Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Let's say if we have this many of something, we'll call it "one", and represent it

    假設我們現在這裡有這一堆東西,我們稱之為一, 並且用

  • with this symbol. If we have this many, we'll call it "two", and use this this symbol.

    這個符號來代表它。再來,我們現在這裡有這另一堆東西,我們稱之為二,並且用這個符號來代表它

  • If there's none. If there's a certain amount of something and that amount is

    現在假設我們一無所有。我們現在有「一堆東西」, 而這堆東西的總數量為「無」

  • none many, we'll call it zero and use this symbol. This many, call it three. Duh duh

    我們稱之為, 並用這個符號代表它。這裡這一堆,我們稱之為三,由此類推

  • duh duh duh. If there's this many, we'll call it ten. And we're all out of symbols.

    有這麼多的話,我們稱之為十。接下來,我們已經沒有可以使用的符號了

  • So we'll just start reusing symbols. And so on. This is a way, we can represent quantities

    所以我們只能重複使用已經用過的符號了。透過利用文字與符號,我們就能夠

  • with words and symbols. And we represent lots of properties with words.

    表示物品的「量」了。另一方面,在日常生活中,我們利用文字來代表很多東西的「特性」

  • Like redness. They can have shapes. Things can be cold. Scattered or patterned. They can

    像是:某個東西是「紅的」; 東西的「形狀」; 東西可能是「冷冰冰的」; 「零星的」或「有規則可循的」

  • be wooden or wet. Even though 2 things are shaped differently

    「木製的」或「濕答答」的。就算某兩個東西形狀上不太一樣

  • and are made of different materials we may still call them by the same name because of

    我們還是會因為這兩個東西擁有

  • other characteristics. Things can have movements or behaviours. And

    其他 「相同」的特質,進而用同樣的名稱來稱呼這兩個東西。有些東西會移動或有所行為

  • we can have descriptions that only come when we're comparing or looking at multiple things.

    有些形容的用語,是只會在我們比較複數個東西的時候會用到的

  • Any characteristic, property, or concept that we think about something, we always also have

    我們有詞彙能夠述說任何特質、特性、或概念

  • a word for it. …I thinkthat might not be right.

    我是這樣想的啦…雖然說這種說法不一定正確就是了

  • Try to think of something that exists, in a way that you can't describe with words.

    試著想像一個真實存在,我們卻難以用言語來形容的東西

  • If you're not talking... we'll know that idea was wrong.

    如果你現在真的沒有辦法描述這個東西的話,那就代表「我們有詞彙能夠述說任何特質、特性、或概念」這個說法就被推翻了

  • When light bounces off an object, the light can be directed by a lens to form an image.

    當光接觸到物體,然後彈射開,再接觸到鏡體的時候,在這道光和鏡體的相互作用下,會產生所謂的「影像」

  • A lens in the eye does this and creates an image at the back of the eye where we have

    我們眼睛裡的水晶體就是透過這樣的一個作用,進而在我們眼睛的後方形成影像 (在眼睛後方的神經細胞

  • an array of neuron cells that detect the light and send the information on the image to the

    會探測到光,然後再把形成的影像的訊息傳送到我們腦袋裡)

  • brain. And it's a similar story for your other sensory cells that pick up other stuff.

    其實,我們身上其他的感知器官的運作方式也都差不多是這樣的

  • From there your brain tries to make sense of the signals, classifying concepts and trying

    當腦袋接受到訊息後,它自己就會試圖分析並解釋所收到的訊息,再來就是把訊息裡的概念分門別類,然後

  • to build a model of what it's observing. I don't know how that works exactly. How

    嘗試針對所觀察到的現象,建立起一個模型。我也不太確定這整個過程是怎麼運作的

  • neurons connecting to neurons becomes conscious concepts like white duck jumping.

    這些神經到底是如何在我們的意識裡像白色小鴨那樣跳來跳去的,形成一個概念呢?

  • Should probably ask like a brainologist. But for now, let's say our goal is we want

    我們可能需要找一位腦科學家來幫我們解答吧。現在呢,我們有個想要達成的目標,

  • the concepts or pictures that we build in our mind to be the same as the world outside.

    就是我們想要「我們腦海裡的概念和影像」跟「外在世界的概念和影像」達到一致化

  • We want to accurately "recreate" the universe (or at least a part of it), into our brains.

    換句話說,我們來試試看在我們的腦裡「重新創造」這整個宇宙 (或者至少是這個宇宙的一部分)

  • We don't want to be wrong. How do we do it?

    弄錯了就不好了,可是我們到底該怎麼做才好呢?

  • Well, observations are the start. If we want to know what the world is like, looking directly

    我們就從「觀察」開始好了。話說如果我們想要知道這個世界的樣貌的話

  • at it, is really going to give us the best idea.

