Why the universe seems so strange | Richard Dawkins

譯者: 黃友豪 . 審譯者: Geoff Chen

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

我的講題:「比我們所能想像的更離奇: 科學的不可思議」

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

「比我們所能想像的更離奇」 引自著名生物學家霍爾登 (J. B. S. Haldane)

他說道: 「我的個人猜想是,

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

宇宙不僅比我們想的離奇,

than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

而是比我們"能想"的更離奇。

I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth

我估計天地間的事物

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

比任何學說曾設想/能設想的還要多。」

費曼 形容量子理論之精確性 -

Richard Feynman compared the accuracy of quantum theories --

實驗測準 - 相當於釐定北美洲之跨度時

experimental predictions --

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

誤差不逾一絲毫髮.

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

意思是量子理論應該於某種意義上屬實

Yet the assumptions that quantum theory needs to make

然而, 量子理論在得出該推論前

in order to deliver those predictions are so mysterious

所需之假設卻又是如許深奧

that even Feynman himself was moved to remark,

以致於費曼亦不禁指出:

"If you think you understand quantum theory,

「若您以為自己懂量子理論,

you don't understand quantum theory."

您其實並不懂量子理論。」

真奇怪，物理學家作闡述的時候,

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

paradoxical interpretation of it.

竟都訴諸於這樣那樣的之悖論。

於此演說「現實結構」之 David Deutsch,

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

embraces the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory,

擁護籍以闡釋量子理論的「多宇宙論」,

because the worst that you can say about it

因為, 對此您充其量

is that it's preposterously wasteful.

只能數落其為浪費無度

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

它假設有極多數目激增之宇宙

它們同時並存 - 並且除了通過一個量子機動實驗之窄小孔道外

mutually undetectable,

except through the narrow porthole of quantum mechanical experiments.

互不察覺。

那是 Richard Feynman 之見解.

And that's Richard Feynman.

生物學家 Lewis Wolpert

The biologist Lewis Wolpert believes

that the queerness of modern physics

相信現代物理之奇怪

is just an extreme example.

只是一個極端例子。 科學, 有異於(純)技術,

Science, as opposed to technology,

does violence to common sense.

確實有違常理。

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

他指出, 每當您喝一杯水,

the odds are that you will imbibe at least one molecule

您同時亦可能飲下

that passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell.

一個曾流過 Oliver Cromwell 膀胱之水分子。

(Laughter)

It's just elementary probability theory.

這純粹是基本可能性.

(Laughter)

The number of molecules per glassful is hugely greater

每杯水的水分子量, 數目遠遠大於

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

世上杯量與膀胱量之數

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

再說，Crornwell 和 (他的) 膀胱當然都沒啥特別。

you have just breathed in a nitrogen atom

您剛剛吸入的一個氮原子

that passed through the right lung of the third iguanodon

曾從第三頭禽龍的右肺

to the left of the tall cycad tree.

轉到蘇鐵高樹上那頭的左肺去。

"Queerer than we can suppose."

「比我們所能想像的更離奇」

What is it that makes us capable of supposing anything,

是什麼讓我們能作「猜想」呢?

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

這說明了我們 [能猜想出甚麼] 來嗎?

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

宇宙中可有什麼事物

是永遠在我們掌握之外, 卻不在某些更高智能

but not beyond the grasp of some superior intelligence?

的掌握之外? 宇宙中可有什麼事物

Are there things about the universe

that are, in principle, ungraspable by any mind,

是, 原則上, 無論多高明的智慧

however superior?

亦無從掌握的呢?

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

科學歷史是一系列悠長的

劇烈腦震盪 (集思廣益), 後繼的新生代

as successive generations have come to terms with

已逐漸接受宇宙中

increasing levels of queerness in the universe.

確有愈來愈多的離奇不解。

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

現在我們都已太清楚是地球繞著太陽在轉

rather than the Sun moves across the sky,

並非太陽於天空中劃過 - 對此,我們實在難於理解

it's hard for us to realize

what a shattering mental revolution that must have been.

(當時) 會是一種多震撼的思想革命啊.

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

畢竟, 表面上明明是地球大喇喇地待著

the Sun, small and mobile.

而小小的太陽在移動。 值得玩味的是

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

Wittgenstein 論及此題目時所說過的話:

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

「告訴我, 」他問一個朋友, 「為何人們總說,

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

日繞地轉是人的自然構想

rather than that the Earth was rotating?"

