|In how many ways may it be possible for a thing to become created, is it unique?|
|ساعت ٤:٥٠ ب.ظ روز پنجشنبه ۱٦ دی ۱۳۸٩ کلمات کلیدی:|
Well, now we know that there are many possible universes that they can all exist together, also we know that all of them have a God who is unique himself, in each universe then can exist anything that goes fine by the logic governing that universe, indeed, anything that can exist in that universe would be created there to be existed as soon as it finds a cause for existence; it is then that it would become to existence and in the way that it can exist. The question now is that in how many ways may it be possible for a thing to become created? Let focus toward our own universe that we can talk about more easily. Together with the question asked above we can also seek for a proper relation between creation (becoming to existence) and existence (remaining existed), and this is not possible as long as we have not yet talked about time what it is. Therefore, let ask:
What is the “Time”, or what is our universe whose evolution is occurred in the bed of time change?
Currently time is accepted as a dimension of our universe, beside the three spatial dimensions. Well, I do not agree with this for many reasons. For this but we should first know what is the “dimension”:
Among the best definitions that I have found for “dimension” in mathematics is one explained very clearly in a book written by Falconer [Fractal Geometry, Mathematical Foundations and Applications; published by John Wiley and Sons, ltd, 2003]. This book exploits the measure theory for this definition which is not something very clear (although the initial idea behind all the mathematical theories are quite clear), but I would try to explain its result in somewhat an understandable fashion. All of us measure things with some proper measures, for example we measure a line by its length, a surface by its area, a body by its volume, a climate by its temperature and some other measures like the speed of wind and etc., thus, as an example length is a measure of lines and even curves. Then anything that is measure by length and a reasonable value is obtained for it is called to have the dimension “one”. Therefore, if we have a set of distinct points in the space and have measured this set by length, no value other than zero is possible for us to obtain for that and this is not reasonable as the points exist and should have a nonzero measure (zero means nothing of the kind the measure can measure!), so that the set of distinct points are not one dimensional. Also, if one assumes a filled planar disk and try to measure it by length, he would also obtain nothing but infinity, since a curve of length infinity is required to fill a surface like the desired disk, no matter how small that the disk is, and this states that a disk cannot be one dimensional either. That is to say, for each object we can try infinitely many measures to measure them, surely all the measures but one would measure the object and yield into either zero or infinity, and it would be only one measure that can give a finite measure for that object and it is this measure that determines the object to have how many dimensions. A set of distinct points are zero dimensional and their corresponding measure is obtained by counting the points in the set, a curve and even a set of distinct curves are one dimensional and their corresponding measure is obtained by the overall length of them, a surface or a set of distinct surfaces are two dimensional and their corresponding measure is obtained by the overall surface of them, and etc. . With this definition one can even find objects that, say, neither are curves and nor surfaces, but something in between them, they are then called fractals as their dimensions would be some numbers between, say, one and two, that is, not an integer! Well, by this definition the “dimension” of an object is defined by the only one measure that can measure the object and assign to it a finite value. Maybe this way one will try to prove that our universe is four dimensional, three spatial and one temporal, so that the time would then be a dimension of the universe by itself.
However, there is another statement around dimension when we are locally studying the universe. Assuming the universe as a space, in the mathematician's literature, one may use a local bases for studying its elements. If the chosen set of bases is such that (or there exists a set of bases such that) all the bases in it are independent with respect to each other and also they are enough for local study of the space under consideration, then it will be the number of these bases that denotes the dimension of the space. For example, let me describe my life, as a subset of the universe space, in a span of one day. The set of bases that is proper for me to obtain the dimensionality of this subset of the total space should include many bases in the first sight, 3 (x-y-z) for space, 1 for time, I guess 4 (sweet-sour-bitter-salty) for taste, at least 3 (R-G-B) for color, and I still don't know how many bases I would also need for describing the sounds that I hear (maybe 2, one for amplitude and one for its frequency), how many for what I can touch (temperature, pain, …) and etc.. These bases are all independent from each other as it seems to me, as knowing about position never gives me a feeling about time, being 5 unit sour never tells me how much sweet may be a food or what RGB is that, and etc.. By the way, after assuming all the required bases now I would be able to describe my one day of life with them, e.g. I can say that I have sensed a t-shirt in such a position and orientation and shape and in such an instant of time, having such an RGB color, an SSBS taste, having no sound by its own (but sounded such and such in a wind of a speed … from direction …), having some specific units of smoothness, at the temperature of T, and etc.. This means that this small subset of universe as I can sense is a quite large dimensional subset and not only 4 dimensional as is common in our usual conservations. However, it is only the way that I can sense the world, surely many of the bases assumed above are dependent on the way I can sense the universe, they are affected but my weaknesses of seeing, hearing, touching, and etc. as I can recognize only a very small band of electromagnetic waves (and color for me only has meaning in this narrow band), or sounds, or my eyes can never recognize a unique ray of light but a bunch of them, or my fingers can never give me a sense of nano sized events, and etc.. Of course the human kind has increased the span of its sensing ability through the centuries by inventing many experimental devices such as microscopes and telescopes, radioscopes and etc., but this has also a limit sometimes referred to as “the uncertainty principle”. So it won't be far from being unbelievable to say that the universe we live in may be even infinite dimensional as is sensed by ourselves, of which dimensions time is only one! One may even try to justify this by stating that if mathematics and our imaginations, as parts of our existences, are themselves some parts of this universe and not out from it, then as in mathematics we have many several infinite dimensional spaces (e.g. the space of all functions that have some specific features), the universe we live in cannot be of any finite dimension and it must be infinitely dimensional. Well, I'm not sure if this statement is logically correct, but there appears to me a mistake that is made trough concluding the above statements. I am a subset of this world, I sense it only roughly (correct only to the extent I need to live in this universe), so if my world is infinite dimensional does it means to really be? Let me bring a clarifying example. We are currently experiencing a life in a macroscopic world, as a matter of weak-dependences established between different spatial-temporal scales we can live in this macroscopic world and have nothing very vital to do with the microscopic and mesoscopic worlds, as people were alive for centuries before they become aware of molecules, atoms, far galaxies and etc.. We all have a feeling of pressure, temperature, density, and etc., but are they also real quantities that we should measure them for a local study of universe? No! As is now well known, when one assumes a macroscopically infinitesimal element to obtain a set of differential equation for it and all the elements being similar to it (so that to integrate them and describe an event in the macroscopic world), the substructure of that element is always ignored and the effect of microscopic world is reintroduced to the macroscopic world through quantities like temperature, density, and things like that. Indeed, e.g., temperature is defined to be the average kinetic energy of the sub-macroscopic entities, pressure is either an average over all the possible momentum changes near an imaginary solid surface in the unit of that surface, or somewhat a measure of the intermolecular forces. Put this together with the fact that many quantities that we can sense with our body are indeed related to some others through some rules or laws, one can conclude that distinguishing between dependent and independent quantities, the universe may have a very smaller dimension as it was already concluded. I still don't know it to be finite or not (it needs more thinking!), but the point here is that time is among those that are survived in this refinement, and it can still be assumed as one dimension for this universe!
The question that arises then is why we can, e.g., move forward and backward in the x-direction but we can only move forward in the time direction? This is a question that is under a great debate between the scientists, and it had been for centuries, but as science only answers “hows” and not “whys” the scientists are satisfied by only driving a law for it and leave it to itself. They sometimes use thermodynamics, and indeed its second law, to state it this way: Any event to happen needs a potential and the way that it happens is in the direction of a negative gradient. For example, electricity to have current needs a voltage difference and the current would be established from the higher voltage toward the lower voltage. Similarly for a fluid to flow it needs a difference in the fluid's energy head (e.g. a difference in pressure, or in hight, between the two points that the fluid is to flow from one towards the other), and the flow occurs in the way that it starts at the higher energy head and end at the least possible energy head. The heat flow also occurs similarly from a higher temperature toward a least possible temperature. Now let state that for any possible event to happen it will need a difference in time, as no event can occur in only a single instant! But what can measure the time difference, or what can be regarded as a potential for events to happen? It is called the negentropy and is indeed defined to be the negative of entropy. Actually according to the second law of thermodynamics any real event happens in a way that the entropy of the whole system increases (or alternatively, the negentropy of the whole system decreases) as more as possible. Definition of negentropy is then quite fancy as it only bears an analogy with the other events that occur in the direction of a negative gradient! Therefore, using the concept of entropy scientists can define a seemingly intrinsic direction for the “axis of time”. But a question is yet left unanswered: why we cannot move backward in time? Well, scientists now may answer this clearly because the second law of thermodynamics prevents the events to occur in a way that the entropy of the whole universe to decrease! Let now we ask if the second law of thermodynamics is really a law of universe, or it is merely a law of our macroscopic world? If no, is it then possible to use it for defining a dimension and cornerstone of our universe, the time? As much as I have studied the second law of thermodynamics is just an artifact of our macroscopic understanding of nature, it is about something hidden behind a process called “course graining”! For further reading about these matters see, e.g., the book written by Mackey [Time's Arrow, The Origins of Thermodynamic Behavior, published by Dover Publications, Inc., 2003].
However, there are two ideas that I can agree with better. The first one is as what follows:
Assume an n-dimensional world (n is a large integer) that has many elements all being possible to move at only one same speed. There exist elements that are confined to move along a specific curve (this curve would be the only part of that world that they can understand and experience!), elements that can move on a given curved surface containing that first curve, elements that can move in a three dimensional space containing that curved surface as one sub-space of it, and elements living in a hierarchy of worlds defined similarly, each containing all the curved worlds of smaller dimensionalities. All such elements moving at a same speed are to be translated from one point on the assumed curve (the first world in this hierarchy) to a latter point on the same curve. Those who are confined to this curve should travel all the way on the curve itself, those who are confined to the curved surface can try a shorter way, and the higher be the dimensionality of the space the elements live in, the sooner they can reach the ending point. They all have a same speed, but the time their measure is a function of the distance they should travel, and this distance is a function of how free of limits that they are, depending on the dimensionality of their worlds. Now return to our own universe, we have already stated that we live in a world of which we can sense only a rough understanding, due to the sensors pre-embedded in our bodies, if we are mentally confined to our materially limitations, then we may measure the passage of time (by measuring the occurrence of events) in a way that other creatures may not measure it in the same way. That is to say we may understand the passage of time, so the time itself, in a way different than what the other creatures understand it. This understanding depends on our limitations. If for example there exist creatures not as dense as us, like are elves, then they may move many hundreds of times faster than us, and therefore by talking about “time” they may understand something that we don't. This idea about time, relating its concept to the limitations of the creatures themselves and not an intrinsic feature of the universe itself, so that e.g. it may mean nothing to someone that is here not limited to anything, is one among two that I can accept more easily. Maybe there exists no creature in this world that he is confined by no limitations at all, so maybe there exists a concept of time in the background logic of this universe, but at least this idea explains, first, how God as the creator of the universe is not affected by passage of time, second, how angels and spirits may act in a manner that seems to us almost instantaneously, and third, why we cannot move backward in the time, as it is not a dimension of the universe within this idea, but the passage of time is a measure of limitations of the creatures being created in this universe.
