| 472 Since this justification is quite problematic, it would be more reasonable to treat this statement not as empirical but as theoretical, that is, mathematical. This implies that it must have, instead, the form of a theorem. The MW-SAP theorem can be formulated in this way: an ensemble of universes as a part of our world must exist (its existence is necessary and sufficient) for our universe to exist. For our universe to be chosen from something, it is necessary for the ensemble of universes to exist. If the ensemble of universes does exist, it is sufficient for our universe to exist, since the plurality does always contain all kinds of universes, including the one where we live. To attempt a proof of this theorem, there must be established a priori a concept of many universes, which can be done only with a great extent of metaphysical speculation. 473 The metaphysical concept of the world ensemble refers back to the block of ideas associated with the long-standing concept of plurality of worlds but renewed by ideas either from the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics or from chaotic inflationary cosmology (as well as from the old model of the oscillating universe). Probably the best way to give an idea of this model is to quote one of its authors: “The universe is constantly splitting into a stupendous numbers of branches, all resulting from the measurement-like interactions between its myriads of components. Moreover, every quantum transition taking place on every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on earth into myriads of copies of itself.” 474 Branching in MWI, associated with the measurement-like interaction, is usually said to lead to the creation of copies in interacting subsystems, each representing a separate world. Despite the fact that the branching of the universe is supposed to be a physical phenomenon and that it ought to find a precise description within the theory, there is no indication about the time and the way in which splitting occurs. |
| Spec – Speculum, Pseudo Augustinus («Зерцало» Псевдо-Августина), V в. Tert – Tertullianus ( Тертуллиан ), † после 220 Thret – Theodoretus Cyrrhensis (Феодорит Кир- ский), † около 466 Theoph – Theophilus Alexandrinus (Феофил Александрийский), †412 Tit–Titus Bostrensis (Тит Бострийский), † после 378 Туе – Tyconius (Тиконий), † после 390 Vic – Victorinus Poetovionensis (Викторин Патав- ский), †304 Vig – Vigillius Thapsensis (Вигилий Тапский [Африканский]), † после 484 IV. Примечания на внешних и внутренних полях (маргиналии) Аппарат внешних полей отсылает к параллельным и сходным выражениям из текстов Нового Завета, а также указывает на цитаты из Ветхого Завета и аллюзии к нему Сокращенные названия библейских книг, употребляемые в этом случае, короче, чем общепринятые. Сокращения, используемые в маргиналиях. I. Для книг Ветхого Завета: Gn (Бытие), Ех (Исход), Lv (Левит), Nu (Числа), Dt (Второзаконие), Jos (Иисус Навин), Jdc (книга Судей Израилевых), Rth (Руфь), ISm, 2Sm (1 и 2 книги Царств), IRg, 2Rg (3 и 4 книги Царств), IChr, 2Chr (1 и 2 книги Паралипоменон), Esr (Ездры=2 Ездры, главы I–X, по версии Септуагинты), 133 Neh (Неемия), Esth (Есфирь), Job (Иов), Ps (Псалтирь), Prv (Притчи), Eccl (Екклесиаст), Ct (Песнь Песней), Is (Исаия), Jr (Иеремия), Thr (Плач Иеремии), Ez (Иезекииль), Dn (Даниил), Hos (Осия), Joel (Иоиль), Ат (Амос), Ob (Авдий), Jon (Иона), Mch (Михей), Nah (Наум), Hab (Аввакум), Zph (Софония), Hgg (Аггей), Zeh (Захария), Ml (Малахия). И. Для апокрифов и