نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار گروه ریاضیات زیستی، ریاضیات کاربردی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
شناخت بیشتر طبیعت در دو قرن اخیر و پیشرفت‌های چشمگیر علم و تکنولوژی موجب بوجود آمدن ایده‌ها و رویکردهای جذاب و جدیدی شده است که منتسب به علم معاصر شناخته می‌شود. ایده‌هایی نظیر تکامل در زیست‌‌شناسی، مسئله ابتدای جهان (مدل‌های مبتنی بر وجود نقطه زمانی شروع برای عالم و یا خلاف آن) و ایدۀ جهان‌های موازی در فیزیک. هرچند این ایده‌ها در بستر علم جدید شکوفا گشته‌اند ولی بیش از آنکه ایده‌هایی علمی باشند حاوی پس‌زمینه‌ها و نتایج فلسفی مهمی هستند. در این مقاله با بررسی تاریخی نوشته‌ها و آثار ابن‌سینا (فیلسوف و پزشک شهیر مسلمان 1000 سال قبل)، به‌عنوان نمونه و مرجع، نشان خواهیم داد که هر سۀ این ایده‌ها به شکلی کاملاً مشابه از زمان‌های قدیم در سطح فلسفه طبیعی مطرح بوده‌اند. لذا جایگاه آن‌ها بیش از آنکه علمی باشد فلسفی است. بیان این نظریه‌ها بدون در نظر داشتن پیش‌فرض‌های متافیزیکی و غیرتجربی آن‌ها موجب برداشت‌های نادرست از علم خواهد شد. بسیاری از چالش‌های میان علم و دین ناشی از همین در نظر نگرفتن حدود علم تجربی و تشخیص سطح متافیزیکی نظریه‌هاست. در این مقاله به بیان دلایل ابن‌سینا بر له و علیه این نظریات به‌عنوان یکی از اولین افرادی که صریحاً به بررسی علمی و فلسفی این نظریات پرداخته است، می‌پردازیم. دقت علمی ابن‌سینا و روحیه علمی تحسین‌برانگیز او می‌تواند برای محققین معاصر آموزنده و روشنگرایانه باشد. همچنین در موضوع شانس و علّیت، بروشی متفاوت و با زبان علم روز به بررسی مسئلۀ غایتمندی و هدف‌داری عالم پرداخته‌شده است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
Are the Theories of Evolution, Multiverse, and the Inexistence of Universe Starting Point, the Product of Modern Science? Causality and Chance in Modern and Ancient Science
نویسنده [English]
- Yousef Jamali
Assistant Professor of Mathematics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
In the last two centuries, a better understanding of nature and significant advances in science and technology have led to the emergence of new and exciting ideas and approaches. Almost all of them are known as the product of contemporary science. Ideas such as evolution in biology, the ideas about the beginning of the universe (models based on the existence of a starting point for the universe or otherwise), and the idea of parallel worlds in physics. Although these ideas have flourished in the context of modern science, they contain important philosophical backgrounds and as a result, have some important philosophical consequences. In this article, a historical review of the writings and works of Ibn Sina shows that each of these ideas has been presented similarly since ancient times in natural philosophy. Therefore, their position is more philosophical than scientific. Using these theories without considering their metaphysical and non-experimental assumptions will lead to misconceptions. Many of the challenges between science and religion stem from not considering the limits of empirical science and a lack of attention to the metaphysical assumptions of scientific theories. In this article, we will explain Ibn Sina's reasons for or against these theories as one of the first people to explicitly examine the scientific and philosophical aspects of these theories. Ibn Sina's scientific accuracy and admirable scientific spirit can be enlightening for contemporary scholars.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Avicenna
- Physics
- Evolution
- Multiverse
- Beginning of cosmos
- Chance
- Causality
- Anderson, James L. (1967) Principles of Relativity Physics, Academic Press.
- Callender, C. and Huggett, N. (2004) "Introduction", In Callender, C. and Huggett, N. (eds. ), Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale: Contemporary Theories in Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press.
- Carlip, Steven (2019) General Relativity: A Concise Introduction, Oxford University Press.
- Carroll, Sean M. (2004) Spacetime and Geometry, Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Addison Wesley.
- D’Inverno, Ray (1992) Introducing Einstein’s Relativity, Oxford University Press.
- De Haro, Sebastian (2019) "Science and Philosophy: A Love-Hate Relationship", Foundations of Science, 25, 297–314.
- Earman, J. (2006a) "Two challenges to the requirement of substantive general covariance", Synthese, 148, pp. 443–68.
