Why the universe seems so strange | Richard Dawkins

Translator: Oliver Nyberg Reviewer: Louise Frilund

My title: "Queerer than we can suppose: the strangeness of science."

Min overskrift er: "Mærkeligere end vi kan antage: Videnskabens besynderlighed"

"Queerer than we can suppose" comes from J.B.S. Haldane, the famous biologist,

"Mærkeligere end vi kan antage" kommer fra J.B.S. Haldane,

den berømte biolog, der sagde: "Se, min egen mistanke er

who said, "Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer

at universet ikke blot er mærkeligere end vi antager,

than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

men mærkeligere end vi kan antage.

I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth

Jeg fornemmer, at der er flere ting mellem himmel og jord

than are dreamed of, or can be dreamed of, in any philosophy."

end dem, der drømmes om, eller kan drømmes om, i nogen filosofi."

Richard Feynman sammenlignede nøjagtigheden af kvanteteorien -

Richard Feynman compared the accuracy of quantum theories --

eksperimentielle forudsigelser - til at opmåle Nordamerikas bredde

experimental predictions --

to specifying the width of North America to within one hair's breadth of accuracy.

op til en enkelt hårsbreddes præcision.

This means that quantum theory has got to be, in some sense, true.

Dette betyder, at kvanteteorien må være sand i en eller anden forstand.

Yet the assumptions that quantum theory needs to make

Og dog er antagelserne, kvanteteorien må gøre

in order to deliver those predictions are so mysterious

for at kunne levere disse forudsigelser, så mystiske

that even Feynman himself was moved to remark,

at Feynman selv blev bevæget til at bemærke,

"If you think you understand quantum theory,

"Hvis du tror, du forstår kvanteteori,

you don't understand quantum theory."

så forstår du ikke kvanteteori."

Den er så underlig, at fysikere ser sig nødsaget til at bruge en eller anden

It's so queer that physicists resort to one or another

paradoxical interpretation of it.

paradoksal fortolkning af den.

David Deutsch, der taler her, omfavner i Virkelighedens Stof,

David Deutsch, who's talking here, in "The Fabric of Reality,"

embraces the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory,

"mange verdener"-fortolkningen af kvanteteori,

because the worst that you can say about it

fordi det værste, man kan sige om den er,

is that it's preposterously wasteful.

at den er frygteligt uøkonomisk.

It postulates a vast and rapidly growing number of universes existing in parallel,

Den postulerer et enormt og hurtigt voksende antal af universer

der eksisterer parallelt - gensidigt uopdagelige undtagen igennem

mutually undetectable,

except through the narrow porthole of quantum mechanical experiments.

de kvantemekaniske eksperimenters snævre kighul.

Og det var Richard Feynman.

And that's Richard Feynman.

Biologen Lewis Wolpert

The biologist Lewis Wolpert believes

that the queerness of modern physics

mener, at den moderne fysiks mærkelighed,

is just an extreme example.

blot er et ekstremt eksempel. Videnskab, i modsætning til teknologi

Science, as opposed to technology,

does violence to common sense.

gør vold på sund fornuft.

Every time you drink a glass of water, he points out,

Hver gang du drikker et glas vand, bemærker han,

the odds are that you will imbibe at least one molecule

taler oddsene for, at du vil indsuge mindst ét molekyle

that passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell.

der har passeret igennem Oliver Cromwells blære.

(Laughter)

It's just elementary probability theory.

Det er blot elementær sandsynlighedsteori.

(Laughter)

The number of molecules per glassful is hugely greater

Antallet af molekyler per fyldte glas er enormt meget større

than the number of glassfuls, or bladdersful, in the world.

end antallet af fyldte glas, eller fyldte blærer, i verden -

And of course, there's nothing special about Cromwell or bladders --

og der er selvfølgelig ikke noget specielt ved Cromwell

you have just breathed in a nitrogen atom

eller blærer. Du har netop indåndet et nitrogenatom

that passed through the right lung of the third iguanodon

der passerede igennem den tredje iguanodons højre lunge

to the left of the tall cycad tree.

til venstre for the høje cycadetræ.

"Queerer than we can suppose."

"Mærkeligere, end vi kan antage."

What is it that makes us capable of supposing anything,

Hvad er det, der gør os i stand til at antage noget som helst,

and does this tell us anything about what we can suppose?

og fortæller dette os noget om, hvad vi kan antage?

Are there things about the universe that will be forever beyond our grasp,

Er der ting ved universet, der altid vil være

ud over vores fatteevne, men ikke ud over fatteevnen for en

but not beyond the grasp of some superior intelligence?

overlegen intelligens? Er der ting ved universet

Are there things about the universe

that are, in principle, ungraspable by any mind,

som er, principielt, ufattelige for noget sind,

however superior?

uanset dets overlegenhed?