    直接的觀察會是最快的捷徑

  • But at the same time there's a lot of signals that our sensory cells and brains have trouble

    可是就在此同時,我們其他的感知器官還有大腦也會受到其他

  • with. Like certain wavelengths of light and sound. Things that are too small. Or too far

    各式各樣的干擾。像是某些特定光線或聲音的波長,又或者是東西太小,太遠

  • away. Or too fast. It can be hard to see an individual part if there's too much stuff

    又或者是太遠的話,都會對我們的觀察造成干擾。我們觀察的東西裡

  • going on in the background. If there's too much noise.

    如果「背景干擾因素」太多的話, 也會讓我們沒有辦法看到比較小的細節

  • We can have trouble processing things even when they're right in front of us. Like

    這種時候,就算我們要觀察的東西就在面前,我們的腦袋也會變得沒有辦法好好的處理我們所觀察到的東西

  • a face with the eyes and mouth upside down. Goes from "happy birthday Mr.President"

    就拿這裡的這張臉來說好了:眼睛和嘴巴都是上下顛倒的。整個感覺從本來的 「水姑娘喔,照過來照過來」

  • to "my sister and mother are the same person". The haphazard way our brains and senses evolved

    變成 「小姐不好意思,請問妳哪位?」 大腦的演化過程太過雜亂,所以導致我們的

  • to be wired didn't give us a perfect accuracy, perception or memory.

    準確性、察覺力或記憶並不盡完美

  • But we can use tools to detect things we can't detect. Microscopes for things that are too

    可是如果我們善用工具的話,我們就可以觀察到一些我們本來沒辦法觀察到的用來觀察太細小的東西用的東西; 像是顯微鏡就是

  • small, telescopes for things that are too far away. A tool that detect bits of radiation and

    而望遠鏡就則是用來觀察太遠的東西; 而這一幕裡面的這個工具呢,則是用來探測輻射能

  • plays a fun noise. And instead of trying to remember and communicate

    有時候還會跑出一些奇怪的噪音; 沒有一套公制的單位的話,我們只能依靠感覺來記憶和傳達

  • properties by feel, we can have this thing we call a centimeter. Just count how many

    物體的長度,所以我們制定了「公分」這套系統。有了這套系統,我們就

  • centimeters are the same length as this other thing. And we can use whatever standard of

    可以算出某物件有幾公分了。依照目的和需求的不同,我們需要

  • comparison we need. And we can try to always go slowly and systematically.

    使用的比較標準也不一樣。有了這些公定的系統,我們就能夠仔細又有系統性的計算東西了

  • But some people, after they've had the neurons in a part of their brain die, they may no

    有些人的話,在他們腦裡某部分的神經元受損死去後,這些患者

  • longer perceive faces. They may not be able recognize their friends and family, celebrities,

    就會變得沒有辦法判讀人臉了; 包括朋友、家人、名人

  • or themselves. They can still see eyes and noses and mouths, and describe their layout.

    甚至是這些患者自身的臉。由於光還是由在進到這些患者的眼睛裡

  • The signal about the light is still coming in. But the brain no longer classifies this

    患者還是有辦法判讀眼睛、鼻子還有嘴巴,並且形容這些器官的排列,可是呢

  • arrangement we call a face. In the end there may be a lot of things like

    這些患者們的大腦就是沒辦法把這些器官組合成我們所謂的「臉」。而這個世界上可能就存在著很多這樣雜亂的資訊…

  • thisuseful classifications about the universe, that all of our brains can't conceptualize.

    這些資訊本身的排列組合沒有問題,只是我們的大腦沒有辦法內化這些資訊並且把其轉換為有意義的概念

  • But the point is because those signals coming into the brain from the sensory cells, are

    我們要留意一點:「訊號透過我們的感知系統進入我們大腦」這個過程

  • the only way information can get into the brain. Observations are the only way of really

    是外界的資訊要進入我們大腦唯一的管道。我們唯一可以了解這個世界的方法

  • knowing what the universe is like. But we can also, come to new ideas by playing

    就是透過觀察。另一方面,透過溫故知新

  • around with old ones. For example we call this many six, and this

    我們也能夠得到一些新的想法。比方說,我們把這裡這一堆東西叫做 「六」然後

  • many four. But we can also frame them together. Then what do we get? Well we already have

    另外這一堆叫做「四」。現在我們把這兩堆東西放一起。我們得到的結果是什麼呢?其實

  • a word for that amount, we call that ten. Split it in half, how do we describe that?

    我們已經有文字可以代表這個數量,我們稱之為 「十」。現在,把「十」這個量一分為二,我們又該如何描述「這個數量」?

  • Make a sort of square array out of it, can we describe that quantity?

    我們又把上面得到的「這個數量」,用來組成這樣一個正方排列的話,我們能夠描述這個新的數量嗎?

