Why does the universe exist? | Jim Holt | TED

譯者: YuFang Liu 審譯者: Hada Fong Ha Ieong

Why does the universe exist?

為什麼宇宙存在？

Why is there — Okay. Okay. (Laughter)

為什麼—好吧。好吧。（笑聲）

This is a cosmic mystery. Be solemn.

這是個宇宙的奧秘。是莊嚴的。

Why is there a world, why are we in it,

為什麼會有一個世界? 為什麼我們存在在這世界裡?

and why is there something rather than nothing at all?

為什麼會有物質存在 而不是全然的一切皆空？

I mean, this is the super ultimate "why" question?

我的意思是，這是一個超級終極的「為什麼」問題？

So I'm going to talk about the mystery of existence,

所以我將探討有關存在的奧秘，

the puzzle of existence,

存在的謎題，

where we are now in addressing it,

這是我們現在正要解決的，

and why you should care,

以及為什麼你應該關注的，

and I hope you do care.

而我希望你真的會關心的。

The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said that

哲學家亞瑟‧叔本華說過，

those who don't wonder about the contingency of their existence,

那些不懷疑他們存在的偶然性，

of the contingency of the world's existence,

與世界存在的偶然性，

are mentally deficient.

有智力性的缺陷。

That's a little harsh, but still. (Laughter)

這說法是有點苛刻，但也算是苛刻。（笑聲）

So this has been called the most sublime

所以這個被稱為最崇高

and awesome mystery,

和令人敬畏的奧秘，

the deepest and most far-reaching question

人可以提出

最有深度和最深遠的問題。

man can pose.

It's obsessed great thinkers.

它一直痴迷著偉大思想家們，

Ludwig Wittgenstein, perhaps the greatest

路德維希‧維特根斯坦可能是

philosopher of the 20th century,

20世紀最偉大的哲理學家，

was astonished that there should be a world at all.

他對於本來就應該 存在一個世界的想法感到驚訝。

He wrote in his "Tractatus," Proposition 4.66,

他在自己的《邏輯哲學論》論點4.66寫道，

"It is not how things are in the world

「物質如何存在這個世界上

that is the mystical,

並不是神秘，

it's that the world exists."

神秘的是這個世界是確實存在的。」

And if you don't like taking your epigrams

如果你不喜歡摘取哲理學家的雋語，

from a philosopher, try a scientist.

試試科學家的說法吧。

John Archibald Wheeler, one of the great physicists

約翰·阿奇博爾德·惠勒

of the 20th century,

是20世紀最偉大的物理學家之一，

the teacher of Richard Feynman,

是理查德·費曼的老師，

the coiner of the term "black hole,"

是命名「黑洞」的人，

he said, "I want to know

他說：「我想知道

how come the quantum,

為什麼量子，

how come the universe, how come existence?"

為什麼宇宙，為什麼存在？」

And my friend Martin Amis —

還有我的朋友馬丁·艾米斯 -

sorry that I'll be doing a lot of name-dropping in this talk,

抱歉，我在這場談話將提到很多名字，

so get used to it —

所以習慣一下 —

my dear friend Martin Amis once said

我的朋友馬丁·艾米斯曾經說過，

that we're about five Einsteins away from answering

我們欠缺差不多五個愛因斯坦來回答

the mystery of where the universe came from.

這個宇宙從哪裡來的神秘問題。

And I've no doubt there are five Einsteins

而我無可置疑相信

in the audience tonight.

今晚現場就有五個愛因斯坦。

Any Einsteins? Show of hands? No? No? No?

愛因斯坦在嗎？舉一下手？沒？沒？沒有？

No Einsteins? Okay.

沒有愛因斯坦？好吧。

So this question, why is there something rather than nothing,

所以這個問題，為什會有物質存在 而不是一切皆空?

this sublime question, was posed rather late

這個崇高的問題，在思想文化史中

in intellectual history.

