not raised any metaphysical excitement among the scientists whose hearts were hardened by their denial.

Unfortunately, the cost of the damage we caused to ourselves and to the entire world have been great. Again, we forgot the (small) lesson we learned in a short time and could not help but originate chronic evils that revealed the harm we caused to people and nature in the long run.

Humanity needs to ponder on such pictures and possible ones of the future. They need to be somehow introduced to the divine message God sent us through His Messengers. They need to discover the revelation of the True Owner of the universe, realize the miracle of creation, acknowledge their own impotence, and understand the conditions of the balance-material and spiritual-of being human. They should give up their mistaken struggle in opposing their Creator which harms themselves and the world. All people who believe in the vital importance of the matter should act in accordance with the responsibility brought by this emergency and keep in mind that faith is of ultimate worth before God. As believers, we should pray to this end, with our actions as well.

It is important to understand the advantages and disadvantages of perceiving visual information. Throughout history, written and visual information (shapes and pictures) have been used together to perceive, think and, communicate. The discovery of the camera in 1895 enabled pictures of objects to be stored permanently. Photographic techniques also accelerated the development of science and industry.

In 1895, Roentgen discovered x-rays and developed a method to show a person’s bones and internal organs. This gave visual information-based perception more importance. In the past, we tried to sense and understand the surrounding world by using the naked eye within a narrow band of energy originating from the sun. Later on, we realized that we could see only a fraction of what was there.

Virtual reality

Virtual reality environments make perceiving and learning easier and more effective. Events that are expensive and require a long time to perceive and learn can be perceived and learned with less effort and less cost. For example, a virtual reality environment enables a person to tour the ocean’s bottom and deep space within several minutes. In addition, it reveals formerly unseen micro- and macro-objects visible to the naked eye, just as if they were being seen in a dream or were real.

The most powerful visual information techniques are in the advertising, marketing, news, and entertainment sectors. The virtual reality environment is just one cutting-edge development. To gain self-control and learn effectively, an individual can be placed in such an environment, which fully replicates the real world. Such environments are used, for example, to train pilots and doctors. Another suitable use would be to train Muslims for Hajj and Umrah. Such an experience would familiarize them with Makka and Madina, thereby lessening the potential for unexpected problems and better prepare them intellectually and spiritually for these holy voyages.

Visual information and education

The techniques of making objects visible started with discovery of the microscope and the telescope. When combined with multimedia technology, they have an important place in modern education. The correct and effective use of visual information and written information-based perception is improving the quality of education. Similarly, popular Web pages have been transformed into marketing environments that convey their messages through the combined use of scripts, images, sounds, and animation.

Surrounded by these visual tools and techniques, the media has a greater influence upon society than ever before, for it controls the visual information. Educators should teach their students how to analyze and criticize visual information, for producing fake computer-produced images in a visual information-based environment is almost as easy as producing fake written information with a copy machines. They must learn not to believe everything that they see, just as their parents learned not to believe everything that they read in the newspapers.

Conclusion

During the last several centuries, humanity has been led to believe that seeing is believing and don’t believe in what you can’t see. However, advanced visual processing techniques prove that not everything that we see is correct. In fact, such techniques might actually misled individuals, for they can produce images or virtual reality environments very close to the real one.

During the Renaissance, science began to develop rapidly. New discoveries about how the universe functions were termed scientific laws, even though they were actually descriptions of what had been observed. Moreover, they were believed to be the main causes. Science gradually became the ultimate explanation of existence, and caused many people to reject religion as obsolete.

All of this changed with the beginning of the twentieth century. Modern physics showed that the universe functions completely differently from what we see in daily life. The basic laws of mechanical physics, once thought to be the creator of the action, turned out to be valid only under certain approximations. The concept of absolute space-time was replaced with a relative and dynamic one. We discovered our limitations in measuring certain physical quantities, and that some particles cannot be observed directly. We recognized that physical laws are not deterministic, and thus cannot predict how a system’s state will change over time. All they can do is present possible alternatives.