псевдоэпиграфов Ветхого Завета: 3Esr, 4Esr (3/4 Книга Ездры, 3 Esr=1 Ездры по версии Септуагинты), 134 1–4Мсс (1–4 Маккавейские), Tob (Товит), Jdth (Юдифь), Sus (Сусанна= Дah XIII ), Bel (Bel et Draco, Вил и Змей= Дah XIV ), Ваг (Варух), EpistJer (Послание Иеремии), Sir (Премудрости Иисуса, сына Сирахова), Sap (Премудрости Соломона), Jub (книга Юбилеев), MartIs (Мученичество Исаии), PsSal (Псалмы Соломона), Hen (Енох), AssMosis (Успение Моисея), ВагАр (Откровение Варуха), ApcEliae (Откровение Илии). Заветы двенадцати патриархов цитируются по отдельности: TesmRub (Рувима), TesmLev (Левия), TesmSeb (Завулона), TesmDan (Дана), TesmNaph (Нафталима), TesmJos (Иосифа), TesmBenj (Вениамина), наконец, VitAd (Житие Адама и Евы). |
| Mukaddes çadyry bürän bulut 15 Mukaddes çadyry, ýagny äht çadyryny gurlan güni, ony bulut gaplap aldy. Agamdan tä ertire çenli bulut oda mezäp, mukaddes çadyry depesinde durdy. 16 Bu hemie eýle boldy, gündizlerine mukaddes çadyry büreýän bulut gijelerine oda mezeýärdi. 17 Bulut çadyry üstünden göterilenso, ysraýyllar ýola düerdiler. Bulut nirä gelip dursa, ysraýyllar hem ol ýerde düelge gurardylar. 18 Ysraýyllar Rebbi buýrugy bilen ýola düüp, Rebbi buýrugy bilen hem dülärdiler. Bulut mukaddes çadyry depesinde näçe wagtlap saklansa, olar hem öz düelgelerinde onça wagt saklanardylar. 19 Hatda buludy mukaddes çadyry depesinde saklanmagy uzaga çekse-de, ysraýyllar Rebbi buýrugyny berjaý edip göçmezdiler. 20 Käwagtlar bulut mukaddes çadyry depesinde die sanlyja gün görnerdi, olar hem Rebbi buýrugyna görä düelgelerinde bolup, sora Rebbi buýrugy bilen hem ýola düerdiler. 21 Käwagtlar bolsa bulut die agamdan ertire çenli saklanardy, bulut irden göterilenso, olar ýola düerdiler. Bulut gündizem, gije-de butnaman duruberse, onda ol göterilenso ysraýyllar ýola düerdiler. 22 Bulut mukaddes çadyry depesinde iki gün saklansa-da, bir aý saklansa-da, hatda ondan hem uzak wagtlap saklanmagyny dowam etse-de, ysraýyllar dülän ýerlerinden göçmezdiler. Emma bulut göterilen badyna, olar ýene ýola düerdiler. 23 Ysraýyllar Rebbi buýrugy bilen düläp, Rebbi buýrugy bilen hem ýola düerdiler. Olar Rebbi Musa arkaly berýän buýruklaryny berjaý etdiler. 10-njy bap Kümü surnaýlar 1 Reb Musa eýle diýdi: 2 «Özüe döwme sap kümüden iki sany surnaý ýasa. Olary jemagaty çagyrmak we düelgeleri göçürmek üçin ulanarsy. 3 Iki surnaý de çalnanda, bütin jemagat seni ýanya, Rebbe ýüz tutulýan çadyry girelgesine ýygnansyn. 4 Eger surnaýlary biri çalynsa, onda ysraýyl ýolbaçylary, ýagny tire batutanlary seni ýanya ýygnansynlar. 5 Surnaý gysga-gysga çalynsa, gündogar tarapdaky düelgeler ýola çyksyn. 6 Surnaý ikinji gezek gysga çalynsa, onda günorta tarapdaky düelgeler ýola düsün. Düelgäni göçmelidigini aladýan surnaý gysga çalynsyn. 7 Emma jemagaty ýygnamak gerek bolanda, surnaý uzak çalynsyn, gysga çalynmasyn. 8 Surnaýlary ruhany Haruny ogullary çalsynlar. Bu sizi we geljekki nesilleriiz üçin ebedilik düzgün bolsun. 9 Ýurduyzda sizi üstüize çozan dumana gary söwee çykanyyzda, surnaýlar bilen söwe sazyny çaly. onda Hudaýyyz Reb sizi ýatlar we dumanlaryyzdan halas eder. 10 at günüizde, bellemeli baýramlaryyzda we her aýy baynda, ýakma we salamatlyk gurbanlygyyzy baynda surnaýlary çaly. Olar sizi Hudaýyyz Rebbi huzurynda ýatlanmagyyz üçin hyzmat eder. Men sizi Hudaýyyz — Rebdirin». |
