 So God must be both simple and free to be absolute. But it is very difficult to understand how a simple being could be free in the unconditional ‘could have done otherwise’ sense. If God is simple, then he is pure act, as was explained at the beginning of this entry. It follows that God is devoid of unrealized powers, potentialities, or possibilities. To act freely, however is to act in such a way that one (unconditionally) could have done otherwise, which implies unrealized possibilities of divine action. Now Dolezal’s view is that it is not only difficult to reconcile simplicity and (libertarian) freedom, but impossible for us, at least in our present state. “Though we discover strong reasons for confessing both simplicity and freedom in God, we cannot form an isomorphically adequate notion of how this is the case” (210). In footnote 55 on the same page, Dolezal brings up wave-particle duality: light behaves both like a particle and like a wave. We have good reason to believe that it is both despite the difficulty or impossibility of understanding how it could be both. On the basis of the quotation and the footnote it seems fair to Dolezal to pin the label ‘mysterian’ on him, at least with respect to the simplicity-freedom problem which is only one sub-problem within the divine simplicity constellation of problems.  God is both simple and free, and he must be both to be God; it is a mystery, however, how he could be both.