Sean Gourley on the mathematics of war

譯者: Marie Wu 審譯者: Terry Lin

We look around the media, as we see on the news from Iraq,

媒體上報導有關伊拉克、

Afghanistan, Sierra Leone,

阿富汗、獅子山共和國的戰爭，

and the conflict seems incomprehensible to us.

對我們來說似乎是個難解的問題，

And that's certainly how it seemed to me when I started this project.

尤其是當我決定要開始進行這個專案的時候。

But as a physicist,

但是身為一個物理學家，

I thought, well if you give me some data,

我想只要你能提供一些資料，

I could maybe understand this. You know, give us a go.

我或許能找到解答，就讓我試一試也無妨。

So as a naive New Zealander

我這個天真的紐西蘭人就想，

I thought, well I'll go to the Pentagon.

我該去找五角大廈的人談談，

Can you get me some information?

看他們能不能給我一些資訊？

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

No. So I had to think a little harder.

當然不行。所以我得再想別的辦法。

And I was watching the news one night in Oxford.

有天晚上我在牛津看新聞的時候，

And I looked down at the chattering heads on my channel of choice.

我發現在螢幕下方有一行跑馬字，

And I saw that there was information there.

那就是我要的資訊了！

There was data within the streams of news that we consume.

我們每天在看新聞的時候，就有大量的資訊流過，

All this noise around us actually has information.

環繞在我們四週的噪音裡，其實隱藏了重要的資訊。

So what I started thinking was,

所以我開始想，

perhaps there is something like open source intelligence here.

或許有一些公開的資訊我可以取得，

If we can get enough of these streams of information together,

只要我取得足夠的資訊，

we can perhaps start to understand the war.

或許我們就可以開始瞭解戰爭。

So this is exactly what I did. We started bringing a team together,

我所做的，是組成一個團隊，

an interdisciplinary team of scientists,

由各種學者專家組成，包含科學家、

of economists, mathematicians.

經濟學家和數學家。

We brought these guys together and we started to try and solve this.

我們把這些人集合起來，開始嚐試解決這個問題。

We did it in three steps.

我們的工作分成三個步驟，

The first step we did was to collect. We did 130 different sources of information --

第一步是蒐集資料，我們的資料來源有130個，

from NGO reports to newspapers and cable news.

包含非營利組織的報告、報紙和有線電視新聞。

We brought this raw data in and we filtered it.

我們把資料蒐集起來，然後做初步的篩選，

We extracted the key bits on information to build the database.

我們把最精華的資訊輸入，以建立資料庫。

That database contained

資料庫裡包含有

the timing of attacks,

襲擊的時間、

the location, the size and the weapons used.

地點、規模及使用的武器。

It's all in the streams of information we consume daily,

這些資訊都在我們每天所吸收的新聞裡，

we just have to know how to pull it out.

問題只在於如何擷取。

And once we had this we could start doing some cool stuff.

所以當我們建立了資料庫，我們就可以開始做一些很酷的事了。

What if we were to look at the distribution of the sizes of attacks?

我們可不可以看看襲擊規模的分佈狀況？

What would that tell us?

那代表什麼意義？

So we started doing this. And you can see here

所以我們開始進行分析。

on the horizontal axis

你們可以在水平軸上

you've got the number of people killed in an attack

看到每次襲擊的死亡人數，

or the size of the attack.

也可稱之為襲擊的規模，

And on the vertical axis you've got the number of attacks.

垂直軸上有襲擊的次數，

So we plot data for sample on this.

當我們把資料點畫上去後，

You see some sort of random distribution --

你會看到類似隨機分佈的圖形 --

perhaps 67 attacks, one person was killed,

像有67次襲擊裡都有一個人死亡，

or 47 attacks where seven people were killed.

或是有47次襲擊裡有七個人死亡。

We did this exact same thing for Iraq.

我們為伊拉克戰爭做了同樣的分析，

And we didn't know, for Iraq what we were going to find.

我們一開始並不知道伊拉克戰爭的分析結果會是什麼，

It turns out what we found was pretty surprising.