The history of science has been one long series of violent brainstorms,

Videnskabens historie har været en lang serie

af voldsomme 'brainstorms', som efterfølgende generationer

as successive generations have come to terms with

er kommet overens med stigende grader af mærkelighed.

increasing levels of queerness in the universe.

i universet.

We're now so used to the idea that the Earth spins,

Vi er nu så vant til ideen om, at Jorden drejer -

rather than the Sun moves across the sky,

snarere end at solen bevæger sig hen over himlen - at det er svært for os at forstå

it's hard for us to realize

what a shattering mental revolution that must have been.

hvilken rystende mental revolution det må have været.

After all, it seems obvious that the Earth is large and motionless,

Det synes trods alt åbenlyst, at Jorden er stor og ubevægelig,

the Sun, small and mobile.

og at Solen er lille og mobil. Men det er værd at huske

But it's worth recalling Wittgenstein's remark on the subject:

Wittgensteins bemærkning om emnet.

"Tell me," he asked a friend, "why do people always say

"Sig mig", bad han en ven, "hvorfor siger folk altid, at det var naturligt

it was natural for man to assume that the Sun went 'round the Earth,

for mennesket, at antage, at solen drejede rundt om Jorden

rather than that the Earth was rotating?"

i stedet for, at Jorden roterede?"

And his friend replied, "Well, obviously,

Hans ven svarede, "Jamen, selvfølgelig blot fordi det ser ud som om,

because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth."

at solen drejer rundt om Jorden."

Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like

Wittgenstein svarede, "Jamen, hvordan ville det have set ud

if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?"

hvis det havde set ud som om, at Jorden roterede?"

(Laughter)

Science has taught us, against all intuition,

Videnskaben har lært os, imod al intuition,

that apparently solid things, like crystals and rocks,

at tilsyneladende massive ting, som krystaller og sten,

are really almost entirely composed of empty space.

i virkeligheden er sammensat næsten fuldstændigt af tomt rum.

And the familiar illustration is the nucleus of an atom

Og den bekendte illustration er, at kernen i et atom er en flue

is a fly in the middle of a sports stadium,

midt i et sportsstadion, og det næste atom

and the next atom is in the next sports stadium.

er i det næste sportsstadium

So it would seem the hardest, solidest, densest rock

Så det virker som om, at den hårdeste, mest massive, tætteste sten

is really almost entirely empty space,

i virkeligheden er næsten fuldstændigt tomt rum, kun afbrudt af bittesmå partikler

broken only by tiny particles so widely spaced they shouldn't count.

med så stort mellemrum, at de ikke burde tælle.

Why, then, do rocks look and feel solid and hard and impenetrable?

Hvorfor så, ses og føles sten massive og hårde og uigennemtrængelige?

As an evolutionary biologist, I'd say this: our brains have evolved

Som evolutionsbiolog, ville jeg sige dette: vores hjerner har udviklet sig

to help us survive within the orders of magnitude, of size and speed

for at hjælpe vores overlevelse inden for de størrelsesordener af størrelse og fart

which our bodies operate at.

som vores kroppe fungerer inden for. Vi udviklede os ikke til at navigere

We never evolved to navigate in the world of atoms.

i atomernes verden.

If we had, our brains probably would perceive rocks

Havde vi gjort det, ville vores hjerner sikkert opfatte sten

as full of empty space.

som fulde af tomt rum. Sten føles hårde og uigennemtrængelige

Rocks feel hard and impenetrable

to our hands, precisely because objects like rocks and hands

for vores hænder netop fordi objekter som sten og hænder

cannot penetrate each other.

ikke kan gennemtrænge hinanden. Derfor er det nyttigt

It's therefore useful

for our brains to construct notions like "solidity" and "impenetrability,"

for vores hjerner at konstruere indtryk som "soliditet" og "uigennemtrængelighed",

because such notions help us to navigate our bodies

fordi sådanne indtryk hjælper os med at navigere vores kroppe igennem

through the middle-sized world in which we have to navigate.

den mellemstore verden, som vi må navigere i.

Moving to the other end of the scale,

I den anden ende af skalaen blev vores forfædre aldrig nødt til

our ancestors never had to navigate through the cosmos

at navigere igennem kosmos ved hastigheder tæt på

at speeds close to the speed of light.

lysets. Havde de det, ville vores hjerner være meget bedre

If they had, our brains would be much better at understanding Einstein.

til at forstå Einstein. Jeg vil gerne give navnet "Mellemverden"

I want to give the name "Middle World" to the medium-scaled environment

til det mellemstore miljø, vi har udviklet

in which we've evolved the ability to take act --

evnen til at handle... -Det har ikke noget at gøre med Midgård.

nothing to do with "Middle Earth" --

Mellemverden.