Such drastic changes in our understanding forced many to reconsider science’s claim to provide the final explanation of the universe. Today, new discoveries are termed scientific theories. We know that much remains to be discovered, and are expecting more surprises. It also is becoming increasingly harder to claim that one day we will produce a complete description and resolve all mysteries.

In this article, we will illustrate some of the changes in our understanding of the universe and scientific philosophy by analyzing a simple physical event: a falling rock. Since it is an ordinary event, one may think there is nothing mysterious about it. It seems to be a completely deterministic event with no exceptions. One also may think that there is a simple reason for the rock to fall down: the attractive force between objects with mass. As we will see, however, the story turns out to be completely different.

Newton’s Law of Attraction

From experience, we know that a rock left in the air falls to the ground. We also know from astrophysical observations that the Earth circles around the sun. In these examples, the main interaction between the rock and the Earth, or between the Earth and the sun, is called gravity. Through observation, we know that gravity has an attractive nature. Let’s consider the following question, which science should be able to answer if it is the ultimate explanation: Why does a rock fall down?

A nineteenth-century physicist would reply: “A very simple question! Newton’s law of attraction. Objects with mass apply an attractive force to each other, the magnitude of which is proportional to the objects’ mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects. Since the Earth and the rock both have mass, they are subject to this law. This is why a rock falls down.”

But this only describes a falling rock. Many who believed this claimed that there could be no change in this scenario, and especially no room for a Creator Who actually let the rock fall down. But, we ask, how do masses apply their forces to each other? Why is this force proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance?

We do not have to pursue this argument, for we know that the so-called final explanation is incorrect. If the nineteenth-century physicist could have observed more carefully, he or she would have realized that Newton’s law of attraction could not answer all questions involving gravity. For instance, why is light, a particle without mass, deflected by gravity? Such a physicist also could not calculate correctly Mercury’s perihelion around the sun.

We now know that objects with mass do not apply attractive forces to each other. In describing gravity, Newton’s law of attraction can be used as an approximation when gravity is weak. What we see or feel as gravitational attraction is explained more accurately, but completely differently, by the theory of general relativity.

The Theory of General Relativity

What does the theory of general relativity say about a falling rock? According to it, objects with mass curve space-time, a dynamic object, in a definite manner. In this curved space-time, a free particle that is affected only by gravity moves in a geodesic path. In the space-time curved by the Earth, the geodesic path for an object with mass can be calculated through the Earth’s center. As it has mass, a rock should follow this geodesic path. Thus it moves through the Earth’s center, and we see it as falling down.

This description is radically different from the one derived from Newton’s law of attraction. Space-time is considered dynamic, rather than absolute, and is affected by matter. Also, a falling rock is in free motion and is not acted upon by any of force belonging to the Earth.

The general theory of relativity can describe many physical phenomena related to black holes, gravitational collapse, gravitational radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe that Newton’s theory cannot. It also covers Newton’s law of attraction in a weak gravity approximation, and fits with observations made so far.

However, it has some problems. Starting from its basic principles, it can be proven that the theory cannot describe some physical phenomena properly. Equations governing the dynamics of space-time and matter allow an initial, ordinary configuration of matter to end up in a state that can no longer be analyzed by general relativity. This final state is called a singularity. A black hole’s formation by gravitational collapse is an example of this.

Thus general relativity is also an approximate description that is sensible under certain conditions. Our understanding of gravity and a falling rock is much improved when compared to the past. But this is not the end of the story.

There is another important reason why general relativity is not the final theory of gravity. Other than gravity, three known interactions occur between matter: electromagnetic, strong, and weak. These interactions can be observed in the atomic world, and are described successfully by quantum theory. The basic principles of quantum theory are very different from those of general relativity.