The second idea seems even more acceptable to me. It states that time is quantized! That is to say time is discrete, made up of instances, single instances put together in a discrete manner. This can relate the creation (becoming to existence) and existence (remaining existed) as well, since here in any single instant all the universe would be newly created, the passage of time then consists of many times of recreation of the whole universe, each time similar to the others but in its only one possible way that it was not only existable, but also creatable (recall that something to be created needs not only to go fine with the logic behind the universe, but it also should have a cause for its existence!). A stone can stay in my hand, or can stay on the ground one meter in front of me, but at each instant it will be created where it has had a cause for being existed there. If I pick it up, it would have a reason to be created in my hand for the next instances before I throw it away. If I throw it to the air it would have a reason to even be created in the air for some instances. It seems very strange at the first sight but if we think more deeply it is not hard to believe that time is discrete (it is countable, although maybe infinite counting may be required to count all the instances from the beginning to the end), but it would even be hard to believe it not to be discrete (then starting from time zero there would come an instant called “root of two”)! At least believing in the former seems easier than believing in the latter! One may imagine of our universe as a book, actually a set of distinct single pages, each page of which representing the whole world in one instant. The spirits of alive species, from plants or animals to elves, humans and angles, are then those that can flow from one page to another (One may replace the phrase “flow” by “recreation” here, as well, since there may be no place for spirits to exist in a probable gap between the pages?!? One may try to solve this by asserting a theory that maybe the configuration of discrete times, i.e. pages of the universe, is too dense and the pages are so close to each other that in limit this discrete set of points, each point representing a page, may tend to form a continuous line. However, this may not be true, that is, if we accept that the passage of time consists of many times of recreation of the whole world in many different possible states (that the whole world “can exist” in those states) or alternatively if we have accepted that each instant is created individually, then having agreed upon that all the times are set into some specific order such that an instant is to come after another (the causality rules this order as the causality determines which state is possible after which one!), the set of all the instances must remain discrete and the limit stated must never occur, otherwise, according to a lemma in mathematics of real numbers, each two distinct instants that we choose arbitrarily close to each other there still would exist infinitely many instants in their between (this is a matter of continuity) and, thus, we need the discreteness of time for an exact "discrete order" to exist between them. Therefore, those who believe that God creates each instant of time individually should believe in that time is not continuous. Yet topologists may insist on this conjecture that the set of all times is not discrete but continuous (in order to get rid of what happens to the spirit of alive species in traveling between each two adjacent instants) by defining a correct discrete order on this continuous set, and actually by defining a discrete topology over the continuous set of all instants, such that each instant would retain its individuality and its exact neighborhoods would also be clear then after. However, what would stand for this topology in the real world is something that I don't understand. If I could understand this then I was among those who prefer this statement as otherwise one should explain why the alive species understand the universe only within the stated discrete set of instants and not out from it, e.g. in a probable gap between the pages, so that they could understand the world as being continuous even if it is not. Aren't they alive between the two instances? But what at all is this discrete topology that should also be intrinsic to the created universe?), most of the times in a predetermined forward direction, one may move faster and one may move slower depending on how can they form a cause for what to exist in the next instants. Explaining the “time” this way, a matter of creation (as a chain of possibilities for existences and having cause for existences), is capable of justifying God as not being confined to the time, thus, he may or not have created the whole universe altogether instantaneously and not page by the page. I don't know if the evolution of our universe, confined to time, has had a beginning or not, but certainly it will not have any end (this world will evolve into another just before the judging day but we will still live the same universe, with the same background logic, by death and before the judging day we only move from its face to its inside, step by step, and this by itself is a beautiful evolution we should talk about separately, if God would let us!), so may it have had not any beginning either? I cannot imagine or understand this very well, so let postpone it till sometimes that we can say something reasonable about it. By the way, there are reasons for me to say God has created this book that we call our universe all at once. Our movement from a page of this previously written book (the book being previously written has nothing to do about human if he has choice or not, as clearly he has, this would hopefully be postponed to a later discussion) to one another seems forward as it usually is, but what about our dreams of past and future? Just before the death as well as in the judging day we would also be shown our own stories completely with all their details, like the stories are just being told. These observations can help us conclude that maybe the whole universe, consisting of all the instants of time, exist altogether. However, yet there are points that one may want to still discuss about, like why in the honest dreams about future people usually see symbols and not the bare reality. Right or wrong, seeing the symbols instead of the bare reality seemingly returns to the limitations of the person who sees the dream in understanding the reality, and e.g. prophets' dreams were free from symbols! Yet I need to think more about this. Another interesting point to mention here is to note the world “آتیة” in Arabic which stand for “future” (or even their Persian translation “آینده”). The Arabic and Persian translation of future have their roots in the verb “come” and these worlds by their own mean “to come”. That is to say that future is seemingly regarded as something that exists but is to come at its proper instant (actually there are reasons why Arabic --the language chosen by God for his last book Quran, deliberatively and thus rightly chosen as he has insisted on in Quran as well-- is the best communicative language of all as its different worlds bear the intrinsic relations between the different concepts, and etc.; even the name “Adam” which should be among the first worlds used by human being has meaning only in Arabic but is now used in other languages as well, which shows apparently it was Arabic that has been the language introduced to Adam by God once he was created!). Also, in both Arabic and Persian sometimes we use the past tense form of the verbs to denote some certain events in future, that is to say that specific event would certainly occur in future as the past events have certainly occurred in the past! As God knows exactly what he has created as our universe he can use the past tense form of the verbs for any time, past, present and future, and this has many examples in Quran if I'm right. Anyway, this way that we have defined time, when we believe in God as the creator, we also implicitly believe in that God not only creates his creatures but also keeps its creatures existed (as keeping the creatures existed itself consists of an infinite set of recreation), and no event is out from his power to alter it in the way that he will (that is, it is not the case that he creates a universe and a set of laws, then the universe stays existed on its own and evolves in a manner governed by those laws, irrespective of this God still being existed or not, alive or dead, busy watching his creatures or being at rest! But his absence would be equivalent to the non existence of all his creatures). But according to how that God has created this world he wills only what is possible and has a cause, and praying, as he has stressed in Quran for several times, may give a good cause for God to help us reach what we wish!
Also from Quran it seems that his creation, at least in this universe that we live in, is intrinsically instantaneous and if this construe is correct this will support the definition which has been just given for time. This latter construe may seems in contradiction with the common statement that one can distinguish between different creations of God by categorizing them as gradual and instantaneous, but there is no contradiction if we mention that this way that we have defined the time even all the gradual creations would each consist of very many instantaneous creations! c and this goes well with Quran: Indeed, In Quran the phrases “creation” and “command” (i.e., the world “أمر” when is used for God, not us the humans or etc.) are distinguished as the former stands for a gradual creation, while the latter stands for the instantaneous creation. In order to support this from Quran one may just need to read the two below statements together:
بَدِیعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَ إِذَا قَضَى أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا یقُولُ لَهُ کُنْ فَیکُونُ (بقره، 117)
[To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is.]
وَهُوَ الَّذِی خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ فِی سِتَّةِ أَیامٍ وَکَانَ عَرْشُهُ عَلَى الْمَاءِ … (هود، 7)
[He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His Throne was over the waters - ...]
Whatever that “day” stands for in the second statement, this statement illustrates a gradual creation of the heavens and earth, while the former statement illustrates that God has originally created the heavens and earth without having an example and his creation is like to intend to create a creature and the creature is just created. That is, a gradual creation also consists of many many instantaneous creations. This is also discussed to some extent by Allame Tabatabayee in “Almizan”.
As a conclusion I prefer the latter way we have discussed about time, this discussion describes why and how God can be free from being confined to the time (so he would never evolve with time, he experiences no change at all and remain the same as time runs), it introduces the time not as an intrinsic feature of our universe like spatial directions or a dimension but merely as a definition based on the movements from one page of the book “universe” to one another (this way we have instances of time created separately), it takes into account the limitations of the creatures and makes a relation between how strongly that they can be a source of cause and how that they can reach a new page from the previous page, and finally it allows a kind of time travel for the spirits of the alive species both forward and backward! With this definition of time now one can even return to the definition of God stated before and conjecture that how God affects the other existences is merely by creating them.
