Unity of Existence: An Indo-Iranic Legacy

Mulla Sadra (1571–1640), one of the most profound philosophers carried forward an inheritance that stretched back to the Indo-Iranic imagination of the cosmos. His work, though framed within the language of Islam, resonates with the ancient metaphysical current of Arta/Rta—the principle of universal order and truth. At the heart of his philosophy lies a bold claim: the universe is not a collection of separate entities but the unified, dynamic unfolding of a single Being.

 
The Core of His Vision

When Mulla Sadra speaks of the Unity of Existence, he is not offering a metaphor but describing the very structure of reality. The cosmos is one Being, manifesting itself at different levels and intensities. Mountains, rivers, animals, humans, and even thoughts are not isolated things but gradations of the same underlying reality. This vision rests on three intertwined principles:


Unity of Existence – All that exists is but one Being, refracted into countless forms.


Gradation of Existence – Reality reveals itself in degrees, from the faintest mode of being to the most intense.


Dynamic Manifestation – Existence is never static but in constant renewal, a ceaseless unfolding of Being moment by moment.

In this sense, Sadra’s universe is alive, pulsing, and ever-transforming—a metaphysical dance of unity in diversity.

 
Implications Beyond Philosophy

The consequences of this vision stretch beyond abstract ontology. If all beings are gradations of the same reality, then separation is an illusion. This leads to:


Holistic Understanding – A cosmos where nothing is isolated, where every fragment carries the whole.


Ontological Unity – An insistence that we share a common source, making otherness less foreign and more like an echo of the self.


Spiritual Depth – A call to recognize and reconnect with the deeper unity behind appearances, which turns philosophy into a spiritual path.

Sadra’s perspective, while deeply philosophical, becomes also ethical and mystical—it reshapes how one relates to the world, to others, and to oneself.

 
Innovation and Resistance

Yet, Sadra’s originality came at a cost. His Transcendent Theosophy (al-Hikmat al-Mutaʿāliyah) synthesized Avicenna’s rationalism, Suhrawardī’s illuminationism, and Sufi mysticism into a single framework. Such daring integration appeared unorthodox to Islamic religious authorities. His insistence on the primacy of existence, his merging of philosophy and mysticism, and his critique of rigid scholasticism invited suspicion.

Sadra faced accusations of heresy and endured exile, but he survived to complete his philosophical system. Suhrawardī, the visionary before him who founded Illuminationist philosophy, was not so fortunate. Seen as dangerously unorthodox, he was condemned and ultimately assassinated in Aleppo at the age of thirty-six. Their fates illustrate the fragile balance between intellectual innovation and political-religious power: one forced into the solitude of exile, the other silenced permanently.

 
A Living Legacy

Today, Mulla Sadra’s thought continues to ripple through discussions of metaphysics, ontology, and spirituality. His emphasis on Being as a dynamic, unified reality resonates with contemporary searches for holistic worldviews that bridge science, philosophy, and spirituality. In his work, one hears both the voice of the ancient Indo-Iranic sages who spoke of cosmic and natural order, the Truth, and the modern quest for unity in an age fractured by division.

Sadra’s legacy is therefore double-edged: a reminder of the courage required to think beyond inherited limits, and an invitation to glimpse the hidden unity beneath the surface of all things. His philosophy is not only a historical system but a living orientation—a way of seeing the universe as a continuous revelation of Being.

Planetary Consciousness, Foresight, and Ethics

Following the publication of Planetary Foresight and Ethics (2025) and the 2021 launch of the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute (Ap-Fi) in Washington, D.C., Victor V. Motti shares insights on why planetary consciousness matters now more than ever.

Q: Please tell us more about what you mean by "planetary consciousness."

Victor V. Motti:
Planetary consciousness can be understood in two complementary ways:

Being conscious of the planet.
This means developing a sustained awareness that we belong to Planet Earth—our biosphere, our web of life, our shared spaceship traveling through the cosmos. This requires both:

Internal transformation: Cultivating habits of thought and identity that place Earth at the center of rights, imagination and responsibility.

External action: Monitoring the planet’s health using satellites, geospatial tools, and big data analytics to understand how human activity—through the noosphere—shapes the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and geosphere.

The consciousness of the planet.
This is a more speculative but fascinating idea: the Earth as a super-organism might develop a form of intelligence. With the rapid expansion and integration of human and AI networks, a holistic planetary mind may be emerging.

Q: How does futurism and foresight play into this vision?

Victor V. Motti:
Foresight is about long-term thinking and anticipating radical change. The biggest picture imaginable is Earth as a unified system.