Quantum Theory

While general relativity is deterministic, quantum theory is indeterministic. In general relativity, a system’s state can be specified in the usual physical terms, for instance, by giving positions and velocities. In quantum theory, a system’s state is described in abstract mathematical terms by a vector in a Hilbert space, which has no a priori relation with the physical world. Furthermore, positions and velocities can no longer be known together. The formalisms of two theories are very different and contradictory.

At first, this seems to be a philosophical problem. On a large scale involving planetary distances, quantum effects are negligible and gravity dominates other interactions. But on an atomic scale, gravitational interactions are generically very weak and can be neglected when compared to other interactions. Therefore, quantum theory and general relativity seem to be complementary for a large-scale general relativity. However, quantum theory provides appropriate descriptions on an atomic scale.

Based on these ideas, one may claim that the rather deep philosophical conflict between two successful theories is, for all practical purposes, harmless and unimportant. But this is incorrect, for in some cases both gravitational and quantum effects are not negligible. For instance, a black hole may have an atomic size, which can be described properly by quantum theory. On the other hand, since black holes naturally involve strong gravitational interactions, general relativity plays a crucial role in their description. This is an important feature of black holes, one that makes them interesting objects to study.

The quantum theory of gravity describes both gravitational and quantum effects properly. Apart from the fact that there are few candidates (like string theory), we still do not know this theory’s basic principles, which should cover the principles of quantum theory and general relativity. The two main obstacles to this are that sophisticated (and as yet undeveloped) mathematics are needed to attack theoretical problems, and that direct experimentation is impossible, since such experiments involve energies that cannot be produced on Earth.

This simply means that we do not have a complete description of a rock falling, one of the simplest physical events one can imagine. On the other hand, why is a rather deeper question then describing the event. It seems that such classical deterministic theories as general relativity can answer this question if some basic principles are assumed. But these basic assumptions can be questioned, and it is hard to claim that they are immutable. As discussed earlier, the basic principles of Newton’s theory turn out to be sensible in an approximation involving weak gravity. The existence of such nonphysical states as singularities imply that a similar conclusion holds for general relativity. Therefore, even in classical deterministic theories, the question of why cannot be answered honestly.

The situation in quantum theory is completely different. In classical theories, a system’s state changes over time and in a definite manner. In quantum theory, however, only probabilities of possible changes can be calculated, and the system may change according to one of these alternatives. Furthermore, among the possible alternatives, classically forbidden ones may be present. More important, according to basic quantum theory principles, the question of why a specific alternative is chosen cannot be answered in scientific terms.

It is interesting to see the implications of quantum theory’s uncommon features for our simple example, since the unknown quantum theory of gravity should have all of these indeterministic features. According to general relativity, all rocks left free in the air fall in exactly the same manner. But this description is not completely correct, for general relativity is not the final theory of gravity.

By roughly analyzing the same event from a quantum theory point of view, one can see that, due to seemingly strange quantum effects, a rock left in the air may go up as well as down, although going up is forbidden by general relativity. This seems to conflict with daily experience, and one may wonder why we always see objects left free in the air as falling down but not up. The reason is that for macroscopic objects like rocks, quantum effects are generically very small and a system’s state changes, most probably, as classically expected. Stated differently, the ratio of rocks going up to the ones going down is incredibly small. This is why we believe that every time we let go of a rock it will fall down. However, this does not rule out exceptions.

Conclusion

In this article, we analyzed a simple event to illustrate some of the changes in our understanding of how the universe functions. Many physicists used to believe that the order around us could be explained by assuming simple physical laws. However, the more we learn about the universe, the more we encounter new principles and new surprises-and the more we recognize our ignorance. Furthermore, modern physics states that the universe does not function according to strict causality and determinism.

In light of these developments, it is clear that we should renew our understanding of physical laws and the idea that they have a role in creating the action and the order around us. Being the most fundamental natural science, this conclusion of modern physics also influences other sciences. Therefore, science should be accepted as an important tool for seeking and seeing the beauty of the created order around us, and nothing more.