Middle World.

(Laughter)

We are evolved denizens of Middle World,

Vi er udviklede beboere af Mellemverdenen, og det begrænser

and that limits what we are capable of imagining.

hvad vi er i stand til at forestille os. Man finder det intuitivt nemt

We find it intuitively easy to grasp ideas like,

at begribe ideer såsom, når en kanin bevæger sig ved de - nærmest

when a rabbit moves at the sort of medium velocity

mellemstore hastigheder, ved hvilke en kanin og andre Mellemverdens-objekter bevæger sig,

at which rabbits and other Middle World objects move,

and hits another Middle World object like a rock, it knocks itself out.

og rammer et andet Mellemverdens-objekt, som en sten, og slår sig selv omkuld.

May I introduce Major General Albert Stubblebine III,

"Lad mig introducere Major General Albert Stubblebine III,

commander of military intelligence in 1983.

leder af militær efterretning i 1983.

"...[He] stared at his wall in Arlington, Virginia, and decided to do it.

Han stirrede på sin væg i Arlington, Virginia, og besluttede at gøre det.

As frightening as the prospect was, he was going into the next office.

Skræmmende som udsigterne var, ville han gå ind i det tilstødende kontor.

He stood up and moved out from behind his desk.

Han rejste sig, og stillede sig ud fra sit skrivebord

'What is the atom mostly made of?' he thought, 'Space.'

"Hvad er atomet hovedsageligt lavet af?" tænkte han. "Mellemrum".

He started walking. 'What am I mostly made of? Atoms.'

Han begyndte at gå. "Hvad er jeg hovedsageligt lavet af? Atomer!"

He quickened his pace, almost to a jog now.

Han øgede sin gang, næsten til et løb nu.

'What is the wall mostly made of?'

"Hvad er væggen hovedsageligt lavet af? Atomer!

(Laughter)

'Atoms!'

All I have to do is merge the spaces.

Alt, jeg skal gøre er, at flette mellemrummene!"

Da hamrede General Stubblebine sin næse hårdt mod muren

Then, General Stubblebine banged his nose hard on the wall of his office.

i sit kontor. Stubblebine, der kommanderede 16.000 soldater,

Stubblebine, who commanded 16,000 soldiers,

was confounded by his continual failure to walk through the wall.

blev forvirret over sine forgæves forsøg på at gå igennem muren.

He has no doubt that this ability will one day be a common tool

Han er sikker på, at denne evne en dag vil være et almindeligt redskab

in the military arsenal.

i det militære arsenal. Hvem ville lægge sig ud med en hær

Who would screw around with an army that could do that?"

der kunne gøre det?" Dette er fra en artikel i Playboy,

That's from an article in Playboy,

which I was reading the other day.

som jeg læste i forleden dag.

(Laughter)

I have every reason to think it's true;

Jeg har al mulig grund til at tro, at det er sandt; jeg læste i Playboy,

I was reading Playboy because I, myself, had an article in it.

fordi jeg selv havde en artikel i det.

(Laughter)

Unaided human intuition, schooled in Middle World,

Ustøttet menneskelig intuition, oplært i Mellemverden,

finds it hard to believe Galileo when he tells us

finder det svært at tro Galileo, når han fortæller os,

a heavy object and a light object, air friction aside,

at et tungt objekt og et let objekt, bort set fra luftmodstanden,

would hit the ground at the same instant.

ville ramme jorden i samme øjeblik.

And that's because in Middle World, air friction is always there.

Og det er fordi, at i Mellemverden er luftmodstanden der altid.

If we'd evolved in a vacuum,

Havde vi udviklet os i et vakuum, ville vi forvente,

we would expect them to hit the ground simultaneously.

at de ramte jorden samtidigt. Hvis vi var bakterier,

If we were bacteria,

constantly buffeted by thermal movements of molecules,

der konstant blev serveret molekylernes termiske bevægelser,

it would be different.

ville det være anderledes,

But we Middle-Worlders are too big to notice Brownian motion.

men vi beboere af Mellemverden er for store til at bemærke Brownske bevægelser.

In the same way, our lives are dominated by gravity,

På samme måde er vores liv domineret af tyngdekraften,

but are almost oblivious to the force of surface tension.

men er nærmest ubekendt med overfladespænding.

A small insect would reverse these priorities.

Et lille insekt ville vende disse prioriteter om.