  • OK, "five times five equals twenty five", isn't an "observation". It's more a play on our

    「5乘以5等於25」這個結果其實並不是透過「觀察」而得到的,而是透過

  • "definitions". Its 'a statement that: according to our naming scheme, five times five, and

    我們對於這個等式的「定義」而得到的。「5乘以5等於25」所表達的其實是:根據我們所定下的慣例

  • twenty five, refer to the same thing. Or let's say we notice that a parallelogram

    「5乘以5」和「25」所代表的意思一樣。又或者我們再打個比方好了:某平行四邊形,

  • always has the same area as a square. If the parallelogram always has the same base length.

    不管在什麼情況下,和某正方形的面積都是一致的。如果說,不管在什麼情況下

  • And height. Then we can look at the squares and play around.

    這個平行四邊形的底邊和高度都維持不變, 那接下來我們就來看一看,順便操弄一下圖裡這個三角形所衍生出的這些正方形

  • Go bushoomp, bushoomp, bushoomp... OK, taking what we knew (about the parallelogram and the square) we can come to a new

    像這樣變啊變,移啊移,移啊移… 就這樣,建立在(我們對於平行四邊形和正方形的)已知的認知上,我們可以不用透過「觀察」就可以得到這樣極有用的架構 (model)。個人覺得先知們應該不會

  • useful model without having "observed" it first. I don't think this is how they actually

    真的是這樣發現「畢式定律」的,可是搞不好

  • found this equation but they could have. We can do something like: if everything that

    他們真的就是這樣發現的也說不定。再來看看下面這個情境好了:

  • we call a Flaggle is blue. And everything that we call a Beener is a Flaggle. If that's

    現在我們所稱為 “Flaggle” 的東西都是藍色的; 而所有我們稱之為 “Beener” 的東西,都隸屬於 “Flaggle” 這個大框架之下

  • the information that we know, then we should also be able to know that every Beener is

    根據以上資訊來看的話,我們可以得知所有的 “Beener”都是藍色的

  • blue. Even when they (Flaggle and Beener) are nonsense words, the new ideas we come to make sense. Because

    雖然 “Flaggle” 和 “Beener” 都是虛構的字,在這個情境裡,我們所思考到的概念卻是完完全全可以說得通的

  • it's creating a world in our mind and seeing what we would absolutely have to observe in

    因為基於我們所定下的規則,這些概念在我們的腦海裡架構出了一個全新的思維,而這些概念也讓我們觀察到我們所想要觀察到的

  • that world, because of the rules that we set. So if we build our rules and definitions and

    故此,如果我們把規則、定義及想法建構在觀察之上的話,我們就能夠

  • ideas based on observations, we can form new ideas and models that actually describe and

    得出與現實相符且確切描述現實的全新想法

  • match the real world. OK this is deduction. But we can't always describe the world with

    以上這套說法是所謂的「刪去法」,可是在現實生活的很多情境當中

  • this much certainty. For example, if we start rolling this dice

    無法事事都如此精準。假設我們現在有顆骰子

  • and we put it in with our eyes closed or something. There's no way we could ever know, ahead

    我們先把眼睛閉起來,然後把骰子放到容器裡搖一搖,我們永遠

  • of time, what face will turn up when we stop rolling it. What do we know?

    都無法事先知道骰子的哪一面會出現。在這個情境下,我們先來細數我們已經掌握的情報有哪些:

  • There are 6 sides, Only 6 possibilities for what will be turned up. Perfectly cubed, perfectly

    一顆骰子有6面,可能會出現的結果只有6種。骰子本身是完整的立方體

  • balanced. (Considering these factors) we don't have any reason to think one of the sides is going to turn up more

    且每一面皆是平衡的。(在以上這些事實的考量下) 我們並沒有任何理由

  • or less than the others. Let's represent the likelihood of each event

    去懷疑任何一面出現的機率會大於或小於其他五面。現在我們確定一件事情:把所有狀況發生的可能性加總之後

  • occurring as being a certain proportion of all the possibilities. Added together they

    就會得到所謂的「總體可能性」,而把這些機率總和後

  • will equal 100%. In this case we think each one has an equal probability of occurring

    我們就會得到100%。由此我們可以理解到,每個面會出現的機率是相等的

  • so they're just one sixth of one hundred percent.

    也就是六分之一乘以 100%

  • So we might say, rolling a 3 has a probability of decimal one six seven. Or of all the things

    所以我們可以這麼結論:擲出3點的機率是 0.167

  • that could happen, rolling a 3 is 16.7% of those possibilities. Or we would expect to

    又或者我們也可以這樣說:在所有可能會出現的情況下,擲出3點的機率為總機率的16.7%。我們又可以說:

  • see a 3 about one sixth of the time. This is all we can do, we don't know what's

    我們有六分之一的機率可以看到3點。在我們無法準確知道結果會是什麼的時候,我們所能做的

  • going to happen so we describe the possibilities. What are the odds of rolling a total of 3

