評(píng)論
打印
Who am I really? What is reality for that matter? In fact, what is matter, or time, or cause and effect?
我究竟是誰(shuí)？事實(shí)究竟是什么？事物、時(shí)間、因果究竟是什么？
These are old questions asked and answered again and again by philosophers and scientists.
這些問(wèn)題，從古至今，哲學(xué)家和科學(xué)家發(fā)問(wèn)了一次又一次。
They were still asking them over the weekend at a Nature of Reality Conference at Colorado State University.
而本周末，科羅拉多州立大學(xué)召開(kāi)的真實(shí)性會(huì)議又再次發(fā)問(wèn)。
They talked about quantum theory, relativity and the new physics,
會(huì)上，他們討論了量子學(xué)理論、相對(duì)論、新物理學(xué)、
discoveries in atomic science that cast new light on old questions or maybe just add to the list.
原子科學(xué)的諸多發(fā)現(xiàn)對(duì)以前各種問(wèn)題的啟發(fā)和新發(fā)現(xiàn)。
One speaker was Fritchoff Kapra. A few years ago he wrote The Tao of Physics,
一位講者名為卡普拉。幾年前，他寫(xiě)了《物理學(xué)之道》。
a book which linked the findings of modern science with ancient eastern philosophies.
這本書(shū)將現(xiàn)代科學(xué)的發(fā)現(xiàn)與古代東方哲學(xué)聯(lián)系在一起。
It set off a wave of interest in how our most common notions about reality break down in the world of the very small.
這本書(shū)談久了我們對(duì)現(xiàn)實(shí)最常見(jiàn)的觀念是如何在微觀世界中分解的。
Let's talk about an electron which is sort of, you know, the smallest entity know.
我們可以討論一下電子這種幾乎是最小事物。
And we have the tendency of picturing it somewhat like a grain of sand.
我們可能會(huì)將它以圖片形式呈現(xiàn)，就像對(duì)待一粒沙那樣。
Well, this is very wrong. It's not an isolated entity.
但這是非常錯(cuò)誤的做法，因?yàn)殡娮硬⒉皇桥c世隔絕的個(gè)體。
It's not a grain of sand. It cannot be said to exist even in a certain place at a definite time.
電子不是一粒沙，所以我們不能說(shuō)電子可以在固定時(shí)間出現(xiàn)在某個(gè)地方。
It's a sort of, you know, very nebulous entity seemingly which requires a whole new set of concepts and ideas to be described.
電子是很朦朧的存在，需要一整套新的觀念來(lái)對(duì)它進(jìn)行描述。
What emerged in the last fifteen years is that the new world view that came out of modern physics is in fact not limited to physics,
過(guò)去15年來(lái)出現(xiàn)的勢(shì)頭是：從現(xiàn)代物理學(xué)中生發(fā)出的新世界觀其實(shí)并沒(méi)有囿于物理學(xué)，
but is emerging now also in the other sciences, in biology, in psychology, in the social sciences.
而是在其他科學(xué)中出現(xiàn)，比如生物學(xué)、心理學(xué)、社會(huì)科學(xué)。
And it is best, it is best described by calling it a systems view. Could you give us an example?
最好將其稱之為系統(tǒng)觀。您能舉個(gè)例子嗎？
Let's talk about medicine, for instance.
就拿藥來(lái)舉例吧。
Conventional Western medicine is based on Descartes' view of the human body as a machine, in fact, as a clock-work.
傳統(tǒng)的西方藥學(xué)是基于卡普拉對(duì)人類是及其的觀點(diǎn)的，其實(shí)就是理解為發(fā)條裝置一樣。
And when a clock doesn't function, you look for the single part that has broken down and you, by an act of intervention, you replace that part.
而當(dāng)發(fā)條不再運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)的時(shí)候，我們就會(huì)尋找壞的部分，而我們會(huì)采取干預(yù)措施，換掉這個(gè)部分。
This is what doctors do now, in terms of physical intervention through surgery or chemical intervention through drugs.
現(xiàn)在的一些醫(yī)生就是這樣做的：他們通過(guò)手術(shù)和化學(xué)藥品的作用來(lái)進(jìn)行物理干預(yù)。
The new kind of view would be seeing the human organism as an integrated whole which has physical aspects,
這種新型觀點(diǎn)將人體組織視為一個(gè)整體，其中既有物理因素，
biological aspects, but also psychological aspects and which is imbedded in a natural environment and in a social and emotional environment.
也有生物因素、心理因素。我們的人體是置身于自然環(huán)境、社會(huì)環(huán)境和情感環(huán)境中的。
Now going back to physics for one minute, what do we see on the atomic level that gets us to that same place? Nothing.
現(xiàn)在，我們暫時(shí)回到物理學(xué)來(lái)，在原子水平上，有沒(méi)有類似的東西呢？沒(méi)有這樣的物體。
Physics cannot be used as the basis for the new world view.
物理學(xué)是不能作為這種新世界觀的基礎(chǔ)的。
You cannot understand a living organism in terms of physics alone.
