physics

The existence of nature and the occurrence of causality in its elements are accepted facts in various branches of knowledge. Except for a few skeptics or idealists, no one denies it, but the independence of nature from the non-physical elements and the exclusivity of causality within its constituents have their proponents. One corresponding claim is the physical causal closure. This principle asserts that physical phenomena arise from physical causes and the non-physical element either does not exist, or if it does, it does not intervene or have an explanatory role. Therefore, there is no need to consider the role of non-physical factors in explaining physical events. Muslim philosophers also believe that physical events are caused by the specific nature of objects, and nature itself is the "direct agent." Such a view is susceptible to being assumed same as the principle of physical causal closure. Philosophical investigations show that this perspective is not the same as the principle of causal closure because philosophers reject the exclusivity of causality in physical causes by accepting non-physical causes, soul and their involvement in physical events. Therefore, the confinement of the investigation methodology of nature to sense and experience is denied. ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī also holds this view. Therefore, he cannot be considered in agreement with proponents of the causal closure. This matter is examined through analytical and rational methods by referring to existing texts on these perspectives.

Various viewpoints have been expressed in favor and against physicalism; But the requirement for accurate assessment of physicalism is to have a correct understanding of physicalism. In this article, apart from criticizing physicalism, we want to reach a correct understanding of physicalism. In the meantime, understanding what the physical is has a key role in defining physicalism. There are two well-known views of physics: “object-based” and “theory-based”. In the first view, the physical is defined on the model of exemplary physical objects; that is, it is a physical thing that has the property of physical prominent objects. In the second view, it is a physical that the physics discusses it. In the present article, we will show that both views have problems and we must replace the two mentioned views with a third view in understanding the physical. According to our belief, the correct perception is the “property-based” view. Among the “property-based” views, the most recent theories about the material-immaterial distinction belong to Ostad Fayazi, who introduces the property of standard of physical as perceptibility. While criticizing his point of view, we have finally introduced the "talent of realization in the world of physic" as a distinct and original difference between the physical and the non-physical, and in the meantime we have reached other results.

Is philosophy useful for physics? Many physicists and philosophers believe that it is; but there are those who challenge the usefulness of philosophy for science. Three major objections can be identified in their reasoning: 1. Philosophy’s death diagnosis, which states that philosophy is dead and has nothing new to teach us. 2. Historic-agnostic argument/challenge, which states that there is no historical evidence for the claim that philosophy is useful for science, or if it is, it is unknown to us. 3. The division of property argument, which states that philosophy and science are two distinct fields. The purpose of this article is to respond to these three objections by examining the case study of the relationship between general relativity and philosophy. By looking at the history of the formation and development of general relativity, we will argue that: 1. Philosophy has led to a refinement and deep understanding of the important concepts of covariance and invariance. 2. There is clear historical evidence for the positive influence of philosophy on the development of the core concepts of general relativity, as one of the most important physical theories, as well as the undeniable evidence for the key role of some philosophers in the development of the theory. 3. Physics and philosophy, in seeking answers to fundamental questions, are two highly intertwined fields.

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.

It is already more than a hundred years ago that the Natural Philosophy and Metaphysics parts of Avicenna’s famous philosophical encyclopaedia al-Shifāʾ (The Cure) were published by the printing house of the Dār al-Funūn (‘Polytechnic’) academy at Tehran. This printing, which is usually referred to as the ‘Tehran lithographic edition’, is a milestone in Avicenna studies based on Arabic sources. It increased the level of attention for The Cure at a national and international level. About half a century after publication of the above edition, the first three volumes of the Natural Philosophy (al-Ṭabīʿiyyāt) part of The Cure were translated into Persian by Muḥammad ʿAlī Furūghī (b. 1294/1877, d. 1321/1942). It was this translation which incited the famous Iranian scholar Mīrzā Mahdī Mudarris Ashtiyānī (b. 1306/1888-89, d. 1372/ 1952-53) to write a critical study of it, both textually and philosophically. Outside Iran, the Physics of the Natural Philosophy part of The Cure was published four times: in Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, and the United States. It is especially the Cairo printing (begun in the nineteen-fifties and the first of the editions just mentioned) which had a huge impact, especially among Arabists, who until then mostly had no knowledge of or interest in the Latin Avicenna tradition, which goes back some nine-hundred years. With the modern printings of the Arabic text and the studies and translations that are based on it, one could say that Avicenna truly ‘went global’ for a second time, after his huge imprint on Western