提出得有點晚。

It was towards the end of the 17th century,

這是靠近17世紀末期，

the philosopher Leibniz who asked it,

哲理學家萊布尼茲提出了這個問題，

a very smart guy, Leibniz,

萊布尼茲是一個非常聰明的人，

who invented the calculus

大約在同個時期，萊布尼茲

independently of Isaac Newton, at about the same time,

與艾薩克·牛頓各自獨立發明微積分，

but for Leibniz, who asked why is there something rather than nothing,

但是對於萊布尼茲來說，在 為什會有物質存在而不是一切皆空的問題上，

this was not a great mystery.

他認為這並不是一個偉大的奧秘。

He either was or pretended to be

他可能是，或假裝在

an Orthodox Christian in his metaphysical outlook,

形而上學的外觀上，貌似東正教基督徒，

and he said it's obvious why the world exists:

他說可以很清楚了解 這個世界為什麼會存在：

because God created it.

因為上帝創造了它。

And God created, indeed, out of nothing at all.

真的，上帝創造了無中生有。

That's how powerful God is.

這就是上帝多麼的強大。

He doesn't need any preexisting materials to fashion a world out of.

他不需要任何存在前的材料 來塑造個世界出來。

He can make it out of sheer nothingness,

他可以創造出純粹的空無，

creation ex nihilo.

無中生有的創造。

And by the way, this is what

還有，這就是

most Americans today believe.

大部份美國人所相信的。

There is no mystery of existence for them.

他們認為這裡沒有存在的奧秘。

God made it.

是神創造它的。

So let's put this in an equation.

所以讓我們將這個問題放入一個方程式裡。

I don't have any slides so I'm going to mime my visuals,

我沒有任何的幻燈片， 所以我將用手來視覺表達，

so use your imaginations.

那麼，運用你的想像力，

So it's God + nothing = the world.

那麼，神 + 空無 = 世界。

Okay? Now that's the equation.

可以嗎？現在這是一個方程式。

And so maybe you don't believe in God.

也許你不相信有神，

Maybe you're a scientific atheist

也許你是一位科學無神論家

or an unscientific atheist, and you don't believe in God,

或一位非科學無神論家，你不信仰有上帝。

and you're not happy with it.

所以你不滿意這個公式。

By the way, even if we have this equation,

順道一提，即使我們有這個公式：

God + nothing = the world,

神 + 空無 = 世界

there's already a problem:

這已出現存在個問題：

Why does God exist?

為什麼神存在？

God doesn't exist by logic alone

神不是單靠邏輯存在，

unless you believe the ontological argument,

除非你相信本體論論證，

and I hope you don't, because it's not a good argument.

我希望你不相同， 因為這不是一個好論證。

So it's conceivable, if God were to exist,

那麼，可以預想，如果神存在，

he might wonder, I'm eternal, I'm all-powerful,

他可能會質疑：我是永恆，我是萬能，

but where did I come from?

但是我從哪來的？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Whence then am I?

那我來自何方呢？

God speaks in a more formal English.

神說著一口更正式的英語。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And so one theory is that God was so bored with

還有一種說法是

pondering the puzzle of His own existence

神對思考自已存在的謎題感到非常無聊

that He created the world just to distract himself.

祂創造一個世界只為了分散自己的注意力，

But anyway, let's forget about God.

但是無論何種說法，我們暫時先別管神。

Take God out of the equation: We have

完全刪除神在這方程式上：我們有

________ + nothing = the world.

________ + 空無 = 世界。

Now, if you're a Buddhist,

現在，如果你是佛教徙，

you might want to stop right there,

你可能會想要就此停住，

because essentially what you've got is

因為基本上你的認知是：

nothing = the world,

空無 = 世界

and by symmetry of identity, that means

由於基於標識的對稱性，這意謂著

the world = nothing. Okay?

世界 = 空無。 可以嗎？

And to a Buddhist, the world is just a whole lot of nothing.

對佛教而言，這個世界根本什麼都沒有。

It's just a big cosmic vacuity.

它只是一個巨大宇宙本體的空境。

And we think there's a lot of something out there

而我們認為那裡有很多東西，

but that's because we're enslaved by our desires.