你不能只憑物理學(xué)來(lái)理解一個(gè)活生生的機(jī)體。
Of course, it does satisfy the laws of physics, because it is also,
當(dāng)然了，機(jī)體確實(shí)符合物理學(xué)原理，
you know, made of physical constituents like molecules and atoms.
因?yàn)闄C(jī)體是由一些物理部件組成的，比如分子和原子。
But in order to understand life, and therefore in order to understand health, you have to have a broader framework.
為了理解生活和健康，就必須要有更為廣闊的框架。
Could you give just a couple of examples?
您能舉幾個(gè)例子嗎？
This shift from the part to the whole was maybe the central development in quantum theory
從部分到整體的轉(zhuǎn)變可能是來(lái)量子理論的主要發(fā)展，在量子理論中，
when physicists recognized that subatomic particles cannot be seen as isolated entities,
物理學(xué)家認(rèn)識(shí)到，亞原子粒子不是與世隔絕的物體，
but rather have to be seen as interconnections in a web of relationships.
而是與外界有相互聯(lián)系的。
The other one, a very dramatic development, was Einstein's discovery that mass is nothing but a form of energy.
另一個(gè)巨大的進(jìn)步是愛(ài)因斯坦的發(fā)現(xiàn)，即質(zhì)量是一種能量。
Mass does not measure a certain material substance but measures activity or process,
質(zhì)量是無(wú)法衡量某種特定的物質(zhì)的，只能衡量活動(dòng)或者某種進(jìn)程，
and therefore a very dramatic shift from thinking in terms of substance and structure to thinking in terms of process.
因此我們從對(duì)物質(zhì)和結(jié)構(gòu)的思考極大地轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)閷?duì)進(jìn)程的思考。
It seems to me that there are hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of people on college campuses,
在我看來(lái)，很多大學(xué)校園的學(xué)生都會(huì)參加很多會(huì)議，
going to conferences who are utterly fascinated by implications of some connection between the way we view the cosmos,
并深深沉迷于物理學(xué)與下屬事物之間的關(guān)系，
between philosophy, between religion and physics.
比如我們對(duì)宇宙、哲學(xué)、宗教的看法。
But most of these people and most of their ideas in the mainstream society are considered somewhat on the fringe.
但這些人中的大多數(shù)以及主流社會(huì)中的大多數(shù)看法都是邊緣化的。
Why is that? Einstein was very much considered on the fringe.
為什么會(huì)這樣呢？愛(ài)因斯坦卻被認(rèn)為是邊緣化的。
Beethovan was considered on the fringe. Mozart was considered on the fringe.
貝多芬也是邊緣化的，莫扎特也是邊緣化的。
This always happens with new creative ideas, and the world view that emerged from modern physics
而發(fā)生這樣的事情的時(shí)候，我們卻是帶著創(chuàng)造性新觀點(diǎn)的，帶著從現(xiàn)代物理學(xué)中生發(fā)出的世界觀的，
is really something radically new and is something very disturbing.
這種觀念既是新的，也是讓人困擾的。
What is the thought that is most uncomfortable?
什么樣的觀點(diǎn)最讓人不舒服呢？
Even more disturbing to physicists than to people outside of science is the fact that there are no well defined isolated objects,
與非科學(xué)界的人相比，物理學(xué)家更為困擾的是：關(guān)于與世隔絕的物體，
that we are all imbedded in a network of relationships where what you call an object depends very much how you look at it.
我們并沒(méi)有好的界定，我們都囿于關(guān)系的網(wǎng)絡(luò)中，通過(guò)一個(gè)物體的外觀來(lái)看待它。
Furthermore, that this network is not static, but is in continual process.
而且，這種關(guān)系的網(wǎng)絡(luò)也不是靜態(tài)的，而是持續(xù)的過(guò)程。
So it is the relativity and the impermanence of existence.
而相對(duì)論和無(wú)常。
Now this is very disturbing, because it leads you to recognize the impermanence of your own existence,
這讓我們身為困擾，因?yàn)檫@會(huì)讓我們認(rèn)識(shí)到自己存在的無(wú)常性，
the illusion that we are a well defined, you know, isolated self that we have a well defined, isolated ego.
讓我們有一種錯(cuò)覺(jué)，以為自己是一個(gè)經(jīng)過(guò)界定的隔絕存在，一個(gè)與世隔絕的自我。
And this is very disturbing to many people. It is not disturbing to people typically in spiritual traditions.
這讓很多人頗為困擾，尤其讓有傳統(tǒng)精神觀念的人頗為困擾。
To Buddhists, for instance, this is the very foundation of Buddist thinking and Buddhist living.
比如，對(duì)于佛教徒來(lái)說(shuō)，這是佛教思想和佛教生活的根基所在。
But to most Westerners, it is extremely disturbing. Physicist Fritchoff Kapra heads the Elmwood Institute in Berkeley, California.
但對(duì)大多數(shù)西方人來(lái)說(shuō)，這很讓人困擾。物理學(xué)家卡普拉是加州伯克利榆木研究所的負(fù)責(zé)人。