    就是以機率來描述事情。當我們手上有兩顆骰子的時候,擲出點數的總和

  • when rolling 2 dice? Each dice has the six possibilities, their outcome is independent

    為3的機率是多少? 一顆骰子有6面,而可能會出現的結果有6種,且一顆骰子會出現什麼樣的結果

  • of one another and we can get any combination between them. Each combination having an equal

    跟另一顆骰子所出現的結果並沒有任何關係,所以我們從這兩顆骰子所得到的總和是隨機的。故此,任何一總總和出現的機率

  • probability of occurring. These are all the possible mutually exclusive dice rolls. So,

    都是一樣的。現在這裡所顯示的,就是擲出兩顆骰子時所有可能會發生的情況。也就是說

  • we've got these 2 ways of rolling a 3, of 36 possible rolls. There is a 5.6% chance

    36種不同的情況中,能擲出總和點數為3的情況有兩種。所以說,擲出總和點數為3機率

  • of rolling a 3. Anyways. We've got observation and deduction

    是5.6%。說到這裡,「觀察」和「刪除法」

  • to form an idea about the world. And they're good, you know they're pretty good. But

    幫助我們掌握到我們周遭的現象。這兩個方法都很好,可能大家也都覺得不錯

  • this other way we can form an idea, is by guessing. Just imagine the way the world is (with all its possibilities, and perhaps you will understand why guessing is a useful method for forming ideas)

    「猜測」則是另外一種可以幫助我們掌握這個世界的方法。思考一下我們這大千世界裡 (所存在的所有可能性,或許就會比較好瞭解為什麼 “猜測”能夠幫我們更好掌握我們周遭的現象)

  • Great! Why would we do that? I mean there's a lot of possibilities for

    為什麼我們需要做這樣的思考呢? 我們一起來看一下這裡這個盒子好了

  • things that could be in this mystery box, only one of those possibilities actually is.

    這個盒子可能裝著的物品有很多很多種,可是事實上只有一種物品是真正被裝在這個盒子裡的

  • So why don't we just look? (If we just open and look) we can verify the thing thats in there, and falsify all

    為什麼不直接打開來看就好了呢? (只要我們打開來看) 我們就能夠證實放在裡面的是什麼,然後排除

  • the other possibilities. It's because sometimes it's useful not to wait for an observation.

    其他所有的可能性了。我們不這麼做的原因,是因為選擇不要慢慢地觀察的話,效率會比較高

  • Hear thunder? The last time we heard thunder it rained. (We then guess:) maybe thunder always comes before

    舉例說,聽到雷聲的話,我們可能會回想起上次打雷時所下的那場雨。(我們也許就會這樣猜測:)

  • rain and it's going to rain. We better put away any horse meat we don't want to get

    可能每次打雷的時候就會下雨。如果不想要東西被淋濕的話

  • wet. We just saw Frank eat these mushrooms, and

    最好快點把東西收一收比較好。我們剛剛才看到法蘭克吃了這些香菇

  • now he's bleeding out the eyes. (So we guess:) these mushrooms must cause bleeding out the eyes. Let's

    他現在竟然眼睛流血。(我們可以猜測:) 一定是吃了這些香菇才會這樣的

  • stay away from them. We do it because seems faster and safer. Our

    我們不要吃比較好。基於省時及安全考量,我們會做出這樣的猜測。我們的

  • guesses aren't always accurate, in fact you could say they're often not accurate.

    猜測並不是100% 準確的。或者應該說,我們的猜測其實常常是不準確的

  • For example the idea that: the stars and the sun circle the Earth, while the earth remained

    就一個比較老舊的概念來說好了:星星和太陽繞著地球轉,而地球是靜止不動的 (又稱地心說)

  • stationary (AKA the Geocentric Model). Sure it looks like they're swirling around us and it doesn't feel like we're

    表面上看起來的確是這麼回事,而且我們也感覺不出我們在

  • "moving". But at the time I think a lot of people were very opposed to other ways of modelling

    「移動」。可是我也相信,有很多人反對這個說法 (地心說) 之外的說法

  • the system. Or the idea that you can sweat out toxins

    也有人反對「人能夠透過排汗將毒素排出體外」這個說法

  • through your sweat. I don't know the observation that led to this idea, maybe that you smell

    我不知道先知們是透過什麼樣的觀察推導出這個說法的,可能是人在吃過某些食物後

  • after eating certain foods. But it doesn't matter the substance, cyanide, sugar or water,

    會散發出味道吧。可是不管吃下肚的是什麼 – 氰化物、糖、或是水

  • you can take a certain amount and it's not going to hurt you. It's when you take too

    只要攝取不超過某個特定的量的話,對人體不會造成危害。會對人體造成危害的狀況

  • much that it starts to cause damage. If we define "toxin" as a substance that hurts

    就是攝取太多的時候。要是我們將 “毒素”定義為對人體有害的物質

  • you then, "toxin" isn't a class of chemical. A toxin is any substance you have too much