Steve Grand -- he's the one on the left,

Steve Grand - det er ham til venstre,

Douglas Adams is on the right.

Douglas Adams er til højre - Steve Grand, i sin bog,

Steve Grand, in his book, "Creation: Life and How to Make It,"

"Skabelse: Liv og hvordan man laver det" er direkte hånende

is positively scathing about our preoccupation with matter itself.

over vores optagethed af stof i sig selv.

We have this tendency to think that only solid, material things

Vi har denne tendens til at tro, at kun faste, materielle ting

are really things at all.

virkelig er ting overhovedet. Bølger af elektromagnetisk udsving

Waves of electromagnetic fluctuation in a vacuum seem unreal.

i et vakuum synes uvirkelige.

Victorians thought the waves had to be waves in some material medium:

Viktorianere mente at bølger måtte være bølger i et materielt medie -

the ether.

æteren. Men vi finder kun rigtigt stof komfortabelt fordi

But we find real matter comforting

only because we've evolved to survive in Middle World,

vi har udviklet os til at overleve i Mellemverden.

where matter is a useful fiction.

hvor stof er en brugbar fiktion.

A whirlpool, for Steve Grand, is a thing with just as much reality

En hvirvelstrøm er for Steve Grand en ting med lige så meget virkelighed

as a rock.

som en sten.

In a desert plain in Tanzania,

På en ørkenhede i Tanzania, i skyggen af vulkanen

in the shadow of the volcano Ol Doinyo Lengai,

Ol Donyo Lengai, er der en banke lavet vulkansk aske.

there's a dune made of volcanic ash.

The beautiful thing is that it moves bodily.

Det smukke er, at den bevæger sig fysisk

It's what's technically known as a "barchan,"

Den er, hvad der teknisk er kendt som en "barkan", og hele banken

and the entire dune walks across the desert in a westerly direction

går over ørkenen i en vestlig retning

at a speed of about 17 meters per year.

med en fart på omtrent 17 meter om året.

It retains its crescent shape and moves in the direction of the horns.

Den bibeholder sin halvmåneform og bevæger sig i hornenes retning.

What happens is that the wind blows the sand up the shallow slope

Det, der sker, er, at vinden blæser sandet

opad den bløde bakke på den anden side, og så

on the other side,

and then, as each sand grain hits the top of the ridge, it cascades down

som hvert sandkorn rammer toppen af højderyggen,

vælter det ned på den anden side af halvmånen

on the inside of the crescent,

and so the whole horn-shaped dune moves.

og således bevæger hele den horn-formede banke sig.

Steve Grand points out that you and I are, ourselves,

Steve Grand bemærker, at du og jeg selv er

more like a wave than a permanent thing.

mere lig en bølge end en permanent ting.

He invites us, the reader,

Han inviterer os, læseren, til at "tænke på en oplevelse

to think of an experience from your childhood,

fra din barndom - noget du tydeligt husker,

something you remember clearly,

something you can see, feel, maybe even smell,

noget du kan se, føle, måske endda lugte,

as if you were really there.

som om, du virkeligt var der.

After all, you really were there at the time, weren't you?

Du var der jo trods alt på det tidspunkt, var du ikke?

How else would you remember it?

Hvordan ville du ellers kunne huske det?

But here is the bombshell: You weren't there.

Men her kommer bomben: Du var der ikke.

Not a single atom that is in your body today

Ikke et eneste atom, der i dag er i din krop, var der

was there when that event took place.

da den hændelse fandt sted. Stof flyder fra sted til sted

Matter flows from place to place

and momentarily comes together to be you.

og finder sammen et øjeblik for at være dig.

Whatever you are, therefore,

Hvad end du er, altså, er du ikke de ting,

you are not the stuff of which you are made.

som du er lavet af.

If that doesn't make the hair stand up on the back of your neck,

Hvis det ikke får dine hår i nakken til at løfte sig,

read it again until it does, because it is important.

så læs det igen, indtil det gør, for det er vigtigt."

So "really" isn't a word that we should use with simple confidence.

Så "virkeligt" er ikke et ord vi bør anvende overmodigt.

If a neutrino had a brain,

Hvis en neutrino havde en hjerne,

which it evolved in neutrino-sized ancestors,

som den havde udviklet hos forfædre med neutrino-størrelse,

it would say that rocks really do consist of empty space.

ville den sige, at sten rent faktisk består næsten udelukkende af tomt rum.

We have brains that evolved in medium-sized ancestors

Vi har hjerner, der udvikledes i mellemstore forfædre,

which couldn't walk through rocks.

der ikke kunne gå igennem sten.