References

• Hawking, S. W. and G. F. R. Ellis. The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time. USA: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
• Wald, R. M. General Relativity. Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 1984.

The Quran calls the attention of human beings to the Divine manifestations on creatures such as the honeybee, ant, gnat and spider and invites them to reflect on and study phenomena like the movements of air, the alternation of day and night and the seasons, and the movements of heavenly bodies. The importance the Qur’an gives to the study of natural events inspired Muslim scientists to undertake investigations using observation and the experimental method – long before these came into use in Europe.

Science passed to Europe through the two centuries of the Crusades, through the universities in al-Andalus and Sicily and the translations made there from Arabic. This was the main factor behind the Renaissance in Europe. Building on (without ever openly acknowledging) the works of Muslim scientists, Western scientists led the way to the birth of modern science. Until correct conclusions were reached about phenomena through observation and experimental methods, the assertions of the ancient Greek philosophers had been accepted as the basic laws of nature. For example, it had been asserted as true without question from the time of Aristotle that the speed of an object’s falling is proportionate to its weight. However, the experiments done by Galileo and Newton proved this to be false. Those experiments showed that- so long as the resistance of air is negligible in proportion to the weight of the object and its vertical cross sectional area – the unhindered movement of an object on the earth is not dependent on its mass. This means that objects of different weight dropped from the same point reach earth at the same time. Such developments in physics led scientists to app rove observation and experiment as a basic rule in establishing natural facts. It was the job of scientists to try to discover the laws and basic truths prevalent in the universe through observation and experiment – empirical methods – while it was the task of philosophers to reflect on and comment on them, in other words, in order to have true conclusions about the universe and the events taking place in it we had to discard all of our preconceptions about them and study nature through empirical methods and then comment on the natural events and the relations between them.

In order to have a clearer understanding of modern science and what it can give us of truth about the universe, let us consider the law of general gravity, which is an undeniably established scientific fact:

Various observations and experiments have shown that any two objects attract each other or exert force upon each other proportionately to their masses and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance between them.

The force of attraction or gravity is the force which is in effect in events such as the falling of an object and the revolving of the earth around the sun. Science presents gravity as if it were the cause of such events. However, what we call the force of gravitation is only a notion which we use to explain those events. That is, there is an attraction observed between objects. In order to explain this attraction, we give it a name like the law or force of gravitation and then think that we have explained the event of attraction.

Science does not know the nature of what it calls the force of gravitation but, starting from the assertion that we have already successfully explained many events whose causes were unknown in the past, claims that it will be explained in the future. Nevertheless, science is unable to explain the real cause of all the events in the universe. What science in fact does is, starting from the recurrence of an event under the same conditions, to make a generalization and call it a law. Then it proceeds to assert that the same event will take place again and again under the same conditions. For example, after observing the falling of objects thrown into the air, it makes a generalization that all objects thrown into the air fall, and expresses this event of falling by a mathematical formula.

It can serve as a simple example to see how science works to calculate and state beforehand how long it takes for an object thrown into the air with a certain force and at a certain angle to fall and at what distance it falls. Since events take place in a cause-and- effect series, knowing what effect or event will take place in the next step does not require understanding why it takes place in that way. Therefore, although we suppose that the law of gravity will be understood as, say, dependent on an exchange between certain particles or the obliquity of spatial time, it will nevertheless remain unexplained through scientific methods why such an exchange takes place or why the spatial time becomes oblique and why that exchange or obliquity occurs according to certain mathematical formulations and thereby objects attract each other. In addition to the fact that why objects attract each other remains unknown, it is also a mystery (and a wonder) that this event of attraction takes place according to a mathematical formula. Because of our familiarity with the events taking place in nature, we ignore the important fact that every thing, every event in nature is a miracle. In order to see why the event of gravitation is a dazzling miracle, we should consider it more closely:

As an example to understand the law of gravity, let us consider the falling of a stone dropped (and then allowed to fall unhindered) from a certain high point. Left unhindered, that stone will realize a certain trajectory as the result of gravity affecting it. It will move faster and faster and finally hit the ground. How the stone will accelerate, how long it will take it to reach the ground and how it will move at every second of its trajectory depends on the stones distance from the centre of the earth, the mass of the earth and the constant of gravity. This means that the stone does not move at random, rather each of its movements during its fall is determined through mathematical formulas. This is an extremely regular movement. From this we inevitably conclude that if the stone does this movement of falling by itself, without an agent directing or determining its trajectory, then the stone must know accurately the constant of gravity, the mass of the earth and its distance from the centre of the earth at each moment of its trajectory, and then move in conformity with that knowledge. Whoever has a bit of intelligence will not attribute to the stone itself such a trajectory, simple in appearance but extremely complex in reality. Indeed, the falling of a stone is so complex a movement that during it all the objects in the universe, every thing with a certain mass, exerts on it certain force of attraction and the stone moves under the influence of all those forces. (Here we do not consider other essential forces such as the electro-magnetic and nuclear ones, which have determining effect on the movement of things. Expressed, again, with certain mathematical formulas, these forces make the movements in the universe even more complex.) That is, in order to determine its trajectory, the stone must know the exact distance between itself and each of about 1080 particles in the universe, calculate accurately at each moment of its trajectory the force of the attraction exerted on it by each of those particles according to the mathematical formula of gravity – a force which changes every moment – and focus all those forces to a single point in consideration of the direction of each. Let alone a stone, even the most advanced computer the size of the universe could not accomplish that. For the position of each of the particles with respect to the stone changes at every moment during its fall. Thus, the simplest-seeming movement in the universe like the falling of a stone requires comprehensive knowledge and mastery of an infinite number of interrelated processes.

Since any event taking place in any part of the universe has connection with each of the particles in the universe and the whole of the universe itself, only one who has perfect knowledge of each of those particles and the universe as a whole, one who sees the whole of the universe with each particle in it, can determine and direct all the movements in the universe. Also, since the law of gravity and all the other physical laws are the same and have the same uniformity throughout the whole of the universe, the one who makes these laws operative in the whole of the universe must be an absolutely powerful one, who dominates each and every thing in the universe. Otherwise, each atom in the universe must have an eye seeing the whole of the universe at the same time, know the position, mass, electrical charge, in short, all the physical features, of each particle in the universe, be aware of all the physical laws and obey the laws itself originated.

Every event and every thing in the universe is interrelated to every other and whatever takes place in the universe takes place according to certain laws. Therefore, it is impossible for even the smallest, most insignificant-seeming event to take place without one with an absolute, perfect knowledge of the universe with all its particles and an absolute power governing it. Said Nursi expresses this fact as follows:

If the existence and operation of the universe is not attributed to God Almighty, then it requires admitting that each particle has the attributes of the Necessarily Existent Being, and that each particle should both dominate and be dominated by all other particles. Again, each particle should have an all-encompassing will and knowledge, for the existence of a single thing is dependent on all things and one who does not own the universe cannot rule a single particle.

After explaining how complex a phenomenon gravitation is, we can go a little further to see the real cause of that phenomenon. The relation sensed between the fall of a stone and the rotation of the moon around the world in a fixed orbit led Newton to discover the law of gravity. Ever since this law received a general welcome, the cause of the falling down of an object thrown into the air has unquestionably been accepted as gravity. However, it is not necessary that the real cause of this movement is the force of the attraction of the earth or the existence of another material cause.

Consider this:

Let us imagine some animate beings living on a two- dimensional table. These living beings are aware of only the table on which they live and completely unaware of the three- dimensional world around them. Someone from the three- dimensional world fires at the table in equal frequencies and makes holes at equal distance from each other. Seeing the holes at equal distances, the animate beings living completely unaware of the three-dimensional world will inevitably conclude that each hole causes another one to be made. Whereas it is some other firing from the outside world who made the holes.