    那 “毒素” 便不是化學物質的一類了。當我們過量攝取某個物質的時候

  • of. So "detoxification" would be sort of the recognition when there's too much of something

    這個物質對我們來說才會是毒素。所以當人體含有太多某物質而且需要將這個物質排出體外時,這個排出體外的作用就被稱作

  • happen to leak out with the sweat, but unlike urine and stool, sweat doesn't have a lot (of these certain substances)

    會透過汗水排出體外,但是和尿液與糞便不同的是,汗水裡面所包含的 (這些特定物質)

  • in it. It's almost entirely water. And there's no specializing cells at the skin "sorting

    並不多。汗水幾乎完全是水分。而且,皮膚表層並沒有特化細胞或

  • chemical" or making things easier to excrete (bodily wastes through the skin). Skin cells function mostly as a barrier.

    “分類用化學物質” 是可以使 (體內廢物透過皮膚排泄) 這個作用更順暢的。皮膚細胞的最大的功能,就是將體內體外的世界分隔開來

  • How about the idea that there's this God named Thor behind those loud lights in the

    有沒有想過,會不會天空中轟轟作響的雷聲後面真的住著「雷神索爾」?

  • sky? So scary. We better sacrifice another horse.

    天啊好怕怕,看來我們只能再獻上一隻馬兒了

  • Frank? Frank eats everything he sees. It may very well have been something else he ate

    法蘭克呢? 法蘭克的話嘛,就是看到什麼就吃什麼。他有可能在我們沒注意到的時候

  • when we weren't watching. OK, guessing is fine, It's us wondering

    就把什麼東西吞下肚了。其實,猜測就猜測,沒什麼大不了的。這不過就是我們人類

  • about the world. It's not the problem. The problem is assuming that we know (the truth). Not recognizing

    對這個世界的一個好奇而已,所以「猜測」這個行為本身並沒有什麼問題。問題就出在於我們明明是在猜測

  • that we're guessing. We'll often take the first idea that pops into our head and

    卻以為我們已經知道 (事情的真相)了。我們常常會對我們腦海裡第一個出現的想法

  • treat it as though it were true. Or treat an idea as true because someone told it to

    信以為真。或者因為有人告訴了我們某件事,就也對這件事情

  • us. We all tend to do it. We all have trouble saying "I don't know". Me, I'm no

    信以為真。我們大家其實都常會這樣。我們大家都覺得 “我不知道” 這句話很難以啟齒。我個人其實

  • exception. I'm pretty sure I'm wrong more than I'm right. I'm probably wrong

    也不例外。我真心認為我犯的錯的事情比我做對的事情還要多。就像在這個短片裡

  • in this video. But let's see what we can do.

    我可能也是錯誤一籮筐。我們一起來看看怎麼突破這個窘境

  • Let's call a guess or hypothetical idea about the world: a hypothesis. It will either

    讓我們先把對於這個世界的某個猜測或假設性的想法,稱為「假說」。這個假說呢,有可能

  • match the world outside, or not match the world outside.

    會跟現實世界實際情況相符,也有可能不符合

  • For us to know whether an idea is true, for us to verify it, we have to observe it directly

    我們需要透過直接的觀察,才能夠知道並且考證某個想法是否屬實

  • out there. Turn the made up idea into an observation. For us to know that it's false, to falsify

    試著把想法轉換成觀察。我們需要直接觀察到我們的「假說」跟實際情況有出入

  • it, we have to distinctly see the real world being inconsistent with the hypothesis.

    我們才有辦法知道我們的假說是錯的,並且進而把之排除

  • But just because we can imagine something, doesn't mean we can see it. Some ideas are

    可是就算我們有想像的能力,不代表我們可以看見我們所想像的事物。有些想法

  • unverifiable. For example, the idea that: "every time

    我們並沒有辦法去證明它的真實性。好比這個說法好了:「每一次我們放掉這隻筆的時候

  • we drop this pen, it will fall". It's falsifiable, if we see the pen float or go

    這枝筆就一定會往下掉落」。這個說法是可以被證偽 (falsifiable)的; 假如說我們觀察到這隻筆飄起來

  • up or something, just one time. We'll see that no, the pen doesn't always fall. And

    或者是飛起來的話 (就算只有一次),我們就可以說:「這隻筆不一定每次都會往下掉落」

  • the hypothesis is wrong. But it's not verifiable. That is there's

    如此一來,我們當初的假說就是錯誤的。可是這個假設的真實性,是我們沒有辦法去證實的。我們沒有辦法

  • nothing we can see that will let us know that this idea is true. Even if every time we've

    透過觀察,來判斷這個假設是否為真。就算「每一次」我們讓這隻筆從我們的手中放掉時

  • ever seen the pen dropped, it fell. The hypothesis wasn't "every time we've seen it",

    我們都看到這隻筆從我們手中掉落,我們還是無法判斷上述的假設是否為真。會這樣說的原因,是因為我們一開始所做的假設是著重在「每一次(我們將這隻筆從手中放掉)」這一點

  • the hypothesis was "every time". Every time will always include, the next time, in

    而非「每一次當我們觀察到這隻筆往下掉落的時候」這一點。「每一次」這個說法亦包含了,未來當中所有「每一次當我們將筆從手中放掉時」所會發生的情況

  • the future where we can't observe it. So this specific idea will never be able to be

    而「未來」是一個我們沒有辦法觸及,也無法直接觀察到的領域。故此,我們無法透過觀察

  • an observation in our mind. Seems like it's stupid overly strict semantics.