| But this “image”, το ατ εκνα, is, as it were, a mystery, a gracious gift of God, and this mystery must not be rationalized – it must be apprehended by faith. From this point of view Epiphanius objects both to “Anthropomorphite” literalism in exegesis, and to the vagaries of Origenistic spiritualism. This was the position he maintained at Jerusalem in 394. He stated plainly his argument in his letter to John, which is extant only in the Latin translation of St. Jerome. Among various errors of Origen Epiphanius mentions also this: ausus est dicere perdidisse imaginem Dei Adam… et ilium solum factum esse ad imaginem Dei qui plasmatus esset ex humo. et uxorem ejus, eos vero qui conciperentur in utero et non ita nascerentur ut Adam Dei non habere imaginem. Against this “malicious interpretation” –maligna interpretation – Epiphanius quotes Scripture: an array of texts follows: Gen. 9:4 – 6 ; Ps. 38:7 ; Sap. 2:23; Jas. 3:8 – 9; I. Cor. 11:7. Epiphanius concludes: nos autem, dilectissime, credimus his quae locutus est Dominus, et scimus quod in cunctis hominibus imago Dei permaneat, ipsique concedimus nosse in qua parte homo ad imaginem Dei conditus est (Epiph. ad lohannem episcopum, inter epist. Hieronymi, LI, 6.15 – 7.4). It was but natural that John suspected Epiphanius of an “Anthropomorphite” leaning, as Jerome informs us: volens ilium suspectum facere stultissimae haereseos, Jerome recalls the dramatic clash between John and Epiphanius, and the sermon of John directed against the Bishop of Cyprus. Epiphanius had to restate his position: cuncta (inquit) quae locutus est colie gio fr at er, aetate films meus, contra Anthropomorphitarum haeresin, bene et fideliter locutus est, quae mea quoque damnantur voce; sed aequum est, ut quomodo hanc haeresin condemnamus, etiam Origenis perversa dogmata condemnemus (Hieron., Contra lohannem Hierosolymitanum, cap. II)». Although Jerome wrote some years after the events and his treatise is an emotional and venomous invective, we may assume that the position of Epiphanius was stated correctly. |
| In this case, the positioning of the space-time of the visible universe, with respect to that which is not actualized in physics (but that can be imagined), can be treated as an apophatic affirmation of space-time in its actuality with respect to its possible other being, for example, with respect to the worlds with different dimensions and different topological properties. Here, the relation between actual space-time and conceptual universes can be understood in ontological terms with reference to the idea of the basic diaphora in creation that we have already used several times. The conceptually different space-times cannot be treated as an ontological ground for the existence of empirical space and time; they are contingent on their own nonbeing in the uncreated realm. In other words, the MW-SAP-like explanation of the dimension of space n=3 as a selection out of the ensemble of the universes with different dimensions in the visible universe cannot achieve its goal, because it does not explain the nature of the space and time of the visible universe in hypostatic terms, that is, its purpose and end as conceived by the divine hypostasis before all ages. The appeal to the MW hypothesis can be treated as an unfortunate attempt to establish the relational nature of space and time with respect to its intelligible nonactuality. As we have argued earlier, the genuine result of this abstraction, from the actuality of space-time to conceptual potentialities, consists in the manifestation of the basic diaphora in creation, which points toward their common uncreated ground. What is important in Torrance’s arguments about the links between the incarnation and space-time is that space should be considered in the context of the divine hypostasis, that is, as the expression of the personal rationality of God in the world, accessible to us. One should not, however, understand that space and time and their possible theories represent the embodiment of the Logos of God, as was conjectured by W. |