而非地繞日轉呢?

And his friend replied, "Well, obviously,

他的朋友答說:「這個嗎, 看來明明就是

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

太陽繞著地球在轉喔。」

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

Wittgenstein 答道: 「呃，若『看來像是地球在轉』

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

會是如何呢? (眾笑)♫

(Laughter)

Science has taught us, against all intuition,

科學讓我們曉得, 雖則與直覺相悖,

that apparently solid things, like crystals and rocks,

但那些表面上堅實的的物體, 比如水晶和石頭

are really almost entirely composed of empty space.

確是幾乎全由空間所構成。

And the familiar illustration is the nucleus of an atom

最熟悉的一種解說是: 一個原子的核

is a fly in the middle of a sports stadium,

就好比大球場中間的一隻小蒼蠅

and the next atom is in the next sports stadium.

而次一枚原子, 已遠在另一個大球場.

So it would seem the hardest, solidest, densest rock

故此, 看來堅實緊密之石塊

is really almost entirely empty space,

原來幾乎完全是由細小微粒所分隔之空間,

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

其間距是如此疏遠, 以至都可忽略不計.

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

這樣說來, 為何石塊看著摸著又是那麼堅硬不透呢?

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

作為一個演化生物學家, 我會這麼說: 我們的腦袋是按如何

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

有助於我們於某個大小及速度的範圍內

which our bodies operate at.

活動而演化。我們並未變成

We never evolved to navigate in the world of atoms.

可於原子世界中漫游♫

If we had, our brains probably would perceive rocks

若有的話, 我們的腦袋可能會將石頭理解為

as full of empty space.

空空洞洞。石頭在我們的手裡感覺堅實不透

Rocks feel hard and impenetrable

to our hands, precisely because objects like rocks and hands

正正由於像石頭和手等物體

cannot penetrate each other.

互不穿透。才能讓

It's therefore useful

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

我們的腦袋構想出「堅實」和「不透」之觀念.

because such notions help us to navigate our bodies

因為這些觀念讓我們的身體能夠

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

於身處的「中世度」裡活動。

Moving to the other end of the scale,

移向於尺度的另一端, 則我們的祖先根本無須

our ancestors never had to navigate through the cosmos

以近光高速作宇航,

at speeds close to the speed of light.

若他們有必要的話, 我們的頭腦就

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

更好明白愛因斯坦了。 我想以「中世度」

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

稱呼這中階環境 - 於其中我們已演化出生活能力。

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

這跟「中土大陸」無關.

nothing to do with "Middle Earth" --

是 「中世度」. (哄笑)

Middle World.

(Laughter)

We are evolved denizens of Middle World,

我們乃經演化入籍「中世度」的僑民, 這限制了

and that limits what we are capable of imagining.

我們想像所及, 直覺上您會覺得很容易

We find it intuitively easy to grasp ideas like,

掌握觀念如:

when a rabbit moves at the sort of medium velocity

當兔子以 「一般免子和其他中世度物體運動之速度」 走動

at which rabbits and other Middle World objects move,

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

然後跟中世度裡另一個物體如石頭碰上的話, 它將被撞倒昏掉。

May I introduce Major General Albert Stubblebine III,

讓我介紹一下史達柏拜恩三世少將

commander of military intelligence in 1983.

1983年之軍事情報指揮官

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

他於維吉尼亞州的阿靈頓,盯著自己房牆,並決定要幹上了

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

有多驚人, 可想而知 - 他要穿越至隔壁辦公室呢.

He stood up and moved out from behind his desk.

他站起, 從檯後走出來

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

「原子主要由啥構成?」 他在想,「是空間」.

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

他開始行動,「我主要由啥構成?」,「是原子」

He quickened his pace, almost to a jog now.

他加快腳步, 幾乎在小跑了.

'What is the wall mostly made of?'

「這牆主要由啥構成?」,「也不就是原子嘛」.

(Laughter)

'Atoms!'

All I have to do is merge the spaces.

「我只需將所有空間融合。」

就這樣, 少將狠狠地讓鼻子扣上辦公室的牆去

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

史達柏拜恩, 一個萬六士兵之統帥,

Stubblebine, who commanded 16,000 soldiers,

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

為總是穿不過牆而困感不已

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

他毫不懷疑有一天這將成為軍火庫裡一件普通武器

in the military arsenal.