但那是因為我們被自己的欲望奴役。

If we let our desires melt away,

如果我們讓自己的欲望消失，

we'll see the world for what it truly is,

我們將會看見世界的真實面貌

a vacuity, nothingness,

空白，空無

and we'll slip into this happy state of nirvana

我們將會進入一個快樂的涅槃狀態，

which has been defined as having

這狀態已被定義為

just enough life to enjoy being dead. (Laughter)

活夠了可以好好享受死亡了。（笑聲）

So that's the Buddhist thinking.

所以這是佛教的思想。

But I'm a Westerner, and I'm still concerned

但是我是個西方人，我仍然

with the puzzle of existence, so I've got

關心存在的謎題，所以我想到了

________ + —

________ + —

this is going to get serious in a minute, so —

這即將變成一個嚴肅的話題，那麼

________ + nothing = the world.

________ + 空無 = 世界

What are we going to put in that blank?

我們把什麼放進那個空格？

Well, how about science?

好，放科學進去如何？

Science is our best guide to the nature of reality,

科學是我們對實相的本質最好的指南，

and the most fundamental science is physics.

最基本的科學是物理。

That tells us what naked reality really is,

這告訴我們什麼才是赤裸裸的真相，

that reveals what I call TAUFOTU,

這揭示了我所說的TAUFOTU，

the True And Ultimate Furniture Of The Universe.

Ｔ＝真實；Ａ＝和；Ｕ＝終極的； Ｆ＝形式；Ｏ＝的；Ｔ＝這個；Ｕ＝宇宙。

So maybe physics can fill this blank,

所以或許物理學家可以填填這個空格，

and indeed, since about the late 1960s or around 1970,

實際上，自從1960年代晚期或1970年起，

physicists have purported to give

物理學家聲稱

a purely scientific explanation of how

提供一個完整的科學解釋

a universe like ours could have popped into existence

宇宙如何像我們一樣

out of sheer nothingness,

可能出於純粹的空無而突然存在，

a quantum fluctuation out of the void.

量子波動從空無出現。

Stephen Hawking is one of these physicists,

史蒂芬·霍金是這些物理學家中的一位，

more recently Alex Vilenkin,

到近期的亞歷克斯·維蘭金，

and the whole thing has been popularized

整件事情由另一個非常傑出的物理學家

by another very fine physicist and friend of mine,

和我的一個朋友所推廣，

Lawrence Krauss, who wrote a book called

勞倫斯·克勞斯寫了一本書叫

"A Universe from Nothing,"

《宇宙起源於空無》

and Lawrence thinks that he's given —

勞倫斯認為他給予的是—

he's a militant atheist, by the way,

順道一提，他是一個激進的無神論者，

so he's gotten God out of the picture.

所以他把神的論述拿走。

The laws of quantum field theory,

量子場理論的定律，

the state-of-the-art physics, can show how

一流的物理學，可以展示

out of sheer nothingness,

如何從空無一物

no space, no time, no matter, nothing,

沒有空間，沒有時間，無論什麼，一切皆空

a little nugget of false vacuum

一小塊假真空

can fluctuate into existence,

可以將波動置入存在，

and then, by the miracle of inflation,

然後，透過膨脹的奇蹟，

blow up into this huge and variegated cosmos

引爆到這個巨大且多元化的宇宙到

we see around us.

在我們周圍可以看到。

Okay, this is a really ingenious scenario.

好吧，這是一個非常巧妙的場景。

It's very speculative. It's fascinating.

非常匪疑所思。非常令人著迷。

But I've got a big problem with it,

但我遇到了一個大問題，

and the problem is this:

問題是：

It's a pseudo-religious point of view.

這是偽宗教的觀點。

Now, Lawrence thinks he's an atheist,

現在，勞倫斯認為自己是無神論者，

but he's still in thrall to a religious worldview.

但他仍然被宗教世界觀束缚了。

He sees physical laws as being like divine commands.

他認為物理定律就像神聖指令。

The laws of quantum field theory for him

他認為量子場理論的定律

are like fiat lux, "Let there be light."

就像晝夜黑白，"讓這裡有光。"

The laws have some sort of ontological power or clout

這個法則有某種本體論的力量或影響力

that they can form the abyss,

他們可以從無底深淵，

that it's pregnant with being.

蘊育而生。

They can call a world into existence out of nothing.