| Indeed, while the strong AP “explains” why we do not observe universal characteristics incompatible with our existence, it does not explain why the observable characteristics of the universe, evidently compatible with our existence, take place at all. This is why, for a full-value strong anthropic explanation, certain additional assumptions are needed. These are provided by a world ensemble hypothesis, the indispensable part of the strong anthropic inference. The Many-World Hypothesis and Its Theological Interpretation The concept of many worlds sounds extremely exotic and nonscientific because it postulates something well beyond the boundaries of what is scientifically “known or knowable” at this time. 470 There is, however, a popular belief among some physicists and philosophers that it can be given some physically realistic meaning based on certain present-day cosmological ideas that depict the universe as a whole as consisting of many physically disjoint domains governed by different laws of their “physics.” 471 From this point of view, all possible “physical” arrangements can be realized in small universes comprising the ensemble. At least some universes will, in this case, be suitable for life and intelligence. Further, to explain why we find ourselves in such a well-designed universe – with its specific laws of nature, initial conditions, spatial topology, and so forth – we have to apply the strong AP, which makes our existence impossible in any of the universes that are designed in a different fashion, with no pattern for the fine-tuning necessary for the existence of human beings. If, then, one assumes in a physically realistic sense that the ontological existence of the ensemble of universes is of the same quality as the visible anthropic universe, then the modified statement of the strong AP (MW-SAP) that “an ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe” must be critically appraised, for it pretends to be a scientific statement that is subject to verification or falsification on purely scientific grounds. |
| 30-njy bap Ýakymly ysly tütetgi üçin sypa 1 «Ýakymly ysly tütetgi üçin akasiýa agajyndan sypa ýasa. 2 Onu uzynlygy-da, ini-de bir tirsek bolup, ol dörtburç bolsun. Onu beýikligi iki tirsek bolup, çykyp duran burçlary bilen bile tutu bir bitewi edilsin. 3 Onu depesini, ähli taraplaryny we burçlaryny sap altyna gapla. Onu da-töweregine altyndan jähek çek. 4 Onu üçin altyndan iki sany halka ýasa we olary jähegi aagyndan biri-birine gary edip, iki tarapyna dak. Sypany göterip gider ýaly, ol halkalardan syryklar geçir. 5 Syryklary akasiýa agajyndan ýasa we olary altyna gapla. 6 Sypany Äht sandygyny ýanyndan asylgy tutyny öünde ýerledir. Ony Äht sandygyny gapagyny dogrusynda goý, çünki Men ol ýerde seni bilen duuaryn. 7 Her gün irden Harun çyrany arassalap ýaglamaga gelende, bu sypany üstünde ýakymly ysly tütetgi ýaksyn. 8 Ol agam çyrany ýakmaga gelende-de eýle etsin. Siz bu ýakymly ysly tütetgini Meni huzurymda hemie nesilme-nesil etmelisiiz. 9 Bu sypada baga hiç hili tütetgi ýakylmasyn, ýakma gurbanlygy ýa-da galla sadakasy berilmesin we onu üstüne içgi sadakasy guýulmasyn. 