"Really," for an animal, is whatever its brain needs it to be

"Virkeligt", for et dyr, er hvad som helst, dets hjerne har brug for

in order to assist its survival.

for at kunne hjælpe dets overlevelse,

And because different species live in different worlds,

og fordi forskellige arter lever i forskellige verdener,

there will be a discomforting variety of "reallys."

vil der være en ubekvem variation indenfor virkeligheder.

What we see of the real world is not the unvarnished world,

Det, vi ser af den virkelige verden, er ikke den skinbarlige verden,

but a model of the world, regulated and adjusted by sense data,

men en model af verden, reguleret og justeret af sansedata,

but constructed so it's useful for dealing with the real world.

men konstrueret sådan, at den er nyttig for at kunne håndtere den virkelige verden.

The nature of the model depends on the kind of animal we are.

Modellens natur afhænger af, hvilket slags dyr, vi er.

A flying animal needs a different kind of model

Et flyvende dyr skal bruge en anden slags model

from a walking, climbing or swimming animal.

lige fra et gående, klatrende eller svømmende dyr.

A monkey's brain must have software capable of simulating

En abes hjerne skal have software, der er i stand til at simulere

a three-dimensional world of branches and trunks.

en tredimensional verden af grene og stammer.

A mole's software for constructing models of its world will be customized

En muldvarps software til at konstruere modeller af sin verden

vil blive tilpasset underjordisk brug.

for underground use.

A water strider's brain doesn't need 3D software at all,

Et skøjteløber-insekts hjerne har slet ikke brug for 3D software,

since it lives on the surface of the pond,

da den bor på dammens overflade

in an Edwin Abbott flatland.

i et "Edwin Abbott - fladland"

I've speculated that bats may see color with their ears.

Jeg har spekuleret i, at flagermus muligvis ser farve med ørerne.

The world model that a bat needs in order to navigate

Den verdensmodel, som en flagermus skal bruge for at navigere

through three dimensions catching insects

igennem tre dimensioner for at fange insekter

must be pretty similar to the world model that any flying bird --

må være temmelig tæt på den verdensmodel, som enhver flyvende fugl,

a day-flying bird like a swallow -- needs to perform the same kind of tasks.

en dagflyver som svalen, skal bruge for at udføre

den samme slags opgaver.

The fact that the bat uses echoes in pitch darkness

Det faktum, at flagermusen bruger ekkoer i bælgmørke

to input the current variables to its model,

for at indsætte de øjeblikkelige variable i sin model

while the swallow uses light, is incidental.

hvor svalen bruger lys, er tilfældigt.

Bats, I've even suggested, use perceived hues, such as red and blue,

Flagermus, har jeg endda foreslået, anvender farveindtryk, som rød og blå

as labels, internal labels, for some useful aspect of echoes --

som etiketter, interne etiketter, til et eller andet brugbart aspekt ved ekkoer -

perhaps the acoustic texture of surfaces, furry or smooth and so on --

måske den akustiske tekstur i overflader, glat eller behåret, og så videre,

in the same way as swallows or indeed, we, use those perceived hues --

på samme måde som svaler, eller endda vi selv, bruger disse

farveindtryk - rødhed eller blåhed etc. -

redness and blueness, etc. --

to label long and short wavelengths of light.

til at indikere lange og korte bølgelængder af lys.

There's nothing inherent about red that makes it long wavelength.

Der er intet iboende ved rød, der skaber dets lange bølgelængde.

The point is that the nature of the model is governed by how it is to be used,

Og pointen er, at modellens natur er bestemt af,

hvordan den skal bruges, snarere end af den involverede type af sansedata.

rather than by the sensory modality involved.

J.B.S. Haldane himself had something to say about animals

J. B. S. Haldane selv havde noget at sige om dyr,

whose world is dominated by smell.

hvis verden domineres af lugte.

Dogs can distinguish two very similar fatty acids, extremely diluted:

Hunde kan skelne imellem to meget ensartede fedtsyrer, i ekstremt fortyndet form:

caprylic acid and caproic acid.

caprylsyre og capronsyre.

The only difference, you see,

Den eneste forskel, ser I, er, at den ene har et ekstra par

is that one has an extra pair of carbon atoms in the chain.

kulstofatomer i kæden.

Haldane guesses that a dog would probably be able to place the acids

Haldane gætter på, at en hund sikkert ville kunne rangere syrerne

in the order of their molecular weights by their smells,

efter molekylær vægt blot ved deres lugt,

just as a man could place a number of piano wires

ligesom en mand kunne rangere et antal klaverstrenge

in the order of their lengths by means of their notes.

efter længde blot ved lyden af deres toner.

