【傻帮讲座（ 10 ）】 与普利高津讨论宇宙的存在、当下与未来 2012 年 12 月 21 号，是玛雅历法中的一个长周期的结束和一个新周期的开始。有许多人相信这个可能是世界末日、也有许多人相信这是人类文明升扬的开始。。。 二傻一直很想写一点东东，来纪念这个特殊的日子。 在看过许多有关的书籍，如《皇帝的新脑》《缸中的大脑》《宇宙逍遥》《平行宇宙》《大设计》。。。 以及《上帝的指纹》《无量之网》《场源调查》。。。 之后， 有了许多想法，可惜发现都不太合适作为博客在科学网发表。。。 近日，无意发现一篇诺贝尔奖获得者【普利高津】与资深记者 MarilynBerlin Snell 的一次高峰对话记录，看了之后，觉得非常有必要向中国的科学和哲学界推荐介绍！ 《 Beyond Being and Becoming 》 《逍遥于当下与将来之外》 Ilya Prigogine Awarded the 1977 Nobel Prize for his work on thethermodynamics of nonequilibrium systems, the late Ilya Prigogine, who died in2003, was a theoretical physicist and intellectual progenitor of concepts thathave become popularly known as “self- organization” and “order out of chaos.”He was the director of the Solvay Institute at Free University in Brussels, as well as director of the Center forStatistical Mechanics and Complex Systems at the University of Texas.The following is adapted from a conversation with Senior Editor Marilyn BerlinSnell. 伊利亚 - 普利高津，因其对非平衡态热力学的贡献，获得了 1977 年的诺贝尔奖。作为“自组织”概念及“混沌中的有序”图像的思想鼻祖，普利高津仙逝于 2003 年。他曾是布鲁塞尔自由大学 SOLVAY 研究所所长和美国德州大学之统计物理及复杂系统中心的主任。以下文字来自于普利高津与资深记者 Marilyn Berlin Snell 之间的一次高峰对话。 。。。。。。 （原文请参阅本文的最后） 于是，二傻专门翻译并整理了其中部分文字，加上二傻自己的一些疑问和理解，以对话的方式，向大家展示 【普利高津】从其耗散结构和自组织现象的科学理论出发、渐渐走向科学哲学以及心灵哲学的一些心路，当作【傻帮讲座（ 10 ）】，作为天狼星特使在2012年底对地球人的 隆重 致谢！ 请大家耐心看，到最后，也许会发现讨论已经开始有点“唯心”的味道了。。。 也请大家放心，普利高津最终的观点是非常具有正能量的（积极向上的）： 这个世界是否存在末日，本质上取决于我们是怎么想的！ 世界上本没有路的 ， 因为有人认真的想了，于是就有路了！ 。。。 。。 。 以下对话中的【 Ilya 】代表【普利高津】，【 Asha 】代表【二傻】。 【 Asha 】 您好！普利高津先生。您对耗散结构和自组织现象的研究，影响了整整一代人。二傻小时候读过您的几本书： 《不可逆过程热力学导论》、《从存在到演化》、《从混沌到有序》和《确定性的终结》等，实在是受益匪浅！ 最近，二傻无意中 发现您还有一篇短文《 Beyong Being and Becoming 》，二傻很感兴趣！请问这是关于哪方面的讨论？您题目中的“ Being ”和“ Becoming ”是啥意思？ 【 Ilya 】 这是与那个记者聊天的一些记录，写得不好！非常口语化。 但是，我的主要思想还是表达出来了，是有关“时间”的讨论。 这个“ Being ”，代表着“当下”或“当下存在的事物”； 这个“ Becoming ”，代表着“将来”或“将要到来的事物”。 【 Asha 】 “时间”？是关于“时间箭头”的讨论吗？ 二傻知道有各种不同的“时间箭头”的定义，如“热力学时间箭头”、“生物学时间箭头”和“宇宙学时间箭头”等。。。 【 Ilya 】 不仅仅是“时间箭头”的问题，而是关于“时间”这个概念本身的一些思考。 长久以来，关于“永恒不变”、“亘古常存”这些概念，一直与人类的切身经验之间存在着深刻的矛盾。 在诸如考古学和历史学这样的社会科学中，大家很清楚：明天和今天是不可能相同的，历史不会重演、时间无法逆转；但是，在基础物理学中，理论家们总喜欢说“时间的可逆性”。。。比如牛顿方程、麦克斯韦方程、爱因斯坦方程、薛定谔方程等等等等。。。 【 Asha 】 好像是有这种矛盾哦？可是，基础物理学上“时间的可逆性”有啥问题吗？ 【 Ilya 】 如果时间是可逆的，那么，宇宙原则上就是静态的和确定的，而所谓“时间”，在其中并无实质意义！ 在经典科学中，过去、现在和未来，根本就是一模一样的。 --- 这个问题，我称之为“时间悖论”。 正是这个悖论，造成了西方文化中的“物理科学”与“社会科学”之间的一种割裂， 【 Asha 】 是啊！在爱因斯坦看来，我们的宇宙整体（包括其历史、现在和未来），就像四维时空中一幅超大的几何图形。确实很“静态”也很“确定”哦？可是，这个图形是谁画的呢？ 【 Ilya 】 这要从科学的起源之处开始讨论。 经典科学是通过一些极度简化的系统，如地球绕太阳旋转或无摩擦单摆系统，来建构自然的基本规律。对于这些简单的物理现象，我们确实能够根据当前的状态来预测其未来的状态。 在这些系统中，时间的方向是没有意义的，过去和未来是可以互为彼此的。 然而，当我们环顾左右，无论是人类的生命本身、或文明的历史、还是植物、生物甚至一些复杂点的物理系统，我们很清楚时间是肯定不可逆转的 --- 一颗小草，发芽、开花、结果、死亡，它绝不会再复活，越变越嫩，直至“蜕化”为原来的种子。 --- 过去和未来之间的平衡并不存在，时间不会再重复自己。 【 Asha 】 这种基础物理学中可逆的“物理时间”与我们日常体验中不可逆的“真实时间”，到底哪个更真实一些？ 如果要谈“真实”，我想：没有比人类自身的感觉更“真实”的了。 【 Ilya 】 是啊！即便有如此众多的明显证据，人们还是对所谓的“时间悖论”极度热情。正如以牛顿和爱因斯坦为代表的经典科学对人类知识起到了巨大贡献一样，这种思想也造成了自然与人类之间的一种巨大的鸿沟。 在他们看来，自然界（所谓外部世界），就象个机器，曾经被某某启动了一下，然后就一直运转下去了。 爱因斯坦一直试图说明：人的主观性只是个幻觉！真实的世界是清晰透明、可以理解的，与人本身当下的任何痛苦、对过去淡淡的愁绪、以及对未来的恐惧或希望毫无关系！ 而显然，这种形而上学的科学观，却与我们内心世界的感觉完全相反！ 我们深深知道：我们所存在的世界是不稳定、不确定的！总不断会有崭新的东东（事件）涌现，而且我们总可以或多或少在其中做出一些选择。 在我看来， 人类只有在需要做出选择的时候，才需要理性的帮助 。 我强烈感到这种人类与自然之间的鸿沟需要打破，以理解宇宙中人和自然共同的运作规律。 【 Asha 】 是啊！即便世界变幻莫测、总有新事物出现，但正因为我们不断做出科学和理性的选择，我们的文明才得以不断发展啊！ 【 Ilya 】 根本就没有【进步或发展】！ 作为一个科学家，我认为根本不能讨论所谓“线性发展”（“逼近真理“）。 其实，我甚至怀疑我们能否讨论“发展”这个概念！这就像我们不能讨论“宿命”一样，我们只能讨论随机涌现的“新事物”以及“随机中的一些规律”。 让我们以化学为例。化学方程是非线性的。如果一个化学系统被迅速推离至远离平衡态，化学反应将到达一种“分叉点”，这时候将出现不同“新事物”的可能性。概率和自组织就将起作用。 这时候，如果我们非要问这种“新事物”是否是一种“进步或发展”？那完全取决于个人的观点。 “新事物”并非一定在各方面都是“好的”。 试问：莫扎特的音乐比巴赫的“进步”了吗？这真的很难说！有人会说：莫扎特让巴赫的音乐显得“陈腐过时”；而在另一方面，巴赫的音乐却仍然是宗教音乐的最高典范！而莫扎特只不过引入了一些歌剧的世俗模式。 按照其本意，“新事物”意味着出现了一些原来不存在的东东。 但，这并不意味着“新事物”一定是“更好”的事物。 【 Asha 】 大傻也说过：在艺术创作上，不能谈论进步和发展！ 您却说：这个世界上的任何东东，都不能谈论进步和发展！ 涌现的“新事物”可能是好的、也可能是坏的。。。高！实在是高！ 【 Ilya 】 别拍马屁！其实，我自己的认识也是一步步提高的。。。。。。 【 Asha 】 哎？您说您的认识（新的东东）在进步和发展了嘢！哈哈哈哈！ 【 Ilya 】 二傻别打岔！我在跟你讨论正经事呢！ 我曾经笃信：“时间”是这个世界最基本的一个属性。 没有了“时间箭头”，我们简直无法理解生态系统、冰川的历史、或天气的模式。我们也无法理解化学和流体力学。在这些本质上不稳定的、“混沌的”动力系统中，基本物理定律和混沌现象一起，决定了系统的“演化”。 这种普遍存在的“混沌现象”，被认为是理解世界上绝大多数真实的物理系统的基础。 【 Asha 】 这个俺明白！俺在中国跟混沌大师学过几招，知道人类以前相信世界“本质上”是线性的，非线性系统是特例。后来才发现，非线性系统远远比线性系统多，应该说世界“本质上”是非线性的，而线性才是特例！ 这个观念的转变，有点象人类对“有理数”和“无理数”的认识。 人类一开始以为世界本质上是“自然（数）的”、“有理（数）的”，少数“无理数”是特例！ 所以它们“无理”。。。 后来，人们发现“无理数”的数量远远多于“有理数”！ “无理数”才是世界的本质！哈哈！ 【 Ilya 】 二傻真聪明！ 认识到世界本质上是非线性的和混沌的，确实可以解开我们最前面所说的存在于经典物理学和社会科学之间的那个矛盾。 然而，鸿沟仍然存在！这个鸿沟存在于宏观复杂系统与基本物理过程之间。 我们必须问自己： 复杂性和自然界的基本定律之间到底是怎样的关系？我们将会找到全新的自然律？还是我们继续拥抱旧的自然律，仅仅加上一些复杂性而已？ 正是对这类问题的研究，导致我试图建立一个理论，它可以在最基础的地方将时间因素考虑进去。换句话说，我试图建立这样的理论模型，在这个模型中，基本自然律不再是“决定论的”，而是内秉地包含了“概率”和“不可逆性”。虽然每一个动作都将引发一个新的动作、同样的原因不一定总是产生同样的结果，无论是在宏观层次还是在基本物理律层次。 【 Asha 】 好！很大胆的尝试！能谈谈您为何那么不喜欢“决定论”吗？ 【 Ilya 】 如果自然律是完全“决定论”的，那么，从宇宙大爆炸的那个时刻起，整个宇宙的未来都已经被决定下来：米开朗基罗注定要出生的！广岛原子弹也早就预设好了！ 然而，我们也可以想象另外一种可能性 --- 一种我认为更加可能的可能性！ 在大爆炸那个时刻，宇宙被创造出来，许多事物的出现变得可能，包括米开朗基罗的出现和曼哈顿工程。 但这一切并非一定出现！ 换句话说：创生时的宇宙，就像个婴儿，他将来可能成为大夫、也可能成为画家，但是不能同时成为二者！他未来的人生轨迹也无法事先确定。孩子的成长过程中，是有一些基本的自然律在起作用，但他的未来并未被“决定”下来，各种各样的“或然性”对他的一生也发挥着重要影响。 【 Asha 】 您说的没错！这也就是为何混沌和耗散自组织理论发挥作用的地方。 也许靠“时间可逆的基本自然律”，加上“复杂系统的非线性”，就已经足够可以解释这个世界之所以五彩缤纷、变幻莫测？ 【 Ilya 】 这个问题涉及到对“时间”的理解。 自然界发生的一切，以及“混沌理论”，都告诉我们，以经典科学中所谓的动力系统作为自然律的基础，似乎太简单了？ 在无摩擦单摆系统、或地球绕太阳运行的系统中，我们其实不需要“时间”的概念（即：系统是完全可逆的）。但是，这些简单系统当真能代表我们所在这个世界图像？ 我一直相信： 为了能够“看见时间”，我们必须考察更加复杂的系统之间的关系 。 比如，一杯热咖啡。 我们想知道：这杯咖啡在变“老”吗？ 我们知道它要凉下来，与室温达到平衡。 但为了观察到咖啡的变“老”过程，我们不能盯住其中的一个水分子来看，而是要观察分子之间相互碰撞和关联事件，从而看到“时间的流动”。 同样的事情发生在人类身上。两个人聊了一会儿天，然后分开了。但是大家对于聊天内容会有些记忆。一部分聊天内容将会被转述给其他人 --- 这可以被视为原始聊天的一次“进化（演化）”。 这是“人性的时间”、或曰“记忆的时间”，与那些个聊天人的个体“生物时间”无关！ 时间的概念，取决于集体效应 。 【 Asha 】 嘢！这个想法相当有趣！ 有点象计算机程序中的“虚拟时间”。。。也有点象自动机“生命游戏”中的“步进时间”概念。。。 --- 等二傻回去问问鬼王他老人家是如何想的？？？ 【 Ilya 】 也许，宇宙的自然律在根本上就是混沌的，而不是决定论的。。。 由于基本自然律是“混沌”的，于是我们必须把“或然率”引入我们的体系； 而“或然率”的存在，又迫使我们在理论体系中引入“时间箭头”。。。 许多人会认为这是一种可怕的失败！ 他们一直追求科学的确定性，结果却发现科学并不能给他们这种安慰 。 但是，我却相信这种新的视角，是避免理性脱节（精神分裂）的唯一方式。 无论如何，我们的目标是达到一种关于宇宙的和谐一致的理解，这种理解不会把我们作为人类个体的体验与自然界中的科学规律强行分割开来。 如果我们坚持宇宙本质上的“决定论”，把宇宙当作一台精密机器，那么，我们与这台机器之间的关系是啥呢？ 【 Asha 】 听您的意思，好像您觉得时间箭头是个幻觉？或者更进一步，时间本身就是幻觉？宇宙中只有各种集体效应下的虚拟时间，并不存在一个本底的 CPU 时间？ 或者说： 时间其实是一个“整体属性”（ collective property ），或者说是“演生属性”（ emergent property ，即那些高层次具有而还原到低层次就不复存在的属性） ？ 【 Ilya 】 这个问题，对许多人而言，有点太超前。 让我这样来说吧： 爱因斯坦说他坚信一个“决定论”性的宇宙， 而同时，他又说相信人类思维的“创造”能力。 所谓“创造”，意味着新事物的产生！ 而所谓“新事物”，必然是超出了一个“决定性”宇宙的范围！不然，怎么能够叫“新事物”？ 所以，老爱只有将“人”本身置于“宇宙”之外，才能同时相信二者。 将“人”本身置于“宇宙”之外？ --- 这怎么可能呢？ 科学的最终目的是了解我们与这个世界的关系。 老爱的这样描绘宇宙的图像显然是无法自洽的：“自然界是台精密机器，而我们人是存在自由意志的。” 关于混沌的理论，并非加强这种不自洽。相反，它让我们感到： 我们所存在于其中的宇宙，其实和我们自己并没有多大的不同！ 【 Asha 】 这个嘛！和东方思维中的“天人合一”思想有点合拍哦？ 可是，我们中国的杨振宁先生，也和您一样是诺贝尔物理学奖获得者，一直坚持说中国的“天人合一”思想对中国科学的影响大大的坏了坏了的。。。 【 Ilya 】 每一次智力上的新成就，总伴随着新的恐惧和新的期望。 目前的混沌思维，使我们感受到了知识和文化之间的统一。 我们开始考察我们与环境的关系，我们开始认识到物种多样性的重要性。。。 通过将宇宙视作一个统一的整体，我们开始把自己更深层次地融入自然。。。 同时，我们对于人类历史上的“分叉点”有了更清楚的认识 --- 比如前苏联的政变，就有许多种可能的后果。。。 【 Asha 】 您是说：前苏联政变之后的结果，不是“历史的必然”？ 【 Ilya 】 没错！没有什么是必然的！ 按照我目前的理念，“当下的存在”（ BEING ）不再是个最基本的要素。 代表宇宙不确定性本质的“将来的”（ BECOMING ）才是真正基本的要素。 但为了准确表达这里的意思，我们还需要一些“永恒的”要素： --- 没有“当下的”，就没有“将来的”， 正如：没有黑暗，就没有光明；没有安静，就没有音乐。。。 举个例子：以宇宙大爆炸为例。 设想我们的宇宙是“以前的”宇宙的一次“不稳定因素”的产物（人们喜欢称之为“量子涨落”）。这样看的话，我们可以认为：是这种“不稳定因素”带来了各种物质以及我们膨胀宇宙的曲率。。。 然而，这一些后果的出现，必须有元初的那个会发生不稳定的“当下”的存在。 经典的观点认为，我们可以把宇宙的历史视作一个几何体。。。 由于“不稳定因素”，这样的图像不再适用。。。 我认为，以这种角度看待大爆炸和宇宙的历史很令人可以接受。 如果是某种最基本的“不稳定因素”导致了大爆炸以及物质、时空，那么我们的宇宙就不再是个孤立的系统了。说我们的宇宙将不可避免地走向“热寂”也就无从可说了。 我很欣赏“不稳定性”打开了各种“可能性”这个事实！ 因为， 我们每一时刻的行为，实际上取决于我们对于未来的设想。 如果我们遥望未来，想到的都只是死亡、污染、衰亡，那么我们根本就不会在此讨论任何关于理性和伦理的行为。。。 【 Asha 】 哇塞！您开始有点象个哲学家了！ 【 Ilya 】 说到哲学，我这里的讨论，很明显是反康德的。 为了统一人类的道德伦理与物理学经典定律，康德引入了“二元论”，这是西方哲学史上的经典。 笛卡尔则引入了人类理性思考与客观物质之间的区分。。。 康德区分了可以用人类“直觉”感知的“实象世界”，以及通过“理性”能够把握的“现象世界”。 物理学只能处理“现象世界”，而道德伦理能够在“实象世界”中建构。 我主要想说的是：其实我们没有必要搞出这样的“二元论”。 生命，不像经典科学想让我们相信的那样，是游离于物质客观世界之外的某个东东，它本身其实更深深地扎根于自然本身具备的“自组织”与“和谐”。。。 【 Asha 】 不好意思！俺应该说：您已经是个哲学家了！ 【 Ilya 】 哈哈！听说过我的一句名言吗： 雕塑是时间在物质中的凝结！ 在某种意义上，文明其实一直试图在改造物质世界。 无论是物理上的还是社会科学上的成就，其实都是整合以下两方面因素而成的艺术成果： --- 一方面是遵守一些本源的规律， --- 另一方面则是在“创造”过程中涌现出新的东东。 比如巴赫，其音乐肯定要遵守一些基本的节拍律。 但是，在遵守这些节拍律的同时，有许多不同的分叉点供其选择。 不同的选择，造就了完全不同的音乐！ 通过整合一些“宇宙的基本律”和“人类的自由意志”，科学可以使我们与自然的关系更加精细。这是十分令人激动的现象！ 我们只是处于科学的初级阶段，我们其实才刚刚开始理解“宇宙的宪法”。 【 Asha 】 哈哈！宇宙的宪法？ 我们“老子”，早再两千多年前就在整这玩意儿。。。 也许您认为：老子的天人合一思想，是这个新世纪的重要课题？ 【 Ilya 】 我对东方神秘主义也是相当了解的。 我认为： 新世纪的任务是打破割裂与碎片化。 我在各个领域都能感到这个趋势。 当今世界的人们在思考和处理一件事情的时候，必须是跨学科跨领域的。 正如一个公司总裁的一项技术决定，不可避免地需要同时考虑到经济、政治、社会以及环境的因素和影响。 在 19 世纪，【碎片化】（或曰：分科而治），在生物、物理、化学、数学、心理学、社会学等方面曾经起到过重要作用。 而现今，当我们面对人类所面临的真正重大问题的时候，我们知道我们必须通过跨领域的合作。 这个时代，可以说是超越或终结【碎片化】的时代！ 在科学领域，我们的目标将是建构一种新的基本理论框架，它可以更为【和谐统一】地理解人与自然，而不是将人与自然割裂开来。 作为一个物理学家，我很想知道这种【和谐统一】的规律应该如何？ 但在另一方面，要理解【和谐统一】，就需要对【多样化】有更深刻的理解。 一旦我们明白：【混沌】是宇宙的一个基本律之后， 我们就会明白：【或然性】是自然的一个基本法！ 在我的工作中，我一直力图绘制一个关于我们宇宙的更加统一的图像， 而同时，又必须定义我们的宇宙是个暂时的、多元化的和复杂的世界！ 这对我而言是个很大的挑战！ 【 Asha 】 看来，您老对佛教没啥了解？知道三法印吗？ 诸行无常、诸法无我、涅槃寂静。 如果您不明白，那您就想象一下这个世界的整体和谐的图像： 一个浩瀚无边的大海（藏识海），其中永远都有浪花一朵朵！ 还不明白？那就请鬼王跟您说说： 世界作为一个整体，一直就是个“真随机”！从来没有变过！ 而您所看到的局部，都是暂时、多元和复杂的。 【 Ilya 】 听霍金说过：有个二傻子给他讲过《宇宙大智慧》。。。是你吗？ 我真的很想知道关于宇宙新的理解将如何出现？ --- 不是经典物理中那种决定论的和时间可逆的定律，而是一种允许新事物自发出现的那种自然律。 对于人类的未来，多有两种看法： --- 一种是相信人类在自己意志力的帮助下，将不断发展和超越。 --- 另一种则是人类不可避免地要走向灭亡。 我认为，这两种观点都过于偏激，应该得到修正。 因为：我们不是在一个决定论性的系统中，我们根本无法从当下的状态，预言出未来的状态。 我宁愿以另外一种视角看待这个问题： --- 我相信是我们对未来的看法或期待，决定了我们当下的行动； --- 而不是我们当下的行动决定了未来。 【 Asha 】 善哉！善哉！ 2012 年玛雅历快要到期了。。。您准备作何打算？ 天狼星特使给您留了一张站票。。。 【 Ilya 】 嘿嘿！随便！ 因为我们以前的行动、于是我们有了当下的科学方程和预测。。。 --- 但是，这些科学方程及其所计算出来的未来，在自然界中原本并不存在的！ 时间就像一种建造或艺术品雕塑的过程。。。 当然，也许会有一些宇宙基本律法限制了未来的所有可能性都会发生， 但是，即使在这些基本律的约束之下，未来确实允许有很多很多的可能性！ 于是，由于不存在任何“决定论性”的预言， 对于未来的期望，尤其是一种乌托邦式的期望， 对于当下我们的行动就显得非常非常重要了！ ---- 对于世界末日，我更怕我们对未来失去乌托邦式的期望！ 。。。 。。 。 【附录】 下面是普利高津文章的原文， 请大家认真审核，二傻是否对其思想的理解有误？ Questions about time are at thevery heart of science. But for too long there has been a conflict between whatseemed to be eternal, to be out of time--classical ideas of laws of nature--andwhat was in time: human experience. In social sciences like archeologyor history, it is clear that tomorrow is not the same as today. Time cannotreverse directions. But theorists in the physical sciences always tried to saythat the universe is time reversible; that the present determinedthe future just as it could serve to reconstruct the past. From this viewpoint,the basic processes of nature were seen to be static and deterministic, withtime playing absolutely no role. In effect, for classical science being was thesame as becoming. This split is what I callthe time paradox, and I believe it has been responsible for thefragmentation in Western culture between the physical sciences and the socialsciences, between scientific time and lived time. Classical science formulated basiclaws of nature upon exceptionally simple systems, such as the motion of theEarth around the sun or a frictionless pendulum. It is true, that when we lookat these simple physical phenomena once the present is known one can predictthe future, and the direction of time doesn't play any role. In these systemsthe past and the future become interchangeable. Yet when we look around us--notonly at human life or the history of civilization but also at plants, biologyor even in physical objects--we see that time is definitely not reversible. Aplant burgeons, flowers and dies; it does not come back to life, grow youngerand regress to the original seed. There is no equivalence between what is doneand what is undone. Time cannot fold back upon itself. In spite of this obviouscontradiction the time paradox was enthusiastically accepted. And as importantas classical science may have been for the progress of knowledge, the triumphof this kind of thinking, personified by Newtonand Einstein, entailed a rift between the world and man that cannot be over-estimated.The external world appeared to be an automaton, a clockwork mechanism that hadbeen regulated once and for all. In this way, classical scienceshared the project of certain Eastern mystics--Buddhists, Taoists, etc.--whoseaim was to escape the torments of a changing, deceptive world and to live thisworld as though it were an illusion. Men like Einstein aimed to demonstratethat human subjectivity was merely an illusion and that reality consisted of atransparent, intelligible Universe, purged of everything that touches on thelives of man, of painful, nostalgic memory of the past, of fear or hope for thefuture. Needless to say, thesemetaphysical and scientific viewpoints were in absolute opposition to our innerworld in which, rightly or wrongly, we lived in a time rhythm which is unstableand uncertain, which creates novelty--new events--and in which we are consciousof having a freedom of choice, upon which the very notion of rationality isbased. I believed very strongly that thisgap between man and nature needed to be bridged, and I proposed to do this byincorporating both laws and events into our theories about how man and natureoperate in the universe. The first part of my work, whichis now 30 years old, was to prove the existence of an irreversibletime, the direction of which played a very important, constructive rolein our universe. I then concentrated on macroscopic phenomena, which involve alarge number of particles. Examples are to be found in chemistry or hydrodynamics.I have shown that irreversibility can then lead to structure, toself-organization. This is when I introduced the idea of dissipativestructures, which arise in open systems, exchanging energy and matterwith the outside world when driven far from equilibrium. Since then, my workhas been concerned more with time on the level of fundamental physics(classical or quantum mechanics). NO PROGRESS | As a scientist Iwould say that one cannot speak at all about linear progress. I don't even knowif one can speak about progress at all. And we certainly cannot speak aboutdestiny. What one can speak about, however, is novelty and rules withinrandomness. Let's take the example ofchemistry. The equations of chemistry are non-linear. When we rapidly push a chemicalsystem away from equilibrium toward disorder, or disequilibrium,the chemical reactions that occur present us with what I call bifurcationpoints--points at which choices and new solutions appear. Generally, morethan one solution appears, so that at the point of bifurcation, probability andself-organization come into play. Now if the question is whethernovelty is progress, it depends on one's point of view. Novelty cannot be goodfrom every point of view. Is Mozart's music progress in respect to Bach? That'svery difficult to say. You see, in some sense Mozart has made Bach's musicobsolete. However, in another sense, one can say that Bach's work still remainsa model of religious music, while Mozart has introduced a model of opera, moresecular music. By definition, novelty containsaspects of things that didn't exist before. But one should not necessarilyidentify novelty with optimization. Novelty can be either good or bad. For me it has been very importantto show that time plays an essential role in the world around us. Without thatarrow of time we could not begin to understand the ecosystem, orthe history of glaciation, or weather patterns. We could not understandchemistry and hydrodynamics. These are all essentially unstable, dynamic,chaotic systems in which both laws and events play a role. Thisnotion of chaos, then, turns out to be basic to the understandingof not only these dynamic systems but to the major laws of physics as well. This said, there is still a gap.No longer does that gap exist between the physical and social sciences, butbetween our complex, chaotic macrosystems and elementary processes. This is the point at which we mustask what the relation is between complexity and the basic laws ofnature--between becoming and being. Are we led to an entirely new form of lawsof nature or do we simply have the old laws of nature together with somecomplexity? It is through an investigation ofthese questions that I have attempted to build a physics that incorporates timeat the elementary level. In other words, I want to give a new formulation tothe idea of laws of nature: Rather than speaking about these laws asdeterministic I want to express them in a way that involves both probabilityand irreversibility--chance and time. Every movement creates a newmoment. The same cause does not always yield the same effect, either on themacro or on the elementary level. Let me explain. If we think aboutthe laws of nature at the beginning of the universe, at the very moment of theBig Bang, how do we visualize these laws? We could imagine that at the momentthe universe was created, the future was already determined. Michelangelo isalready programmed, the bombing of Hiroshimais already programmed. But we could also imagine anotherpossibility, which to my mind is much more likely. At the moment of the BigBang, the universe is created and many things become possible, including theemergence of Michelangelo and the Manhattan Project. But there is no certainty.In other words, the world at birth is a little like a baby. The child canbecome a doctor or an artist but he cannot become everything at the same time,nor is his future path set at conception. The child exists, and there arecertain basic laws of nature to which that fact corresponds. But his future isnot predetermined; probability still has a role to play in this child's life. After we have formulated laws ofnature that include both being and becoming, we must then go beyond being andbecoming. In order to do this, however, we must first understand the role ofchaos in our world. Chaos theory shows us that dynamic systems, the systems onwhich the basic laws of nature were formulated by classical science, are toosimple. For example, it is true that time doesn't enter into the frictionlesspendulum, or into the motion of the Earth around the sun. But are these systemsappropriate symbols of the world in which we live? Classical science made theexperience of these phenomena the rules. RELATIONAL TIME | I have alwaysbelieved that in order to see time we must consider relationshipswithin more complex systems. Let's consider, for a moment, acup of hot coffee. Is this coffee aging? Will it cool down until it reachesequilibrium at room temperature? In order to determine whether the coffee isaging I cannot consider the water molecules taken separately. If I do that Iwill not see the aging process. But if I consider the relationship betweenmolecules I can then see quite clearly that the coffee is aging. We must viewthe encounters, the collisions and correlations between molecules, in order tosee the flow of time. The same can be said ofrelationships between people. Two people speak and then separate, but there isa remembering of the conversation. Part of the conversation is retold toothers, which can be seen as an evolution of the initial conversation. This isthe time of humanity, or the time of recollections, and not the time of humanbeings taken separately. The concept of time is dependent on a collectiveapproach. In a sense there is a hierarchy:The fundamental aspect is instability or chaos, which then forces us toincorporate the probabilistic aspect into our concepts; then the probabilisticaspect forces us to include the arrow of time in our formulations. Chaos, then,and not immutable, deterministic laws is really the basic law of the universe.Chaos is at the origin of the variety of physical experience. Today we havemoved from determinism to determinations; from stability to instability andprobability. Of course, some people view thisas a terrible defeat. They had hoped for scientific certitudes and now they arebeing told that science cannot give them this solace. I, however, see these new laws asthe only way of avoiding alienation. After all, our main goal is to come to aconsistent view of the universe, one that does not separate our experience ashuman beings from the experience of science in nature. If we held to thebasically deterministic description of the universe, which reduces the universeto an automaton, what then can our relation to this automaton universe be? Einstein said that he believed ina deterministic universe, yet at the same time he also said he believed in thecreative activity of the human mind. But creativity means appearance ofnovelty, which by definition exists outside the confines of a deterministicuniverse. He could only believe in both if he placed humanity outside theuniverse. How can this be correct? The veryaim of science is to show how we are related to the universe. We can no longerhave a unified picture that shows nature as an automaton but whichshows us as free and ethically responsible. The theory of instability does notencourage alienation. On the contrary it is an idea that makes us feel that weare living in a universe that is not so different from ourselves. CREATIVE INSTABILITY | With everynew intellectual program always come new fears and expectations. But considerthe unity between knowledge and culture that has emerged within the paradigm ofchaos: At this moment, when as a human civilization we are beginning to senseour connection with the environment--we are understanding the importance ofpreserving biological diversity, etc.--and with the universe as a whole, we arealso coming over to a theoretical view of the universe that connects us infundamental ways to nature. At the moment we see bifurcation points in humanhistory--consider the coup attempt in the former Soviet Union, which had many possible outcomes--we discover newbifurcations in physics. In this way, we are building a kind of unifiedcultural identity for the 21st century. Finally, we can move beyond theclassical conflict between being and becoming. Being is no longer theprimordial element, just as becoming is no longer an illusion, the product ofignorance. Not at all. Today, we see that becoming, which is the expression ofinstability in the universe, is the primordial element. Yet, in order toexpress this, we also need elements that are permanent. We cannot have becomingwithout being, just as we cannot have light without darkness or music withoutsilence. Let me give you an example thatwill help illustrate the point, though it is speculative since it relates tothe Big Bang. Consider that the beginning of our universe is the product of aninstability from the universe that existed before, what people like to call thequantum vacuum. If we look at the Big Bang in this way we can showthat this instability brings in both matter and the curvature of our expandeduniverse. However, this becoming is onlypossible because of the existence of an element of being that permittedinstability in a vacuum, an instability of being. With this formulation we aregoing beyond the classical view of being and becoming. The classical view wasthat we could reduce the history of the universe, and thereby science, to ageometry. Because of instability this is no longer possible. In my view, this theory of the BigBang leads to a more acceptable view of history. If one considers that therewas a kind of primordial instability leading to matter, space and time, thenone sees that our universe is not an isolated system; it arose from somethingelse. Therefore, to say that the universe was born and will decay and end inthermal death is no longer so certain because of instability. I very much like the fact thatinstability opens up a horizon of possibilities, since our actions at a giventime depend on the way in which we view the future. If we looked on the horizonand saw only death, pollution and decay, I think it would erase any argumentfor reasoned, ethical action today. AGAINST KANT | The view which wenow have of the universe and our place in it seems to me to be absolutelyanti-Kantian. In order to reconcile ethical behavior and the classical laws ofphysics, Kant had to introduce duality, which is a permanent fixture in theWestern history of philosophy. Descartes introduced a division between intelligentthought, the brain, on one side and matter on the other. Kant introduced thedifference between the noumenal world, which could be apprehended by intuition,and the phenomenological world, which could be apprehended through analysis.Physics would deal with phenomenology and ethics would be constructed in thenoumenal world. The main point of what I try tosay in my work is that we no longer need this kind of dualism. Life is moredeeply rooted in the laws of self-organization and coherent behavior thanclassical science led us to believe. TEMPORALIZING MATTER | Sculptureis time put into matter. In some of the most beautiful manifestations ofsculpture, be it in the dancing Shiva or in the miniature temples of Guerrero,there appears very clearly the search for a junction between stillness andmotion, time arrested and time passing. In a sense, culture is alwaystrying to temporalize matter. Today the symbol of the work being done in boththe physical and social sciences is a work of art because art embodies someelements that conform to given rules and other elements that arise unexpectedlythrough the process of creation. Bach, for instance, conformed to certain rulesfor counterpoint. However, inside the rules are many choices or bifurcationpoints. He could have chosen any number of different paths and the music wouldhave been completely different as a result. By including rules and choice,contemporary science is making our relations with nature more precise. As faras I am concerned, this is a very exciting moment. We are only in theprehistory of science. We are only beginning to understand the laws of nature. AGAINST FRAGMENTS | The projectfor the new millennium is to go against fragmentation. I sense that this istrue in all fields. When one thinks about the mainproblems in our world today one sees that the answers to them must beinterdisciplinary. The technical decision a company president makes today haseconomic, political, social and environmental repercussions that must be takeninto consideration. In the 19th century fragmentationplayed an important role in the establishment of separate disciplines forbiology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, psychology, sociology, etc. But whenwe consider the great challenges facing humanity today we see that we need aninterdisciplinary approach. Therefore at this historical moment, I think it isreally very important to emphasize the end of fragmentation, or at least theovercoming of fragmentation. On the scientific side, our projectis perhaps to build a kind of fundamental theoretical structure that serves tounify rather than alienate man from nature. As a theoretical physicist I wantto see what the rules of unification are. But unification also requires abetter understanding of diversity. Once we see chaos as playing an essentialrole in the basic laws, we see that the basic laws are probability laws, andfrom there a whole spectrum of possibilities emerges. In my work I am trying to draw amore unified picture of our universe, and at the same time I am attempting todefine our universe as temporal, pluralistic and complex. That is already a bigproject! I want to see how a new idea oflaws of nature emerges--not laws of nature in the classical, deterministic andtime reversible sense, but laws that contain the possibility of novelty. The future of mankind is mostoften seen in one of two ways. One view is that mankind is making progress withrespect to self-determination and human dignity, etc. The other view is thatmankind is running straight toward catastrophe. I believe that both attitudesare too extreme and have to be corrected. We do not live in a deterministicsystem. We cannot extrapolate from our present state what the future willbring. I prefer to look at this questionin a different way. I believe that what we do today depends on our image of thefuture, rather than the future depending on what we do today. We build ourequations by our actions. These equations, and the future they represent, arenot written in nature. In other words, time becomes construction. Of course, wehave some conditions that determine limits of the future but within theselimits are many, many possibilities. Therefore, since no deterministicprediction is likely to be valid, visions of the future--utopian visions--playa very important role in present conduct. I am more afraid of the lack of utopias. 。 【基础参考文献】 【斯宾诺莎】的《几何伦理学》 【康德】的《纯粹理性批判》、《实践理性批判》、《判断力批判》 【海德格尔】的《存在与时间》 【庞加莱】的《科学与假设》、《科学的价值》、《科学与方法》 【罗素】的《西方哲学史》 。 【中级参考文献】 【熵、概率和时间反演---是上帝还是妖魔鬼怪（1）？】 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-5190-14672.html 【熵、概率和时间反演---是上帝还是妖魔鬼怪（2）？】 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-5190-14718.html 【熵、概率和时间反演---是上帝还是妖魔鬼怪（3）？】 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-5190-14742.html 。 【高级参考文献】 二傻冒死讨论一下“熵”(增补) http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-5190-291973.html 。
标签: 傻帮讲座