According to this definition of time also one may mention that every creature in this universe should have time, even angels and souls! But is it right? Some believes that angels and souls are free from spacial and temporal constraints, but I don't, since there are many statements in Quran and other Shia Islamic references that explain an evolution in angels and even souls, but how is possible that an evolution occurs while there is no time constraint? If there is no such a constraint then a soul or angel can instantaneously exist in several time, but how is it possible that exist in an instant a single in two states, one before evolution and the other after having experienced the evolution. Although this might suffice for concluding that even souls and angels have time, but a better understanding of this is achieved, e.g., from the below statement in Quran and those similar to it:
وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّکَ لِلْمَلَائِکَةِ إِنِّی جَاعِلٌ فِی الْأَرْضِ خَلِیفَةً قَالُوا أَتَجْعَلُ فِیهَا مَنْ یفْسِدُ فِیهَا وَیسْفِکُ الدِّمَاءَ وَنَحْنُ نُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِکَ وَنُقَدِّسُ لَکَ قَالَ إِنِّی أَعْلَمُ مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ؛ وَعَلَّمَ آدَمَ الْأَسْمَاءَ کُلَّهَا ثُمَّ عَرَضَهُمْ عَلَى الْمَلَائِکَةِ فَقَالَ أَنْبِئُونِی بِأَسْمَاءِ هَؤُلَاءِ إِنْ کُنْتُمْ صَادِقِینَ؛ قَالُوا سُبْحَانَکَ لَا عِلْمَ لَنَا إِلَّا مَا عَلَّمْتَنَا إِنَّکَ أَنْتَ الْعَلِیمُ الْحَکِیمُ؛ قَالَ یا آدَمُ أَنْبِئْهُمْ بِأَسْمَائِهِمْ فَلَمَّا أَنْبَأَهُمْ بِأَسْمَائِهِمْ قَالَ أَلَمْ أَقُلْ لَکُمْ إِنِّی أَعْلَمُ غَیبَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَأَعْلَمُ مَا تُبْدُونَ وَمَا کُنْتُمْ تَکْتُمُونَ (بقره، 30 إلی 33)
[Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not."; And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: "Tell me the names of these if ye are right."; They said: "Glory to Thee, of knowledge We have none, save what Thou Hast taught us: In truth it is Thou Who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom."; He said: "O Adam! Tell them their names." When he had told them, Allah said: "Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heaven and earth, and I know what ye reveal and what ye conceal?"]
as it is clear from this statement the angels have learned something from a human confined to space and time (there are some interesting points in what is meant by “name” here that Adam learned them from God and became so lettered that he could teach the angels what they didn't know; however, this is out from the scope of the present discussion), so their evolution has happened in the passage of time. Also note that according to the Shia Islamic beliefs, a human when experiences death, or is martyred (so that is not dead yet, as is announced by God in Quran), will not survive only as a bare soul, but he would be given a body as well, although this body known as “transitional body” (or “جسم برزخی” in persian) is different from that of his previous life on earth. So that it is not difficult to imagine of people after dead yet having time, although they may now become too faster, and etc. Also there are many other reasons as well for us to conclude that all the creatures are “constrained to time”, e.g. according to Shia Islamic beliefs every alive creature would die just before the judging day and this include also the angels, so there would be times that no angels exist and this is in contradiction with the assumption that they are not constraint in time, also according to Quran there is a span of time between this life and the judging day for everyone who dies and passes away, passing this spanning time in one or many intermittent transitional heavens or hells, so that human after death is also confined to time and not free to fly to the ending time just before the judging day, reducing this span to almost zero! Also note that according to Shia Islam the great prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the rest of 14 innocents (pbut) had been created a few thousands years before God created the rest of creatures. Of course during those thousands years the 14 innocents were not living in their material bodies but yet clearly they had time that a few thousands years had meaning!
Having found some imagination of “time” what it is, now one can study the evolution of this world with time how it is. Indeed, we tend to know in how many ways may it be possible for a thing to become created, is it unique or not? Or alternatively, we tend to know if one arbitrary page of the book “universe” is known exactly, then can we say that the next page is exactly determinable in a unique way or not? If the answer to these questions is yes then we would have proved the determinism! Well, apparently nothing special is required to be done for this to be proved, since God has created our universe based on a logic, the possible existences based on this logic becoming into existence whenever that there is a cause in the same universe for them to exist. The cause being in the same universe and not out from it makes it apparent that the cause for something to appear in a certain page of this universe should have been existed in the previous page or pages, this is the very causality (which itself was to serve as a reasoning for the existence of God), and God would never ever interrupt this order if I am correct, even for the cases of miracles that the prophets have brought through the history for us to trust in them and accept what they have invite us to believe in (albeit, apparently the only miracle that has been survived through the history for us to mention is Quran from which we can trust not only in Muhammad, but also in Jesus, Moses and all the other prophets from Adam to Muhammad -–peace be upon them all). Indeed, as much as I have understood, the miracles are not somethings impossible (i.e., incompatible with the logic behind this universe), but they are possible and they need only some relevant causes for them to become to existence and their causes are not somethings very popular, for example they may need some deep and honest praying (possible only for prophets and their best followers like the 12 leaders of Shia Islam and etc.) and good reasons behind those praying (like clarifying the situation for those who honestly want to know if they are messengers of God and etc.). So it seems that determinism is acceptable in general, but accepting this then may arise some questions about what would then be up to human to choose his way and style of living? Well, actually the way we were discussing till now was about how universe actually is, as created and known by God, but things would change when we see the universe from the eyes of elements living in it. These elements do not, and even in most of the times cannot, understand many causes behind the events, so that they may think many things as indeterministic, chaotic and even stochastic. For example, in Islam we know that praying can change any event in our future but only one thing, it can never totally omit the death from our lives (this last event, at least for human being, is not in accord with the logic of this universe I guess, since we have yet only talking about what God has created and how his created universe works, but if we reach the question that why God has created us and this universe then we would find out that death is something very vital within the logic of God's creations in this universe), also we know that many people pray around the world day by the day, many of them are honest and would cause things to change in some close or far future (depending on existence of suitable conditions for them), but many of them are not honest but only a motion of tongue in mouth and so effectiveless, but we do not know who wishes what, which wishes are accepted and which are not, and etc., God knows but we don't, so future would be unpredictable to us, that is to say we can never ever exactly know the details of the present page of this universe for the next page to be predicted correctly. Praying God and asking from him honestly is just one source of causes for the future events, men can decide and choose among many choices in their lives and this decision together with a sufficient will supporting that desire or decision would become another source of causes for the future events in the pages to come. God but can affect the human being a lot at these points, decisions and wills, and nothing would happen unless he would let it happen. He has not created us free to do what we want to do (it should be discussed when we are talking about why God has created us, but let say if we were created free then there was no reason for a judging day to exist, so that assuming the human being as free is equivalent to denying the judging day, this on the other hand implies denying of all the prophets and that implies simply denying of God, the one who has stated us how to live in the universe he has created, what to do and what not to do for everything to be fine!), but only has given us an arbitrament as to decide what to do and what not to do. If we decide to do a right thing, he would help us doing that (although many inside and outside devils may try to devilment us not to do that), and if we decide to do a wrong thing he would prevent us to some extent, then if we insisted on doing that wrong thing it is just when he would leave us on our own to do that, he could prevent us not to do anything wrong but it is against that he has given us arbitrament, and against the reason why he has created us as now we are created. Affecting the world by his will and ruling us, e.g. by making us nervous about something that we have had happy about, making us like someone who we used to hate from or etc. (according to a statement of imam Sadegh -pbuh- in a debate with an ethnic who couldn't understand the God's existence), is not something out from the logic of this world or against the fact that he has given us the arbitrament and the power to choose.
By the way, if one can accept the above discussions it should now be clear for him that the book “universe” has been written (i.e. created) in a unique way and it exists now all together, but for us who live in the present pages of this book as living humans alive on earth (as we would also exist after our death as well, but in one another shape of live), we have the power to make choice and the future is not known to us. But how can we have arbitrament while God has created the universe already to its ending limits? For example in Islam we have statements that charity can postpone death (although nothing can omit it from our destiny, but there are causes that can fall it in a hurry or oppositely postpone it to a later time), now assume a person that according to the causality is going to be killed in an accident tonight. In the noon he helps a poor person, his charity is accepted and now his death is postponed to a later time, his destiny has of course altered appreciably but yet we believe in that everything has happened in the way God has had created it before! Actually this is by no means strange if one mentions that God already knew that the person under consideration would help that poor person, this itself has been created by God as well, so God already knew that his death is not to come tonight! Now let try another thought experiment. Assume that you are standing up on your feet, then you want to put afront one of your feet and you want to decide which one to put afront. You certainly have the choice, you may not know what you would do at the end, but each of them that you put afront would be the one that God already knew you would choose. He even already knew what you would think during all the steps of making decision that you have passed before to move your foot! This is how our universe is created uniquely and we have arbitrament as well. Then what about the judging day, what about those that are to be punished in hell for what they have done wrong? The answer is that they are never punished in somewhere called the hell for what they have done wrong, but they will live in a world that they have generated and caused by themselves, that is to say, they will live after death with the reality of what they have had done when they were alive, hell is what they bring there with them! Here we see only the face of things and there we would see the intrinsic reality of what we have done previously. So hell is a direct consequence of our actions, even not a consequence but the very themselves, and not a place for punishment and revenge. This is not God who has urged us to do wrongs (to produce a hell all around ourselves), this is we ourselves who choose to live in a hell and God has once created us and this universe in a way that we would be due to our own choices. God has created all of us, then has guided us to the right way, some obey him and withstand their supernormal desires, and some disobey him seek for a freedom that makes their lives free from any constraints, they even deny God and the judging day, justify their works with many extraordinary reasonings, live a life with no real God (a God who is really more than only a name) and indeed they produce a hell for themselves:
إِنَّا هَدَینَاهُ السَّبِیلَ إِمَّا شَاکِرًا وَ إِمَّا کَفُورًا (انسان، 3)
[We showed him the Way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful (rests on his will).]
وَ مَا ظَلَمْنَاهُمْ وَ لَکِنْ کَانُوا هُمُ الظَّالِمِینَ (زخرف، 76)
[Nowise shall We be unjust to them: but it is they who have been unjust themselves.]
وَ مَنْ أَعْرَضَ عَنْ ذِکْرِی فَإِنَّ لَهُ مَعِیشَةً ضَنْکًا وَنَحْشُرُهُ یوْمَ الْقِیامَةِ أَعْمَى (طه، 124)
["But whosoever turns away from My Message, verily for him is a life narrowed down, and We shall raise him up blind on the Day of Judgment."]
یسْتَعْجِلُونَکَ بِالْعَذَابِ وَ إِنَّ جَهَنَّمَ لَمُحِیطَةٌ بِالْکَافِرِینَ (عنکبوت، 54)
[They ask thee to hasten on the Punishment: but, of a surety, Hell has already encompassed the Rejecters of Faith!]
لَقَدْ کُنْتَ فِی غَفْلَةٍ مِنْ هَذَا فَکَشَفْنَا عَنْکَ غِطَاءَکَ فَبَصَرُکَ الْیوْمَ حَدِیدٌ (ق، 22)
[(It will be said:) "Thou wast heedless of this; now have We removed thy veil, and sharp is thy sight this Day!"]