他們可以稱一個世界進入空無的存在。

But that's a very primitive view of what

但這個觀點是一個非常原始的

a physical law is, right?

物理定律，對嗎？

We know that physical laws are actually

我們知道物理定律其實

generalized descriptions of patterns and regularities

在這世界上

in the world.

是廣義的模式和規律的描述。

They don't exist outside the world.

他們不存在於外面的世界。

They don't have any ontic cloud of their own.

他們沒有任何屬於自己的實體雲。

They can't call a world into existence

他們不能在空無中

out of nothingness.

呼籲出個世界來存在。

That's a very primitive view

那是科學定律

of what a scientific law is.

非常原始的觀點。

And if you don't believe me on this,

如果你不相信我所說的，

listen to Stephen Hawking,

聽聽史提芬·霍金，

who himself put forward a model of the cosmos

他提出一個獨立自主的

that was self-contained,

宇宙模型，

didn't require any outside cause, any creator,

它不需要任何外在的原因，任何的創造者，

and after proposing this,

提出這個模型之後，

Hawking admitted that he was still puzzled.

霍金承認他仍然感到困惑。

He said, this model is just equations.

他說，這個模型只是眾公式。

What breathes fire into the equations

是什麼程式可以作出噴火

and creates a world for them to describe?

及創造一個他們描述的世界？

He was puzzled by this,

他對這個問題很困惑，

so equations themselves can't do the magic,

所以方程式本身不能作魔法，

can't resolve the puzzle of existence.

方程式無法解決存在的謎題。

And besides, even if the laws could do that,

此外，即使定律可以這麼做，

why this set of laws?

為什麼是這套定律？

Why quantum field theory that describes

為什麼量子場的理論

a universe with a certain number of forces

是用一定的力量和顆粒等等

and particles and so forth?

來描述？

Why not a completely different set of laws?

為什麼不用一組完全不同的定律？

There are many, many mathematically consistent sets of laws.

那裡有很多，很多數學上的定律。

Why not no laws at all? Why not sheer nothingness?

為什麼不是完全沒有定律？ 為什麼不是純粹的空無？

So this is a problem, believe it or not,

所以這是一個問題，信不信由你，

that reflective physicists really think a lot about,

思維縝密的物理學家真的非常關注，

and at this point they tend to go metaphysical,

在這個觀點上他偏向形而上學，

say, well, maybe the set of laws

所以說，或許這一組定律

that describes our universe,

來描述我們宇宙的，

it's just one set of laws

只是一組定律

and it describes one part of reality,

說明了真實的一部份。

but maybe every consistent set of laws

但是也許每組一貫的定律

describes another part of reality,

描述了另一部份的實相。

and in fact all possible physical worlds

事實上，所有的物理世界

really exist, they're all out there.

真的存在，他們全都在那裡。

We just see a little tiny part of reality

我們只是看到由量子場理論法則

that's described by the laws of quantum field theory,

所描述實相的一小部份。

but there are many, many other worlds,

但是還有很多，很多其他的世界，

parts of reality that are described

用截然不同的理論

by vastly different theories

形容某部份的實相

that are different from ours in ways we can't imagine,

用我們無法想像的，不一樣的方式，

that are inconceivably exotic.

不可思議的異域。

Steven Weinberg, the father

粒子物理學的標準模式的教父

of the standard model of particle physics,

史蒂文·溫伯格

has actually flirted with this idea himself,

三不五時的自己思考這個觀念，

that all possible realities actually exist.

他認為實際上所有可能的實相都存在。

Also, a younger physicist, Max Tegmark,

還有，一位年輕的物理學家馬克斯．泰格馬克

who believes that all mathematical structures exist,

相信所有的數學結構都存在，

and mathematical existence is the same thing

數學存在和物理存在

as physical existence,

是一樣的，

so we have this vastly rich multiverse

所以我們有這個極豐富的多元宇宙

that encompasses every logical possibility.

包含每個邏輯的可能性。

Now, in taking this metaphysical way out,

如果去除形而上學的方法，

these physicists and also philosophers are actually

這些物理學家還有哲學家

reaching back to a very old idea

其實是回到柏拉圖時期

that goes back to Plato.