This is how the scientists attributing every thing and event in the universe to the law of causality think about the working of the universe. It is questionable whether the attraction of an object toward another near it (for example, the attraction of a falling stone toward the ground) is because of the objects themselves or there is some other source forcing the objects to such a movement. (The event of attraction is the simplest of the events occurring in the universe. You may consider how a honeybee makes honey or a cow gives milk, events which contain a much greater number of physical interactions, chemical reactions and cause and effect.) In short, since the movement of an object according to the law of gravity is one each moment of which is mathematically described and requires as many masses and distances as the articles in the universe and the distances among them to be known in their mutual, complex relations, there must be One Who is the All-Knowing. This One must also have an absolute will to choose and assign for each event a law out of innumerable ones. The uniformity of the law, that is, all the laws being prevalent throughout the universe calls for the unity of that All-Knowing and All-Willing One, and the obedience of all things, small or great, to those laws demonstrate that that One is also the All- Powerful. Again, the unchangeability or stability of the laws and the magnificent, unchanging order and harmony of the universe show that that One is Self- Subsistent and the All-Subsisting. That means it is that All-Knowing, All-Willing, All-Powerful, Self-Subsistent and All-Subsisting, Single One Who causes a stone to fall. For no one and nothing in the universe has the knowledge, will and power absolutely necessary for the falling of a stone. Every thing and event in the universe is too complex and magnificent for any material cause to bring it about. There is then no way for man other than to admit and recognize the Existence and Unity of God.

Another feature of the human visual system is the ease with which interpretation is carried out. We see a scene as it is – trees in a landscape, books on a desk, products in a factory. No obvious deductions are needed and no overt effort is required to interpret each scene. In addition, answers are immediate and available normally within a tenth of a second. The important point is that we are for the most part unaware of the complexities of vision. Seeing is not a simple process.

We are still largely ignorant of the process of human vision. However, man is inventive and he is now trying to get machines to do much of his work for him. For the simplest tasks there should be no particular difficulty in mechanization but for more complex tasks the machine must be given man’s prime sense, i.e. that of vision. Efforts have been made to achieve this, sometimes in modest ways, for well over 30 years. At first, such tasks seemed trivial and schemes were devised for reading, for interpreting chromosome images and so on. But when such schemes were confronted with rigorous practical tests, the problems often turned out to be more difficult.

Computer vision blends optical processing and sensing, computer architecture, mechanics and a deep knowledge of process control. Despite some success, in many fields of application it really is still in its infancy.

With the current state of computing technology, only digital images can be processed by our machines. Because our computers currently work with numerical rather than pictorial data, an image must be converted into numerical form before processing.

The field of machine or computer vision may be sub-divided into six principal areas (1) sensing, (2) pre-processing, (3) segmentation, (4) description (5) recognition and (6) interpretation. Sensing is the process that yields a visual image. The sensor, most commonly a TV camera, acquires an image of the object that is to be recognised or inspected. The digitizer converts this image into an array of numbers, representing the brightness values of the image at a grid of points; the numbers in the array are called pixels. Pre-processing deals with techniques such as noise reduction and the enhancement of details. The pixel array is fed into the processor, a general-purpose or custom-built computer that analyses the data and makes the necessary decisions. Segmentation is the process that partitions an image into objects of interest. The segmentation of images should result in regions which correspond to objects, parts of objects or groups of objects which appear in the image. These features of these entities, along with their positions relative to the entire image, help us to make a meaningful interpretation. Description deals with the computation of features such as size, shape, texture, etc. suitably for differentiating one type of object from another. Recognition is the process that identifies these objects. Finally, interpretation assigns meaning to an ensemble of recognised objects.

Any description of the human visual system only serves to illustrate how far computer vision has to go before it approaches human ability.