Now the question is that there are people who claim to know somethings about future, but how is it possible? The answer is that God would teach future (as he has taught somethings about future before as well) to any one who God knows he will not abuse his knowledge, then those special people will know future but maybe only to the extent that they would need to know. Talking about future is not something deniable in the history of religion (e.g. see the forespeak of God in Quran about a soon-to-come Roman's victory while they were just defeated in a war:
غُلِبَتِ الرُّومُ؛ فِی أَدْنَى الْأَرْضِ وَهُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ غَلَبِهِمْ سَیغْلِبُونَ؛ فِی بِضْعِ سِنِینَ لِلَّهِ الْأَمْرُ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَ مِنْ بَعْدُ وَ یوْمَئِذٍ یفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ؛ بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ ینْصُرُ مَنْ یشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِیزُ الرَّحِیمُ؛ وَعْدَ اللَّهِ لَا یخْلِفُ اللَّهُ وَعْدَهُ وَلَکِنَّ أَکْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا یعْلَمُونَ
[The Roman Empire has been defeated; in a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs will soon be victorious; Within a few years. With Allah is the Decision, in the past and in the Future: on that Day shall the Believers rejoice; With the help of Allah. He helps whom He will, and He is exalted in might, most merciful; (It is) the promise of Allah. Never does Allah depart from His promise: but most men understand not.]),
and those who do not believe in God or a heavenly religion should be confused of how this is possible! However, there are also people who try to predict the future, their knowledge of future would be erroneous and inexact as this knowledge is based on an achievable science, a science to predict the future and it needs only trainings, hard trainings like those ascetics do in India, wrongly in Sufism branch of Islam and etc., but it is only God who knows everything about future and those taught about future by God would never go wrong, it is their knowledge that we can fully trust in.
|خداوند چیست و چه خلق میکند؟|
|ساعت ۱۱:٤٠ ق.ظ روز دوشنبه ۱۳ دی ۱۳۸٩ کلمات کلیدی:|
چنانکه بیان گردید درک چیستی ذات خداوند خارج از دسترس مخلوقات اوست، با این وجود هنوز هم راههایی وجود دارند که بتوان از طریق آنها درباره ی خداوند صحبت کرد و بهتر او را شناخت، اگرچه این صحبت کردنها دیگر باید با احتیاط بیشتری صورت گیرد تا به خطا منحرف نشود. برای اینکه بتوانیم درک بهتری از خداوند داشته باشیم ابتدا مثال مع الفارق "مقاطع مخروطی" در هندسه را در نظر بگیرید:
یک مخروط معمولی در نظر بگیرید که با یک صفحهی صاف قطعش میکنیم، شکل مقطع مخروط که یک منحنی است را یک مقطع مخروطی میگوییم. این منحنی در واقع مجموعهی نقاطی را شامل میشود که هم در مخروط هستند و هم در آن صفحهی تخت. اما بسته به اینکه این صفحه با چه زاویهای با مخروط قطع داده شود منحنی ایجاد شده میتواند شکل متفاوتی داشته باشد و از اینجا شروع به تقسیم بندی این منحنیها تحت عنوان «مقاطع مخروطی» میکنند. اگر صفحهی تخت مورد نظر عمود بر محور مخروط آنرا قطع نماید شکل ایجاد شده دایره خواهد بود. اگر صفحه کمی مایل با مخروط قطع داده شود این شکل بیضی خواهد شد. اگر زاویهی قطع باز هم بیشتر شود به نحوی که صفحهی تخت مورد نظر موازی سطح مخروط آنرا قطع نماید در این صورت دیگر حاصل این تقاطع یک منحنی بسته نخواهد بود و شکل سهمی ایجاد میشود. و در نهایت اگر باز هم زاویهی قطع بیشتر گردد شکل منحنی به صورت یک هذلولی درخواهد آمد (البته به شرطی که در هیچ یک از این حالتها صفحه از رأس مخروط نگذرد و شامل آن نباشد):
دایره بیضی سهمی هذلولی
تمامی این منحنیها را میتوان با یک فرمول کلی در مختصات قطبی به صورت زیر نمایش داد:
r = l / (1 - e Cos ө)
که در آن (r,ө) معرف مختصه های دستگاه مختصات قطبی بوده و در نتیجه r(ө) معادلهی یک منحنی در این دستگاه مختصات میباشد؛ همچنین e به نوعی معرف میزان کج بودن صفحهی تخت نسبت به محور مخروط میباشد (به نحوی که e =0 به معنی 0 بودن این انحراف باشد و e =1 به معنی مماس شدن صفحهی تخت بر سطح جانبی مخروط) و به آن اصطلاحاً پارامتر خروج از مرکز هم گفته میشود، و دست آخر هم l به نوعی معرف مقیاس منحنی است (مثلاً اگر شکل دایره باشد l میشود شعاع دایره). از این رابطه به سهولت میتوان دید که e =0 معرف یک دایره است، برای 0<e<1 یک بیضی خواهیم داشت، در e=1 یک سهمی خواهیم داشت و برای e>1 هم هذلولی به دست میآید! پس اکنون ما یک پارامتر آزاد داریم که هر مقداری که به آن بدهیم یک منحنی از منحنیهای مقاطع مخروطی به دست میآید. بخشی از این بحث که به درد ما میخورد مربوط به زمانی میشود که این پارامتر از ۰ تا ۱ زیاد میشود. در تمام مدتی که e از ۰ شروع به زیاد شدن میکند منحنی ایجاد شده یک بیضی است. میتوان با این بیضیها که تعدادشان هم بیشمار است یک جهان از بیضیها ساخت، تازه با تغییر دادن l میتوان تنوع بیضیهای موجود در این جهان را افزایش هم داد. حتی میتوان دایره را هم بیضی حساب کرد و آن را با هر اندازهای که داشته باشد در این جهان راه داد. اما زمانی میرد که e آنقدر بزرگ شود که نزدیک باشد که به ۱ برسد. در تمام این مدت هم هنوز ما بیضی داریم تا اینکه e دیگر میشود خودِ خود ۱. در این لحظه موجودی ایجاد میشود که هیچ شباهتی به بیضیهای قبلی ندارد. هیچ یک از موجودات جهان بیضیها قابل به درک آن نیستند. میتوان تصور کرد که l بزرگ باشد و با بزرگ شدن آن بیضیها و دایرهها هم بزرگ شوند، حتی خیلی خیلی بزرگ شوند، همینطور بیضیهای ایجاد شده یک کمی قبل از این موجود جدید هم شاید خیلی بزرگ بودند اما نهایتاُ همهی آنها باز بیضی هستند و انتها دارند، آنها منیحنیهایی بسته هستند و نه باز، در حالیکه این موجود جدید یک منحنی باز است، یعنی اصلاُ ته ندارد، تا ابدیت باز میشود و هرگز هم بسته نخواهد شد! هیچ یک از موجودات عضو این جهان بیضیها نمیتوانند بفهمند که این موجود لایتناهی چیست، آنها فقط میتوانند موجوداتی را درک کنند که منحنی بسته باشند، اگر کسی به آنها بگوید من یک منحنی میشناسم که بسته نیست پیش خودش فکر میکند که یعنی چی که بسته نیست، خوب اینقدر رویش برو جلو که برسی به جایی که بسته میشود، اما به او میگویند اگر تا بینهایت هم بروی این منحنی بسته نخواهد شد (برعکس دایرهها و بیضیهای بینهایت بزرگ) و اینجاست که او حیران میماند، یا میپذیرد و یا انکار میکند! برای آنهایی که این مفهوم را میپذیرند هم تازه سهمی یک مفهوم حدّی است که تنها در حد میتوان به آن رسید، یعنی در عالم واقع جهان بیضیها هرگز نمیتوان به آن رسید و فقط میتوان به آن نزدیک شد! اما حالا من که دارم از بیرون به مسأله نگاه میکنم از شما میپرسم آیا تصور کردن یک منحنی «سهمی» مشکل است؟ حتیٰ میتوان برای آن یک ضابطهی خیلی ساده به صورت y= x2+c در دستگاه مختصات کارتزین نوشت و به هیچ عنوان این مسأله مشکل و غیرقابل فهم نمیباشد، تنها لازم است به سهمی از جهانی کلیتر از جهان بیضیها نگاه کرد، آنوقت میبینیم که بیضیها هم انواع دارند و تازه بعد از بیضیها هم میتوان به هذلولیها رسید و الیٰ آخر. آنچه مسأله را از حالت ساده منحرف میکند محدودیت وجودی بیضی بودن است، چیزی که مانع میشود تا بیضی بتواند ذات یک سهمی را درک کند، در عین حالی که همان بیضی هم اگر فکر کند میتواند عاقلانه نتیجهگیری کند که نه باز بودن و نه بسته بودن نمیتواند شرط وجود داشتن یا نداشتن یک منحنی باشد و امکانش هست که موجودات دیگری هم وجود داشته باشند که اصلاً مثل من نباشند و من هم نتوانم آنها را درک کنم، ولی آنها وجود داشته باشند. با چنین محدودیتهایی در ایجاد شناخت از سایر موجودات حتی چه بسا سهمی هم نتواند مفهوم یک منحنی بسته را دریابد و اصلاً هر نوع منحنی ممکن است وجود نوع دیگری از منحنی را منکر شود، مثلاُ دایره نتواند مربع را درک کند چون مربع گوشه دارد و دایره اصلاُ با این مفهوم آشنا نیست.
