I was still in the Hawzah when news broke of the assassination of Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, one of Iran’s leading nuclear scientists. I hadn’t known who he was before his death; but afterward, in some of our gatherings with scholars, I learned that Dr. Fakhrizadeh was deeply versed in Sadrian philosophy, and in Islamic philosophy more broadly. Since the following year was my last in the Hawzah, I never had the chance to look into his ideas directly. But my involvement in Islamic education, where the relationship between science and religion is always a central concern, eventually led me to explore some of his ideas.
As far as I know, he has no published book or academic articles in journals (not any that I came across), but his views can be found in various shorter articles published on news websites, or in academic seminars. There have also been several books written about him, his life, and his views in the field of science and philosophy.
His interests, in fact, extended well beyond physics itself. He was deeply read in mysticism, from Platonic rationalism to illuminationist philosophy, with a particular love for Persian poets like Hafez, Saadi, and Rumi. He was knowledgeable enough in Persian literature that the University of Tehran once invited him to teach in its literature department, an offer he had to decline due to his workload. He also had a strong theoretical grasp of traditional Persian music, though he didn’t play an instrument himself. Former defence minister Hossein Dehghan and Major General Mohammad Bagheri are both said to have remarked that only a small fraction of his scientific work will ever be publicly known.
It was, notably, the West that first publicly recognized him as one of Iran’s top nuclear scientists. In a 2018 presentation on Iran’s nuclear program, Netanyahu named him directly and told his audience to “remember that name, Fakhrizadeh.” He remains one of the only Iranian scientists Netanyahu has ever named publicly.
The following text is a translation of a short article, titled “Philosophy of Physics: The Fundamental Challenge of New Physics,” written by him and published by the Mehr News Agency. Below it, I’ve also included a translation of a second, shorter blog post by Dr. Fakhrizadeh, titled “The Necessity of Reviving Islamic Philosophy.“
In the name of Him who taught man what he did not know.
“This Masnavi was long delayed / a respite was needed until the blood turned to milk” (Rumi)
I am deeply concerned that precious time not be wasted through the writing or speaking of trivial and unimportant matters. Perhaps this is the main reason I write or speak so little.
New physics – the physics of the twentieth century – has, through its own findings, given rise to challenges in the domain of human knowledge, in empirical, philosophical, and even mystical concepts. Some of these have been wrongly seized upon by certain schools of thought to prove the validity of their own intellectual doctrines, and we will discuss these as well.
The Challenges of New Physics
If one were to ask philosophers of science or philosophers of physics what the most important challenge raised by new physics is, one would receive a variety of answers. Some consider the violation of the principle of causality to be the most important challenge; others will cite the change in the concept of measurement theory as the primary one, and so on. But in this humble writer’s view, the major challenge that has arisen concerns the “value of empirical knowledge” – that is, to what extent do the findings of the empirical sciences represent the reality of being, or true being itself?
Einstein, building on Planck’s findings, attributes a dual nature to light. On one hand he considers light a particle and names it a photon; on the other, a wave. These two properties cannot be reconciled with each other, that is, in some experiments we observe light’s wave property, and in others its particle property. Depending on the type of experimental arrangement, light manifests one of its properties; of course, this phenomenon pertains to the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
De Broglie, following Einstein’s lead, proposed the same property for material particles, that is, material particles also possess a dual nature. Numerous experiments have confirmed this theory beautifully.
Now the question arises: what, in truth and in itself, is a photon or a material particle like an electron? Is it a wave, or a particle, or some other state of being? That is, what is the nature of the electron or photon before it is observed? In response, physics and philosophy fall silent. Why? About a hundred years have passed since the development of these two theories, and not only have they not answered this question, but no experimental proposal has even been offered for approaching it.
We find the same situation regarding theories concerning the arrangement of particles within atomic nuclei. Which nuclear model comprehensively unifies the theories and accounts for all experiments?
Physicists Who Do Not Know
Quantum physics consists of numerous questions to which the physicist’s answer is “I don’t know.” For example, we ask: what is the state of an electron within an atom during its transition from one energy level to another? The answer is: I don’t know! What is known is that this event occurs. Of course, pragmatist and positivist schools of thought say it does not matter what state the electron is in during this transition – what matters to us is its practical outcome. Clearly, however, such answers do not quench the thirsty soul of a human being in search of knowledge. Moreover, it is precisely these questions that guarantee scientific progress, though this latter point is itself one of the fundamental disagreements with these two schools of philosophy of science. That is, we believe that their approach leads to stagnation in science, even as they accuse others of the very same thing. For science grows through successive questions, and whatever obstructs further inquiry is doomed to fail.