The theory of God as the product of human ignorance has been presented by many scientists including modern physicists and biologists. In this article, we address the theory from the view point of Stephen Hawking, a physicist. According to him, belief in God is the product of human ignorance. Humans believe in God as the cause of natural phenomena so long as the cause of these phenomena is not discovered by them; But when their cause is revealed, there is no room for believing in God. In the past, the world was considered as the creation of God because of people's deep ignorance, but today when the natural causes of the formation of the world have been revealed thanks to science, there is no need to assume the existence of God. In this paper which is organized in an analytical-descriptive way, first we deal with the model-dependent realism, quantum physics, M- theory, and God as a being covering gaps as the foundations of Hawking's theory and then attention is paid to issues such as the scientific explanation of the origin of the world, the superiority of the scientific explanation over other explanations, and the incompatibility of the scientific explanation with the religious explanation as the three main axes of Hawking's theory. At the end, we will assess the basic elements this theory contains with a critical approach based on Islamic philosophy and theology.

Place, in spite of modern physics, in Avicenna’s thought has two facets, physical and metaphysical. He has discussed on ontology of it and its essence criticizing the theories have been in or before his era. He by analyzing the essence of place has rejected the place to be regarded as a form, matter, extension and surface as well as the void. At the present paper, by analytical method, we attempt to evaluate his theory by using commentaries and the critics. He believes the place is a surface but not absolute one, it is a relative surface. On the basis of his philosophy, discussing on the existence and essence of place should be in Metaphysics not in the physics, although he has discussed in physics. Avicenna has criticized the other theories and finally approved his Idea on the Place. He has discussed on the accident of place in metaphysics trying to deny the theory of ones who believe it can be regarded as the substance. In spite of his effort to approve the existence of place and analyze the quiddity of it, he could not approve and analyze it successfully, so we cannot regard it as a category. It should be considered as a secondary intelligible.

A problem concerning Aristotle’s psychology asks where its right place of study is. Should it be studied in physics or in metaphysics or some part of it in physics and some other part in metaphysics? There are two views concerning the place of psychology according to Aristotle’s philosophy of science and both find evidences in Aristotle’s own books, but this article criticizes them and shows that in spite of the Aristotelian texts, one cannot consider psychology as a physical science. This paper tries to show that according to Aristotelian principles, psychology is a metaphysical science and Aristotle’s texts show nothing but the close relationship between psychology and physics. Likewise, although Avicenna himself puts the discussion of soul in his Physics but we try to show that according to him the right place of psychology is in another science.

Hobbes political thought is based on his twofold analysis of mankind: Human being, on one hand, as a composed material body in the network of mechanical forces follows his desires and passions. He, on the other hand, studies the concepts of right and duty in order to establish community through contract. Hobbes tries to reconcile his political system with materialistic analysis of human behavior. For this reason, in Hobbes thought, to be aware of political organization depends on recognizing human nature and to recognize human passions and moods depends on the recognition of mechanical principles and physical laws. Hobbes’s ethics and politics are compatible with his mechanical materialism as well, and they are occasionally explained on the same ground. Our leading questions in this paper are as follows: 1. what are the characteristics of human nature as one of the main elements of Hobbes psychological system? 2. How has Hobbes compiled his political philosophy on the basis of human nature characteristics? This paper mainly claims that Human nature is based on the principles of motion and mechanical principles in Hobbes view, and as a result, mankind has not been able to establish political community naturally. Mankind is civil not naturally but compulsorily and should be forced to be social, that is to say, the political society order is not natural order but artificial one which is manifested in the content of contract items. Therefore Hobbes mechanical psychology prepare the way for his civil philosophy.

The vision of most scientist and scholars in the first half of the twentieth century was empiricism. They gave more importance to observable experiences and phenomena, and the only valid criterion for them was observability of quantities. Although this view contributed to some advances in the twentieth century, but its drawbacks and misunderstandings caused some proponents of this school to criticize it and to become against it. In this paper, the views of some of the most prominent contemporary physicists, who themselves became one of the followers of this school, is reviewed. We have also mentioned some of the great physicists who pointed out the most important criticisms agaist this school. Furthermore, we have explained the reasons for changing the view of physicists in line with positivism, based on logical criteria and philosophical reasoning. In the end, we look at the views of some of the contemporary physicists who have opposed positivism or have gone through positivism to deny the existence of God.