非常老舊的思想。

It's the principle of plenitude or fecundity,

是富裕原則或繁殖原則

or the great chain of being,

或者是存在的巨鏈，

that reality is actually as full as possible.

事實上，實相是完全可能的。

It's as far removed from nothingness

儘可能刪除空無

as it could possibly be.

因為這是有可能的。

So we have these two extremes now.

所以我們現在有這二個極端情況，

We have sheer nothingness on one side,

一方面我們有純粹的空無，

and we have this vision of a reality

我們有這個實相的願景

that encompasses every conceivable world

包含各種可以想像的世界

at the other extreme: the fullest possible reality,

另一個極端想法是：全然可能的實相，

nothingness, the simplest possible reality.

空無，是最簡單可能的實相。

Now what's in between these two extremes?

現在是什麼存在這二個極端之間？

There are all kinds of intermediate realities

各式各樣的中間實相

that include some things and leave out others.

包括一些實相而忽略其它實相。

So one of these intermediate realities

所以去除不雅的片段，

is, say, the most mathematically elegant reality,

醜陋的不協調等等。

that leaves out the inelegant bits,

這些中間實相之一是

the ugly asymmetries and so forth.

數學意義上最優雅的實相，

Now, there are some physicists who will tell you

現在有一些物理學家會告訴你

that we're actually living in the most elegant reality.

其實我們生活在一個最優雅的實相。

I think that Brian Greene is in the audience,

我認為布萊恩．格林是在觀眾中，

and he has written a book called "The Elegant Universe."

他寫了一本書叫《優雅的宇宙》。

He claims that the universe we live in mathematically

他聲稱我們居住的宇宙

is very elegant.

在數學意義上非常優雅。

Don't believe him. (Laughter)

別相信他。（笑聲）

It's a pious hope, I wish it were true,

那是不實際的希望，但我希望那是真的。

but I think the other day he admitted to me

但是我想起有一天他對我承認

it's really an ugly universe.

這真是個醜陋的宇宙。

It's stupidly constructed,

它是愚蠢的構思，

it's got way too many arbitrary coupling constants

有太多任意偶和常數

and mass ratios

和質量比

and superfluous families of elementary particles,

和多餘的又不同類的基本的粒子，

and what the hell is dark energy?

那黑色能量到底是什麼？

It's a stick and bubble gum contraption.

那是一根棍子和泡泡糖的玩意兒。

It's not an elegant universe. (Laughter)

不是一個優雅的宇宙。（笑聲）

And then there's the best of all possible worlds

在道德意義上，

in an ethical sense.

這全是盡善盡美满有可能性的世界

You should get solemn now,

你現在應該要嚴肅一些，

because a world in which sentient beings

因為世界裡的眾生

don't suffer needlessly,

不會白白受苦，

in which there aren't things like

在這點上，

childhood cancer or the Holocaust.

沒有兒童癌症或大屠殺。

This is an ethical conception.

這是一個倫理觀念。

Anyway, so between nothingness

總之，

and the fullest possible reality,

存在於空無和盡可能的實相，

various special realities.

及各種特殊的實相之間。

Nothingness is special. It's the simplest.

空無是特別的，是最簡單的。

Then there's the most elegant possible reality.

然後就有一個最優雅的可能實相。

That's special.

那樣很特別。

The fullest possible reality, that's special.

最大可能的實相，那樣很特別。

But what are we leaving out here?

但是我們在這裡留下什麼？

There's also just the crummy,

也有可能只是糟糕，

generic realities

一般的實相

that aren't special in any way,

以任何方式都不特別，

that are sort of random.

是隨機排序的。

They're infinitely removed from nothingness,

他們從空無中永久刪除，

but they fall infinitely short of complete fullness.

但他們無限地缺乏一個完整的圓滿。

They're a mixture of chaos and order,

他們是數學的優雅和醜陋中，

of mathematical elegance and ugliness.

一種混亂與秩序的混雜物。

So I would describe these realities

所以我稱這些實相為

as an infinite, mediocre, incomplete mess,

一個無限，平庸，不完整的混亂，

a generic reality, a kind of cosmic junk shot.