誰敢跟會這個 (穿牆過壁) 的軍隊過不去?

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

這是《花花公子》一篇文章

That's from an article in Playboy,

which I was reading the other day.

我前兩天看時讀到的。 (哄笑)®

(Laughter)

I have every reason to think it's true;

我有充份理由相信此文之真確性; 我那天翻《花花公子》

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

因為裡頭登了我自己的一篇文。 (哄笑)

(Laughter)

Unaided human intuition, schooled in Middle World,

在「中世度」裡練就之人類直覺, 若無其他協助

finds it hard to believe Galileo when he tells us

難以相信伽理略所言:

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

若撇除磨擦阻抗, 下墜物不論輕重

would hit the ground at the same instant.

都會同時觸地。

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

那是因為於「中世度」裡, 空氣阻力經常存在.

If we'd evolved in a vacuum,

倘若我們是乃於真空中演化過來, 就(自然)會預期

we would expect them to hit the ground simultaneously.

它們於同一刻觸地。 又假若我們是

If we were bacteria,

constantly buffeted by thermal movements of molecules,

不斷讓粒子熱動流撞擊的細菌

it would be different.

情況就不一樣了,

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

但我們這些「中世度」住民太大了, 難以察見布朗(微粒子)運動。

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

同樣地, 我們的生活受引力支配

but are almost oblivious to the force of surface tension.

卻又幾乎對表面張力眊然不察。

A small insect would reverse these priorities.

一隻小昆蟲卻會將這先後倒序。

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

Steve Grand - 左邊的那位

Douglas Adams is on the right.

右邊的那位是 Douglas Adams -- Steve Grand 在他的書

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

《創造: 生命和如何創生》中, 嚴厲抨擊

is positively scathing about our preoccupation with matter itself.

我們對事物本身總是先入為主.

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

我們傾向只將硬梆梆的物質視為

are really things at all.

僅有實體。 於真空中跌宕起伏的電磁波

Waves of electromagnetic fluctuation in a vacuum seem unreal.

卻顯得不實在。

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

維多利亞時期的人總認為波必須載存於某種物質介體裡 -

the ether.

以太。 但我們對實物感到惬意是因為

But we find real matter comforting

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

我們是經過演化變成適合於「中間世界」存活,

where matter is a useful fiction.

(在裡面)「物體」是很管用之設想

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

對史提夫.格蘭特來說, 一股漩渦

as a rock.

有著跟

In a desert plain in Tanzania,

坦尚尼亞沙漠平原上一塊石塊的同等實在。

in the shadow of the volcano Ol Doinyo Lengai,

於倫蓋火山 (Ol Doinyo Lengai) 之陰影下有個火山灰形成之小丘

there's a dune made of volcanic ash.

The beautiful thing is that it moves bodily.

優美的是它整體移動著

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

那正是正式稱作「新月丘」的, 整個山丘

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

向西方橫越沙漠

at a speed of about 17 meters per year.

速度是每年17公尺。

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

它維持著其弦月形態並向著(非洲之)角移動。

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

事實是,風會將沙吹過

沙丘另一端的淺坡, 接著

on the other side,

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

每顆到挺達山脊的沙粒,

就會流瀉注入山丘之內

on the inside of the crescent,

and so the whole horn-shaped dune moves.

整號角形山丘就是這樣一直往前走。

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

史提夫指出, 你我本身

more like a wave than a permanent thing.

就更像一個浪, 而不是一個恒長不變的東西

He invites us, the reader,

他邀請我們, 讀者, 去回想

to think of an experience from your childhood,

一段童年體驗, 某些您清晰記得,

something you remember clearly,

something you can see, feel, maybe even smell,

某些您能見得, 能觸及, 甚至可嗅到,

as if you were really there.

好比您此刻正處身其中的情況。

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

說來, 您確曾身處其中嚒?

How else would you remember it?

若不, 您是如何記起?

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

我要向您投彈了: 您當時並不在場!

Not a single atom that is in your body today

在事件發生時,

was there when that event took place.

您身上的所有原子不曾出現於當下。物質流徙

Matter flows from place to place

and momentarily comes together to be you.

