评论
打印
Emergence is when many small things together create new fundamental traits that didn't exist before.
涌现是指许多小事物共同创造出以前不存在的新的基本特征。
A drop of water is just a sextillion H2O molecules. If you get water on your pants, they get wet. But what is wetness? H2O molecules are not wet.
一滴水只是十亿亿个H2O分子。如果裤子上沾了水，裤子就会湿。但什么是湿？H2O分子不湿。
But your pants are definitely wet now. Many small things together just created something new that doesn't exist at the level of the individual molecules.
但你的裤子现在肯定湿了。许多小事物共同创造了一些在单个分子层面上不存在的新事物。
Emergence occurs at all levels of reality, and reality seems to be organized in layers: atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs, you, society.
涌现发生在现实的各个层面，现实似乎是分层组织的：原子、分子、细胞、组织、器官、你、社会。
Put many things in one layer together and they'll create the next layer up. Every time they do, entirely new properties emerge.
将一个层中的许多事物放在一起，它们将创建下一层。每次这样做时，都会出现全新的属性。
One Atom can't handle information, but many of them together can form a DNA molecule.
一个原子无法处理信息，但许多原子可以组合成DNA分子。
Molecules are not alive, but many of them can form a cell, and cells are alive. With each jump up the complexity ladder the rules of what's possible change.
分子不是活的，但许多分子可以形成细胞，而细胞是活的。随着复杂性阶梯的每次提升，可能性的规则都会发生变化。
Completely new things emerge that are much more than the sum of their parts. And here the reductionist view of the universe breaks down.
全新的事物出现，它们远远大于其各部分的总和。而这里，宇宙的还原论观点就不攻自破了。
The layers of reality need each other to make sense. You can explain living things with cells, cells with molecules and molecules with atoms.
现实的各个层面需要彼此才能理解。你可以用细胞来解释生物，用分子来解释细胞，用原子来解释分子。
But because of emergence, you can't start with quantum particles and reconstruct the universe.
但由于涌现，你不能从量子粒子开始重建宇宙。
You can't explain galaxies with quantum mechanics, or human psychology with quarks. This is not the whole story.
你不能用量子力学来解释星系，用夸克来解释人类心理学。这不是故事的全部。
Reality is not just structured in layers but for some reason the layers are also largely independent of each other.
现实不仅仅是分层构建的，而且由于某种原因，各个层面也在很大程度上是相互独立的。
Things existing within the same layer can influence each other and maybe a layer up or down. But often they don't seem to influence things much higher up or down.
存在于同一层中的事物可以相互影响，甚至可能影响上层或下层。但它们往往似乎不会影响更高或更低的事物。
To figure out how your organs work, you don't need quarks. To understand politics, you don't need to know about cells!
要弄清楚你的器官是如何工作的，你不需要夸克。要理解政治，你不需要了解细胞！
If you want to explain things happening on one layer, you can only do that by staying close to that layer.
如果你想解释某一层发生的事情，你只能通过靠近该层来做到这一点。
"Noooooooo" screams the no-free-will camp in frustration. "You can't just use magic to explain free will!" But the emergence argument doesn't invoke magic.
无自由意志阵营沮丧地尖叫道：“不，你不能只用魔法来解释自由意志！”但涌现论并没有援引魔法。
It just says that thinking about free will in terms of determinism and fundamental laws is a dead end.
它只是说，用决定论和基本定律来思考自由意志是一条死路。
A kind of category error, like trying to explain galaxies by looking at your digestive tract.
这是一种分类错误，就像试图通过观察你的消化道来解释星系一样。
It is part of a reductionist school of thinking about the universe that very successfully shaped science for a long time – but that's challenged by emergence.
它是关于宇宙的还原论学派的一部分，这种学派在很长一段时间内非常成功地塑造了科学——但这种学派受到了涌现论的挑战。
So maybe, trying to understand free will by looking at fundamental particles, deterministic laws and quantum mechanics misses the point.