一個通用的實相，一種宇宙垃圾彈。

And these realities,

這些實相，

is there a deity in any of these realities?

其中是否有神存在這些實相？

Maybe, but the deity isn't perfect

也許，但是這個神不完美

like the Judeo-Christian deity.

像猶太教和基督教的神那樣。

The deity isn't all-good and all-powerful.

這個神並非都是善良和萬能。

It might be instead 100 percent malevolent

祂可能不是100%壞心

but only 80 percent effective,

但只有80%有效力，

which pretty much describes the world we see around us, I think. (Laughter)

我認為，極可能詮釋環繞著我們所看到的世界。

So I would like to propose that the resolution

所以我想對存在的謎題

to the mystery of existence

提出解決方法

is that the reality we exist in

我們存在的這個實相

is one of these generic realities.

是這些通用的實相之一。

Reality has to turn out some way.

實相已轉變成某種方式。

It can either turn out to be nothing

它也可以變成空無

or everything or something in between.

或所有東西或某些東西。

So if it has some special feature,

所以如果它有某些特徵，

like being really elegant or really full

變得非常優雅或非常飽和

or really simple, like nothingness,

或非常簡單，像空無一樣，

that would require an explanation.

這將需要一個解釋。

But if it's just one of these random, generic realities,

但如果它只是這些的隨機之一，通用的實相，

there's no further explanation for it.

就沒有進一步的解釋。

And indeed, I would say

總之，我覺得

that's the reality we live in.

那是我們所居住的實相。

That's what science is telling us.

那是科學這樣告訴我們的。

At the beginning of the week,

在本週初，

we got the exciting information that

我們得到了一個令人興奮的資訊

the theory of inflation, which predicts a big,

膨脹的理論預測了一個大的，

infinite, messy, arbitrary, pointless reality,

神性，混亂，隨意，無意義的實相，

it's like a big frothing champagne

宛如一個大的泡泡香檳

coming out of a bottle endlessly,

無止境的從瓶子冒出，

a vast universe, mostly a wasteland

浩瀚的宇宙，大多是一片荒地

with little pockets of charm and order and peace,

有著一小口袋的魅力，秩序與和平。

this has been confirmed,

這已被證實。

this inflationary scenario, by the observations

這個膨脹的宇宙劇本，

made by radio telescopes in Antarctica

透過南極的電波望遠鏡觀測

that looked at the signature of the gravitational waves

剛在大爆炸之前

from just before the Big Bang.

看著引力波的足跡。

I'm sure you all know about this.

我確定你們都知道這件事情。

So anyway, I think there's some evidence

所以，我認為有一些證據

that this really is the reality that we're stuck with.

證明我們真的被這個實相困住了。

Now, why should you care?

現在，為什麼你得關心這件事呢？

Well — (Laughter) —

唔 — (笑聲) —

the question, "Why does the world exist?"

問題是，「為什麼這個世界會存在？」

that's the cosmic question, it sort of rhymes

那是一個宇宙問題，

with a more intimate question:

這類韵意有一個更密切的問題：

Why do I exist? Why do you exist?

為什麼我會存在？為什麼你會存在？

you know, our existence would seem to be amazingly improbable,

你知道，我們的存在似乎令人不可置信，

because there's an enormous number of genetically possible humans,

因為有大量可能的人類基因，

if you can compute it by looking at

如果你能這樣計算

the number of the genes and the number of alleles and so forth,

基因數和等位基因數等等，

and a back-of-the-envelope calculation will tell you

粗估計算將告你

there are about 10 to the 10,000th

有十到萬分之一可能的

possible humans, genetically.

人類基因。

That's between a googol and a googolplex.

介於天文數字和巨數之間。

And the number of the actual humans that have existed

人類實際存在的數目是

is 100 billion, maybe 50 billion,

1000億人，或許是500億人，

an infinitesimal fraction, so all of us,

一個無窮小的部分，所以我們所有人都是，

we've won this amazing cosmic lottery.

我們贏得了這個神奇的宇宙彩票。

We're here. Okay.

我們在這裡。好嗎。

So what kind of reality do we want to live in?

所以我們想活在什麼樣的實相？

Do we want to live in a special reality?