10 Ýylda bir gezek Harun onu burçlarynda günäden saplanma gurbanlygyny bersin. Günäden saplanmak üçin öldürilen maly ganyny döküp, ýylda bir gezek nesillerboýy günä gurbanlygyny ber. Sypa Rebbe bagy edilendir». Mukaddes çadyr üçin salgyt 11 Reb Musa eýle diýdi: 12 «Ysraýyllary hasabyny almak üçin, ilat sanawyny geçir. Hasaba alnanlary hemmesi öz jany üçin Maa töleg tölesin. onda töleg töläp hasaba alnan adamlary bayna hiç hili bela inmez. 13 Ine, hasaba alnanlary tölemeli zady: mukaddes öýü resmi ölçegi boýunça ýarym ekel kümü. Bir ekel iki mysgala dedir. Maa sadaka hökmünde ýarym ekel kümü bersinler. 14 Hasaba alnanlary ýay ýigrimi we ondan ýokary bolan adamlary her biri u mukdarda Maa sadaka bersin. 15 Baýam, garybam ol ýarym ekeli tölesin. Töleg undan az-da bolmasyn, köp-de. Siz u sadakany Maa bereniizde, günäizden saplanarsyyz. 16 Ysraýyllary günälerinden saplanmagy üçin, olardan pul ýygna we ony Maa ýüz tutulýan çadyry hyzmaty üçin sarp et. Jany üçin töleýän tölegi Meni huzurymda ysraýyllara ýatlama bolar». |
| ondan so ol ýere Horma diýen at galdy. Bürünç ýylan 4 Onso ysraýyllar Hor dagyndan göçüp, Edom ýurduny dayndan aýlanyp ötmek üçin, Gyzyl dezi ýoly bilen gitdiler. Emma ýolda halk sabyrsyzlyk etdi. 5 Olar Hudaýy we Musany garysyna: «Bizi Müsürden çölde gyrylmagymyz üçin alyp gaýtdyyzmy? Bu ýerde ne çörek, ne-de suw bar. Bu tagamsyz iýmitden-de halys irdik» diýdiler. 6 Reb mua jogap edip, halky arasyna zäherli ýylanlar iberdi. Olary zäherinden ysraýyllardan köp adam öldi. 7 Halk Musany ýanyna gelip: «Rebbe we saa dil ýetirip, biz günä i etdik. Ýylanlary aramyzdan aýrar ýaly, Rebden dileg et» diýdiler. Musa halk üçin dileg etdi. 8 Reb Musa: «Bir zäherli ýylany ekilini ýasa we ony uzyn syrygy ujuna berkit. Ýylan çakan adam oa sereden badyna sagalar» diýdi. 9 Onso Musa sap bürünçden ýylan ýasap, ony syrygy ujuna berkitdi. Her bir ýylan çakan adam oa sereden badyna sagalyp, diri galardy. Mowaba tarap ýöri 10 Ysraýyllar göçdüler we gelip, Obotda dülediler. 11 Sora Obotdan göçüp, Mowaby gündogaryndaky çöllükde, Iýeý Abarymda dülediler. 12 Ol ýerden hem Zeret deresine göçüp bardylar. 13 Ol ýerden hem göçüp, Arnon jülgesini ayrsynda, amorlary serhedinden bäri ýaýylyp ýatan çöllükde dülediler. Arnon jülgesi Mowap bilen Amory arasyndan geçýän Mowaby serhedi bolup hyzmat edýärdi. 14-15 eýdip, «Rebbi söweleri kitabynda» Supa ülkesindäki Wahep galasy hakynda, Arnon derelerini ýapgytlary hakynda, Mowaby serhedini boýy bilen Ar galasyna çenli ýaýylýan bu dereleri ýapgytlary hakynda hem ýatlanylýar. 16 Ysraýyllar ol ýerden Beýere , Rebbi Musa: «Halky bir ýere ýygna, olara suw berjek» diýen guýusyna tarap ýola düdüler. 17 onda olar u aýdymy aýtdylar: «Suwlary josun, eý, guýy! Munu anyna aýdym aýdaly! 18 Patyalyk hasasy bilen, soltanlyk naýzasy bilen, batutanlary açdy bu guýyny, halk azadalary gazdy bu guýyny». Olar çöllükden Matana çenli, 19 Matanadan Nahalyýele çenli, Nahalyýelden Bamota, 20 Bamotdan bolsa çölü üstüne abanyp duran Pisga dagyny depesi bilen Mowap topragynda ýerleýän jülgä çenli gitdiler. |