並暫時聚合形成「您」而已。

Whatever you are, therefore,

故此, 無論您現在是什麽, 都不再是

you are not the stuff of which you are made.

組成那之前的您的「餡料」了。

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

若這還不讓您毛管直豎,

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

多讀一遍直至您看懂吧, 因為實在太重要了!

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

所以,且別隨便說出 「事實上」 這詞

If a neutrino had a brain,

假若一顆微中子有

which it evolved in neutrino-sized ancestors,

一個由微中子祖先演化而來之腦袋,

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

它會說石頭 「事實上」由「空間」所構成

We have brains that evolved in medium-sized ancestors

我們卻是有由「中形祖先」演化而來的腦袋,

which couldn't walk through rocks.

無法從石頭穿過去

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

對於動物來說, 所謂「真實」 就是其按腦袋所要求,

in order to assist its survival.

的維生指涉

And because different species live in different worlds,

由於不動物種生活於不同(大小領域)世界之中,

there will be a discomforting variety of "reallys."

確有某些「現實」並不讓我們感到愜意。

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

我們所見之現實世界並非原型

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

而是一個透過調適感知數據而建構,

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

並賴以有效處理現實之模式。

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

模式之性質取決於我們是那一種動物

A flying animal needs a different kind of model

飛翔的動物需要一種

from a walking, climbing or swimming animal.

有異於走動、爬動或游動物種的模式

A monkey's brain must have software capable of simulating

猿猴的腦必須有軟體

a three-dimensional world of branches and trunks.

模擬樹枝樹幹的三度空間

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

鼴鼠建構其世界的軟體

當然是為「地底應用」而量身訂做的

for underground use.

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

水黽的腦袋完全無需3D軟體,

since it lives on the surface of the pond,

因為牠只於生活於

in an Edwin Abbott flatland.

Edwin Abbott 平原的湖面上

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

我曾推想蝙蝠或許能以聽覺分辨顏色

The world model that a bat needs in order to navigate

蝙蝠賴以活動往來,

through three dimensions catching insects

捕食昆蟲的世界模式

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

必然跟飛鳥的世界模式頗相近,

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

一隻於日間飛行的鳥如麻雀, 亦要

做同樣的工夫

The fact that the bat uses echoes in pitch darkness

蝙蝠於漆黑中利用回聲

to input the current variables to its model,

以輸入當下之變數

while the swallow uses light, is incidental.

麻雀則用光, 兩者皆偶發

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

我甚至提出, 蝙蝠利用意識到的色彩, 像紅和藍

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

作標記, 作部分回聲可用處的「內標」 -

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

例如平面的「聲質」、 毛狀、平滑...等等。

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

麻雀, 以至我們亦確實以同樣方法

去感識顏色 - 紅彩, 藍彩...以此類推 -

redness and blueness, etc. --

to label long and short wavelengths of light.

為長短光波作標記。

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

紅色並無任何拜必須為長光波之本質

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

要點是模式之性質取決於

其被如何應用, 而非其感官形態.

rather than by the sensory modality involved.

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

霍爾登有些

whose world is dominated by smell.

關於那些被嗅覺支配其世界之動物的見解:

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

即使經過極端稀釋, 狗隻仍能分辨兩種極接近之脂肪酸:

caprylic acid and caproic acid.

辛酸和已酸。

The only difference, you see,

唯一分野, 是兩者其一。

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

(分子)鍊上多出一對碳分子。

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

霍爾登估計狗隻以嗅覺, 將兩種酸

in the order of their molecular weights by their smells,

按其分子重量依次排序,

just as a man could place a number of piano wires

正如一個人將一組琴弦

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

按其音高排好長短次序。

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

現在, 再有另一種叫癸酸

which is just like the other two,

跟前兩種基本上一樣,

except that it has two more carbon atoms.

只是多出兩個碳分子。

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

一頭狗即若從未碰過癸酸, 亦能

have no more trouble imagining its smell

想像出其氣味, 情況不會難於我們

than we would have trouble imagining a trumpet, say,

聽過吹號後想像

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

吹出比剛聽過的高一個音。

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

或許狗隻犀牛和其他氣味主導的動物

是在嗅「色」。 這樣說來理論就

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

就跟蝙蝠的情況無異了。

Middle World -- the range of sizes and speeds

我們經演化適應之中間世界

which we have evolved to feel intuitively comfortable with --

- 其範圍裡的大小和速度

is a bit like the narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum

有點像我們於窄幅電磁譜上

that we see as light of various colors.