In terms of image acquisition, the eye is totally superior to any camera system yet developed. The retina, on which the upside-down image is projected, contains two classes of discrete light receptors – cones and rods. There are between 6 and 7 million cones in the eye, most of them located in the central part of the retina called the fovea. These cones are highly sensitive to colour and the eye muscles rotate the eye so that the image is focused primarily on the fovea. The cones are also sensitive to bright light and do not operate in dim light. Each cone is connected by its own nerve to the brain.

There are at least 75 million rods in the eye distributed across the surface of the retina. They are sensitive to light intensity but not to colour.

The range of intensities to which the eye can adapt is of the order of 1010, from the lowest visible light to the highest bearable glare. In practice the eye per forms this amazing task by altering its own sensitivity depending on the ambient level of brightness.

Of course, one of the ways in which the human visual system gains over the machine is that the brain possesses some 1010 cells (or neurons), some of which have well over 10,000 contacts (or synapses) with other neurons. If each neuron acts as a type of microprocessor, then we have an immense computer in which all the processing elements can operate concurrently. Probably, the largest manmade computer still contains less than a million processing elements, so the majority of the visual and mental processing tasks that the eye-brain system can perform in a flash have no chance of being performed by present-day man-made systems.

Added to these problems of scale is the problem of how to organize such a large processing system, and also how to program it. Clearly, the eye- rain system is partly hard-wired but there is also an interesting capability to program it dynamically by training during active use. This need for a large parallel processing system with the attendant complex control problems illustrates clearly that machine vision must indeed be one of the most difficult intellectual problems to tackle.

Part of the problem lies in the fact that the sophistication of the human visual system makes robot vision systems pale by comparison.

Developing general-purpose computer vision systems has been proved surprisingly difficult and complex. This has been particularly frustrating for vision researchers, who experience daily the apparent ease and spontaneity of human perception.

As can be seen from the information given above, developing a computer-vision system requires knowledge. Hence the eye performs better and better than even the best computer-vision system, the very complex eye-brain system also requires more comprehensive knowledge to build. When man understands and discovers the functioning of the eye-brain system, better computer-vision systems will be developed. That means the eye-brain system (like other systems in the body of human being) is a very deep and rich knowledge source. As this system has links with other systems in the body, it obviously shows that the maker of these systems is One who knows everything about every single part of the whole body, for not only the eye-brain system but the entire body develops accordingly.

So, who can be the maker of this fantastic eye-brain system? If it is said that it is self-creating, this has no meaning because everybody knows that such an important system cannot create itself, just as a computer-vision system cannot give itself existence. As for chance, is it possible for such a system, which is full of knowledge for human being to imitate in order to develop computer- vision systems, to be made by chance at all? Of course not. So who is the maker of the eye-brain system?

The maker or the creator of this system can only be One who has supernatural power. He says in His Holy Book:

‘Have we not made for him (human being) a pair of eyes?’ (The Holy Qur’an 90.8).

Yes, indeed, He made them just as He made the whole of the rest of the cosmos with His unlimited knowledge.

REFERENCES

• DAVIES, B. R. (1990) Machine vision: theory, algorithms, practicalities, Academic Press, New York.
• GOWRISBANKAR, T. R, & BOURBAKIS, N. G. (June 1990) Specifications for the development of a knowledge-based image-interpretation systems, Engineering Applications of Al, Vol. 3, pp.79-9O.
• MAJUMDER, D. D. (1988) Computer vision and knowledge based computer systems, Institution of Electronics and Telecom. Engineers, Vol. 34, No 3, pp. 230-245.
• MULLER. B. & REINHARDT. J. (1990) Neural networks, an introduction. Springer- Verlag Publications, New York.
• RODD, M. G. (1990) Knowledge based vision systems, Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 2. ed, Adeli, II., McGraw [Jill, pp.245-276.
• ROSENFELD, A. (August 1985) Machine vision for industry: tasks, tools and techniques, Image and Vision Computing, Vol. 3, No 3. pp.122-135.
• SANDERSON, 1