    來考證上述假設的真實性 。經過上面這一番的思考,有人可能會覺得我們只是對「語意」過度琢磨,所以才會把事情搞得這麼複雜

  • But the point of it is we never want to confuse the feeling that we're right, with making

    可是這在理想告訴大家的一個重點是:我們透過自身主觀的「感覺」而得到的「正確性」

  • the observations to actually know something. If the hypothesis was different. Every time

    與我們透過實際「觀察」所得知的「正確性」是完全不同的兩回事。現在,我們來把我們上面的假設做一點小小的修改好了:

  • we drop this pen in this room today, it will fall. The boundaries of the idea have been

    「於今日內,於此房間內,每一次我們把這隻筆從我們手中放掉的時候,這枝筆就一定會往下掉落」。如果情況是建立在這種說法上的話

  • set and we can see within those boundaries. But a universal idea about the way the world

    我們接下來的討論就會被嚴謹的限制於「今日」這個時間點、與「此房間」這個地點裡。然而,真正能夠被用來闡述這個大千世界裡的現象的「好解釋」,是不應該有這些限制的

  • is has no boundaries. And we can never see it entirely.

    是不應該有這樣的限制的。然而,我們就是沒有辦法完完全全、徹徹底底的觀察到這世界上所有一切可能會發生的情況

  • But at the same time, the pen falling seems to be very consistent. And we've never seen

    可是乍看之下,「每一次我們放掉這筆的時候,筆就一定會往下掉落」似乎是個屢試不爽的事實。而且,我們好像也沒有看過筆有除了「往下掉」

  • something else happen. Maybe we treat it as though it were true, since it's so universally

    之外的第二種情況。也許正因為如此,正因為這個現象是這麼的普遍且屢試不爽

  • predictive. But remembering in the back of our mind, observations are the way that we

    我們便理所當然的信以為真。可是話又說回來,我們唯一可以切切實實的了解這個世界森羅萬象的方法

  • know stuff. And we can't literally see all of this idea.

    便是透過「觀察」。可是在現實裡,我們是無法對這個世界上所有的現象進行觀察的

  • Along these same lines an idea can be unfalsifiable. For example the idea, a squirrel that looks

    反之,這個世界上也存在著「無法被證偽」假說 。這裏有個例子:有一隻跟這隻松鼠

  • exactly like this, exists somewhere. Somewhere on Earth let's say. It's verifiable. What

    長得一模一樣的另一隻松鼠 (以下稱松鼠2號),存在於這個我們地球的某個地方,且這個事實是可以考證的

  • would we have to see to know it? Just have to see the squirrel. We'll know it exists.

    可是我們該如何考證呢? 其實我們只需要看到這隻松鼠2號就好,我們就知道牠確實存在了

  • But it's hard to falsify. We would have to see every inch of the planet, simultaneously

    可是這個假說很難被證偽。如果我們想要透過自己的眼睛,來證實「這隻松鼠2號不會同時存在這個世界的不同地方」這個事實的話

  • in case it moves around, and see no squirrel in all those places to be able to have observed

    我們就需要有同時觀察到世界上每一個角落的超能力,這樣一來

  • the absence of the animal. Which let's say is possible. Although maybe this is a bad

    我們才有辦法杜絕這隻松鼠2號會在我們觀察的時候亂跑的可能性。雖然說舉這個例子可能有點不是很好

  • example. If we've never seen one, and we've never seen any signs of it. And we know that

    可是我們就先假裝真的有真樣一隻松鼠存在好了。假設我們現在手上握有下列情報:從來就沒有人看過松鼠2號, 也沒有任和跡象顯示松鼠2號真的存在, 然後我們也知道

  • animals almost never have 2 tails. You know the squirrel is mostly just a made up idea

    幾乎不太有什麼動物是有兩個尾巴的。根據這些情報來看,我們可以研判這隻松鼠2號很有可能是一隻架空的生物

  • We can talk about the low probability of its existence and ignore the idea until there's

    在我們能夠更進一步觀察這隻我們空想出來的松鼠之前,我們也可以就這樣無視它的存在就好了

  • some sort of observational basis for itand we probably should. But it's just, this

    可是,就算我們真的把它給無視了,我們還是沒有辦法沒有辦法證明「松鼠2號不存在」這一點

  • isn't entirely falsifying the idea. We haven't truly observed the squirrel's absence.