將光看成不同顏色

We're blind to all frequencies outside that,

除非借助儀器,

unless we use instruments to help us.

否則譜外頻率我們根本就看不到。

Middle World is the narrow range of reality

我們將中間世界裡的片面現實認定為正常

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

超小/超巨和超速世界的一切

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

則相對看成詭異。

We could make a similar scale of improbabilities;

我們可以為「不可能性」作個類似量度

nothing is totally impossible.

沒有甚麼是完全不可能的。

Miracles are just events that are extremely improbable.

奇蹟可說成是「極端不可能的事件」而矣。

A marble statue could wave its hand at us;

一個石像可能正在向我們招手 - 組成其

the atoms that make up its crystalline structure

晶體結構的原子確是在前後顛動

are all vibrating back and forth anyway.

Because there are so many of them,

由於數量極多,

and because there's no agreement among them

其中又並沒一致之

in their preferred direction of movement,

作用方向, 之所以我們眼見的

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

是「中間世界」裡一尊穩坐著的石像。

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

可其手裡的原子卻正

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

同時照樣反覆在移動。

In this case, the hand would move,

按此, 手會有動作, 我們會看到它向我們揮動。

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

但在「中間世界」裡跟這相悖之種種是如許不計其數,

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,

多得好比您由宇宙起始一刻開始畫 0

到此時此刻

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

您還沒有畫上足夠的 0 那樣多。

Evolution in Middle World has not equipped us

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

於中間世界裡的演化並沒有裝備我們去處理

極度不可能的情境; 我們根本活得不夠久。

In the vastness of astronomical space and geological time,

於巨大無垠之天際和時空裡

that which seems impossible in Middle World

那些於「中間世界」看來不可能的

might turn out to be inevitable.

可都變得理所當然了。

One way to think about that is by counting planets.

考量這個的一個方法是點數星星.

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

我們不知道宇宙中確實總共有多小行星,

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

合理估計是10的20次方, 或一億萬億顆.

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

這可算是我們對於生命之「不可能性」

一個不錯的表述。

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

這可能會於看來像電磁波譜

的「不可能性譜表」 上

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

留下某些記號吧。

If life has arisen only once on any --

若生命只曾冒起一次

life could originate once per planet, could be extremely common

我意思是, 生命若於每顆行星都冒起一次

則可算是極尋常, 但若生命的出現乃每顆恆星,

or it could originate once per star

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

或每個星系, 甚或整個宇宙的單一事件,

in which case it would have to be here.

則我們相信正正身處其中。而天上某處

And somewhere up there would be the chance

that a frog would turn into a prince,

青蛙可變成王子

and similar magical things like that.

種種類似奇事都可以發生

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

若生命於整個宇宙中只曾於一個行星冒起

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

那行星就是我們的地球, 因為我們正在此討論其事 !

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

意思是若我們作如是想

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

則我們大可就生命起始之化學情狀作出假設

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

其可能性低於億萬億分之一

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

我並不認為我們該這樣做

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

因為我估計宇宙中生機處處

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

我雖說普遍, 但一個生命島跟另一個遇上的機會

that no one island of life ever encounters another,

卻仍是極其稀有的。

which is a sad thought.

這想起來真有點悲傷

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

「比我們能想像的更離奇」該如何詮釋呢?

Queerer than can in principle be supposed,

比「基本上能想像的」離奇,

or just queerer than we can suppose, given the limitations

或「比我們有限的大腦所能想像的更奇」

of our brain's evolutionary apprenticeship in Middle World?

(我們經演化所得「中間世界」大腦)

Could we, by training and practice,

我們可通過訓練和實習

emancipate ourselves from Middle World

擺脫中間世界之囿限, 而獲取對「極少和極大」之某些直覺的,

and achieve some sort of intuitive as well as mathematical understanding

甚或數學算計的理解麼?

of the very small and the very large?

我真的不知道答案。

I genuinely don't know the answer.