مثال از این دست زیاد است و دراینجا تنها یک مورد دیگر را برای روشنتر شدن مطلب بیان میکنیم: تناقض آشیل. آشیل، دوندهی یونانی، میخواهد با یک لاکپشت مسابقهی سرعت دهد،برای اینکه به لاکپشت امتیازی برای شروع داده باشد خودش حدود ده متر عقبتر میاستد. مسابقه شروع میشود. آشیل میدود و به محلی میرسد که لاکپشت از آن شروع به دویدن کرده بود، اما لاکپشت دیگر آنجا نیست چون آن هم به کمی جلوتر حرکت کرده است. آشیل باز میدود تا برسد به محل جدید لاکپشت، اما لاکپشت هم در این مدت کمی جلوتر رفته است، هرچقدر که آشیل بدود تا برسد به محل لاکپشت طبیعی است که در آن مدت خود لاکپشت هم کمی جلوتر رفته باشد و به این ترتیب احتمالاً باید انتظار داشت که آشیل هرگز نتواند به لاکپشت برسد، مگر تنها در بینهایت که به آن بینهایت نزدیک میشود اما باز نمیتواند از آن عبور کند، یعنی باید پذیرفت که آشیل مسابقه را خواهد باخت. جالب اینجاست که با این استدلال آشیل حتی اگر ۱۰ سانتیمتر هم در آغاز مسابقه به لاکپشت امتیاز میداد باز دیگر هرگز نمیتوانست جبرانش کند. اما آیا این نتیجهگیریها درست هستند؟ حتماً نه! اما کجای این استدلال مشکل دارد؟ باید گفت هیچ جا! پس بالأخره چگونه میتوان این تناقض ایجاد شده در ذهن را رفع نمود؟ راه حل رفع این تناقض به این صورت است که باید توجه نمود که هر عدد حقیقی را میتوان حاصل یک سری بینهایت نوشت که برای رسیدن به آن باید اول بینهایت بار جمع انجام نمود و بعد به آن عدد که حاصل سری است دست یافت، یا اصلاً میتوان گفت که هر عدد حقیقی را میتوان به صورت حدّ یک دنبالهی بینهایت در نظر گرفت (مثلاً دنبالهی کوشی) که برای رسیدن به آن عدد باید اول تمام اعضای آن دنباله را یکی پس از دیگری شناخت تا در بینهایت برسیم به آن عددی که مدّ نظرمان است. به این ترتیب برای رسیدن به عددی مثل ۵ مثلاً باید بینهایت عدد را بشماریم یا با هم جمع کنیم تا برسیم به عدد نهایی که مدّ نظرمان است و دراین صورت ما با هر سرعت زیادی هم که این کارها را انجام دهیم باز هرگز نخواهیم توانست که از این طریق به عدد ۵ برسیم مگر در بینهایت، اما آیا واقعاً نمیتوان به سهولت هر چه تمامتر مثلاً از ۱ رفت به ۵؟ کافی است اعداد را بشماریم! مسألهی تناقض آشیل هم به همین سادگی قابل رفع نمودن است. در اینجا برای رساندن آشیل به لاکپشت از یک الگوریتم خاص استفاده شده است که عملاً دنبالهای را تولید میکند که در نهایت و در حد همگرا میشود به اینکه «آشیل به لاکپشت رسید (اما از آن نگذشت!)»، اما حتی همین نتیجه هم از این راه تنها به صورت یک مفهوم حدی درک میشود که ممکن است هرگز به آن نرسیم در حالیکه ما میدانیم که این یک حقیقت است و خیلی زود و ظرف چند ثانیه رخ میدهد و نه تنها آشیل به لاکپشت خواهد رسید که به سرعت هم از آن خواهد گذشت، کافی است عینک خود را در دیدن وقایع عوض کرده و به مسأله از دید گذر زمان و شمارش لحظات آن نگاه کنیم. در الگوریتم قبلی آنچه به سمت بینهایت میرفت زمان نبود بلکه تعداد مراحلی از الگوریتم طراحی شده بود که باید طی میشد تا آشیل به لاکپشت برسد، مرحلهی نخست آن شاید ۱ ثانیه طول میکشید، مرحلهی دومش شاید ۰/۱ ثانیه، مرحلهی بعدی آن شاید ۰/۰۱ ثانیه و الیٰ آخر و مثلاُ آنچه به صورت حدی باید به آن رسید (لحظهی رسیدن آشیل به لاکپشت) در زمان مشخص ۱/۱۵ ثانیه رخ میدهد نه لحظهی بینهایت! حال جهانی را فرض کنید که موجودات عضو آن شمارش را آنطور که ما بلد هستیم بلد نباشند و برای آنها اعضای مثلاً مجموعهی اعداد حقیقی تنها به صورت مقادیر حدی دنبالههایی بینهایت تعریف شده باشند، آنها هیچ درکی از ماهیت این اعداد نخواهند داشت چون گمان میکنند که اعضای این مجموعه تنها در حد وجود دارند، یعنی شاید حتی هیچ وقت هم به آنها دسترسی نباشد و شاید اصلاً وجود خارجی هم نداشته باشند، حال آنکه ما اعداد حقیقی را به خوبی میشناسیم و با آنها کار میکنیم، دنیایی که ما میبینیم با دنیایی که چنین موجوداتی میبینند به کل متفاوت خواهد بود. با این وجود همین اعداد حقیقی و حتی طبیعی و گویا هم در ریاضیات تعدادشان نامتناهی است و ما معنی بینهایت در آنها را درک نمیکنیم، همین الآن برخی ریاضیدانها بینهایت اعداد طبیعی یا حقیقی را تنها به عنوان موجوداتی حدی قبول دارند که وجود ندارند و از آنها فقط میتوان به صورت حدی و مثلاً برای سادهسازی برخی محاسبات و ... استفاده کرد، در حالیکه برخی دیگر از ریاضیدانها برای این موجودات هویت حقیقی قائل هستند (اگرچه نتوانند معنی آنها را درک کنند و جایشان یک علامت سؤال بگذارند که در پوششی از اسم و نماد ریاضی نمایش داده شوند، مثلاً اسم یکی را بگذارند «علامت سؤال ۱»، اسم دیگری را بگذارند «علامت سؤال ۲» و همینطور الیٰ آخر) و تازه جهانی از بینهایتها برای خودشان به صورت مجرّد و ذهنی ساختهاند که در آنها بینهایتهای به مراتب بزرگتری از بینهایت اعداد طبیعی و حقیقی هم وجود دارد و حتی برایشان ریاضی و جبر و ... هم درست کرده اند (این کار را کانتور شروع کرد، نتیجهی کار او که دنیای جدیدی را به روی ریاضیدانها گشود به بهشت کانتور معروف شد، و بحث کاردینالها در ریاضی هم مرتبط با همین بحثها میباشد). ممکن است موجوداتی باشند که ماهیت این بینهایتها را نیز بتوانند درک کنند ولی فقط نتوانند آنها را برای ما توضیح دهند چون ما قابلیت درک آن را نداریم.
What is God and what does he create?
It was stated that God is intrinsically out from our reach to understand him what he is, however, there are ways to talk about with him, although this talk and discussion should be handled with extra cautions! As a rough analogy take the example of the conic sections in geometry. If one considers a cone, then cut it with different plane surfaces of different spatial orientations, what he obtains as different sections of conic in those surfaces are called the conic sections. The conic sections can be circle if the plane used to cut the cone has been perpendicular to the axis of symmetry of the cone, or ellipse, parabola, or even hyperbola. If one writes down the formula for a general conic section he would obtain a relation containing a free parameter. Varying this parameter different conic section would be generated. The point of interest to us is when this parameter increases from zero to one. Between these two borders we would have ellipses of different sizes. Even when the parameter in the limit approaches to 1 yet we have an ellipse, a very big one but any way an ellipse. When the parameter takes the exact value of 1, it would no longer be an ellipse, it is now a parabola. Ellipse was closed, no matter how big and elongated that it is, but parabola is open, it doesn't have any end. Now one decide to explain a parabola to a family of ellipses, he says a parabola is a very big ellipse as no one of you can imagine how far is his end, and the ellipses can only imagine the parabola as one existence in the limit, untouchable, something that maybe some of the ellipses would even deny it, however, we know parabola has a very simple and basic formula, it is nothing misunderstandable! The problem of misunderstanding is with the limits of being an ellipse. A parabola may never understand an ellipse, a closed curve, as well. This is due to the limitations of being a parabola. Examples like this are very large in number to describe them all here, but only one another of them that can clarify the situation for our later discussions is as what follows: the Achilles paradox. Achilles, the Greek runner, is to have a race with a turtle. At the start point Achilles steps back one meter as an aid to the turtle which is certainly slower than him. At one moment the race begins and both the runners begin to run. When Achilles run 1 meters and reaches where the turtle used to be, the turtle would have ran a distance and it will be some distances in front of Achilles. When Achilles reach its new position the turtle would have reached to a newer point. Repeating this algorithm, how slow that the turtle run and how fast that Achilles run fast, Achilles can never reach the turtle but only maybe in infinity that he can get infinitely close to it, but interestingly he can never ever forereaches it! This is rationally wrong but what's wrong with this explanation? Actually this explanation is correct but at the same time Achilles will forereach the turtle very soon after the race has been started. The point is that any real number (in the mathematician literature) can be represented by a series, or alternatively as the limit point of a sequence (e.g., a Cauchy sequence), so if one decided to introduce a real number by first generating its corresponding sequences, then it would take a time of duration infinity for him to be able to introduce a real number to me, as he should count all the elements of the sequence until he reaches its limit that is the number he was to introduce! This is exactly what we did in the above explanation of the Achilles paradox, what we counted and said they would reach a same point only in infinity was the index of the elements of a sequence and not the instances of time. Achilles and turtle would of course reach a same point at a real finite time, but we were making trouble by extending this finite period of time to an infinite sequence of repetition of Achilles reaching the previous turtle's position and turtle reaching a new position! Well if there are creatures which cannot count the real numbers as we can, they would never see the world as we do, but we know that there are different ways to count the real numbers and we have picked on of its simplest. However, we still have problems with infinities at the end of sequences of real numbers, integer numbers, and etc., maybe there are creatures who can understand them very easily, but they just can't explain how we should know them! (I know about Cantor's heaven, although a little, but his theory never explains what an infinity is, but only says if we assume we know them --just call them question_mark_1, question_mark_2 and so forth-- preliminarily then we can work with them further producing an algebra for them, the algebra of infinities!) As other curves should explain a parabola to ellipse-kind as a limiting point, as others should explain infinities and seemingly unreachable limits in different sequences to those who cannot understand them, all due to their intrinsic limitations, someone should explain God to his creatures as to us he is just an infinity, a big question mark, we only know he exists and he is unique, but what he is we do not know. But whoever can explain him to us if there is only one God beyond the understanding of all his creatures? Only God himself can do this, as it is also remarked by the great prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in Ghadir-e-Khom:
… وَ لا یَجِدُ أحَدٌ کَیفَ هُوَ مِن سِرٍّ وَ عَلانیةٍ، إلّا بِما دَلَّ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ عَلی نَفسِه
[… and no one finds him how he is, by knowing the secrets or what is apparent, but only through what he has predicated upon himself.]