| 1299 Мы приводим цитату по тексту: C, f 82 rb , l. 60 – 82 va , l. 8. Den. 588–589, дает вариант: ut productum et creatum [«будучи произведенным и сотворенным»]. [Этого текста придерживается Кох, LW II, p; 282, n. 53. Causatum – исправление Николая Кузанского в тексте C, где стояло tantum]. 1303 Exp. in Sap., in Archives.., IV, p. 287: «Ipse est actualitas et forma actuum omnium et formarum» [«Он есть актуальность и форма всех актов и форм»]. Ср. Exp. in Ex., цитир. в прим. 261 к гл. 2, раздел 12 (Путь всепревосходящего единения): Бог=Форма – божественная Сущность. 1304 См. выше, гл. 2, раздел 12 (Путь всепревосходящего единения), прим. 281: Esse=«Форма» «всемогущего» божественного действия, то есть «простирающегося на все, что есть или может быть». Ср. гл. 3, раздел 11 (Два уровня эссенциальности). 1306 Archives.., IV, p. 309. – Это выражение показалось двусмысленным преп. отцу Thery (ibidem, note 4). Ср. op. cit., III, p. 401: «Principium omnis formalis perfectionis, utpote primus actus formalis qui est esse» [«Начало всякого формального совершенства, а именно, первый формальный акт, то есть бытие»]. 1307 Например, все тексты, где отношение esse-ens уподобляется отношению albedoalbum [белизны и белого]. См. несколько ссылок в прим. 596 к гл. 3, раздел 11 (Два уровня эссенциальности).. – M. Muller-Thym, op. cit., p. 80, цитирует Роберта Гроссетеста и Альберта Великого, для которых Бог также есть «Форма», или формальная Причина, но не в гилеморфическом смысле, а в смысле причины-образца (можно также сослаться на представителей Шартрской школы). По мнению американского исследователя, Майстеру Экхарту не понравилось бы это «спасительное решение», если принять во внимание настойчивость, с какой он говорил о «непосредственности» esse. Это так, но Экхарт находит «спасительное решение» в аналогическом отношении к абсолютной Форме: здесь коренится различие между отношением ens к esse и отношением album к albedo. 1308 См. Exp. in Gen. (первая редакция), LW I, p. 74, n. 128 (=C, f o 13 rb , ll. |
| agyry çeker olar, aalyp birek-birege bakarlar, ýüzleri ýalyn dek lowlar. 9 Ine, Rebbi güni, ýowuz gün gelýär, ýer ýüzüni haraba öwürmek üçin, ondaky günäkärleri ýok etmek üçin, gazap bilen, gahar ody bilen gelýär. 10 Gökdäki ýyldyzlar, olary toplumy yyk bermezler; Gün dogsa-da garalar, Aý nuruny saçmaz. 11 Men dünýäni ýamanlygy üçin, etmileri üçin jezalandyraryn erbetleri; tekepbirleri gedemligini souna çykaryn, zalymlary ulumsylygyny peselderin. 12 Ynsanlary sap altyndan, adamlary Opyr gyzylyndan-da has gymmatly ederin. 13 onu üçin gökleri titrederin, Rebbi gahar ody lowlaýan güni, Hökmürowan Rebbi gazabyndan ýer ýüzi lerzana geler. 14 Kowalanýan jeren kimin, çopansyz goýunlar kimin, her kes öz halkyna, her kii öz ýurduna gaçar. 15 Tutulanlar naýzadan geçiriler, ele düen gylyçdan ötüriler. 16 Çagalary gözlerini alnynda parça-parça ediler, öýleri talanar, aýallaryna el urlar. 17 Ine, Men küme gyzmaýan, altyny söýmeýän madaýlary olara gary öjükdirýärin. 18 Ýa ýigitleri ýere ýazar ýaýlary, bäbeklere rehim etmezler, gözleri çagalary gaýgyrmaz. 19 Hudaý patyalyklary i gözeli bolan, babyllary buýsanjy bolan öhratly Babyly ýer bilen ýegsan eder Sodom hem Gomora ýaly. 20 Ol ýer ilatsyz galar, hiç haçan ýaaýy bolmaz onda, araplar çadyrlaryny dikmezler, çopanlar sürülerini bakmazlar. 21 Wagy haýwanlar ýatar ol ýerde, baýgudan dolar öýleri, düýegular mesgen tutar, geçiler bökjeklärler ol ýerde. 22 Saraýlarynda syrtlanlar, köklerinde agallar uwlaar; Babyly soy ýakyndyr, onu günleri uzak bolmaz. 14-nji bap Ýesirler gaýdyp gelýärler 1 Emma Reb Ýakuby nesline rehim eder, Ysraýyly ýene saýlar we olary öz ýurdunda ornadyrar. Kesekiler olara goulyp, ysraýyl halkyna birleerler. 2 Halklar ysraýyllary öz ýerlerine alyp gelerler. Ysraýyl halky Rebbi beren ýurdunda baga halklary özlerine gul-gyrnak ederler; özlerini ýesir edenleri ýesir edip, özlerine zulum edenleri üstünden agalyk sürerler. 3 Reb sizi yzayzdan, gaýgyyzdan we çeken agyr iiizden azat edende, 4 Babyl patyasyna u tymsaly aýdarsyyz: |
|
|