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

我懷疑我們是否可幫助自己瞭解, 譬如說,

if we brought up children to play computer games

量子理論,

beginning in early childhood,

方法是以從少培養孩子玩一些

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

有波波穿梭於裡二維虛擬世界的電腦遊戲

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

其中量子力學的種種奇怪活動

於電腦的虛擬世界中被放大

by the computer's make-believe,

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

於是他們(即使)於中間世界的流程上亦逐漸(對量子微世道)熟悉起來。

And similarly, a relativistic computer game,

同樣地, 一個於屏幕上展示「勞侖茲收縮變換」的

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

「相對論」電玩, 依此類推,

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

以嘗試將我們引帶至該種思考方式 -

領帶孩子進入(積極)思考的路徑上

I want to end by applying the idea of Middle World

我想將 「中間世界」的觀點

to our perceptions of each other.

應用於我們的相互觀照上

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

現時大部分科學家都認同理智乃機械性的看法:

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

我們的所有舉措思路, 都早已鋪設於我們的腦袋中

our hormones are the way they are.

我們(體內)的荷爾蒙亦不外如是(種種化學激素)

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

我們的神經結構或生理化學若有所不同,

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

我們就是不一樣的人, 有不一樣的性格了.

But we scientists are inconsistent.

但我們科學家並不一致, 若是的話,

If we were consistent,

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

那我們對一個, 譬如謀殺兒童犯的反應,

should be something like:

就應該像是, 這單位有個壞掉了的部件,

this unit has a faulty component; it needs repairing.

要修理處置了。 我們並不這樣說。

That's not what we say.

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

我們是說 - 我將我們當中持最嚴肅機械論的包括在內,

which is probably me --

那個大可能正是我本人 -

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

我們會說的是, 「惡魔, 監禁實在太便宜你了」

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

甚或更糟, 我們會圖謀報復, 以致極可能觸發

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

下一波的升級循環報復,

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

這種現象於當今世界觸目皆是。

In short, when we're thinking like academics,

簡言之, 當我們像學者一樣地思考時,

we regard people as elaborate and complicated machines,

我們將人看成精密複雜的機體,

like computers or cars.

像電腦和汽車一樣, 但當我們恢復人性立場時

But when we revert to being human,

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

我們就變得更像 Basil Fawlty, 我們都記得

thrashed his car to teach it a lesson,

他在《美食夜》—片裡, 將開不動的車子砸了

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

為要給它一個教訓 ! (哄笑)

(Laughter)

The reason we personify things like cars and computers

我們之所以將車和電腦等物件擬人化

is that just as monkeys live in an arboreal world

就正如猴子活在樹上

and moles live in an underground world

鼴鼠活於地下

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

大水黽活在受制於表面張力的一種平面 (指水面)

we live in a social world.

我們則活在社區, 於人海中游過 -

We swim through a sea of people --

a social version of Middle World.

一種群居模式的中間世界

We are evolved to second-guess the behavior of others

因著總要猜度其它人的行為表現

by becoming brilliant, intuitive psychologists.

我們都演化成精明而深具具覺的心理專家。

Treating people as machines

將人看作機械

may be scientifically and philosophically accurate,

或許於科學及哲理而言俱屬正確,

but it's a cumbersome waste of time

但這將讓要推想人家下一步將幹啥的事兒

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

變得費時之極.

The economically useful way to model a person

要將一個人扼要定位

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

是視之為一個具目的, 有所求,

with pleasures and pains, desires and intentions,

有喜有悲, 有想望,

guilt, blame-worthiness.

罪疚, 可責性,

Personification and the imputing of intentional purpose

人格化及歸因於有意圖

is such a brilliantly successful way to model humans,

是描模人類的妙法,

it's hardly surprising the same modeling software

難怪同一個想像方式

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

經常於我們設想不相容實體

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

如 [巴素和他的車] 時就作主導了

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

[千百萬惑民相對於這宇宙] 亦如是. (哄笑)

(Laughter)

If the universe is queerer than we can suppose,

若宇宙真的是比我們能想像的更離奇詭異,

is it just because we've been naturally selected

那只是因為我們是經由物競天擇所變成

to suppose only what we needed to suppose

只利便我們於「更新世時期」 的非洲存活

in order to survive in the Pleistocene of Africa?

的需要作想像?

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

還是我們的腦袋實在太靈太活以至我們可

可訓練自己突破演化的框框?

to break out of the box of our evolution?

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

又或, 最後, 宇宙中可有些甚麼是離奇到

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

任何人, 無論多神, 其思想亦無從想像?

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

謝謝各位。