Up to this point in the discussion, through a few limited examples (and to avoid prolonging the discourse we refrain from citing further examples), it has become clear that new physics has placed upon humanity a great many “I don’t knows”, which, admittedly, is a virtue. Classical Newtonian physics did not raise these questions, which was, of course, a product of its compounded and excessive ignorance.
It is necessary, however, to distinguish the nature of these “I don’t knows” from the “I don’t know” arising from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, whose own validity and correctness remain in doubt, unless the two can somehow be related to one another, which is indeed not an impossible undertaking. Explaining how this connection works is among this writer’s future projects, which, God willing, we will address later.
Let us turn to Einstein’s relativity. Einstein, by generalizing Newtonian relativity, which dealt only with the relativity of position and velocity, introduced the question of the relativity of time. With this proposition, the human worldview was transformed in every dimension. In this theory, time is no longer a fixed matter against which events are measured; rather, time is born of motion, and the nature of motion determines the nature of time. We no longer have a single reference time. Of course, if we could find an inertial reference frame, we could adopt its time as the reference time, but we know well that no such frame exists. (Of course, in the material world, we defer the explanation of this matter to the future.)
So, in this interpretation, every observer situated in their own particular coordinate system has their own particular time and describes events from their own point of view, which will certainly differ from the interpretation of an observer situated in another reference frame under different conditions.
It must be noted that this point is extremely fundamental, so much so that it even has effects in the physiology of living beings. Now the question arises: of two accounts given by two different observers of a single event, which one is correct?
How Sadra’s Philosophy Came to Parallel Einstein’s Theory
The more interesting point is that Transcendent Philosophy (al-Hikmah al-Muta’aliyah), founded by the renowned philosopher of the Islamic world, Sadr al-Din Shirazi (Mulla Sadra), arrived at this same conclusion independently and through philosophical reasoning three centuries before Einstein, that is, at the same time as Newton. My purpose in stating this is not to claim that Einstein’s theory is based on Mulla Sadra’s theory, but rather to use this parallel to reinforce the relativistic view. He too says that every motion has its own particular time. So here too, we must note, we are dealing with an inherent “I don’t know.”
Contrary to the claims of classical physics, dependent quantities for a physical particle cannot be measured simultaneously with zero uncertainty. Precise measurement of one quantity causes the uncertainty of the other dependent quantity to move toward infinity. Take, for example, the two dependent quantities of position and momentum for an entity such as an electron: measuring momentum with high precision means we can provide no information regarding its position, and vice versa.
We find the same relationship in the case of energy and time. Many scientists have spoken both for and against this hypothesis. Among the critics of this hypothesis is the renowned scientist Einstein himself, and among more recent critics, Karl Popper may be named. Popper, in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, offers an extensive discussion rejecting this theory and proposes an experiment in this connection. Among the attempts to avert the apparent danger arising from this principle is the invention of hidden-variable theory, for which, as far as I am informed, no proof has yet been found.
Two points may be drawn from this principle: one, the negation of the principle of causality; and the other, the lack of precise knowledge of physical realities. The first point must be interpreted in two ways: first, the negation of the Newtonian law of causality, and second, the negation of causality as explained by philosophy. In my view, the first form poses no obstacle and can even be counted as progress in science; but the second form is fundamentally mistaken, and this principle cannot invalidate the principle of causality, indeed, it can even strengthen it.
The second point, in my view, is a fundamental one that the respected critics of this principle have not addressed, and perhaps the reason for this is that, for ideological and perhaps political reasons, greater emphasis was placed on the first point, particularly in its second form. The explanation of this point is that the scientist, in order to come to know nature, is compelled to intervene in it, and this intervention causes the entity being known, in the process of being known, to be removed from its pre-cognitive state, that is, from its own reality in itself. Therefore, the entity as known is not the same entity that existed prior to being known. It is said that to observe an electron one must use a photon, and this photon, upon colliding with the electron, disturbs its state to such a degree that the electron is no longer the same electron it was before the collision.