As humanity moves toward deeper space engagement by 2050s, two transformations are essential:

Inner: Adopting planetary consciousness as part of our value systems in the 2040s.


Outer: Building infrastructures—energy systems, data networks, governance—that align with planetary well-being.

This is not utopian speculation; it is a foresight imperative for survival and resilience.

Q: What is needed to go from balkanized nation-states to a true Terran identity?

Victor V. Motti:
Planetization—a concept we promote—does not mean erasing ethnic, linguistic, or national identities. It adds a new layer: planetary identity. You can celebrate your heritage while embracing your role as a Terran citizen.

Unlike globalization, which emphasizes open borders and unrestricted flows of goods, capital and labor, planetization is a mindset change that can thrive under diverse political systems. Steps include:

Adopting calendars based on Earth events—equinoxes, solstices, or Earthrise as Year Zero.


Creating rituals and traditions that honor planetary milestones.

Through the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute, we are developing initiatives and social innovation such as public Terran profiles to foster these cultural shifts.

Q: How does this conversation differ in secular spaces?

Victor V. Motti:
When people hear “consciousness,” they often think of spirituality or New Age movements. While some traditions align with planetary thinking, our approach is secular, ethical, and actionable.

We are not offering heaven; we are working to prevent a planetary hell. For secular contexts, planetary consciousness means:

Applying systems thinking to complex challenges.


Recognizing planetary boundaries as ethical imperatives.


Pursuing universal ethics, values and goals like those embedded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

These frameworks already embody planetary consciousness in practice.

Q: How does your book Planetary Foresight and Ethics contribute to this conversation?

Victor V. Motti:
The book provides both a conceptual roadmap and practical tools for aligning foresight methodologies with planetary ethics. It invites policymakers, futurists, and citizens to imagine not only possible futures but desirable and ethical futures for humanity and the Earth.

Beyond Fragmentation: Rethinking Entropy and the Future of Life

By Paul Werbos *

When I worked at the National Science Foundation before retiring in 2015, a recurring theme among NSF Directors was that the greatest challenge facing science today is fragmentation. As fields become increasingly specialized, what is considered common knowledge in one domain often fails to reflect advances in another. This intellectual siloing leads to widespread misconceptions—not just among the public but even within academic discourse. The recent enthusiasm for elevating thermodynamics to a universal metaphysical principle exemplifies this problem.

Entropy Misunderstood: More Than “Disorder”

In K-12 education, students are typically taught that entropy—defined as the logarithm of the equilibrium probability distribution—is a measure of “disorder,” and that the universe is on an inevitable path toward a “heat death,” a state of maximum disorder. This view, while pedagogically simple, is outdated and misleading. It ignores decades of progress in fields such as nonlinear dynamics, complexity science, and artificial life research.

I recall a talk by Melanie Mitchell, a leading thinker in complexity and artificial life, where she demonstrated through simulations how some universes evolve life that not only persists but flourishes over time. When an audience member objected that this outcome “violates the second law of thermodynamics,” Mitchell explained patiently that the law applies differently when considering open, far-from-equilibrium systems. In fact, nonlinear dynamics reveals that universes can evolve toward several possible long-term states:

1. A fuzzy heat death in which disorder dominates,
2. A frozen or “ice-like” fixed point—highly stable and static, or
3. A dynamic intermediate regime that supports complexity and self-organization—precisely the kind of environment where life and intelligence emerge.

Our universe appears to belong to this third category.

Entropy and the Unknown Lagrangian

The assumption that our universe is destined for a simple heat death oversimplifies a much richer and more nuanced picture. Years ago, I published the exact entropy function for a broad class of theories about how the universe might operate (arXiv:cond-mat/0411384). This work underscores a critical point: until we know the exact Lagrangian of our universe, we cannot assert what life’s ultimate trajectory will be. The laws of physics as currently formulated are incomplete. The notion that the cosmos will devolve into a featureless gas may turn out to be one of the least probable outcomes in light of emerging evidence from cosmology and complexity theory.

* Paul Werbos, PhD. is a member of the scientific council of the Alternative Planetary Futures Institute (Ap-Fi)

Thermodynamics Is Not the Ultimate Framework for Reality: A Critical Response

Drew M. Dalton’s essay, Reality is evil, argues that thermodynamics—especially the principle of entropy—ought to be treated as the fundamental structure shaping all metaphysical, ethical, and even aesthetic thought. While the call for philosophy to engage scientific insights is commendable, elevating entropy to a universal explanatory principle is premature and reductive. Below, six reasons why thermodynamics cannot bear the metaphysical weight Dalton assigns to it.