所以也许，试图通过观察基本粒子、确定性定律和量子力学来理解自由意志是没有抓住重点的。
The question we should be asking is – which layer of reality is relevant to free will?
我们应该问的问题是——现实的哪一层与自由意志有关？
Well, just like no individual molecule creates wetness, not a single cell in your brain wants to watch Youtube.
就像没有一个分子能产生湿度一样，你大脑中没有一个细胞想看Youtube。
But one layer up, your brain made of 80 billion interconnected neurons does.
但在上一层，你的大脑由800亿个相互连接的神经元组成。
On this layer all the things relevant to you emerge: your consciousness, character, feelings, your fears and dreams. This is where you emerge.
在这一层上，所有与你相关的东西都出现了：你的意识、性格、感觉、你的恐惧和梦想。这就是你出现的地方。
We don't know why and how, but we know that you're here, right now.
我们不知道为什么以及如何，但我们知道你现在就在这里。
How all the things going on in your brain play off each other to make you who you are is a whole different can of worms – but on this layer of reality, you are part of the decision process.
你大脑中发生的所有事情如何相互作用，造就了你，这是一个完全不同的问题——但在这个现实层面上，你是决策过程的一部分。
Because, at this level, "you" are just one more physical cause of whatever happens in your brain.
因为在这个层面上，“你”只是你大脑中发生的任何事情的又一个物理原因。
You are shaped by your decisions and your decisions are shaped by you. You have a say about this layer of reality.
你被你的决定所塑造，而你的决定又由你塑造。你对这个现实层面有发言权。
You are not just witnessing how the universe inside you unfolds – you're actually taking part in it! And you are free to do so however you see fit.
你不仅见证了你内心的宇宙如何展开——你实际上也参与其中！你可以自由地以你认为合适的方式去做。
At least this is how some on the free will side see it. Conclusion and Opinion So who is right? Is there free will? We don't know.
至少这是自由意志方面的一些人的看法。结论和观点那么谁是对的？有自由意志吗？我们不知道。
If you ask us personally, we think the argument for free will is more appealing because it brings the complexity of the universe to the table.
如果你亲自问我们，我们认为自由意志的论点更有吸引力，因为它将宇宙的复杂性带到了桌面上。
Maybe existence is just the sum of its parts, but at least for now it seems the universe is not that simple.
也许存在只是其各部分的总和，但至少现在看来宇宙并没有那么简单。
But even if we don't have free will, it's not clear what that changes for practical purposes.
但即使我们没有自由意志，也不清楚这在实际目的上会有什么变化。
You and us, we humans, on a purely subjective basis, feel like we have free will and that your decisions are yours to make.
我们人类在纯粹主观的基础上感觉我们有自由意志，你的决定由你自己做出。
As long as we are not sure either way, and if it feels like you are making decisions, what does it matter if a non-existent supercomputer could have calculated the future at the big bang?
只要我们不确定，如果感觉你在做决定，那么即使一台不存在的超级计算机可以在大爆炸时计算出未来，那又有什么关系呢？
Or if quantum stuff all the way down randomly nudges your cells one way or the other. Free will that feels free is good enough for us.
或者如果量子物质一路随机地以某种方式推动你的细胞。自由意志对我们来说已经足够了。
In any case, now you can decide what to do next. Maybe get some stuff done? Or watch more of our videos? It's your decision! Probably.
无论如何，现在你可以决定下一步做什么。也许做点什么？或者看更多我们的视频？这是你的决定！可能吧。
At least you can pick which video to watch next - in theory. What you have really almost no control over is how the state of the world is presented to you in the news.
至少你可以选择接下来要看哪个视频——理论上是这样。你几乎无法控制的是新闻如何向你呈现世界的状态。
Algorithms are constantly working behind the scenes to decide which information to show you, and alarmist headlines get amplified over straightforward reporting.
算法在幕后不断运行，决定向你显示哪些信息，危言耸听的标题比直白的报道更加引人注目。