Now, there's another fatty acid, capric acid,

Se, der findes en anden fedtsyre, kaprinsyre,

which is just like the other two,

der er præcis som de to andre,

except that it has two more carbon atoms.

bort set fra, at den har to yderligere kulstofatomer.

A dog that had never met capric acid would, perhaps,

En hund, der aldrig havde stødt på caprinsyre, ville måske

have no more trouble imagining its smell

ikke have mere besvær med at forestille sig dets lugt, end vi ville have besvær

than we would have trouble imagining a trumpet, say,

med at forestille os for eksempel en trompet, der spillede en tone højere,

playing one note higher than we've heard a trumpet play before.

end vi før havde hørt en trompet spille.

Perhaps dogs and rhinos and other smell-oriented animals smell in color.

Måske lugter hunde og næsehorn og andre lugt-orienterede dyr

i farver. Og argumentet ville være

And the argument would be exactly the same as for the bats.

nøjagtigt det samme som for flagermus.

Middle World -- the range of sizes and speeds

Mellemverdenen - intervallet af størrelser og hastigheder,

which we have evolved to feel intuitively comfortable with --

som vi har udviklet os til at føle os intuitivt komfortable med -

is a bit like the narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum

er lidt som det snævre interval i det elektromagnetiske spektrum,

that we see as light of various colors.

som vi ser som lys i forskellige farver.

We're blind to all frequencies outside that,

Vi er blinde overfor alle andre frekvenser end det,

unless we use instruments to help us.

med mindre vi tager instrumenter til hjælp.

Middle World is the narrow range of reality

Mellemverdenen er det snævre interval af virkeligheden,

which we judge to be normal, as opposed to the queerness

som vi vurderer til at være normalt, i modsætning til mærkeligheden

of the very small, the very large and the very fast.

ved det meget lille, det meget store, og det meget hurtige.

We could make a similar scale of improbabilities;

Vi kunne lave en lignende skala over usandsynligheder;

nothing is totally impossible.

intet er totalt umuligt.

Miracles are just events that are extremely improbable.

Mirakler er blot hændelser, der er ekstremt usandsynlige.

A marble statue could wave its hand at us;

En marmorstatue kunne vinke til os; atomerne, der udgør

the atoms that make up its crystalline structure

dets krystalstruktur vibrerer alligevel allesammen frem og tilbage.

are all vibrating back and forth anyway.

Because there are so many of them,

Men fordi der er så mange af dem,

and because there's no agreement among them

og fordi, der ikke er nogen overensstemmelse imellem dem

in their preferred direction of movement,

over deres foretrukne bevægelsesretning, forbliver marmoren,

the marble, as we see it in Middle World, stays rock steady.

fra vores synspunkt i Mellemverdenen, stendød.

But the atoms in the hand could all just happen to move

Men atomerne i hånden kunne allesammen tilfældigvis bevæge sig

the same way at the same time, and again and again.

den samme vej på samme tidspunkt, igen og igen.

In this case, the hand would move,

I dette tilfælde ville hånden bevæge sig, og vi ville se den vinke til os

and we'd see it waving at us in Middle World.

i mellemverdenen. Oddsene imod det, er selvfølgelig så store,

The odds against it, of course, are so great

that if you set out writing zeros at the time of the origin of the universe,

at hvis man gav sig til at skrive nuller

ved universets begyndelse, ville man stadig ikke have

you still would not have written enough zeros to this day.

skrevet nok nuller den dag i dag.

Evolution in Middle World has not equipped us

to handle very improbable events; we don't live long enough.

Evolution i Mellemverdenen har ikke udstyret os til at håndtere

meget usandsynlige hændelser; vi lever ikke længe nok.

In the vastness of astronomical space and geological time,

Men i det astronomiske rums og den geologiske tids enorme udstrækning

that which seems impossible in Middle World

kan det, der synes umuligt i Mellemverdenen

might turn out to be inevitable.

vise sig at være uundgåeligt.

One way to think about that is by counting planets.

Een måde at tænke på det er at tælle planeter.

We don't know how many planets there are in the universe,

Vi ved ikke, hvor mange planeter, der er i universet,

but a good estimate is about 10 to the 20, or 100 billion billion.

men et godt estimat er omkring ti opløftet i tyvende eller 100 milliarder milliarder.

And that gives us a nice way to express our estimate of life's improbability.

Og det giver os en god måde at udtrykke vores estimat

over livets usandsynlighed.

We could make some sort of landmark points along a spectrum of improbability,

Man kunne sætte en slags landmærker

langs et spektrum af usandsynlighed, der måske ville ligne

which might look like the electromagnetic spectrum we just looked at.

det elektromagnetiske spektrum, vi netop har set på.