    因為就我們的觀察來講,沒有任何證據可以顯示「松鼠2號不存在」這件事

  • Unfalsifiable ideas can be tricky. Even if an idea is unverifiable, if it's falsifiable

    真正棘手的假說,正是這些沒有辦法被證偽的假說。會這麼說的原因是:假如現在有某假說是我們無法考證其真實性的,可是它是可以被證偽的

  • you can at least eliminate stuff as you make observations and the hypotheses that are left,

    那這樣的話至少我們還能夠觀察並輔以刪去法,去蕪存菁

  • are maybe left because they're true. Maybe. With unfalsifiable ideas we can't eliminate

    把可能為真的假說留下。可是假如說我們今天的假設是無法被證偽的話

  • stuff. And the idea can stick around with little to no observational basis.

    刪去法就派不上用場了。我們除了沒辦法刪去這些無法被證偽的假說之外,我們也沒有辦法根據這些假說多做什麼實質上的觀察

  • An idea isn't automatically right or automatically wrong just because we can't see it. Saying

    即便我們沒有辦法視覺化我們心裡的某些想法 ,並不代表這些想法本身就是對的或錯的

  • it's unverifiable or unfalsifiable is about the disconnect between being

    一個假說該被歸類為「不可考證 (unverifiable)」或是 「不可證偽 (unfalsifiable)」

  • able to imagine something, and being able to observe it.

    是取決於這個假說是否只止步於我們的「想像」,還是能夠在現實世界裡實際被「觀察」到

  • OK, some ideas are both, unverifiable and unfalsifiable. There's nothing we can see

    有些假說是既「不可考證」也「不可被證偽」的。我們無法透過觀察

  • to know that they're true and there's nothing we can see to know that they're

    來證明這些假說是真是假

  • false. For example, since your experience of the world is all controlled by your brain,

    舉例來說的話,我們在世界上一切的經歷和感受,都是經過我們的大腦所得到的,那有沒有可能

  • it's possible your brain is really attached by wires to a computer or something and all

    我們的大腦其實是連結到某個「電腦」或某種儀器上,然後我們所認知的

  • the reality you perceive is fake. Verifiable? Nope. You could even wake up, in your vat,

    「現實」其實通通都是假的? 我們有辦法證明這個假說是正確嗎? 沒辦法。(就算這一切通通都是假的好了,就算我們把所有大腦連結到「電腦」上所有的線路都切斷好了) 當我們「醒過來」的時候

  • wires coming out of your nips. But that could still just be a part of the simulation. Falsifiable?

    我們在那個當下所處在的「實境」,也很有可能只是另一場由電腦所「模擬」出來的「虛擬實境」而已。那我們有辦法證實上述的假說是錯誤的嗎?

  • Nope. If it's not true, everything would look exactly the same.

    也是沒辦法。因為如果我們沒有辦法證明這個假說是正確的的話 (那不管我們身處在哪一個「實境」裡面, )我們對這些「實境」的感受都會是一樣的(所以我們也就無法得知,究竟哪個「實境」才是我們所謂的「現實」)

  • OK, it's like a hypothesis about a that squirrel we had no observational basis for,

    說到這裡,話題又要回到我們之前提到的那隻松鼠2號了

  • except we think the squirrel is also invisible. It's like a hypothesis about a God who has

    我們的假設是,這隻松鼠2號是我們所無法看見的。如果換成另一個假設來形容的話:

  • the supreme power who could manipulate the world and our lives. But it's only exerting

    我們就假設今天有個全能的「神」存在好了,而這個「神」主宰著這個世界還有你我的人生

  • its will in mysterious ways that are indistinguishable from regular ways.

    可是這個「神」呢,祂在這個世界上顯神蹟的方式,會讓我們無法分辨究竟哪一些現象是出自祂手的「神蹟」,還是只是單純的「自然現象」 ?

  • Or a hypothesis that the universe popped into existence 10 seconds ago and the only reason

    又或著是我們再換個假設好了:有沒有可能我們這整個宇宙其實10秒鐘之前才剛蹦出來的

  • we didn't notice was because all the atoms and light and our neurons and memory and everything

    可是我們卻完全沒有意識到這個「事實」? 會不會是因為這世界上所有的原子、光,還有我們身體裡的神經元、記憶等等都「剛剛好」

  • came to be in the exact shape and position they are now. It also may have happened a

    在這一瞬間成形?我們的宇宙

  • year ago, or 6 thousands years ago. Again, not automatically right or wrong it's

    也有可能是在一年之前,或6千年前形成的。這些假說並沒有所謂的對錯,(只是以我們現今的能力來說, )

  • just we can't see it entirely. Our bodies may be being harvested for energy, while we're

    我們就是沒有辦法一眼望穿過去在這世界上所發生的一切, 來證實我們我們剛剛所討論到的假設。再回到剛剛的「虛擬實境」的例子上好了; 有沒有可能再次時此刻,就在我們經歷這個當下的這個「實境」的這個時候

  • kept subservient within a simulation. But at least there's pie.