Indeed he is not one of our kinds, but he has sent prophets to teach us how to call him, with what names and what adjectives. Actually, as nothing is exactly similar to him in any possible aspect, “adjective” here is just such a rough phrase and is only to denote not the similarities with him but with a few first elements of the sequence of which he is a top limit [see the imam Ali's (pbuh) Nahj-ol-Balaghe's first speech]. That is to say he is a real concept explained as limits in some sequences of which the first few elements are understandable to us: kind, powerful, peace, and many others. In Quran he has taught us many of his names and then ordered us as to call him through these names:
وَ لِلَّهِ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَى فَادْعُوهُ بِهَا وَذَرُوا الَّذِینَ یلْحِدُونَ فِی أَسْمَائِهِ سَیجْزَوْنَ مَا کَانُوا یعْمَلُونَ (أعراف، 180)
[The most beautiful names belong to Allah: so call on him by them; but shun such men as use profanity in his names: for what they do, they will soon be requited.]
It would need a further discussion about God's names (from which we can understand him better but never as he is) as books has been written about them in Islam, but now let us talk only in brief and switch to a new topic that what does he create? That is, for example, why I have born with this face, in this family that I have, in this city that I live and in my country, and in one special day of a special month of a year, say, 1983 years after Jesus was born. Why I was created as a human and not a cat, that now I eat a delicious food but a cat eat my leftovers in the garbage? Why I was born as a human and not a cow that although is bigger and stronger than me but still let me sit on its back, work with him, drink from its milk, and etc. . The cornerstone of this discussion is that God never choose among who or what to create, as a matter of justice (one of the God's names) he creates whatever that can exist and has a cause for its existence in the way that it can exist! What can exist in this world goes back to the logic of this world and I guess it is the first thing created by God in any universe that he has created. Indeed, as several axiomatic mathematics can be produced from different sets of axioms (each maybe contradict with the others in some aspects but never become self-contradicted on its own), here logics plays the role of axioms and there are several logics that are possible for God to create universes based on them such that non become self-contradicted till ever. Anything creatable for each universe should be well-defined with respect to the background logic of that universe, and so the laws corresponding to this logic. Indeed, it is assumed from a statement of the great prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in Ghadir-e-Khom that God has created the universe without requiring even an instant of thinking about what or how to create:
صَوَّرَ ما أبتَدَعَ عَلی غَیرِ مِثالٍ، و خَلَقَ ما خَلَقَ بِلا مَعونَةٍ مِن أحَدٍ وَ لا تَکَّلُفٍ و لا إحتیالٍ
[(God) figured what he had newly created without having an example, and created what he created without having an aid, and without suffering, and without thinking or making any trick]
And In Quran it is stated that everything that he will to create will be created instantaneously (sometimes the Islamic philosophers try to clarify this creation by our own creativity in an imaginary world called “imagination”, we can just close our eyes and will to think we are in the middle of a jungle with flowers and waterfalls all around, it would then be a sudden that we see ourselves in such a jungle and can even sense a wind on our skins if our imagination is strong enough!):
إِنَّمَا أَمْرُهُ إِذَا أَرَادَ شَیئًا أَنْ یقُولَ لَهُ کُنْ فَیکُونُ (یس، 82)
[Verily, when He intends a thing, His Command is, "be", and it is!]
إِنَّمَا قَوْلُنَا لِشَیءٍ إِذَا أَرَدْنَاهُ أَنْ نَقُولَ لَهُ کُنْ فَیکُونُ (نحل، 40)
[For to anything which We have willed, We but say the word, "Be", and it is.]
Anything would be automatically right and on its own place under such a creation, and now God claims in Quran that no one can find even a gap in the order universe works upon, everything goes fine and in the best possible fashion, nothing makes conflict with the others:
الَّذِی خَلَقَ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ طِبَاقًا مَا تَرَى فِی خَلْقِ الرَّحْمَنِ مِنْ تَفَاوُتٍ فَارْجِعِ الْبَصَرَ هَلْ تَرَى مِنْ فُطُورٍ؛ ثُمَّ ارْجِعِ الْبَصَرَ کَرَّتَینِ ینْقَلِبْ إِلَیکَ الْبَصَرُ خَاسِئًا وَهُوَ حَسِیرٌ (مُلک، 3 و 4)
[He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of (Allah) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw? Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out.]
By such a discussion I guess it should now be clear that there can exist several universes, each having its own logic, as is also believed in Shia Islam due to a statement of imam Sadegh (pbuh). According to this great Shia leader, different universes have something in common but also have many differences. If someone, created in this world, lives a thousand year here until he understands every sciences in this universe, then he is taken to one another universe to live there and experience it, he may understand somethings there but certainly there would exist things that he can never understand! Now let concentrate on our own universe. Dinosaurs, human being,and some creatures to come, are all possible to undergo the logic of this universe that we live in, so they all can exist here and specifically say on earth, but they appear to exist only when they have a cause for that, in the manner that they could exist. For example dinosaurs could exist in many different kinds and shapes and sizes, each proper for the manner they were to live here for them to overcome their needs. I was always possible to exist as well, but I had no cause to be born at the time that dinosaurs were living here yet (maybe some other humans had some cause for their existence at those times, but if so they certainly haven't been born from Adam and Eve (pbut)), and if I had cause to be born at those times, too, maybe I was born in a manner different from what now I am born, I mean from many respects, shape of my body and limbs, the face and its components and functionalities, and etc. as my needs were different though. Anyway, we may see many similarities between different kinds of livings in this universe, e.g. between different animals or even between animals and humans. As a good example, giraffes are very similar to leopards in their coloring features, very similar to camels in the neck, very similar to horses in the shape of their head, and very similar to cows in their hoof, the similarities are to an extent that even sometimes giraffes are called Camelopardalis, however, it shouldn't have instantaneously be concluded that all these animals belong to a same family, or once all these animals should have had a coition with each other and a girafee has born as a result, and similarities are due to genetics and evolution. Indeed, they were all possible to exist and as soon as they found a cause for their existence they became to existence in the manner they were existable! That's all the point and it is the imam Sadegh's statement (pbuh) in Mofazzal's Tohid Book that animals will coite with only their own kinds or kinds very close to them (like horses and donkeys, or wolves and hyenas). God who have created those animals is also capable of creating the others being similar to a number of them in different features! The wisdom behind some creation of the only God is stated centuries ago by imam Sadegh (pbuh) and other leaders of Shia that is out from the scope of the present topic. The story of similarities between humen and monkeys also doesn't imply that humanbeing is evolved from old generations of monkeys. Indeed, as much as I have seen, Islam doesn't accept the evolution theorem, the theory has not provided even a single reason for it to be valid, while Islam has reasons for it to be wrong and invalid! By the way, after discussing a little around the creativity of God it should now be generally clear why I am created as a human and not a cat or cow, why I have born in this city and country and in a specific day among days and month among months and year among years. The details of what and how are th causes for each of these to happen need a massive discussion that, if God let us, we will do some later, to the extent that I can.
|آیا خداوند یکتاست؟ جهان مخلوق او چطور؟|
|ساعت ۱۱:۳٩ ق.ظ روز دوشنبه ۱۳ دی ۱۳۸٩ کلمات کلیدی:|
برای اینکه بدانیم خداوند یکتا هست یا نه ابتدا باید بدانیم که خداوند چه و چگونه است و چه چیزی او را از موجودات دیگر متفاوت میکند که بخواهد یکتا باشد یا نباشد. از آنجا که درک حقیقت ذات خالق همیشه خارج از دسترس مخلوقات اوست در اسلام انسان از تفکر مستقیم درباره ی ذات خداوند منع شده است، چه آنکه عقل در او حیران شده و این حیرانی عاقبت به انکار منجر میشود. با این وجود هنوز میتوان از راههایی او را بهتر شناخت. همانطور که در پُست قبل بیان شد میتوان مفهوم خداوندی را به این صورت تعریف نمود که "از یک طرف او موجودی است که میتواند روی تمام موجودات دیگر اثر بگذارد و از طرف دیگر از هیچ موجودی هم اثر نمی پذیرد". این تعریف به لحاظ فطری و شهودی به نظر قابل قبول میآید، چه آنکه تأثیر پذیرفتن از غیر یک نقص است و خداوند را موجودی بدون نقص میدانیم. حال این موجود بدون نقص اگر بخواهد بر هر موجود دیگری اثر بگذارد هم هیچ موجودی نیست که بتواند مانع از او شود (چون او از هیچ موجودی اثر نمیگیرد) و در نتیجه خداوند موجودی میشود که میتواند بر تمام موجودات اثر بگذارد. با این تعریف او خدایی است که خلق کرده است ولی مخلوق موجود دیگری نیست، پس قبل از هر موجود دیگری بوده است و آغازی هم نداشته است، موجودی میشود که رازق است ولی خدش رازقی ندارد و نیاز به رزقی هم ندارد، و ... . تا جایی که من فهمیدم این تعریفی است که در اسلام از مفهوم خداوند ارائه میشود، مثلاً در فرازهای 31 و 46 از دعای جوشن کبیر چنین داریم:
Is God unique or they may exist Gods instead of Gods? What about this universe, is it unique?
For this to be answered first we should discuss what is God? As the intrinsic nature of a creator is always out from the reach and understanding of its creatures, people are banned in Islam to directly think about God what he intrinsically is, however, yet there is a possibility for us to talk about God in some ways. For example let's first define God, rationally, as any existence that on one hand can affect all the other existences but on the other hand is not affected by any other existence. As much as I have understood this is the way Muslims define God. With this definition he is the one who has created but is not created (so he has been existed before the beginning and after the end, as he is not confined to time, whatever that it is), the one that feed everyone but is not fed himself, everyone needs him but he needs no one at all (that is, everyone needs many things -all created by him- for their evolution or even just remaining the same but he needs no one and nothing at all) and etc. . Having such a definition for God also states that if there is to be Gods, rather than only one God, then all those Gods should be totally independent as none of them can be able to affect the others, those affected cannot be God by definition. Therefore, if there is to be Gods, each God should have created his own creatures. If all these creatures were to live in one universe then as each set created by one God has had to undergone an independent set of laws, logics and corresponding orders, then there should have arose conflict between them an so chaotic and messy that this universe could be. However, our world seems to have a unique global order, no law of nature conflict with another and it seems that all the phenomena of this world undergo a single logic, so this world cannot have more than one God. One may bring an example of a beautiful park, ordered in a very pretty manner, that has many workers in it as well, but this is not a right example as the workers certainly are not working independently, as they work together under a same plan for the gardens and etc., they are under the laws and orders of one person or a group of collaborating people, however Gods if they exist cannot collaborate with each other as each must remain independent, not affected by the others' opinion and etc.! In Quran this is mentioned as:
لَوْ کَانَ فِیهِمَا آلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتَا فَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَرْشِ عَمَّا یصِفُونَ (انبیاء، 22)
[If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!]
So I guess it is very clear that our world has a God and this God is unique. But is there a possibility that there exist Gods each creating their own universe? Again no, since there is nothing that could prevent one God from affecting the creatures of the other, as no God can affect the others preventing them from affecting his creatures! So as soon as there exist more than one God there should arise a chaos and no order would remain for us to live in such an ordered and safe universe as we live in now. Thus, the order in this world shows not only it has only one God, but it also shows that there exists only one God. Although this is the final answer to the topic we had to discuss about, but let continue discussing a little further about “now that there exist only one God, can there exist more than one universe created by him or not”? Well, I see nothing unbelievable in the answer to this question being yes. Actually, if the existing unique God would let us, we will discuss some later what God creates and why? It would be then that it would be believable that there might exist several universes parallel to us. This is not a result obtained from the modern physics, it is what is believed in Shia Islam for centuries that there exist maybe infinitely many universes (actually he said only God knows their numbers, ref. “مغز متفکر جهان شیعه” written by a number of western scientists, translated by “ذبیح الله منصوری”, the section on Imam Sadegh's Definition of Science) each having some similarities with and differences from each other.
There may exist also reasonings other than those stated above for proving the existence of God and his uniqueness, however, this much is enough for me to believe in a unique God, so that I end the discussion here, trying to describe the rest of my thoughts.
|آیا خداوند وجود دارد؟|
|ساعت ۱۱:۳٦ ق.ظ روز دوشنبه ۱۳ دی ۱۳۸٩ کلمات کلیدی:|
اولین مطلبی که در متن این دنیای فرض شده باید صحت آن مورد تحقیق قرار گیرد بحث وجود خداوند است. در واقع در دنیای شهودی ای که برای خودم دارم اکنون من وجود دارم ولی زمانی بوده است که وجود نداشته ام و میخواهم بدانم که چه شد که ناگهان به وجود آمدم؟ بعضیها به هر حال به یک یا تعدادی خدا اعتقاد دارند و برخی هم با آن مخالفند، اما اصلاً چه چیزی باعث شده است که چنین مفهومی به ذهن انسانها معرفی شود که حالا برخی به آن معتقد شوند و بعضی با آن مخالفت نمایند؟ تعدادی از دلایلی که تا کنون برای اثبات وجود خداوند بیان شده است به صورت زیر است:
Does God Exist?
So far I have accept to be existed, now I want to know more about myself, and e.g. what happened that I suddenly became existed!? For this reason and that everyone has at least a few minutes thought about God in his life, and so challenging that the concept of God is, here I focus on this concept as the beginning of my discussions.
Well almost all people believe in a God, but also there exist people who don't. The question is that why at all such a concept should be introduced to the people? If there exist reason for that then who has introduced it to the humanity in such a broad manner, and why there exist different religions and had existed some (or even several) more previously?
OK, there are some reasons commonly stated for why God must exist and why he should be unique. First let state why he should exist, the causality reasoning, the regularity reasoning, the truthfuls reasoning and etc.:
The causality reasoning states that if every thing needs a cause for it to exist or happen, so the universe as a whole (containing all the spaces and times and events confined in their limits) should also have a cause which we call God. Actually, this reasoning needs a more detailed statement. Indeed, this way that it is now stated one may ask if God should also have a cause for his existence as well? Actually, if there is a chain of causality, and this chain is to have an end, then its end must have a nature different than nature of the other rings in the chain, it should be undergone a different logic so that it doesn't need a cause. If the God so defined by this reasoning is to be a God, i.e. need not any cause, then this God should be totally different in nature from all the other rings of the chain beginning from him. Although the causality is a right reasoning for proving God, but it is not very very rigorous as it preliminarily assume the chain to have an end (actually a beginning), even though this is so rational an assumption for the real world as the real world differs much from the mathematics which works with asymptotes and etc.. Therefore, for most honest people that are not so much suspicious about everything, this reasoning serves enough!
The next reasoning, the regularity reasoning, is among the best reasonings for those who thrust much in science and specially in thermodynamics as one cornerstone of the present experiment based science. According to the second law of thermodynamics the disorder in any closed system will increase with time, so that the entropy of the system, a measure of disorderliness in the system, would approach a local maximum. Although I don't believe in this intuitional rule as a real intrinsic law of the world we live in, but according to this commonly-known-as-a-law-of-nature, assuming the whole set of creatures as a closed system, it is impossible for it to start from, say, an explosion (e.g. the big bang) and develop into such a regular and ordered world as now we do have! Thus, if the whole universe of creatures are to be started all in a sudden, then it must not be closed, that is, it should have some communication with something out from its borders. The only thing out from the set of all creatures is what we call God and if he is not creature maybe he would be the creator, although it is possible that he is not a creator but of course he would not be a creature either! It is the causality reasoning that states all the creatures should have a creator and this God is the only possible creator which creates but is not created! Of course this reasoning does not prove the uniqueness of God, but only his existence!
Another reasoning for the existence of God, and indeed for us to believe in a nonzero probability for his existence, is the truthfuls reasoning. First let's bring an example of our common lives. As a rational person if we like a delicious food very much and someone says it is not as delicious as we think, and its taste isn't as good as its smelling is good, we may neglect his opinion and finally eat that food, but if even a fool person notify us of the food being poisonous we would refuse to eat that food, even how good smelling that it is, since here the risk is greater than that we can take, even though the notifier be a fool guy, that food whatever that it is certainly doesn't worth our lives! Now mention that through the centuries there have been peoples, all known as honest and rational, notifying us that there is a God, there is a judging day, there is a heaven and a hell, and etc. . If we say they all have lied, then there exists two possibilities: First we will die and no “other world” exists for us to regret why we had accepted the existence of God, the judging day, and all things about religion, those who believed in religion and those who didn't would now be the same, they all have turned back to non-existence. But the second possibility is that we will die and see what religion has taught us is more or less correct, then people who have accepted it when they were alive would be distinguished from those who have almost always denied it. Therefore, whatever that is the reality, those who accept religion would have nothing to lose in anyway, though those who don't may lose everything and may lose nothing. Now put this risk together with all those notifications of the honest people and think what a rational man should do to remain rational. This is not actually a proof for the existence of God, but is among the strongest reasoning which demonstrates why we should believe in God! I like this one very much by myself.
These are not the only reasonings for the existence of God, perhaps the most important reasoning is about what we can find in our inside. There always happen events through which we can sense a God with us, observing us from a very close position, in a world which is very similar to our outside world but indeed is in our inside, there we can see God and talk with him and understand him without hearing a voice or watching a face. These deep comprehensions occur, e.g., when we are deeply afraid, hopeless, upset, ashamed and etc., that is, when we switch our focus from the outside world to our inside world. There we sometimes promise something to God as well as to ourselves to be so and such, but when we again return to the outside world sometimes we forget how was then that we were too close to our God. This is not something that I can explain as everyone may have their own diaries about it, but when our focus is concentrated to the outside world sometimes we become in doubt if that deep feeling was real or just a dream? We used to believe God as we could strongly sense him in front of us, but now everything is as usual, was that a dream or what? Once I had this problem myself, but there is an analogy between this and the passage of days and nights! During the day it is hard to believe some hours later daylight will end to a massive darkness in all around, and when darkness governed everywhere for a while and we believed its presence, then it is difficult to believe some hours later again daylight will recover the lighting we lost the previous day. In daylight it is hard to believe in darkness, it is just as a dream, and in the darkness it is difficult to believe in massive lighting, it is just as a dream as well, but we all believe in both due to experiencing their orderly passages over the years since we have born! Focusing in our inside world, sensing God as something very sensible and certain, then losing our concentration getting busy with the outside world, engaging with a limited set of its routines, is just the same as passage of days and nights, neither are dreams, and this way we should believe in God as a fact in all situations of our lives as we have sensed him very strongly in many instances of our lives, he is not just a dream or something in books, he is with us everywhere and every time, but our understanding of him is somewhat limited for us not always being focused toward our inside worlds.