If life has arisen only once on any --

Hvis livet kun er opstået en enkelt gang -

life could originate once per planet, could be extremely common

- hvis livet kunne, jeg mener, livet kunne opstå een gang per planet,

kunne være ekstremt almindeligt, eller det kunne opstå een gang per stjerne

or it could originate once per star

or once per galaxy or maybe only once in the entire universe,

eller een gang per galakse, eller måske kun een gang i hele universet,

in which case it would have to be here.

i så fald måtte det være her. Og et sted deroppe

And somewhere up there would be the chance

that a frog would turn into a prince,

ville sandsynligheden være for, at en frø forvandlede sig til en prins

and similar magical things like that.

og lignende magiske ting som det.

If life has arisen on only one planet in the entire universe,

Hvis livet er opstået på kun een planet i hele universet,

that planet has to be our planet, because here we are talking about it.

så må den planet være vores planet, for her er vi og kan tale om det.

And that means that if we want to avail ourselves of it,

Og det betyder, at hvis vi vil benytte os af det,

we're allowed to postulate chemical events in the origin of life

har vi lov at postulere kemiske hændelser i livets opståen,

which have a probability as low as one in 100 billion billion.

der har sandsynligheder så lave som 1 til 100 milliarder milliarder.

I don't think we shall have to avail ourselves of that,

Jeg tror ikke, vi bliver nødt til at benytte os af det,

because I suspect that life is quite common in the universe.

for jeg formoder, at livet er ret almindeligt i universet.

And when I say quite common, it could still be so rare

Og når jeg siger ret almindeligt, kunne det stadig være så sjældent,

that no one island of life ever encounters another,

at en ø af liv aldrig støder på en anden,

which is a sad thought.

hvilket er en trist tanke.

How shall we interpret "queerer than we can suppose?"

Hvordan skal vi fortolke "Mere mærkeligt, end vi kan antage"?

Queerer than can in principle be supposed,

Mere mærkeligt end det, der i princippet kan antages,

or just queerer than we can suppose, given the limitations

eller bare mere mærkeligt end vi kan antage, givet begrænsningerne

of our brain's evolutionary apprenticeship in Middle World?

ved vores hjerners evolutionære lærlingeuddannelse i Mellemverdenen?

Could we, by training and practice,

Kunne vi, med træning og øvelse, løsrive os selv

emancipate ourselves from Middle World

fra Mellemverdenen og opnå en slags intuitiv,

and achieve some sort of intuitive as well as mathematical understanding

såvel som matematisk, forståelse af det meget lille

of the very small and the very large?

og det meget store? Jeg kender oprigtigt talt ikke svaret.

I genuinely don't know the answer.

I wonder whether we might help ourselves to understand, say, quantum theory,

Jeg gad vide, om vi kunne hjælpe os selv til forståelsen af, for eksempel

if we brought up children to play computer games

kvanteteori, hvis vi opdragede børn til at spille computerspil,

beginning in early childhood,

begyndende i den tidlige barndom, der havde en eller anden

which had a make-believe world of balls going through two slits on a screen,

fantasiverden med bolde, der gik igennem to sprækker i en skærm,

a world in which the strange goings-on of quantum mechanics were enlarged

en verden, hvori kvantemekanikkens sære hændelser

blev forstørret af computerens simulation,

by the computer's make-believe,

so that they became familiar on the Middle-World scale of the stream.

sådan, at de blev bekendte med dem i Mellemverdenens størrelsesorden.

And similarly, a relativistic computer game,

Og tilsvarende, et relativistisk computerspil, hvori

in which objects on the screen manifest the Lorentz contraction, and so on,

objekter på skærmen manifesterer Lorentz-transformationen, og så videre,

to try to get ourselves -- to get children into the way of thinking about it.

for at bringe os selv ind i tankegangen -

få børn ind i tankegangen.

I want to end by applying the idea of Middle World

Jeg vil slutte med at anvende ideen om Mellemverdenen

to our perceptions of each other.

på vores opfattelser af hinanden.

Most scientists today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind:

De fleste forskere i dag vedkender sig det mekanistiske syn på sindet:

we're the way we are because our brains are wired up as they are,

vi er på den måde, vi er, fordi vores hjerner er sat op, som de er;

our hormones are the way they are.

vores hormoner er på den måde, de er.

We'd be different, our characters would be different,

Vi ville være anderledes, vores personligheder ville være anderledes,

if our neuro-anatomy and our physiological chemistry were different.

hvis vores neuroanatomi og vores fysiologiske kemi var anderledes.

But we scientists are inconsistent.