- Earman, J. (2006b) "The implications of general covariance for the ontology and ideology of spacetime", In Dieks, D. (ed. ), The ontology of spacetime, Elsevier, pp. 3–24.
- Earman, J. and Norton, J. (1987) "What price spacetime substantivalism? The hole story", British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 38, pp. 515–525.
- Engler, Fynn Ole (2009) "Über das erkenntnistheoretische Raumproblem", in Stadler et al. , pp. 107–145.
- Friedman, Michael (1983) Foundations of space-time theories: Relativistic physics and philosophy of science, Princeton University Press.
- Giovanelli, Marco (2013) "Erich Kretschmann as a Proto-Logical-Empiricist: Adventures and Misadventures of the Point-Coincidence Argument", Studies In History and Philosophy of Science, Part B: Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44(2), pp. 115–13.
- Golshani, Mehdi (2011) Physics and Philosophy: A Critique of Contemporary Physicists’ Philosophy of Physics, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies Press, Tehran (in Persian)
- Gutfreund, Hanoch and Renn, Jurgen. (2015) "The Road to Relativity", The History and Meaning of Einstein’s “The Foundation of General Relativity, Princeton University Press.
- Gutfreund, Hanoch and Renn, Jurgen. (2017) "The Formative Years of Relativity": The History and Meaning of Einstein’s Princeton Lectures, Princeton University Press.
- Hawking, S. and Mlodinow, L. (2010) The Grand Design, Bantam Books.
- Helzer, Gary (2000) "Special Relativity with Acceleratin", American Mathematical Monthly, 3(107), pp. 219-237.
- Howard, Don A. (2017) "Einstein's Philosophy of Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed. ), https://plato. stanford. edu/archives/fall2017/entries/einstein-philscience/
- Huggett, Nick (2010) Everywhere and Everywhen: Adventures in Physics and Philosophy, Oxford University Press.
- Johns, Oliver David (2019) "Validity of the Einstein Hole Argument?" Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol. 68, pp. 62-70. Arxiv: 1907. 01614.
- Ladyman, J. , Presnell, S. (2020) "The Hole Argument in Homotopy Type Theory", Foundations of Physics, vol. 50, pp. 319–329.
- Misner, Charles W. , Thorne, Kip S. and Wheeler, John A. (1973) Gravitation, W. H. Freeman.
- Norton John D. (1995) "Did Einstein Stumble? The Debate over General Covariance", Erkenntnis, Vol. 42: 223-245.
- Oberdan, Thomas (2017) "Moritz Schlick", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed. ), https://plato. stanford. edu/archives/win2017/entries/schlick/
- Pooley, Oliver (2010) "Substantive General Covariance: Another Decade of Dispute", In Suàrez M. et al. (eds. ), EPSA Philosophical Issues in the Sciences: Launch of the European Philosophy of Science Association, Springer.
- Rindler, Wolfgang (2006) Essential Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2nd edition), Oxford University Press.
- Roberts, Bryan (2020) "Regarding ‘Leibniz Equivalence", Foundations of Physics, 50, pp. 250–269.
- Rosenberg, Alex (2005) Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction (2nd edition), Routledge.
- Rovelli, Carlo (2018) "Physics Needs Philosophy. Philosophy Needs Physics", Foundations of Physics, 48(5): 481-491.
- Rovelli, Carlo (2008) Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press.
- Sanders, Ko (2020) "What Can (Mathematical) Categories Tell Us about Spacetime?" In Huggett, N. , Matsubara, K. and Wuthrich, C. (eds. ), Beyond Spacetime: The Foundations of Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press.
- Schlosshauer, Maximillian, ed. (2011) Elegance and Enigma: The Quantum Interviews, Springer-Verlag.
- Smolin, L. and Unger, Robrto M. (2014) The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time, Cambridge University Press.
- Stachel, John (2007) "The First Two Acts, in Janssen, Norton, Renn, Sauer Stachel" (eds.), The Genesis of General Relativity, Springer, pp. 81-111.
- Straumann, Norbert (2013) General Relativity, Springer.
- Stein, Howard (1977) Some Philosophical Prehistory of General Relativity, In Earman, J. et al. (eds. ), Foundations of Space-Time Theories, University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3-49.
- Weatherall, James O. (2020) "Some Philosophical Prehistory of the (Earman-Norton) Hole Argument", Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 70, pp. 79-87.
- Weatherall, James O. (2016) "Regarding the ‘Hole Argument", The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,Vol. 69, Num. 2, pp. 329-350.
- Weinberg, Steven (1994) Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Law’s of Nature, Vintage Books.
- Weingard, Robert (1979) "Some Philosophical Aspects of Black Holes", Synthese, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 191–219.
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله