http://www.epochtimes.com/b5/9/5/31/n2543538.htm

 

時代週刊科學編輯Johathan Leake撰文,第一流科學家質疑:人生如夢(Top scientist asks: Is life all just a dream)?

小 說家Douglas Adams 在他的著作《星際漫遊便車指南》(The Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy)中創造了一台超級智能電腦「深思(Deep Thought)」,他認為人類和其他人類空間的一切只不過是電腦中模擬假相。英國皇家科學院的著名天文學家Martin Rees教授對此也非常認同。其實這種認識我們隨處可見,從古希臘的哲學家到現代的科幻作品。

Adams的理由很充足。人類世界已經被所謂 的高科技弄的亂七八糟,充滿了各種各樣的電子模擬系統。如果真像進化論所言來源低等(從單細胞進化而來)的人類都可以具有如此的(破壞性)能耐,可以想像 那些不是猴子變的,更嚴肅,更高級,更有能量的高級生命可以幹些甚麼。造出個甚麼超級智能系統模擬控制「猴子的後裔」應該是沒有問題的。 

有些科學家不同意,他們認為宇宙太複雜,不可能被模擬。值得反問的是,這些科學家為甚麼會覺得宇宙複雜的不可模擬,而猴子變人這一過程在他們看來卻簡單到了無須考證便可下結論。

儘 管有些科學家不同意Rees的觀點,這種人類被操縱的觀點卻在潛移默化中被人接受,如Jim Carrey 主演的「The Truman Show」,Tom Cruise 主演的「Vanilla Sky」 ,Keanu Reeves主演的「The Matrix」。

在 Adams的著作中,超級電腦智能「深思」造了地球和人類為運算和回答一個「生命終極問題」。BBC最近的一個電台節目中,Rees談到了為甚麼 Adams以及 Cruise 和Reeves所演的電影表達的觀點可能是對的。在一個名為「我們仍一無所知」電視節目中,Rees談到人類和人類社會為甚麼可以被看成是高級電腦中的軟 件。Rees強調,目前這只是一個理論,而這一理論卻被越來越多的物理學家和宇宙學家探討。其中之一是劍橋大學的數學教授 Barrow,他指出宇宙本身有一定程度的、對生物有保護性的、精妙的調控能力。宇宙的基本力或是一些常數(如引力)一些微小的變化就可導致新星產生,原 子分裂,甚至可能會演變成一個我們現在還無法想像的世界。這樣的調控可以被認為是高級智能在操控人類。也許比我們人類略勝一籌的文明就能做到這一點。

對於人類社會的生命,宇宙,和一切都是幻像這個理論,可以追溯到二千年前,莊子(中國哲學家,死於公元前295年)曾設想人生不過就是一場夢(莊周夢蝶)。

笛卡特(Rene Descartes),17世紀的法國哲學家也提出過同樣的問題。但他最有名的格言卻退而求實,「我思故我在(I think, therefore I am)。」有人認為,這可能是他把精神和物質分家的結果。

這一理論上個世紀又被羅素(Betrand Russell)重提,他認為人類只不過是泡在罐子裡的一些腦組織,電和化學物質刺激造成了人類的幻象。這一觀點馬上被阿西莫夫(Issac Asimov)用來寫成了他的科幻作品。

其 實人類被高級生命操縱這一理論並不新鮮。佛家從來都認為人生一切都是幻象,要想走出幻象必須修煉。但對於看不見高層生命、還能意識到人類被操縱的科學家應 該是出類拔萃的,可能已接近本世紀科學泰斗愛因斯坦的水平,愛因斯坦認為人類對自己的無知是無知的(地球上的一隻瞎眼的甲殼蟲無法知道它的爬行路線是彎曲 的)。所以被普通科學家不理解應該是理所當然的事。儘管如此,人類要想走出這一模擬的介質恐怕是遠遠地超越了現代科學家推算的能力。

(本文轉載自《明慧週報》海外版)(http://www.dajiyuan.com)

 

 

英文原文

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article391138.ece

 

DEEP THOUGHT, the supercomputer created by novelist Douglas Adams, got there first, but now the astronomer royal has caught up. Professor Sir Martin Rees is to suggest that “life, the universe and everything” may be no more than a giant computer simulation with humans reduced to bits of software.

Rees, Royal Society professor of astronomy at Cambridge University, will say that it is now possible to conceive of computers so powerful that they could build an entire virtual universe.

The possibility that what we see around us may not actually exist has been raised by philosophers many times dating back to the ancient Greeks and appears repeatedly in science fiction.

However, many scientists have always been dismissive, saying the universe was far too complex and consistent to be a simulation.

Despite this, the idea has persisted, popularised in films such as Tom Cruise’s Vanilla Sky and The Matrix, starring Keanu Reeves.

It was also the basis for The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, written by Adams, who died in 2001. In the book, Deep Thought creates the Earth and its human inhabitants as a giant calculating device to answer the “ultimate question”.

The BBC’s rerun of the radio version of Hitchhiker finished recently, just as Rees was putting together his contribution to the debate in which he will concede that the depictions by Adams, Cruise and Reeves might have been right after all.

In a television documentary, What We Still Don’t Know, to be screened on Channel 4 next month, he will say: “Over a few decades, computers have evolved from being able to simulate only very simple patterns to being able to create virtual worlds with a lot of detail.

“If that trend were to continue, then we can imagine computers which will be able to simulate worlds perhaps even as complicated as the one we think we’re living in.

“This raises the philosophical question: could we ourselves be in such a simulation and could what we think is the universe be some sort of vault of heaven rather than the real thing. In a sense we could be ourselves the creations within this simulation.”

Rees will emphasise that this is just a theory. But it is being increasingly discussed by other eminent physicists and cosmologists.

Among them is John Barrow, professor of mathematical sciences at Cambridge University. He points out that the universe has a degree of fine tuning that makes it safe for living organisms.

Even a tiny alteration in a fundamental force or a constant such as gravity would make stars burn out, atoms fly apart, and the world as we know it become impossible. Such fine tuning, he has said, could be taken as evidence for some kind of intelligent designer being at work.

“Civilisations only a little more advanced than ourselves will have the capability to simulate universes in which self-conscious entities can emerge and communicate with one another,” he said.

The idea that life, the universe and everything in it could be an illusion dates back more than 2,000 years. Chuang Tzu, the Chinese philosopher, who died in 295BC, wondered whether his entire life might be no more than a dream.

René Descartes, the 17th century French philosopher, raised similar questions. But he famously came down in favour of existence, saying: “I think, therefore I am.”

The idea was resurrected last century, notably by Bertrand Russell, who suggested that humans could simply be “brains in a jar” being stimulated by chemicals or electrical currents — an idea that was quickly taken up and developed by science fiction writers such as Isaac Asimov.

However, some academics pour cold water on the notion of a machine-created universe. Seth Lloyd, professor of quantum mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said such a computer would have to be unimaginably large.

“The Hitchhiker’s Guide is a great book but it remains fiction,” he said.

arrow
arrow
    全站熱搜

    timeboy 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()