但結果非常令人驚訝。

You take all of the conflict,

當我們把所有衝突、

all of the chaos, all of the noise,

混亂及噪音

and out of that

都排除在外，

comes this precise mathematical distribution

我們畫出了這個精確的數學分佈圖，

of the way attacks are ordered in this conflict.

告訴我們其實戰爭的襲擊是有規則的。

This blew our mind.

這讓我們大吃一驚。

Why should a conflict like Iraq have this

為什麼像伊拉克這種戰爭

as its fundamental signature?

會產生這種圖形？

Why should there be order in war?

戰爭怎麼會有規則可循？

We didn't really understand that.

我們真的不瞭解，

We thought maybe there is something special about Iraq.

我們認為或許伊拉克戰爭有其特殊之處，

So we looked at a few more conflicts.

所以我們又研究了其他幾個戰爭，

We looked at Colombia, we looked at Afghanistan,

我們研究了哥倫比亞、阿富汗

and we looked at Senegal.

和塞內加爾的戰事。

And the same pattern emerged in each conflict.

每一個戰事都有相同的圖形，

This wasn't supposed to happen.

不應該是這樣啊...

These are different wars, with different religious factions,

不同的戰爭有不同的宗教背景、

different political factions, and different socioeconomic problems.

不同的政治背景，就連社會經濟問題也不同，

And yet the fundamental patterns underlying them

但是他們所呈現出來的圖形

are the same.

卻是一樣！

So we went a little wider.

我們將範圍再度擴大，

We looked around the world at all the data we could get our hands on.

我們研究世界上所有的戰事，利用手邊所有可取得的資料，

From Peru to Indonesia,

從祕魯到印尼，

we studied this same pattern again.

我們又看到一樣的圖形，

And we found that not only

而且他們

were the distributions these straight lines,

不只具有相同的這條分佈直線，

but the slope of these lines, they clustered around

就連這條線的斜率 α ，

this value of alpha equals 2.5.

都集中在2.5這個值上下。

And we could generate an equation

因此我們得出一條方程式，

that could predict the likelihood of an attack.

讓我們得以預測某次襲擊的可能結果。

What we're saying here

我們所說的結果是指

is the probability of an attack killing X number of people

在像伊拉克這種戰爭中，

in a country like Iraq

某次襲擊所會造成 X 人死亡的機率，

is equal to a constant, times the size of that attack,

這個值相當於某個常數乘上該次襲擊的規模

raised to the power of negative alpha.

的負 α 次方，

And negative alpha is the slope of that line I showed you before.

這個負 α 就是先前提到的斜率。

So what?

這又代表什麼？

This is data, statistics. What does it tell us about these conflicts?

這些是資料、統計數據，他們能夠為我們解釋戰爭嗎？

That was a challenge we had to face as physicists.

這是身為物理學家所要面對的挑戰，

How do we explain this?

我們該怎麼解讀這些數據？

And what we really found was that alpha,

我們最後瞭解到，

if we think about it, is the organizational

α 就代表了

structure of the insurgency.

叛軍的組織結構。

Alpha is the distribution of the sizes of attacks,

雖然 α 所代表的是襲擊規模的分佈狀況，

which is really the distribution

但實際上卻代表

of the group strength carrying out the attacks.

發動襲擊一方的組織力量。

So we look at a process of group dynamics:

所以我們來看看組織的生態 --

coalescence and fragmentation,

集中或分散。

groups coming together, groups breaking apart.

這些組織合久必分，分久必合。

And we start running the numbers on this. Can we simulate it?

所以我們開始分析這些數據。我們是否能夠進行模擬？

Can we create the kind of patterns that we're seeing

我們是否能複製出類似

in places like Iraq?

伊拉克戰爭的圖形？

Turns out we kind of do a reasonable job.

漸漸地我們看到了一些眉目，

We can run these simulations.

我們可以進行模擬了，

We can recreate this using a process of group dynamics

我們可以依據組織生態來解釋

to explain the patterns that we see

世界各地的戰爭

all around the conflicts around the world.

