Islam fails Boundary Condition 4 ([[061_BC4_Three-Observers-Required|Three Observers]] Required). The doctrine of Tawhid (absolute divine unity) precludes the internal observer-plurality necessary for measurement closure. Additionally, Islamic soteriology's works-based structure violates [[059_BC2_Grace-External-To-System|BC2]] (external grace as sole mechanism).
The 99 names are attributes of a single essence, not distinct observers. In Islamic theology:
[[061_BC4_Three-Observers-Required|BC4]] requires observer-plurality: distinct entities capable of measurement relations. "Merciful" and "Just" are descriptions, not observers. A single person with many adjectives is still one observer, not many. The technical requirement is N_obs = 3 distinct measurement-capable entities, not 99 descriptive predicates of one entity.
The boundary conditions derive from physics, not theology:
Islam is not being "excluded"—it simply doesn't match the mathematical structure that coherent metaphysics requires. The same analysis shows that Judaism (N=1) fails similarly. The correspondence with Christianity is discovered, not designed. If the test were biased, we'd expect it to partially favor Islam—but the structure is binary: either N=3 or not.
Sufi metaphysics is rich and complex, but orthodox Sufism maintains Tawhid. Even Ibn Arabi's wahdatul wujud (unity of being) posits one reality with multiple manifestations, not multiple observers within the divine essence. The Sufi concepts of:
Moreover, Sufi doctrines that approach internal plurality (like some interpretations of the "Perfect Man") were often condemned as heterodox precisely because they threatened Tawhid. [[061_BC4_Three-Observers-Required|BC4]] requires robust, orthodox internal plurality—which Sufism, at its orthodox core, does not provide.
The structural analysis doesn't depend on interpretation:
The claim is structural: the Born Rule has a three-part anatomy. Any metaphysics grounding the Born Rule must have corresponding three-part structure. This is mathematical form, not interpretive choice. Islam's N=1 structure cannot map to this regardless of which interpretation of quantum mechanics one adopts.
[[061_BC4_Three-Observers-Required|BC4]] requires plurality within the [[058_BC1_Terminal-Observer-Exists|Terminal Observer]], not plurality in creation. The issue is:
In Christian Trinitarianism, Father-Son-Spirit are co-eternal, co-essential, and mutually observing within the Godhead. This is internal plurality at the terminus. In Islam, Allah alone is the terminus; all other observers are downstream in the causal chain. [[061_BC4_Three-Observers-Required|BC4]] asks: "What is the structure of the ultimate observer?" Islam answers: "Simple unity." This cannot satisfy the three-term requirement.
Origin in Quantum Mechanics:
The Born Rule gives probability as:
This structure has exactly three components:
|\psi\rangle: The ket (state vector, source of potentiality)\langle\phi|: The bra (measurement basis, distinction)|.|^2: The norm-square (actualization, relation)Gleason's Theorem Context:
In Hilbert spaces of dimension \geq 3, Gleason's theorem proves that any probability measure must have the Born Rule form. This isn't arbitrary—it's the unique consistent probability structure.
Mapping to Observer-Plurality:
For the measurement apparatus to be self-grounding (no infinite regress), the three components must be internal to the Terminal Observer:
Theorem: Islam fails [[061_BC4_Three-Observers-Required|BC4]].
Definitions:
\mathcal{T} be the set of worldviews[[061_BC4_Three-Observers-Required|BC4]]: \mathcal{T} \to \{0, 1\} be the boundary condition function[[061_BC4_Three-Observers-Required|BC4]](W) = 1 iff N_{obs}(W) = 3 with proper closure structureI \in \mathcal{T} denote IslamProof:
1. By Tawhid doctrine: N_{obs}(I) = 1 [Islamic creed]
2. [[061_BC4_Three-Observers-Required|BC4]] requires: N_{obs} = 3 [from Born Rule structure]
3. 1 \neq 3 [arithmetic]
4. Therefore: [[061_BC4_Three-Observers-Required|BC4]](I) = 0 [Islam fails [[061_BC4_Three-Observers-Required|BC4]]]
QED.