 
1. Humility Before the Mystery of Life

Thermodynamics provides an indispensable statistical framework for energy transformations, yet it falls short of explaining the essence of life. Biochemistry, often invoked to support claims about life’s origin, remains largely descriptive and grounded in probabilistic patterns rather than deeply tested theoretical constructs like those in fundamental physics. Despite decades of research, humanity has not succeeded in creating life from non-life, even under controlled laboratory conditions. This inability underscores a critical gap in our understanding. Declaring thermodynamic principles as the ultimate explanation of life overstates our current knowledge and ignores the profound mystery that life continues to pose.

 
2. The Limits of Entropy as a Metaphysical Principle

Entropy has a precise and technical definition: it is the logarithm of the phase space volume consistent with a given energy level. Its increase signifies an expansion of possible configurations in a system. While this is a powerful statistical insight, it does not justify attaching human values such as order, beauty, or morality to entropy. These are constructs of human cognition and culture, not intrinsic features of physical systems. Interpreting entropy in ethical or aesthetic terms risks conflating scientific concepts with philosophical projections, thereby stretching a mathematical principle into a metaphysical doctrine without sufficient justification.

 
3. The Question of Closed Systems and Cosmic Scale

The second law of thermodynamics applies rigorously to closed systems, but whether the universe as a whole constitutes a closed system remains an open question. Recent cosmological observations indicate that the universe is flat and possibly infinite. If this is true, the presumption of a finite, entropically doomed cosmos becomes questionable. An infinite universe complicates narratives about a singular “heat death” and introduces scenarios where entropy does not dominate in the deterministic manner Dalton suggests. Philosophical conclusions drawn from assumptions about closure and finitude must therefore remain provisional.

 
4. The Problem of the Low-Entropy Beginning

One of the most profound unsolved questions in cosmology concerns why the universe began in an extraordinarily low-entropy state. Current physics offers no definitive explanation, and cyclic or bouncing cosmological models suggest that the “beginning” we observe may merely be a transition in an eternal process of cosmic regeneration. If universes can emerge from prior universes, entropy may be periodically reset or reconfigured, undercutting any claim that entropic decline is the final destiny of reality. Until these questions are resolved, metaphysical systems built exclusively on thermodynamic principles rest on uncertain ground.

 
5. Alternative Metaphysical Visions: The Indo-Iranic Perspective

Thermodynamics is not the only framework for understanding existence. Indo-Iranic traditions offer an alternative metaphysical vision grounded in Arta (or Rta)—a concept signifying the ultimate cosmic and ethical order that underlies both matter and mind. This view departs radically from the reductionism implicit in thermodynamic metaphysics. Philosophers such as Mulla Sadra advanced a dynamic ontology in which the unity of Being, the non-local and non-dual, continuously manifests in graded forms of existence, moment by moment. Here, reality is fundamentally creative and purposive rather than passively succumbing to entropic decay. Unity-in-diversity, a cornerstone of these traditions, portrays the cosmos as an evolving whole infused with meaning—a vision that thermodynamics alone cannot capture.

6. J. S. Mill and the Naturalness of Art and Intelligence

Dalton also claims that human efforts, such as medicine, “do not work in concert with nature.” J. S. Mill offers a counterpoint that reframes our understanding of what is “natural”:

“…in the sense of the word ‘nature’ which has just been defined, and which is the true scientific sense, Art is as much Nature as anything else; and everything which is artificial is natural—Art has no independent powers of its own: Art is but the employment of the powers of Nature for an end.”

This observation challenges the artificial/natural dichotomy. By Mill’s logic, human inventions—including medicine, technology, and even artificial intelligence—are not opposed to nature, but are expressions of it. This critique exposes even the misleading term “Artificial Intelligence”: all intelligence is fundamentally natural, an unfolding of existing powers and capacities. Philosophical frameworks should recognize this continuum rather than creating artificial separations.

Conclusion: The Case for Philosophical Humility

Dalton’s essay rightly emphasizes the need for philosophy to take scientific insights seriously. However, to enthrone entropy as the ultimate metaphysical principle risks substituting one dogma for another. Our ignorance about life’s origin, the open nature of the cosmos, and the mystery of the low-entropy beginning all counsel caution. Moreover, rich alternative traditions—such as the Indo-Iranic philosophy of dynamic Being—offer conceptual resources for thinking beyond the confines of thermodynamics. A comprehensive metaphysics must integrate scientific knowledge without reducing the fullness of reality to statistical mechanics.