进化的解码 自然界真的是分形几何学的某种表达吗？尽管把简单的数学方程引入分形计算机程序，并生成很有现实感的海岸线和生物有机体图像提供了很强的证据，但它并不能证明自然界的本质就是分形的。遍及生物圈的自相似模式的出现，可能其实仅仅是一个巧合。那么问题就变成，“是否有什么功能上的原因，致使生物圈的进化由分形几何学驱动？” 自然界是个动态系统，它建立在迭代过程和混沌数学的基础上，并且很敏感。分形几何刚好适用于为这样一种混沌系统建模，这个事实支持了我们的推测，但仍然没有为自然界为什么应该是分形的提供一个必然的理由。然而，还有另外一个令人信服的、严格地基于数学的理由，它提示在分形几何学和自然界结构之间所观察到的相似性何以不仅仅是巧合。 在历史上，拉马克把进化描述为“转变”，是某种从原始有机体开始向上进步，达到他形容为“完美”的状态的线性过程。在他的模型中，拉马克把进化设想为某种上升的阶梯。达尔文主义者也承认进化是上升的过程，但他们将该过程比之于一棵树。他们认为，大多数的随机变异所产生的新有机体类似于树的侧枝，它们不一定有助于物种的垂直提升。 作为更流行的考虑，我们更乐于给出这样的建议，即进化的道路更像是一朵怒放菊花的外形。各物种会向每一个方向进化，其内在动机是住满所有可用的环境生态位。有机体已经进化到可以住在冰川的冰块中，住在海底的火山口中，住在地面之下好多公里的基岩中，以及这些极端之间的所有地方之中。 在这个菊花模型里，提问“进化去往何方？”是没有意义的。它同时去往每一个方向。要跟踪进化的过程，我们必须先定义一个参数，用它作为尺度来衡量进化的进展。例如，海中生命的进化路径和陆地或者空中生物的进化路径相比有着不同的含义。人类在水中呼吸有机体的进化层次中排名并不高，在卵生动物或飞行动物的进化层次中也同样如此。那么，人类在进化上来说究竟擅长什么呢？ 同时作为进化的观察者和参与者，我们选择了进化菊花上的一片花瓣，来代表那个我们觉得可以把自己区别于低等生物的特性，这个特性就是觉察。拉马克在强调神经系统的发展作为其测量进化的尺度时，反映的正是这一特性。同样地，达尔文主义者也把他们的进化树阐释成神经系统的发育不断提高的层级系统。 不幸的是，正如在本书第1章《信者得见》中所总结的，以及在《信仰的生物学》一书中更详细地讨论过的，传统科学对进化的理解，已经由于它误把细胞核及其内含的基因当做细胞的神经系统，而产生了大大的扭曲。由此，当代科学出现了一种短视性的偏见，亦即用测量有机体的基因组作为其进化先进性的代表。 如前面所述，细胞真正的大脑是它的膜。膜结构中内置了感受器蛋白和效应器蛋白，它们既是开关，也代表着感知的可测量的单位。因此，某种有机体的觉察可以通过计算其所拥有的感知蛋白数量，加以物理地量化。 在第12章，《精神良医》中，我们提供的证据表明，因为物理的限制，感知蛋白只能在膜上形成单层。这种物理限制表明，各种感知蛋白的群体数量的增加直接系于有机体膜表面积的增加。换句话说，某种有机体为了增加其感知和脑能，它就不得不增加其膜能。 简单地说，这些洞察揭示出，数学家们有可能通过测绘某种有机体的膜表面积来计算其进化先进性。这要怎么做呢？刊登于《美国新闻与世界报道》的“人生的数学”一文的作者威廉•奥尔曼说，“分形数学研究表明，分形当中分支套分支的重复结构代表着在三维空间内获得最大表面积的最好的方式……”为进化建模需要使用分形几何学，是因为没有了它进化就不会发生。因而，自然界中那些自相似模式的外观不是某种巧合，而是进化数学的反映。 那些美得惊心动魄的，由计算机生成的分形模式，如同这本书的封面上所显示的装饰蝴蝶的翅膀的那些图案一样，它们应该能够提醒我们，尽管我们充满了的现代焦虑，尽管我们的世界看起来混乱不堪，但自然界却存在秩序。而因为这秩序是由自相似的分形模式内在组成的，所以在太阳底下没有什么真正的新鲜事物。 分形几何学的深奥世界提供了一个数学模型，它提示诸如随意性、无计划性、随机性和偶然性这些作为达尔文理论基础的东西，都是已经过时的概念。我们相信，继续支持这些过时的想法代表着对人类生存的根本性威胁，它应当，尽可能迅速地，走上哥白尼时代之前地心宇宙学说同样的道路。 Evolution Decoded Is Nature really an expression of fractalgeometry? While introducing simple mathematical equations into a fractalcomputer program and creating realistic landscapes and images of biologicalorganisms provides stronger evidence, it does not prove that Nature is trulyfractal in character. The appearance of self-similar patterns throughout thebiosphere may, in fact, be merely a coincidence. The question then becomes, “Isthere any functional reason as to why the evolution of the biosphere would bedriven by fractal geometry?” Nature is a dynamical system, founded oniterated processes and chaos mathematics, and subject to sensitivity. The factthat fractal geometry is the specificmathematics to model such a chaotic system supports, but yet again, does notnecessarily provide a reason as to why Nature should be fractal. However, thereis another compelling reason, based strictly on mathematics, that suggests whythe observed parallels between fractal geometry and the structure of Nature aremore than coincidence. Historically, Lamarck described evolutionas transformation, a linear process thatstarts with primitive organisms and progresses upward toward what he describedas “perfection.” In his model, Lamarck envisioned evolution as an ascendingladder. Darwinists also acknowledged an upward progression in evolution, butthey compared the process to a tree. They recognized that most randomvariations that generated new organisms are similar to a tree’s lateralbranches in that they do not necessarily contribute to vertical ascension ofthe species. As a more current consideration, we wouldlike to suggest that the path of evolution most closely resembles the shape ofan exploding chrysanthemum. Species evolve in every direction with the innatedrive to inhabit all available environmental niches. Organisms have evolved tolive in glacier ice, at volcanic vents under the ocean, in bedrock manykilometers beneath the ground, and everywhere in between. In the chrysanthemum model, it makes nosense to ask, “Where is evolution going?” It’s going in every direction atonce. To track the course of evolution, we must first define a parameter to beused as a yardstick to measure evolutionary advances. For example, the path ofevolution of life in the sea has a different meaning than the path of evolutionof life on the land or in the air. Humans do not rank very high in theevolution of water-breathing organisms or in the evolutionary hierarchy ofegg-laying animals or flying animals. So what do humans excel at,evolutionarily speaking? As both observers of and participants inevolution, we have selected a petal of the evolution-chrysanthemum to representa trait we feel distinguishes us from lower organisms, and that trait is awareness.This is the same character that Lamarck used when he emphasized the developmentof the nervous system as his evolutionary yardstick. Darwinists, likewise,illustrate their tree of evolution in a hierarchical ascendance of nervoussystem development. Unfortunately, as summarized in Chapter 1, Believing Is Seeing, and in more detailin The Biologyof Belief , conventional science’s understanding of evolution hasbeen significantly distorted by its faulty misperception that the cell’snucleus and its enclosed genes represent the cell’s nervous system. 5 Hence, science currently has a myopic preoccupation with measuring an organism’sgenome as representative of its evolutionary advancement. As described earlier, the true brain ofthe cell is its membrane. Built into the membrane’s structure are receptorproteins and effector proteins that serve as switches and which represent a measurableunit of perception. Consequently, an organism’s awareness can be physicallyquantified by calculating the number of perception proteins it possesses. In Chapter 12, Time to See a Good Shrink, we provide evidence that, becauseof physical restrictions, perception proteins can only form a monolayer in themembrane. This physical restriction means that an increase in the population ofperception proteins is directly tied to an increase in the organism’s membranesurface area. In other words, for an organism’s awareness to multiply and toincrease its brain power, it would have to increase its membrane power. Simply, these insights reveal thatmathematicians can calculate evolutionary advancement by mapping an organism’smembrane surface area. 6 And how would that be done? According toWilliam Allman, author of the “Mathematics of Human Life,” an article in U.S. News World Report, “Mathematicalstudies of fractals reveal that the repetitive branching-within-branchingstructure of a fractal represents the best way to get the most surface areawithin a three-dimensional space . . .” 7 Modeling evolution demandsthe use of fractal geometry because evolution wouldn’t occur without it.Consequently the appearance of self-similar patterns in Nature is not a coincidence,but is a reflection of evolutionary mathematics. The strikingly beautiful,computer-generated pictures of fractal patterns, such as those adorning thebutterfly’s wings on the cover of this book, should remind us that, despite ourmodern angst and the seeming chaos of our world, there is order in Nature. Andbecause this order is inherently comprised of self-similar fractal patterns,there is nothing truly new under the sun. The esoteric world of fractal geometryprovides a mathematical model that suggests the arbitrariness, planlessness,randomness, and accidents that underlie Darwinian theory are an outmodedconcept. We believe that continued support of these outdated ideas represents afundamental threat to the survival of humanity and should, as rapidly aspossible, go the way of the pre-Copernican Earth-centered Universe.
必要性是发明之母 在面对全球危机之际，新的前沿科学正在引入一个足以维持生命延续的新故事，一种看待世界的不同方式。当我们清除了我们文明当前所持的这种错误范式神话，代之以今天的科学所提供的修订版的觉知，一个全新的充满无数可能性的世界就出现了。透过这个校正之后的范式透镜去看的话，某种迄今未曾识别的模式跃入关注的焦点。 例如，在新科学的启迪之下，考虑一下人类如何进化这个问题。与进化由随机突变驱动的达尔文主义论断相反，凯恩斯所描述的有益突变，似乎可以肯定是意向性的。那种高躯体突变过程提供了一种进化机制，使有机体天生就能够主动地改变其遗传代码，从而适应环境的动态改变 。 前沿进化理论家们最近再次提出了 19 世纪的生态性物种形成概念，该概念认为，新物种的进化是由生态压力驱动的。这些理论家指出，环境当中狭小的、区域性的变化，如在各种微气候区中所见的那样，影响着有机体，使之迅速适应并改变其生物学形态和行为，以及其在这一改变了的环境中生存和繁荣的能力。 例如，我们可以把完全相同的鱼或蜗牛群体分割成两组，其中每组都分别引入相互分离但完全相同的环境。如果我们在其中一个环境中引入以鱼或蜗牛为食的捕食者，并追踪这两个群体的命运，我们就可以观察到，环境变化——捕食者——对鱼或蜗牛物种的进化过程产生了何等深远的影响。人们在自然生态系统中已经看到了类似的结果。 处于这种改变后的环境中的鱼或蜗牛，它们的成熟和繁殖更早，而相应的结构和行为变化可能导致它们的行为模式与那些生活在安全环境中因而未受到挑战的同宗相比出现很大的不同。如果有些个体因捕食者的存在而被迫迁移到其环境中此前很少光顾的地方生活和进食的话，这两个亚群的物种甚至可能进一步脱离关联。不管这些变化的出现是由表观遗传机制还是适应性突变机制所导致的，这些由环境引起的变化可能导致它们在发展道路上出现如此强烈的差异，以至于这些有机体可能再也无法识别此前本属同一物种的其它成员，也无法再与它们交配繁殖。 最近人们在对微生物的长期遗传研究中，展示了环境在塑造进化过程中的影响。为了确定随机性在进化过程中的作用，研究人员问了这样一个问题，“如果生命的历史可以从同一起点重来，它是否会有不同的展现方式？”他们首先将基因完全相同的细菌分别放入不同的试管中，这些试管中的每一个都包含同样的应激环境，然后再追踪每个试管中的细菌在 24,000 代中的进化。 研究人员发现，“这些微型适应性变异体每次都以同样的方式展开，它只受所在的环境因素的调控。”在一些实验中，不同培养皿中的适应来自不同类型的基因过程。在另一些研究中，不同培养皿中的适应具有惊人的可重复性，可以直接精确到 DNA 中 ATCG 序列的特定改变模式。 无论它们所采取的路径是什么，每支试管中的微生物最终都适应了同样的环境，并且大体上使用了相同的途径。这表明，同样的种群在面临相似条件时将遵循平行的进化道路。因此，通过这一实验以及前述的其他，新的前沿科学告诉我们，进化受环境中的决定因素的直接影响，而且很显然，不是随机的。 如果正像这些实验所提示的，进化是由环境条件塑造的，那么，只要对环境条件有足够的觉察，我们就应该能够预见进化过程。那么问题就变成，“在一个动态的世界里，我们能够预测环境条件吗？” 尽管动态系统看起来像是随机运作，洛伦茨却指出，如果有了足够高分辨率的环境数据，即使这些系统也是可以预见的。各种动态系统表达的是确定性混沌，或者简单地说，就是混沌。与显示随机行为的系统相反，混沌系统的命运是可预测的，而且正如洛伦兹所经验的，对初始值的影响高度敏感，例如在巴西一只蝴蝶翅膀的扇动，它启动连锁反应，并最终成为得克萨斯州的龙卷风。 When It Comes to Invention, Necessity Is aMother In the face of global crises, new-edgescience is introducing a new life-sustaining story, a different way of lookingat the world. When we replace civilization’s current faulty paradigmatic mythswith the revised awareness offered by today’s science, a whole new world ofpossibilities emerges. Seen through a corrected paradigm lens,heretofore-unrecognized patterns come into sharp focus. For example, consider the question ofhumanity’s evolution in light of new scientific insights. In contrast to theDarwinian assertion that evolution is driven by random mutations, Cairnsdescribed beneficial mutations that certainly seem to be intentional. Thehypersomatic mutation process provides a mechanism of evolution through whichorganisms are innately capable of adapting to dynamic changes in theenvironment by actively changing their genetic code. Leading edge evolution theorists have recently revived the 19thcentury concept of ecologicalspeciation, which suggests the evolution of new species is driven byecological pressures. These theorists point out that narrow, regionalvariations in an environment, such as in microclimate zones, influence anorganism to rapidly adapt and change its biological shape and behaviors as wellas its abilityto survive and thrive in that altered environment . For example, we can split an identical population of eitherfish or snails into two groups and introduce each group into separate, but identicalenvironments. If we introduce predators that feed off the fish or snails intoone of the environments and follow the fate of both populations, we can observehow environmental alterations—the predators—profoundly influence the course ofevolution within the fish or snail species. Similar results havebeen observed in natural ecosystems. 1 Fish or snails in the altered environmentwill mature and reproduce earlier, and consequent changes in their structureand behavior will likely lead to different behavior patterns than thoseexpressed by their unchallenged cohorts in the safe environment. The twosubpopulations of species could even further disconnect from one another ifsome are forced by predation to live and feed in formerly unfrequented parts oftheir environment. Regardless of whether these changes are introduced byepigenetic mechanisms or by adaptive mutations, environmentally inducedalterations may lead to such divergent developmental paths that such organismsmay no longer be able to recognize or breed with other members of the,previously, same species. 2 The influence of environment in shapingevolution was recently demonstrated in long-term genetic studies on microbes. Trying to determine the role of chance inevolutionary development, researchers asked, “If the history of lifecould be replayed from the same starting point, would it unfold differently?”After introducing genetically identical bacteria into separate test tubes, eachof which contained the same stressful environment, they followed the evolutionof bacteria in each tube through 24,000 generations. Researchers found that “these miniatureadaptive radiations unfold in the same way every time, governed by theavailable environmental niches.” 3 In some experiments, adaptations indifferent cultures were derived from different types of genetic processes. Inother studies, the adaptations in different cultures were surprisinglyreproducible, right down to the specific pattern of alterations in ATGCsequences in DNA. Regardless of the path they took, microbesin each tube ultimately adapted to the same environment, generally using thesame pathways. This indicates that identical populations faced with similarconditions follow parallel courses of evolution. Therefore, through this experimentand the others described above, new-edge science reveals that evolution isdirectly influenced by environmental determinants and, apparently, is notrandom. If evolution is shaped by environmentalconditions, as these experiments suggest, then, with enough awareness ofenvironmental conditions, we should be able to envision the course ofevolution. The question then becomes, “Can we predict environmental conditionsin a dynamic world?” While dynamical systems appear to behave randomly, Lorenz revealed that, with enough resolution ofenvironmental data, even these systems are predictable. Dynamical systemsexpress deterministic chaos, or,simply, chaos . In contrast to systems thatdisplay random behaviors, the fates of chaotic systems are predictable and, asLorenz experienced, highly sensitive to initial influences, such as the flap ofa butterfly’s wings in Brazil that initiates a chain reaction and culminates asa tornado in Texas.
第十一章：分形进化 “一旦我们理解了进化的数学， 我们就将了解未来。” ——斯瓦米·贝雍达南达 未来学有未来吗？ 在第一部分 信者得见 和第二部分 启示录中的四种错觉 中，我们提供了一份简短的西方文明史，这份历史是通过不断进化的基本范式这一镜头看到的。我们的重点是个人信念怎样地影响了我们的生物学，以及文化的范式信念如何塑造一个文明的命运。在第三部分中，我们将把这些旧故事抛在脑后，与此同时为新的故事编织各种元素，这个新故事将引导我们通过真正的新千年这块未知之地。 在编写“我们是怎么来的”的故事时，我们得到了一个坐享其成的机会，可以从后知后觉的角度评估历史。然而，第三部分将介绍一种完全不同类型的故事——某种深入未来的愿景。提供 将 发生什么的信息显然和提供历史分析属于不同的努力。我们现在即将进入预测这个领域，或者更正式地称为 未来学 ，即根据对社会趋势的评估，系统地预报未来。 预测可以是精密的推理，也可能是彻底的猜测。从性质上讲，猜测所依据的是不充分的信息，因此它代表着某种不确定的预测。与此相反，推理所依据的是证据和逻辑，因此它代表了有很大概率可能正确的预测。然而，推理的准确性依赖于所知的证据和逻辑推演。显然，本该很坚实的推理也可能完全脱靶，只要它所依据的诸信念是不准确的或者扭曲的。 福特汽车公司为通过扭曲的镜头展望未来提供了强有力的实例。 1958 年，福特发布了一项 4 亿美元的风险投资项目，旨在吸引公众的关注和购买力。福特雇佣了麦迪逊大道上最好的营销研究团队，设计出一个新的汽车系列，并将其吹捧为“……带有更多你的观念”的汽车。福特的这型埃德塞尔汽车，其设计目标是满足大众在流行款式上的趋势，其广告设计目的也是从科学角度上吸引购车者的动机。 但埃德塞尔却成了历史上最有名的营销灾难。事实上，该名称从此成为商业惨败的代名词，其他同样命运多舛的产品往往被诙谐地作为“埃德塞尔之流”弃置掉。营销专家们把埃德塞尔当做美国企业无法了解美国消费者的绝顶实例。有关这次失败的更有趣的因素之一，如《 时代 》杂志在其“ 50 种最差汽车”名单中所说的，是“文化评论家们推测，这辆车之所以是一个失败，是因为其垂直格栅看起来很像阴道。也许吧。美国在 1950 年代中对各种与女性相关的事物肯定都有恐惧症。” 使用传统诸信念和推理来做预测的未来学家有时会错得很离谱。就像一位弓手一样，他们有罪。预言者之罪的严重性可以从被误导的人数上来测量。那么如果某未来学家刚好是负责指导文明命运的政治学家、经济学家、或者社会学家的话，想一想这位未来学家的罪的后果吧。 在以下这个悲剧性的错觉和误导的实例中，国防部长唐纳德·拉姆斯菲尔德向全世界保证，战胜伊拉克所花费的时间不会超过几个星期。我们现在知道，拉姆斯菲尔德基于扭曲的证据和推理所犯的罪，已经让美国为这场所有战争中之埃德塞尔付出了——并且还将继续不断地付出——高昂的代价！ 优秀的未来学家有能力评估数据并识别其中的固有模式。因此，模式识别是学习过程中的首要成分，也是规划未来之所必需。 下面给你一个机会，测试一下你作为未来学家的技能如何。请研究下面的四个序列，预测填空的数字或字母： (1) 13 – 26 – 39 – 52 – 65 –___ (2) C – F – I – L – O – R –___ (3) 7 – 3 – B – 16 – 2 – 9 –C – 0 – 4 – H – 1 – 1 – ___ (4) 3 – 1 – 4 – 1 – 5 – 9 –2 – 6 – ___ 只有当我们观察到某种可识别的模式之后，答案才会显现。在序列（ 1 ）中，模式显示每个新数字的导出方法是给前一个数字加 13 。在序列（ 2 ）中的模式是列出字母表中每次排第三位的字母。如果你第（ 1 ）和（ 2 ）题的答案分别是 78 和 U ，那么恭喜你——你已经看到了深入未来的景象！ 然而，在预测序列（ 3 ）的未来时，问题就出现了。因为很显然，这个模式既没有节律也没有逻辑。因此，不论你用任何答案来填空，顾名思义，它所代表的都是彻底的猜测。因为这是某种随机序列，从哲学上说，任何猜测都可能对或者错——而且，正如适用于量子宇宙的情形，该猜测的准确性理所当然地依赖于观察者。 对大多数读者而言，序列（ 4 ）似乎又是一个随机序列。令人惊讶的是，它的答案是 5 。也许你已经足够聪明地认出了这个表面看来的非模式其实是一串特定的数字序列，它代表着圆周率（π）的数学形式。因此，序列（ 4 ）强调了某种对未来学家而言重要的关注点，也就是自然界中这样的一些成分，它看上去似乎是随机的，实际上却是 混沌的 ，因为它们具有某种潜在但迄今未知的模式。 这个简单的练习说明了有关未来学的三个根本要点：首先，如果能够识别出某种模式，那么预测未来事件的准确性相对较高。其次，如果发现事件是随机的，那么所有的预测本质上都是猜测，其精确性是靠碰运气的。第三，表面看来缺乏某种模式并不意味着真的没有模式。有些模式显而易见，有些模式不易辨认，有些事情根本就没有模式！ 生存有赖于模式识别。作为原始的例子，人族早期对自然界基本模式的知识包括昼夜周期，月周期，以及包括四季的恒星年周期。观察与预测天体模式的能力对农业的发展和文明的进一步演化都十分重要，因为这种觉察给人们提供了方法和动机以规划未来的行动，例如春种秋收以待冬日。 同样，早期的人类文化能够把生老病死的生物模式与这颗行星上季节循环的模式联系起来。这些模式对于生存来说是如此的重要，以至于各种文明都建立了许多巨型建筑和神殿，例如英国巨石阵和马丘比丘的印加太阳神殿，以观察和标记日月星辰的运转。 今天，日历成了我们记录这些每日的、季节性的以及年度的模式的标记物。只要日历在手，不论身处世界上任何地方的人都可以知道，诸如海龟到加拉帕戈斯海滩产卵的繁殖季，或燕子返回卡波斯特拉罗的日子。 当早期人类把天文模式与人类行为模式相互联系时，他们发现了地球周期和人体生理学之间的关系。例如，月周期和女人月经周期的长度都是 28 天，这个事实并非某种巧合。 天空和人的生物学与行为之间的这种联系导致古代社会创建了占星术这门科学和艺术。事实证明，模式观测和人的行为预测这样的占星术实践是如此之有价值，以至于从最早记载的历史直到今天，各国政府的统治者与领袖们都在咨询占星学家以占卜他们国家的未来。 随着新文化信息的引入并被视为真理，先肇始于一神论者，后来又被科学唯物论者所加强，文明对地球艺术的觉察力逐渐退化，先是变成了历史，然后岁易时移，又变成了神话。今天的科学认为，这些古老的实践纯粹是违背自然法则的信仰。而我们当今这个基于科学的社会完全抛弃了这种古老的深入未来的占卜艺术，把它当做原始的超自然礼仪。 但是，或许正如新的前沿科学所揭示的，这些地源性实践仅仅是违背了传统科学家们那种受局限的视野而已，这些人仍然在通过那四种神话错觉的有色眼镜看世界。幸运的是，在我们中间还有能说这颗行星的语言的原住民后裔。但是，这些地球管家的人口正在迅速减少，所以我们必须迅速行动起来，以确保他们的智慧不会丢失。 今天之文明的特征主要是由科学唯物论拿出来作为范式性真理的东西所塑造的，而这些东西其实是 19 世纪中叶达尔文介绍了他那个版本的进化论之后才开始被采纳的信念体系。尽管它们存在固有的缺陷，但这些被视为科学真理的东西仍然提供了某种重要的概念框架，使技术发展和文明成长成为可能。不过，尽管这些有缺陷的信念体系曾经为我们的现代世界提供了奇迹，但其缺点今天已经威胁到了人类的生存。 目前人类所面临的关键问题其实是一些症状，它们反映出我们无法伸向未来。文明像一支任性的火箭，已经歪歪斜斜地从一个灾难飞往另一个灾难，充分表现出自己是一个强大的但却没有任何有意导航的运载工具。 传统智慧正是促成人类历史的那种反复无常、并且经常是灾难深重的历史进程的重要因素。尽管这种普遍接受的推理形式被用于勾画模式并展望未来，但它也可能被错误的知觉所扭曲，尤其是当我们需要对能量场、基因决定论和进化的本质有一个准确认识的时候。 因此，为了准确地看清我们的去向，必须首先了解我们导致现状的模式。然而，在向传统科学咨询进化中的固有模式问题时，我们必须认识到，达尔文主义那种很有限制性的随机进化信仰会在很大程度上扭曲他们的答案。 传统科学如何解释我们导致现状的过程？ 噢——是在随机突变和遗传事故的驱动之下，通过数十亿年的时间逐步演变而来的。 那么，如果我们就是这样一路走来的，那么我们可以预测进化将把我们带向何处吗？ 也许是一路兜风……到地狱？ 严肃地说，如果进化是由随机的、无模式的事件驱动的，有谁能预测我们会去往何方？在这种情况下，任何预测从概念上说都是一种纯粹的猜测。例如，想一想当初家用电脑热刚开始冲击大众的时候，未来学家们预测说，在若干世纪之后，人类将进化成身体更小、脑袋更大的状态，因为他们整天坐在电脑终端前。但是，如果我们看看目前流行的肥胖和智力萎缩，就可以看出这个预言纯粹是一场埃德塞尔猜测！ Chapter 11 Fractal Evolution “Once we understand the math of evolution, we will understand the aftermath as well.” —Swami Beyondananda Is There a Future in Futurology? In Part I, BelievingIs Seeing, and Part II, FourMyth-Perceptions of the Apocalypse, we provided a brief history ofWestern civilization as seen through the lens of an evolving basal paradigm.Our focus was on the nature of how personal beliefs influence our biology andhow a culture’s paradigmatic beliefs shape the fate of a civilization. In PartIII, we leave the oldstories behind as we weave the elements of a new story that will guide usthrough the uncharted territory of a truly new millennium. In compiling the story of how we gothere, we were afforded the armchair opportunity of assessing history throughthe lens of 20–20 hindsight. But Part III introduces a completely differentkind of story—a vision into the future. Offering information as to what will be is clearly a different endeavor thanproviding an historical analysis. We are now entering into the domain of prediction,or, more formally, Futurology, a systematic forecasting ofthe future based on an assessment of societal trends. A prediction may range from an outrightguess to an astute inference. By its nature, a guess is based on in sufficient information and,consequently, represents a chancy prediction . In contrast, an inference is based on evidence and reasoning and, therefore,represents a prediction that has a greater probability of being correct . Yet, the accuracy of aninference is dependent on perceived evidence and reason. Obviously, apresumably solid inference can totally miss the mark if the beliefs upon whichit is founded are inaccurate or distorted. The Ford Motor Company provided apowerful example of envisioning the future through a distorted lens. In 1958,Ford unveiled a $400 million venture designed to capture the public’s attentionand purchasing dollars. Using the best Madison Avenue marketing research, Forddesigned a new line of automobiles touted as the carhaving “. . . more YOU ideas.” The Ford Edsel wasengineered to complement public trends in styling, and its advertising wasscientifically designed to elicit car buyers’ motivations. But the Edsel became the most famous marketing disaster in history. In fact, the namehas since become synonymous with commercial fiascos, and other similarlyill-fated products are often comically dismissed as being Edsels. Marketingexperts hold the Edsel up as a supreme example of corporate America’s inabilityto understand the nature of the American consumer. One of the more interesting factorsfor the failure, as stated in TIME magazine’s list of “50 Worst Cars,” was that: “ Cultural critics speculated that the car was a flop because thevertical grill looked like a vagina. Maybe. America in the ’ 50swas certainly phobic about the female business.” Futurists who use conventional beliefs and reasoning totarget a prediction sometimes widely miss the mark. Like an archer, they sin.The gravity of a prognosticator’s sin can be measured in terms of the number ofpeople who are misled. Consider the ramifications of a futurist’s sin when thatfuturist is a politician, economist, or sociologist responsible for guiding thefate of civilization. In a tragic example of misperception and misguidance,Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld assured the world of a fast victory inIraq lasting no more than a few weeks. We now know that Rumsfeld’s sin, basedon distorted evidence and reasoning, has cost—and continues to cost—UnitedStates dearly in what has been the Edsel of all wars! A good futurist has the ability to assess data and identifyinherent patterns. Therefore, pattern recognition is aprimary component in the learning process and a necessity in projecting thefuture. Below is an opportunity to test yourskills at being a futurologist. Study the four sequences below and predict thenumber or letter that will fill the blank: (1) 13 –26 – 39 – 52 – 65 – ___ (2) C – F– I – L – O – R – ___ (3) 7 –3 – B – 16 – 2 – 9 – C – 0 – 4 – H – 1 – 1 – ___ (4) 3 –1 – 4 – 1 – 5 – 9 – 2 – 6 – ___ Answers only become obvious after weobserve a recognizable pattern. In sequence (1), the pattern reveals that eachnew number is derived by adding 13 to the previous number. In sequence (2) thepattern represents listing every third letter in the alphabet. If your answersfor (1) and (2) were respectively, 78 and U, congratulations—you have seeninto the future! However, problems arise in predicting thefuture in sequence (3) because, apparently, there is neither rhyme nor reason tothe pattern. Consequently, any answer you use to fill in the blank, bydefinition, represents an outright guess. Because this is a random equation,philosophically, any guess can be either right or wrong—and, as befitting aquantum Universe, the accuracy of that guess is dependent, of course, upon the observer. For most readers, sequence (4) might seemto be yet another random sequence. Surprisingly, the answer is 5. Perhaps you were sufficiently astute to haverecognized this apparent non-pattern as the specific sequence of numbers that representthe mathematical formula for Pi ( p ). Equation(4), therefore, underscores a relevant concern for futurologists, that is, somecomponents of Nature that appear to be random are actually chaotic in that they possess an underlying, butas yet, unrecognized pattern. This simple exercise illustrates threefundamentally important points concerning futurology: First, if a pattern canbe recognized, then the accuracy of predicting a future event is relativelyhigh. Second, if events are found to be random, then all predictions areessentially guesses with an accuracy based on chance. Third, the apparentabsence of a pattern does not imply the absence of a pattern. Some patterns areobvious, some patterns not readily recognizable, and some things simply don’thave a pattern! Survival is dependent on patternrecognition. As a primal example, humankind’s early knowledge of Nature’sfundamental patterns included the day-night cycle, the lunar cycle, and thesidereal yearly cycle with four seasons. The ability to observe and forecastcelestial patterns was fundamental to the development of agriculture andfurther evolution of civilization because this awareness provided humans with themeans and motivation to plan future actions, such as planting crops in thespring then harvesting and storing food for the coming winter. Likewise, early human cultures were ableto connect the biological patterns of birth, growth, and death with the planet’scyclic seasonal patterns. These patterns were so important to survival, thatcivilizations built great edifices and temples, such as Stonehenge and theIncan Sun Temple at Machu Picchu, to observe and mark the transit of the sun,moon and stars. Today, the calendar serves as ourmonument to these daily, seasonal and yearly patterns. With a calendar, aperson anywhere in the world can know, for example, the propagation season for turtleslaying their eggs on a Galapagos beach or the day swallows return toCapistrano. When early humans connected astronomicalpatterns with patterns of human behavior, they recognized a link betweenEarth’s cycles and human physiology. For example, the fact that the lunar cycleand a woman’s menstrual cycle are each 28 days long is not a coincidence. This link between the heavens and humanbiology and behavior led ancient societies to found the science and art of astrology.The practice in astrology of observing patterns and predicting human behaviorproved to be so valuable that, from earliest recorded history to the presentday, government rulers and leaders have consulted with astrologers to divinethe future of their nations. With the introduction of new cultural information, perceived astruths, that was proffered by the monotheists and, later, by the scientificmaterialists, civilization’s awareness of Earth arts receded first into historyand, over time, into myth. Science today considers these ancient practices asbeliefs that are simply beyond the laws of Nature. And our currentscience-based society totally dismisses the ancient divining arts of seeinginto the future as primitive metaphysical rituals. But perhaps, as new-edge science isrevealing, these Earth practices are only beyond the limited vision ofconventional scientists who still perceive the world through the flawed lensesof the four myth-perceptions. Fortunately, we have among us aboriginal descendentswho are still able to speak the language of the planet. But, the populations ofthese Earth stewards are rapidly diminishing, so we must act quickly to ensurethat their wisdom will not be lost. The character of today’s civilization isprimarily shaped by what scientific materialism presents as paradigmatic truths,which are really the beliefs originally adopted after Darwin introduced hisversion of evolution theory in the mid-19th century. In spite of their inherentfaults, these perceived scientific truths, nonetheless, provided an importantconceptual framework that enabled the development of technology and the growthof civilization. But while these flawed beliefs once provided the miracles ofour modern world, their shortcomings are a threat to human survival today. The critical problems currently facinghumanity are symptoms that reflect our inability to project into the future.Like a wayward rocket, civilization has been careening from one disaster toanother, showing itself to be a forceful vector with no intentional direction. Conventional wisdom is a contributingfactor to history’s erratic and often calamitous course. While this commonly acceptedform of reasoning is used to envision patterns and project futures, it can alsobe distorted by faulty perceptions, especially when an accurate awareness ofenergy fields, genetic determinism and the nature of evolution is required. Therefore, in order to accurately seewhere we are going, we must first understand the patterns of how we got here.However, when consulting conventional science about inherent patterns inevolution, we must recognize that limiting Darwinian beliefs concerning randomevolution will profoundly distort their answers. How does conventional science explain howwe got here? Oh—through billions of years of gradual evolution driven byrandom mutations and genetic accidents. So, if that’s how we got here, then canwe predict about evolution will take us? Perhaps on a joy ride . . . to Hell? Seriously, if evolution is driven byrandom, unpatterned events, how can anyone predict where we are going? Anyprediction, by definition, would be a sheer guess. For example, consider thefact that when the home computer rage first hit the public, futurists projectedthat, in the centuries ahead, humans would evolve smaller bodies and biggerheads from sitting at computer terminals all day. But if we look at the currentepidemic in obesity and dwindling intelligence, we see that that prediction wasan Edsel of a guess!
中华泌尿外科学会副主任委员王建业认为，肖氏术对临床效果的评估和随访数据都缺乏准确的对照。在缺乏对照的情况下，说临床效果如何好，并以此不成熟的技术来向患者收费，都是不负责任的。 肖氏术并非没有对照。没有比较就没有鉴别，如何能得出疗效好坏的结论呢？就目前的数据来看，肖氏术采用的是非随机对照，如患者自身前后对照，术前拉不出尿、术后拉出来了。不可否认，这种对照有缺陷，不能排除其它因素的影响，容易出现假阳性或假阴性结果。王委员说的对照应该是指随机对照，随机分组病人比较肖氏术与其它疗法的差别。问题是有多少手术试验采用了随机对照？这里有篇综述列出了详细的统计数据(Perspectives of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg, 2003;20:263-269): 查询1966-2000年Medline医学文献数据库可检索到289807篇临床试验论文，其中采用随机对照（RCT）的有134689篇，占46.5%；外科试验（包括药物和手术试验）有RCT的20376篇，仅占全部临床试验的7%，全部RCT试验的15%。 以五年为一个时间段分析外科RCT占全部RCT的比例变化趋势，在7个时间段里这个比例依次为26%、10%、13%、15%、15%、15%、16%。 外科RCT加双盲设计占全部外科RCT的比例依次为5%、6%、20%、21%、20%、23%、25%。总计23%。 1986年以前没有外科多中心试验的报道。之后的三个五年里多中心RCT占全部外科RCT的比例为5%、13%、12%。总计11%。 分析5种声誉较高的外科学术杂志（Annals of Surgery, Archives of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery, World Journal of Surgery, Surgery）, 在所有1966-2000年的论文中只有3.4%（1.9%～4.8%）采用RCT。进一步分析发现，1991-2000年间的728篇RCT论文中有 78篇并没有达到设计要求。在剩下的650篇中，363篇是比较药物治疗的作用，手术试验不到一半。 按循证医学理论，RCT、多中心、Meta分析、系统评价是验证有效性和安全性的最高级别证据。达不到这个级别的证据经系统评价往往会得出no evidence of benefit的结论，都可以说安全性、有效性的循证医学证据尚不足，还要进行充分的论证。外科手术效果受很多因素影响，如手术方式、术者技术、疾病适应症、效果评价等等，在实验设计上有伦理学的严格要求，很难像药物试验那样做到随机双盲，目前在循证医学上也没有客观、成熟的评价外科手术的方法。更严格的试验设计无疑是肖氏术走向成熟的努力方向，但脱离外科手术的特点和实际情况，空谈对照、循证医学，是站着说话不腰疼。按卫生部发言人和王委员的说法，以循证医学已验证有效为标准，缺乏随机对照的手术试验就不成熟、不该收费，相信中国医院里实施的很多手术都尚待充分的论证并应该免费给病人实施。【多半大部分手术都落入这个范围，寻正注】
标签: 随机
![[转载]《自发进化》节选(41)](http://image.sciencenet.cn/album/201303/18/211312s4kmjj60aa8zrr9m.jpg.thumb.jpg)