A problem pertaining to Aristotle’s psychology is about where its right place is. Should it be studied in the physics or in metaphysics or some part of it in physics and some other in metaphysics? There are two views concerning the place of psychology according to Aristotle’s philosophy of science. The first view which is the predominant holds that psychology is a physical science. This view insists on the close relationship between soul and body. The second view says that psychology has indeed two distinct parts. One part being studied in physics and the other part in metaphysics. According to this theory, the material souls are being studied in physics and the immaterial souls in metaphysics. It is true that the two theories find evidences in Aristotle’s books, but this article criticizes them and shows that in spite of the Aristotelian texts, one cannot consider psychology as a physical science.

This paper aims to illustrate the mutual inter-relation of physics and metaphysics in the context of the philosophy of space and time. We especially emphasize, in this paper, that scientific development could impact on our position regarding the reality of space and time. To illustrate this point, we investigate the mutual inter-relation of physics and metaphysics in the modern developments of physics, i.e. neo-Newtonian structure, special and general relativity (GR). This paper ends up anticipating that it is likely, by considering modern physics, especially GR, that substantivalism to be a more defensible position.

Today Descartes is known wrongly as a secular philosopher. In this article، we are going to show that God has a good place in Descartes philosophy and makes the basis of his system. God in Descartes'' philosophical system is not only the basis of metaphysics but also the basis of physics and ethics. God''s knowledge and will are sources of every reality، sources of whatever exists and sources of our knowledge of whatever exists. God is not only the source of physics but also the source of ethical good. The natural light of wisdom in us not only enables us to understand the mathematical structure of the world، but also empowers us to understand the ethical values.

Condensation (contraction) and rarefaction (expansion) are two terms in natural philosophy (physics) used in several different meanings. In this article the meanings of the two terms and their real and artificial kinds areintroduced and their differences with some terms such as growth, tumor, and, also, their opposite ones are expressed. We have also evaluated the philosophical and experimental arguments offered by Islamic Peripatetic philosophers for the real condensation and rarefaction from the perspective of modern science. Finally we have shown that although there are some criticisms against their arguments, the Islamic Peripatetic philosophers have been realistic in describing these terms, and the opponents’ words such as Suhrawardi’s are not correct.

The present article studies some metaphysical foundations of natural sciences which may be inferred from the Holy Quran. In the old and existing natural sciences, such foundations have been neglected; but they may be considered in the future natural sciences to attain a new trend in this regard. The main rule of the Quranic metaphysics for studies in the field of natural sciences is the Unity of Acts. The second rule in this field is that the order of the world of nature rests upon Divine wisdom. According to the third rule, there is some meaning for each and every thing in the world; and this meaning depends upon its vertical and horizontal relations. Concepts through which we make reports of things suggest the meanings of things. Concepts suggesting the thing itself, free from its relations, are so universal concepts that have no uses for applied sciences. Two Quranic key concepts to find the meanings of things are admonition and look at their dominion. Quranic physics is not based on determinism. On the contrary, concepts such as thing's glorifying [God], change in an earlier Divine ruling, and supra-natural presence are introduced in it. Also that laws govern nature is explained by an ordained order.

Historians of philosophy claim that Aristotle was the first to discuss substance extensively. He analyzed this issue in his books, Categories, Metaphysics, and Physics, for three different purposes. In Categories, after examining the different types of subject and predicate, the first and second substances have been distinguished from each other. In Metaphysics, he has dealt with substance with the purpose of a search for the existentiality of existents based on four aspects: essence, universal, genus, and subject. Finally, in his Physics, another interpretation of substance has been given in order to clarify the issue of a fixed subject in the course of motion. Consequently, some of his critiques have accused him of self-contradiction in these works. This paper is intended to clarify this problem by reference to the works of Aristotle and the analyses of his commentators.

According to Islamic philosophy the debates in natural philosophy (physics) can be used as axioms in divine science. Some of the debates in metaphysics is under the influence of empirical science or physics from the time of those philosophers who have put forward metaphysical theories. Today it is incumbent upon muslim thinkers to build on a new presentation of philosophical theology on the basis of new scientific data and to construct a metaphysics well – proportioned with modern scientific data, with contemporary explanation of old ideas. In this article, after examination the theory of heaven, which forms a part of old physics, the degree of the influence of this discussion on metaphysical debates will be studied and it will be shown that which debates needs revision and a different explanation.