چکیده :
چکیده
در نظریههای علمی امروز، جهانهای فیزیکی بیشماری پیشبینی میشوند که در هر کدام، بسته به شرایط آغازین تصادفی خود، ممکن است قانونهای فیزیکی متفاوتی حاکم باشند و مسیر تکاملی متفاوتی پیموده شود.
ما نیز بهتصادف در کسر بسیار کوچکی از این جهانها زندگی میکنیم که شرایط مناسب برای پیدایش و تکامل زندگی تا رسیدن به موجودات هوشمند را دارند.
این در حالی است که در فلسفة اولی، تصادف در آفرینش جهان هستی راه ندارد.
آفرینش بر تعقل موجود مجرد استوار است؛ همچنین اصلِ مادۀ طبیعت بهتبعِ وجود عقلهای مجرد، همواره موجود است.
جهان طبیعت سرآغاز زمانی ندارد؛ اما حوادث آن زمانمند هستند و پیدرپی رخ میدهند.
با این وصف، مفهوم آفرینش بر اصل جهان نیست؛ بلکه بر حوادث آن بهکار میآید.
در این گفتار، دو دیدگاه متمایز علمی و فلسفی یادشده در باب آفرینش جهان به تصویر و نقد کشیده میشود.
در جمعبندی نهایی، چارهای برای ربطدادن این دو دیدگاه و پاسخگویی به پرسش عنوان مقاله، اندیشیده میشود.
چکیده [english]
this article describes and criticizes two distinct scientific and philosophical views on creation of the world.
in the final summation, a way is suggested for linking of these two views and answering to the title of the articles's question.
modern scientific theories predict a great many physical universes in which, depend on any random initial conditions, could be different laws of physics and different paths of evolution.
we just happen to be in a very small fraction of these universes where some suitable conditions for coming and evolving of the life so far as the consciousness are satisfied.
whereas in the first philosophy, the coincidence has not any place in the creation of the world; there has always been the eternal origin of the world, and the creation is based on the intellection of incorporeal entities.
on this basis, in the case of the existence emantation, it is considered a metaphysical structure wherein the necessary existence (god) reflects on his essence and the pure intellect _ who is also single and incorporeal_ is created or issued by that reflection.
the pure intellect has some modes of plurality that make possible to be issued some large effects by him.
but those modes are not so large that could be possible issued all creatures of the infra-intellects world.
thus it is necessary to be issued many intellects respectively inso far as the number of plurality is became sufficient for the the plurality of the infra-world of the intellects.
the priority of any intellect to the next intellect is existential not temporal.
to this credict, there has always been the principle of the nature's material, following the existence of the final intellect; the nature has not a beginning in time, but its events occur temporal and successive.
as described, in first philosophy, the concept of creation is not applies to the principle of the universe but to its events.
in contrast, the modern scientific and empirical evidences indicate the limitation of the age of the present (matterial) universe.
according to the genuine scientific theories on creation of the world _ whether the bouncing models in which our universe undergoes cycles of expansion and recollapse with the physical constants being changed at each bounce or the inflationary scenario that predict a numerous parallel universes each with own fine-structure constant _ do not seem to be any causal relationship between one universe events and other universes ones.
numerous universes scenario, in principle, is not a scientific theory but a prediction of the science that we perhabs never could perform any experimental measurement on it.
it also maybe some religiouses suppose it as a modern secular science's response to the smart and precise design of god in creation of the world.
nevertheless, consider that there is an entirely metaphysical version of the numerous universes scenario: if we believe in the existence of first origin (god), then we agree with the creation by the intellecion and, following it, we accept the existence of the incorporeal intellects world, we could also agree with the possibility of existence of numerous universes, and why is that? for a simple reason that whatever we finite creatures could think or imagine, an intellect of the intellects world thinks before (from the eternity): from the one to multi-dimensional spaces to the idea of an infinite number of quantum paths, and to every idea and theory that will be later appeared in the human’s thought and imagination.
and as it has been discussed, in the incorporeal intellects world, reflection on a thing is equal to being of that thing, provided that its existence is compatibe with the immediate perceptions such as the principle of non-contradiction.
it is well known that albert einstein, the discoverer of the theories of relativity, said that god does not play dice.
in other words, the creation of the world is not a coinsidence.
accordig to the first philosophy, this maxim is all right in emantation of the incorporeal intellects – that are some necessaries of the first origin’s essence, from some interpretation.
however, as is discussed by this article, the structure of our physical world as seen by us is formed by coincidence and it has caused any distinction between our universe and other (prabable) universes.
accordingly, if we believe in the existence of the incoporeal intellects world _ beyond the nature _ we can say in response to the question of the article title: creation of the world, both intellection and coinsidence; intellection for the emantation of the incorporeal and timeless intellects, and coincidence for the various fine-structure constants of different physical worlds.