Note that this matter was also raised within classical physics, but since it held no significant practical importance, we passed over it without much attention. In measuring the temperature of water, we would say: when we place a thermometer in the water, the thermometer must come to thermal equilibrium with the water, and to do so it takes a certain amount of energy from the water or gives a certain amount of energy to it, depending on whether it is at a lower or higher temperature. Thus, the true temperature of the water can never be measured. Of course, by making the thermometer small relative to the medium being measured, we reduce this error, but it always remains. In new physics, we say that the smallest instrument of observation is the photon, and its intervention is to such a degree that the resulting error cannot be overlooked.
So the fundamental point is this: the observer and the observed, or the knower and the known, affect one another, and this constitutes a fundamental obstacle to the knowledge of reality and of being-in-itself. Many scientists have spoken on this matter, and to avoid prolonging the discourse I refrain from citing them here, though I have included a considerable portion, with sources cited, in a book currently being written.
A reference to realist philosophy as expressed by Sadr al-Din Shirazi sweetens this discussion a hundredfold. From the viewpoint of these philosophers, perception is divided into three categories: sensory, imaginal, and intellectual. Thus, according to the theory of abstraction (tajrīd), the levels of perception are based on degree. With incomplete abstraction we attain sensory perception; with greater abstraction, imaginal perception; and with complete abstraction, intellectual perception. According to this solution, in the stages of perception neither the perceiver nor the perceived advances, in contrast to the Sadrian view, in which, at these stages, both the perceiver and the perceived advance.
From the perspective of Sadrian wisdom, what obstructs perception is not the conjunction of an essence with its accidents, but rather what obstructs perception is the mode of reality in which the essence exists. According to his view, through sensory perception the external form rises to the perceptible form, and the perceptible form rises to the imaginal form, and then to intellectual perception, and this itself requires that the being of the perceiver also advance together with the perfection and advancement of both perception and the perceived. (This last point is quoted from the journal Ma’refat-e Falsafi, issue 16, page 11.)
So note that philosophers, too, through philosophical insights, have arrived at this reality: that knowledge of truths in reality and in themselves is not possible, and that this inability is an inherent matter, not an accidental one, and has nothing to do with the limitations of instruments, as Einstein used to say — rather, it is related to the mutual effect of the observer and the observed upon one another.
The Necessity of Reviving Islamic Philosophy
This is the final entry written by Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh on his personal blog:
With the help of the Almighty, I have resolved to begin writing once again. And God willing, I will continue, and with His help and yours, maintain a specific schedule for posting these writings.
The title mentioned above may come as a surprise. One might ask: is Islamic philosophy dead, that it should need reviving? And moreover, why do we need to revive this philosophy?
Let us first address the question: what is life?
In this humble writer’s view, life means the capacity to interact with one’s surrounding environment, to influence it, and to be influenced by it. And a higher form of life exists when this interaction leads to the growth of both parties – the one influencing and the one being influenced.
I now leave it to the people of philosophy to judge and answer: does Islamic philosophy, in the present era, interact with its surrounding environment? What scientific problem has it worked to solve in any field, whether the humanities or the empirical sciences? Do the philosophers of this age even engage seriously with the weighty problems of science at all?
How many articles do we have that critique the philosophical interpretations arising from the sciences, based on the principles of Islamic philosophy? How much has this philosophy been influenced [by modern developments]? Has today’s account of philosophy differed at all from the account given by Mulla Sadra?
The ten categories [of Aristotelian/Islamic logic] are still recited in the very same form, order, and terminology. Expressions from centuries past are still in use. Philosophy today is the very same as what “the Shirazi Sage” [Mulla Sadra] taught. Perhaps some of its examples have changed.
Let us compare this with philosophy in the West. See how seriously it engages with the sciences; it creates challenges and accepts challenges. In the wake of these challenges, various schools of thought have emerged, and it is constantly growing. It has a serious impact on the sciences. And beyond its influence on the progress of the sciences, it has essentially taken on the role of reconciling the findings of these sciences with people’s way of life.
In the growth of the sciences, too, the situation is clear and evident. It is said that Einstein, after some time, remarked that relativity had advanced so far that he himself was no longer able to understand it.
I think that up to this point we have made clear the fact that Islamic philosophy is not alive. In the next entry, we will address the necessity of its revival. God willing, until another piece of writing—God be with you.