|به نام خداوند؛ شروع|
|ساعت ۱۱:۳٢ ق.ظ روز دوشنبه ۱۳ دی ۱۳۸٩ کلمات کلیدی:|
بحث را با این فرض ابتدایی شروع میکنم که "من وجود دارم". البته این فرض خودش جای بحث دارد که درست هست یا نه، که اگر نباشد خشت اول را گر نهد معمار کج، تا ثریا میرود دیوار کج. از طرفی برخی فلاسفۀ اسلامی معتقدند که جز خدا وجودی حقیقی وجود ندارد و تنها موجودی که وجود مستقل و سرخودی دارد ذات (و نه صفات) خداست و نسبت بقیۀ موجودات به او مانند نسبت تصاویر مجازی آن موجود حقیقی در یک آینه است، تصاویر مجازی در آینه هیچ کدام واثعاً و حقیقتاً وجود ندارند و تنها مجازاً وجود پیدا کرده اند و این وجود هم مستقیماً وابستۀ به وجود شیء جلوی آینه است که اگر آن نباشد تصویری هم از آن در آینه نخواهد بود! خداوند حقیقتی است (حق بودن خداوند یعنی متحقق بودن او، یعنی وجود داشتن مطلق و بدون وابستگی که حق هم در مقابل باطل است، چیزی که بهره ای از حقیقت ندارد، نه بی واسطه و مستقل وجود دارد و نه با واسطه ی خلقت جایی در عالم تحقق برای خود دارد، مانند خدایان دروغین و ...) که از طریق مکانیزمی به نام خلقت --که کار آینه را میکند-- تصاویری مجازی و وجودهایی وابسته ایجاد میکند، وجودهایی که در واقع وجود ندارند ولی قایل توصیف هستند و در نتیجه سئوال "ما هی؟ (آن چیست؟)" برایشان جواب دارد، یعنی از خود وجود ندارند ولی "ماهیت" دارند! البته هر کدام از مخلوقین وابسته به خلقتی که در خلق آنها به کار رفته است (آینه ای که آن تصاویر را ایجاد کرده است) از حقیقت بهره خواهند برد و در نتیجه این تصاویر همگی یک نوع و با یک ماهیت نخواهند بود! بگذریم، به هر حال افرادی که این دیدگاه را دارند به صختی میتوانند بپذیرند که بشود بحث را از اینجا شروع کرد که "من وجود دارم"، بی آنکه قبل از آن دربارۀ وجود خداوند حرفی زده شده باشد. علت انتخاب این فرض برای بحثهایی که در ادامه میآید به علت قبول نداشتن نظرات بالا نیست، بلکه به این خاطر است که بدیهی ترین شناخت انسان از وجود خودش است، گرچه بعداً با تفکر و تعقل متوجه شود که اصلاً خودش اصالتی ندارد و حتی تحققش یک تحقق وابسته به حقیقتی اصلی است و نه تحققی ذاتی. اگر بخواهیم بحث ما یک بحث علمی و استدلالی باشد باید فرضهای اولیه امان ابتدایی ترین و بدیهی ترین فرضهای ممکن باشند و اگرچه کسی ممکن است به علت قابل درک نبودن ذات خداوند در وجود او شک کند ولی در وجود خود هرگز شک نخواهد کرد، و اگر هم مانند برخی شکاکین از فلاسفه حتی در وجود خودش هم --ولو به صورت حقیقتی غیرذاتی-- شک کرد دیگر دربارۀ هیچ چیز دیگری نخواهد توانست که شک نکند. بنابراین به نظر میرسد برای شروع از صفر پذیرفتن وجود داشتن "من" صحیح ترین انتخاب باشد. اما وقتی گفته میشود "من وجود دارم" این "من" چه چیزی است؟ این سئوال خودش در جای خودش بسیار اهمیت دارد، چون ما تا فرضهایمان را درست نشناسیم نمیتوانیم با استدلال و بحث علمی به نتیجۀ درستی برسیم. با این حال دانستن معنی و حدود همین فرض اولیه هم چندان بدیهی نیست، فقط کافی است توجه کنیم که اسم و فامیل، نام پدر، شمارۀ شناسنامه، سال تولد، قد، وزن، ویژگیهای جسمی و اخلاقی و ... همگی صفاتی برای "من" هستند که کمک میکنند این "من" از "من"های دیگر قابل تفکیک و شناسایی باشند، اما اینها هیچ کدام تعریف جامع و مانع از "من" را به ما نمیدهند، مثلاً کسی که فکر کند او همان کسی است که اسم و فامیلش فلان است و قیافه اش چنان است و چیزهای دیگری در همین حد معرفتی، وقتی چنین کسی از این دنیا برود و از بدنش جدا شود چه بسا حتی تمام ویژگیهایی که تا کنون داشته است را هم از دست بدهد، که در این صورت باید اینطور به نظرش برسد که نابود شده است، در حالیکه به اعتقاد ما او صرفاً یک پوست اندازی کرده است و برخی ویژگیهایش با ویژگیهای دیگری جایگزین شده است. در اینجا باید متذکر شد که آنچه برای ما نقطۀ شروع بحث تعیین شده است نه ذات و حقیقت "من" که در واقع شهود اولیۀ هر انسانی نسبت به کلمۀ "من" میباشد، با تمام حواس و درکی که پذیرش این لغت "من" به او میدهد تا تصوری از یک دنیای ظاهراً حقیقی را داشته باشد. و پذیرش وجود این "من" در واقع همراه میشود با پذیرش این جهان با تمام تصوراتی که ابتدائاً و شهوداً میتوان از آن داشت، تصوراتی که احتمالاً در بین تمامی یا اکثر مردم کرۀ زمین مشترکاتی هم دارد. با این فرض اولیه اکنون ما میتوانیم به بحث در مورد چند و چون دنیایی بپردازیم که ابتدا به ساکن وجودش را پذیرفته ایم و ماهیتش را به اندازۀ درک شهودیمان از آن معلوم فرض نموده ایم. پس در واقع نقطه ی شروع بحث ما میشود این عبارت که "من --با تمام درک و شهودم از دنیا-- وجود دارم" و این درک و شهود (که در سن بزرگتر از نوزادی و مدتها بعد از لحظۀ تولدم به آن رسیده ام و اکنون میخواهم به آن یک نظم منطقی داده و آنرا از حالت یک درک شهودی به عقیده ای صحیح و منطقی تبدیل و اصلاحش کنم) هم به همراه "من" وجود دارد ولو اینکه وجود آن به وجود یا وجودهای دیگری هم وابسته باشد و حتی بخشی از آن حقیقی و بخضی از آن برداشتهایی باطل باشد. به عبارت دیگر نقطۀ شروع بحث ما جایی در یک عالم فکری و انتزاعی نیست بلکه جایی در زندگی معمول ماست به طوریکه تجربه های درونی و بیرونی ما همگی در آن لحاظ شده و به تدریج از وجود داشتن آنها بهره گرفته خواهد شد. این نقطۀ شروع البته بیشتر برای انجام بحث اولیه ای است که در ادامه میآید و آن بحث در بارۀ وجود یا عدم وجود خداوند است و بعد از آن دیگر وارد فضایی غیر از فضای شهودی اطراف خود خواهیم شد، لیکن این بار دیگر این کار از ابتدا انتزاعی نبوده است.
In the Name of God; let's begin
In the name of Allah, God of Judaism, Christians, Muslims and all of those who do not believe in God
Hopefully, the only preliminary assumption (or at least one of the only preliminary assumptions) I use for my discussions is that “I exist”. Accepting this assumption I can continue discussing about God and the whole universe, or universes! Actually one might refuse to accept this preliminary assumption by asking from himself a question like this one: “What am I?”. Some Islamic philosophers believe in that nothing really exist but the only God. The universe God has created actually do not exist and no one can talk about their existence what they are, but they can only ask about “how they are”. A proper example can clarify the situation better. Consider a mirror and something in its front. Even if that thing exist but its image in the mirror surely doesn't exist, but we can see it, we can analyze it, measure it and etc., that is we can only say how it is, but no one can say what it is as it really doesn't exist! The image in the mirror is an imagination! Some Islamic philosophers believe so about the universe God has created: he exists on his own, but all the universe he has created exist on his existence, like the existence of the image in mirror which exist on the existence of something in front of the mirror, but no real existence should rely on other existences and so the universe could not really exist. The creativity of God would then be something about what or how is that mirror which can produce imaginary existences! Well, I'm not going to stick to this problem and simply assume that I exist in the framework of the universe God has created, regardless of the reality of this existence! However, I have not discussed about the existence of God himself yet, so I have started from the most trivial assumption that I exist, even if some later I understand that this existence is somewhat imaginary! By the way, if I exist, then there is a reality that I can discuss about.
What is me that I know it exists?
This is such a difficult topic to discuss that imam Ali (pbuh) has stated one who understood himself certainly has understood his God. However, philosophers say something about this that I have accepted as it seems quite rational. It's an imaginary story about a man who has lost all his memory, so that he doesn't remember anything of his past, what's his name, where he is from, and etc. and now he is trying hard to know who he is. He goes to a village and ask them about who he is. They don't know what to answer, but he is very curious and nervous, so after a while they fold a red rope around his neck and say you are the one who has a red rope folded around his neck. The man smiles as now he knows who he is. He keeps living happily since then until a friend of him opens the rope when he was asleep. The man wakes up and wonders who he is. He becomes nervous again as he is not someone that he knows! Although this story looks like a joke but unfortunately is a real and very common story, just somewhat caricatured. If someone ask me who are you? I will simply say a name, a family name, the name of my father, an identification number, my birth place, the college I have studied in, a biography and resume and things like that, a recent photo and a photo from my childhood then introduce me better. This is what most of us know as “myself”, and certainly it is just a red rope around our neck. One day we would die and lose all we have had as “myself”, find ourselves very different from what we thought we are. OK, but if we are not these what then we are? A body and a soul, but what is “soul”, and what and how is its connection with my body. We know our bodies change a lot during our many years of life in this material world. We were born with a very small body (as to be able to be placed inside the mother's body), actually evolved from a very few cells to a small baby, then grew up to an adult, and last seared to an elderliness. Also we know that every some years all the cells of our bodies are substituted by new ones, created from the foods we eat, waters we drink, and air we breath. But what about our souls? Well, it is stated in Quran that
وَ یسْأَلُونَکَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّی وَمَا أُوتِیتُمْ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِیلًا (إسراء، 85)
[They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: "The Spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men!)"]
So we cannot understand “soul” very deeply, just to some extent maybe. Anyway, this is not the context of this topic to discuss about soul what it is, but by this discussion it was only meant to say that I assume my existence and what I am not directly, but in communication with other existences. And this is about these existences we will discuss more extensively. If the line I have drawn as the guidance for the rest of these discussions is not clear or rigorous, and accepting my existence never guarantees the existence of anything but myself, then just let me change the only presumption that I assumed to a set of presumptions that not only I but also the rest of the world, as I feel it and understand it and communicate with, exists, and now I just want to know it better.
|ساعت ۱٠:۱۳ ب.ظ روز سهشنبه ٧ دی ۱۳۸٩ کلمات کلیدی:|
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
سلام، و هو السلام، و السلام