Why does the universe exist? Why is there — Okay. Okay. (Laughter) This is a cosmic mystery. Be solemn. Why is there a world, why are we in it, and why is there something rather than nothing at all? I mean, this is the super ultimate "why" question?
為什麼宇宙存在? 為什麼—好吧。好吧。(笑聲) 這是個宇宙的奧秘。是莊嚴的。 為什麼會有一個世界? 為什麼我們存在在這世界裡? 為什麼會有物質存在 而不是全然的一切皆空? 我的意思是,這是一個超級終極的「為什麼」問題?
So I'm going to talk about the mystery of existence, the puzzle of existence, where we are now in addressing it, and why you should care, and I hope you do care. The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said that those who don't wonder about the contingency of their existence, of the contingency of the world's existence, are mentally deficient. That's a little harsh, but still. (Laughter) So this has been called the most sublime and awesome mystery, the deepest and most far-reaching question man can pose. It's obsessed great thinkers. Ludwig Wittgenstein, perhaps the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, was astonished that there should be a world at all. He wrote in his "Tractatus," Proposition 4.66, "It is not how things are in the world that is the mystical, it's that the world exists." And if you don't like taking your epigrams from a philosopher, try a scientist. John Archibald Wheeler, one of the great physicists of the 20th century, the teacher of Richard Feynman, the coiner of the term "black hole," he said, "I want to know how come the quantum, how come the universe, how come existence?" And my friend Martin Amis — sorry that I'll be doing a lot of name-dropping in this talk, so get used to it — my dear friend Martin Amis once said that we're about five Einsteins away from answering the mystery of where the universe came from. And I've no doubt there are five Einsteins in the audience tonight. Any Einsteins? Show of hands? No? No? No? No Einsteins? Okay.
所以我將探討有關存在的奧秘, 存在的謎題, 這是我們現在正要解決的, 以及為什麼你應該關注的, 而我希望你真的會關心的。 哲學家亞瑟‧叔本華說過, 那些不懷疑他們存在的偶然性, 與世界存在的偶然性, 有智力性的缺陷。 這說法是有點苛刻,但也算是苛刻。(笑聲) 所以這個被稱為最崇高 和令人敬畏的奧秘, 人可以提出 最有深度和最深遠的問題。 它一直痴迷著偉大思想家們, 路德維希‧維特根斯坦可能是 20世紀最偉大的哲理學家, 他對於本來就應該 存在一個世界的想法感到驚訝。 他在自己的《邏輯哲學論》論點4.66寫道, 「物質如何存在這個世界上 並不是神秘, 神秘的是這個世界是確實存在的。」 如果你不喜歡摘取哲理學家的雋語, 試試科學家的說法吧。 約翰·阿奇博爾德·惠勒 是20世紀最偉大的物理學家之一, 是理查德·費曼的老師, 是命名「黑洞」的人, 他說:「我想知道 為什麼量子, 為什麼宇宙,為什麼存在?」 還有我的朋友馬丁·艾米斯 - 抱歉,我在這場談話將提到很多名字, 所以習慣一下 — 我的朋友馬丁·艾米斯曾經說過, 我們欠缺差不多五個愛因斯坦來回答 這個宇宙從哪裡來的神秘問題。 而我無可置疑相信 今晚現場就有五個愛因斯坦。 愛因斯坦在嗎?舉一下手?沒?沒?沒有? 沒有愛因斯坦?好吧。
So this question, why is there something rather than nothing, this sublime question, was posed rather late in intellectual history. It was towards the end of the 17th century, the philosopher Leibniz who asked it, a very smart guy, Leibniz, who invented the calculus independently of Isaac Newton, at about the same time, but for Leibniz, who asked why is there something rather than nothing, this was not a great mystery. He either was or pretended to be an Orthodox Christian in his metaphysical outlook, and he said it's obvious why the world exists: because God created it. And God created, indeed, out of nothing at all. That's how powerful God is. He doesn't need any preexisting materials to fashion a world out of. He can make it out of sheer nothingness, creation ex nihilo. And by the way, this is what most Americans today believe. There is no mystery of existence for them. God made it.