    我們的「肉身」其實在某個地方, 正被某一群不知道的人一點一滴的把我們身體的能源榨乾?

  • To summarize so far we're wrong a lotand learning is real hard.

    講到這裡了, 我們來整理一下:我們對這個世界的認知錯得很離譜…然後說要修正的話,的確也是很困難的一件事

  • OK. Let's say there's this new disease, you get a big lump. But people have been saying

    再舉例來說好了:現在突然出現了一個從未出現過的疾病,得到這個病的人頭上都會像這樣腫一包。有很多人說

  • that eating carrots can make them smaller. And we want to know if it's true or not

    只要吃蘿蔔,這個包就會消下去。現在,我們想要知道這個說法是真的還是假的

  • true. Basically we've got two incompatible hypothesis

    也就是說,現在我們面對的是兩個完全相反的假說

  • and we want to know which one matches the world. You know if we're in a world where

    然後我們想要知道哪個假說才是符合現實狀況的。如果說,在我們說存在的世界上,「蘿蔔是可以消腫」的

  • carrots do shrink lumps, how would that world look? What observations could we expect to

    那會是怎樣的一個世界?我們又該怎樣做

  • make. The problem with these are they are hard to

    才能觀察到這樣的一個現象呢?如果我們想要觀察這樣的一個現象的話

  • verify or falsify even on an individual level, because of the noise. Kind of like with Frank.

    首先會遇到的問題就是:由於會讓這個現象形成的因素太多了,所以這個現象會變得很難一一的去考證,就如同我們上面提到過的「法蘭克吃香菇事件」一樣,是很難去考證的

  • Just because we observed them eating carrots, and then observed some change in their lumps,

    就算有人真的吃了蘿蔔,而且浮腫也在他們把蘿蔔吃下去之後消了

  • doesn't mean the carrots are causing it. Could be something else they're eating or

    也不代表消腫這個現象是蘿蔔造成的。會消腫的原因,有可能是因為這些人所吃的其他東西

  • something else going on in their life that's causing this.

    又或者是他們本身日常生活裡所做的其他事情

  • Even comparing them against somebody who didn't eat carrots might not be much more help. Because

    就算把這些「有吃蘿蔔的人」跟「沒有吃蘿蔔」的人做比較,可能也得不到什麼顯著的比較效果

  • again we don't know what else is important and if carrots only had a small effect it

    原因是因為:第一,我們沒有辦法掌握除了蘿蔔之外的其他可能影響因素; 第二,就算蘿蔔真的有那麼一小點效果

  • may be lost among the noise. So what else? While we don't know how important

    它的效果也有可能被其他一大堆的可能影響因素埋沒,而無法被觀察到。所以我們該怎麼辦呢? 雖然說我們不知道其他的可能影響因素是什麼

  • the other factors are. Maybe if we sample lots and lots of people and put them into

    可是如果我們把實驗的人數增加,再把這些實驗對象分成兩組

  • two different groups, only feeding carrots to one of the groups, maybe all this other

    並且只對其中的一組進行蘿蔔餵食,也許這樣做的話,我們

  • stuff will average out? And then if we see a difference in the average lump size between

    就可以排除其他的可能影響因素了? 或者是如果我們有觀察到這兩個群組的頭部浮腫大小不一樣的話

  • the groups, maybe we can attribute it to the main difference between them. The carrots.

    我們可能就可以把這個現象歸因於「有無食用蘿蔔」這一點上面了

  • Would be nice if we record or survey these other factors so we can check to see if there's

    如果說我們能夠紀錄或測量這些其他的「可能影響因素」,並且

  • a relationship between these other stuff and lump size. And check to see if there's any

    觀察腫包的大小跟這些「可能影響因素」有沒有關係的話的話,那就太棒了,在此同時

  • interactions. You know maybe carrots only shrink lumps when the person also eats broccoli.

    我們也可以觀察看看這些「可能影響因素」會不會相互引響。某個人頭部腫包變小的原因,會不會是因為在他吃蘿蔔的時候, 同時也有吃花椰菜?

  • Or something. Or better yet, have both groups eat the same things, have the same lifestyles

    又或者是(花椰菜以外的)其他東西。還有一個更好的辦法,就是讓兩組實驗對象都吃一樣的東西,然後讓他們的生活方式一致化…

  • and be genetically identical clones so that we can be very sure that any changes we see,

    又或者,我們可以就直接對基因一致的複製人進行這項實驗,這樣一來我們就能夠很確信

  • are from the carrots. Although that could be really hard.

    蘿蔔就是造成生理變化的推手。可是要做這個實驗的話,有一定的困難度就是了