所呈現出的圖形了。

So what's going on?

接下來呢？

Why should these different -- seemingly different conflicts

為什麼這些看似不同的戰事，

have the same patterns?

卻會呈現相同的圖形？

Now what I believe is going on is that

我相信這是因為

the insurgent forces, they evolve over time. They adapt.

叛軍的組織，會隨時間不斷地改變，

And it turns out there is only one solution

這是面對一個強而有力的敵人

to fight a much stronger enemy.

所必須採取的策略。

And if you don't find that solution as an insurgent force,

若身為一個叛軍組織而不瞭解這一點，

you don't exist.

這個叛軍組織就不會存活。

So every insurgent force that is ongoing,

所以只要叛軍還存在，

every conflict that is ongoing,

只要戰爭還在打，

it's going to look something like this.

就會出現這個圖形，

And that is what we think is happening.

這是我們的想法。

Taking it forward, how do we change it?

更進一步來說，我們該怎麼改變這個戰爭？

How do we end a war like Iraq?

我們該怎麼終止像伊拉克這種戰爭？

What does it look like?

這種戰爭裡的 α 值是多少？

Alpha is the structure. It's got a stable state at 2.5.

α 就是叛軍的組織結構，當戰事持續的時候，

This is what wars look like when they continue.

它趨向一個穩定值2.5。

We've got to change that.

我們得改變這個值，

We can push it up:

我們可以把它往上推升，

the forces become more fragmented;

叛軍的組織就會分裂，

there is more of them, but they are weaker.

叛軍組織變多了，但每一個都很弱；

Or we push it down:

或是我們可以把它往下降，

they're more robust; there is less groups;

叛軍就會變強，但是組織數目會減少，

but perhaps you can sit and talk to them.

你可能可以和他們坐下來進行談判。

So this graph here, I'm going to show you now.

所以，我要給你們看一張圖，

No one has seen this before. This is literally

以前還未曾發表過，

stuff that we've come through last week.

這是我們上星期才畫出來的圖。

And we see the evolution of Alpha through time.

我們可以在圖上看到 α 值的演變，

We see it start. And we see it grow up to the stable state

從開始逐漸增長到穩定值，

the wars around the world look like.

就像所有的戰爭一樣，

And it stays there through the invasion of Fallujah

就算在Falusia入侵時期也還算穩定，

until the Samarra bombings in the

直到06年伊拉克大選時，

Iraqi elections of '06.

Samarra炸彈攻擊事件

And the system gets perturbed. It moves upwards

才開始讓系統變得紊亂，往上發展

to a fragmented state.

成為分裂的叛軍組織，

This is when the surge happens.

接著美軍增援部隊進入伊拉克。

And depending on who you ask,

不管你問誰，

the surge was supposed to push it up even further.

大家都認為美軍增援會讓 α 值更往上推升，

The opposite happened.

但是 α 值往下降了，

The groups became stronger.

叛軍變得更強大，

They became more robust.

戰力也提升了。

And so I'm thinking, right, great, it's going to keep going down.

這時我在想，很好，時機對了！ α 值會持續往下降，

We can talk to them. We can get a solution. The opposite happened.

便能進行談判，共同找出解決的方法。但天不從人願，

It's moved up again. The groups are more fragmented.

α 值又往上推升了，叛軍組織又分裂了。

And this tells me one of two things.

這讓我發現，

Either we're back where we started

要不是美軍增援毫無幫助，

and the surge has had no effect;

讓我們退回原點；

or finally the groups have been fragmented to the extent

要不然就是叛軍已經分裂到不具破壞力，

that we can start to think about maybe moving out.

美軍可以撤出伊拉克了。

I don't know what the answer is to that.

我不知道答案是哪一個，

But I know that we should be looking at the structure of the insurgency

但我知道我們該持續觀察叛軍的組織，

to answer that question.

以便找出正確的答案。

Thank you.

謝謝各位。

(Applause)

(掌聲)