Men vi forskere er inkonsistente. Hvis vi var konsistente,

If we were consistent,

our response to a misbehaving person, like a child-murderer,

skulle vores respons til en person med forkert opførsel, som en barnemorder,

should be something like:

være noget i stil med, "Denne enhed har en defekt komponent;

this unit has a faulty component; it needs repairing.

den skal repareres." Det er ikke sådan, vi siger.

That's not what we say.

What we say -- and I include the most austerely mechanistic among us,

Det, vi siger - og jeg inkluderer de strengest mekanistiske iblandt os,

which is probably me --

hvilket sikkert er mig -

what we say is, "Vile monster, prison is too good for you."

det, vi siger, er "Grumme monster, fængslet er for godt til dig!"

Or worse, we seek revenge, in all probability thereby triggering

Eller værre, vi ønsker hævn, hvilket med størst sandsynlighed udløser

the next phase in an escalating cycle of counter-revenge,

den næste fase i en eskalerende spiral af genhævn,

which we see, of course, all over the world today.

hvilket selvfølgelig er det, vi ser over hele verden i dag.

In short, when we're thinking like academics,

Kort sagt, når vi tænker som akademikere,

we regard people as elaborate and complicated machines,

betragter vi folk som gennemarbejdede og komplicerede maskiner,

like computers or cars.

som computere eller biler, men når vi vender tilbage til at være mennesker,

But when we revert to being human,

we behave more like Basil Fawlty, who, we remember,

opfører vi os mere som Basil Fawlty, der, som vi husker,

thrashed his car to teach it a lesson,

smadrede sin bil for at give den en lærestreg, da den ikke ville starte

when it wouldn't start on "Gourmet Night."

på gourmetaftenen.

(Laughter)

The reason we personify things like cars and computers

Grunden til, at vi personificerer ting som biler og computere er,

is that just as monkeys live in an arboreal world

at ligesom at aber bor i en arboreal verden

and moles live in an underground world

og muldvarpe bor i en underjordisk verden

and water striders live in a surface tension-dominated flatland,

og skøjteløber-insekter bor i et fladland domineret af overfladespænding,

we live in a social world.

bor vi i en social verden. Vi svømmer igennem et hav af mennesker -

We swim through a sea of people --

a social version of Middle World.

en social version af Mellemverdenen.

We are evolved to second-guess the behavior of others

Vi er udviklede til at anslå andres opførsel

by becoming brilliant, intuitive psychologists.

ved at blive geniale, intuitive psykologer.

Treating people as machines

At behandle folk som maskiner

may be scientifically and philosophically accurate,

er muligvis videnskabeligt og filosofisk korrekt,

but it's a cumbersome waste of time

men det er et besværligt tidsspilde,

if you want to guess what this person is going to do next.

hvis man gerne vil gætte, hvad denne person vil gøre som det næste.

The economically useful way to model a person

Den økonomisk brugbare måde at opstille et menneske

is to treat him as a purposeful, goal-seeking agent

er at behandle ham som en meningsfuld, målbevidst agent

with pleasures and pains, desires and intentions,

med glæder og sorger, ønsker og intentioner,

guilt, blame-worthiness.

skyldsfølelse, skyldsansvar.

Personification and the imputing of intentional purpose

Personificering og tillæggelsen af intentionelle formål

is such a brilliantly successful way to model humans,

er sådan en fantastisk succesfuld måde at opstille mennesker,

it's hardly surprising the same modeling software

at det næppe er overraskende, at det samme modeleringssoftware

often seizes control when we're trying to think about entities

ofte overtager kontrollen, når vi prøver at tænke på ting,

for which it's not appropriate, like Basil Fawlty with his car

for hvilke det ikke er passende, som Basil Fawlty med sin bil

or like millions of deluded people, with the universe as a whole.

eller som millioner af desillusionerede mennesker med universet som helhed.

(Laughter)

If the universe is queerer than we can suppose,

Hvis universet er mere besynderligt, end vi kan antage,

is it just because we've been naturally selected

er det så fordi, vi er blevet naturligt udvalgt til kun at antage det,

to suppose only what we needed to suppose

vi havde brug for at antage for at kunne overleve

in order to survive in the Pleistocene of Africa?

i Afrikas Pleistocæn?

Or are our brains so versatile and expandable that we can train ourselves

Eller er vores hjerner så alsidige og udvidelsesdygtige, at vi kan

træne os selv til at bryde ud af evolutionens kasse?

to break out of the box of our evolution?

Or finally, are there some things in the universe so queer

Eller, til slut, er der nogle ting i universet, der er så mærkelige

that no philosophy of beings, however godlike, could dream them?

at ingen skabningers filosofi, hvor guddommelige de end måtte være, kunne drømme dem?

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

Mange tak.