我們想活在一個特別的實相嗎？

What if we were living in the most elegant possible reality?

如果我們住在一個最優雅的可能實相呢？

Imagine the existential pressure on us

想像我們的生存壓力

to live up to that, to be elegant,

是為了達到優雅，

not to pull down the tone of it.

不要推翻它的風格。

Or, what if we were living in the fullest possible reality?

或許，如果我們生活在一個完整可能的實相呢？

Well then our existence would be guaranteed,

那麼我麼的存在將得到保證，

because every possible thing

因為一切可能的事情

exists in that reality,

都存在這個實相，

but our choices would be meaningless.

但我們的選擇是無意義的。

If I really struggle morally and agonize

如果我真的在道德上爭扎且苦苦思索

and I decide to do the right thing,

然後我決定去做對的事情。

what difference does it make,

這和它的創作的有什麼不同，

because there are an infinite number

因為我有

of versions of me

無限數量的版本

also doing the right thing

也在做對的事情

and an infinite number doing the wrong thing.

和無限數是在做錯的事。

So my choices are meaningless.

所以很多選擇都是無意義的。

So we don't want to live in that special reality.

所以我們不想生活在那個特別的實相。

And as for the special reality of nothingness,

若不是有空無的特別實相，

we wouldn't be having this conversation.

我們就不會有這樣的對話。

So I think living in a generic reality that's mediocre,

所以我想住在一個平庸通用的實相，

there are nasty bits and nice bits

有令人厭惡的位數資料和很好的位數資料

and we could make the nice bits bigger

我們可以使好的位數大一點

and the nasty bits smaller

令人厭惡的位數小一點

and that gives us a kind of purpose in life.

這給了我們一種人生的目標。

The universe is absurd,

這個宇宙是廢的，

but we can still construct a purpose,

但是我們仍然可以建構一個目的，

and that's a pretty good one,

而且是非常好的一個，

and the overall mediocrity of reality

整體的平庸實相

kind of resonates nicely with the mediocrity

一種很好的平庸共鳴

we all feel in the core of our being.

我們都感到我們生存的核心。

And I know you feel it.

我知道你感覺到了。

I know you're all special,

我知道你很特別，

but you're still kind of secretly mediocre,

但是你仍然是某種秘密的平庸，

don't you think?

你不覺得嗎？

(Laughter) (Applause)

（笑聲）（鼓掌）

So anyway, you may say, this puzzle, the mystery of existence,

所以不管怎樣，你可能會說這塊拼圖是存在的奧秘，

it's just silly mystery-mongering.

它只是個愚蠢的故弄玄虛。

You're not astonished at the existence of the universe

你不會對宇宙的存在感到驚奇。

and you're in good company.

你有一些好伙伴。

Bertrand Russell said,

伯特蘭·羅素說，

"I should say the universe is just there, and that's all."

「我應該說宇宙就是在那裡，就這樣。」

Just a brute fact.

只是個赤祼祼的事實。

And my professor at Columbia, Sidney Morgenbesser,

我在哥倫比亞大學的教授，摩根貝沙，

a great philosophical wag,

一個偉大的哲學迷

when I said to him, "Professor Morgenbesser,

當我問他，「摩根貝沙教授，

why is there something rather than nothing?"

為什麼會有物質存在而不是一切皆空？」

And he said, "Oh, even if there was nothing,

他回答，「喔，即使是一切皆空，

you still wouldn't be satisfied."

你也不會感到滿意的。」

So — (Laughter) — okay.

所以 — (笑聲) — 好吧.

So you're not astonished. I don't care.

那麼你不感到驚奇。我不在乎。

But I will tell you something to conclude

但我將告訴你一件事情做總結

that I guarantee you will astonish you,

我保證讓你大吃一驚，

because it's astonished all of the brilliant,

因為我讓這次TED大會我所遇到的

wonderful people I've met at this TED conference,

所有卓越傑出的人士都大吃一驚，

when I've told them, and it's this:

當我跟他們說：

Never in my life have I had a cell phone.

我一輩子從未使用過手機。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Laughter) (Applause)

（笑聲）（掌聲）