所以這個問題,為什會有物質存在 而不是一切皆空? 這個崇高的問題,在思想文化史中 提出得有點晚。 這是靠近17世紀末期, 哲理學家萊布尼茲提出了這個問題, 萊布尼茲是一個非常聰明的人, 大約在同個時期,萊布尼茲 與艾薩克·牛頓各自獨立發明微積分, 但是對於萊布尼茲來說,在 為什會有物質存在而不是一切皆空的問題上, 他認為這並不是一個偉大的奧秘。 他可能是,或假裝在 形而上學的外觀上,貌似東正教基督徒, 他說可以很清楚了解 這個世界為什麼會存在: 因為上帝創造了它。 真的,上帝創造了無中生有。 這就是上帝多麼的強大。 他不需要任何存在前的材料 來塑造個世界出來。 他可以創造出純粹的空無, 無中生有的創造。 還有,這就是 大部份美國人所相信的。 他們認為這裡沒有存在的奧秘。 是神創造它的。
So let's put this in an equation. I don't have any slides so I'm going to mime my visuals, so use your imaginations. So it's God + nothing = the world. Okay? Now that's the equation. And so maybe you don't believe in God. Maybe you're a scientific atheist or an unscientific atheist, and you don't believe in God, and you're not happy with it. By the way, even if we have this equation, God + nothing = the world, there's already a problem: Why does God exist? God doesn't exist by logic alone unless you believe the ontological argument, and I hope you don't, because it's not a good argument. So it's conceivable, if God were to exist, he might wonder, I'm eternal, I'm all-powerful, but where did I come from? (Laughter) Whence then am I? God speaks in a more formal English. (Laughter) And so one theory is that God was so bored with pondering the puzzle of His own existence that He created the world just to distract himself. But anyway, let's forget about God. Take God out of the equation: We have ________ + nothing = the world. Now, if you're a Buddhist, you might want to stop right there, because essentially what you've got is nothing = the world, and by symmetry of identity, that means the world = nothing. Okay? And to a Buddhist, the world is just a whole lot of nothing. It's just a big cosmic vacuity. And we think there's a lot of something out there but that's because we're enslaved by our desires. If we let our desires melt away, we'll see the world for what it truly is, a vacuity, nothingness, and we'll slip into this happy state of nirvana which has been defined as having just enough life to enjoy being dead. (Laughter)
所以讓我們將這個問題放入一個方程式裡。 我沒有任何的幻燈片, 所以我將用手來視覺表達, 那麼,運用你的想像力, 那麼,神 + 空無 = 世界。 可以嗎?現在這是一個方程式。 也許你不相信有神, 也許你是一位科學無神論家 或一位非科學無神論家,你不信仰有上帝。 所以你不滿意這個公式。 順道一提,即使我們有這個公式: 神 + 空無 = 世界 這已出現存在個問題: 為什麼神存在? 神不是單靠邏輯存在, 除非你相信本體論論證, 我希望你不相同, 因為這不是一個好論證。 那麼,可以預想,如果神存在, 他可能會質疑:我是永恆,我是萬能, 但是我從哪來的? (笑聲) 那我來自何方呢? 神說著一口更正式的英語。 (笑聲) 還有一種說法是 神對思考自已存在的謎題感到非常無聊 祂創造一個世界只為了分散自己的注意力, 但是無論何種說法,我們暫時先別管神。 完全刪除神在這方程式上:我們有 ________ + 空無 = 世界。 現在,如果你是佛教徙, 你可能會想要就此停住, 因為基本上你的認知是: 空無 = 世界 由於基於標識的對稱性,這意謂著 世界 = 空無。 可以嗎? 對佛教而言,這個世界根本什麼都沒有。 它只是一個巨大宇宙本體的空境。 而我們認為那裡有很多東西, 但那是因為我們被自己的欲望奴役。 如果我們讓自己的欲望消失, 我們將會看見世界的真實面貌 空白,空無 我們將會進入一個快樂的涅槃狀態, 這狀態已被定義為 活夠了可以好好享受死亡了。(笑聲)
So that's the Buddhist thinking. But I'm a Westerner, and I'm still concerned with the puzzle of existence, so I've got ________ + — this is going to get serious in a minute, so — ________ + nothing = the world. What are we going to put in that blank? Well, how about science? Science is our best guide to the nature of reality, and the most fundamental science is physics. That tells us what naked reality really is, that reveals what I call TAUFOTU, the True And Ultimate Furniture Of The Universe. So maybe physics can fill this blank, and indeed, since about the late 1960s or around 1970, physicists have purported to give a purely scientific explanation of how a universe like ours could have popped into existence out of sheer nothingness, a quantum fluctuation out of the void. Stephen Hawking is one of these physicists, more recently Alex Vilenkin, and the whole thing has been popularized by another very fine physicist and friend of mine, Lawrence Krauss, who wrote a book called "A Universe from Nothing," and Lawrence thinks that he's given — he's a militant atheist, by the way, so he's gotten God out of the picture. The laws of quantum field theory, the state-of-the-art physics, can show how out of sheer nothingness, no space, no time, no matter, nothing, a little nugget of false vacuum can fluctuate into existence, and then, by the miracle of inflation, blow up into this huge and variegated cosmos we see around us.
所以這是佛教的思想。 但是我是個西方人,我仍然 關心存在的謎題,所以我想到了 ________ + — 這即將變成一個嚴肅的話題,那麼 ________ + 空無 = 世界 我們把什麼放進那個空格? 好,放科學進去如何? 科學是我們對實相的本質最好的指南, 最基本的科學是物理。 這告訴我們什麼才是赤裸裸的真相, 這揭示了我所說的TAUFOTU, T=真實;A=和;U=終極的; F=形式;O=的;T=這個;U=宇宙。 所以或許物理學家可以填填這個空格, 實際上,自從1960年代晚期或1970年起, 物理學家聲稱 提供一個完整的科學解釋 宇宙如何像我們一樣 可能出於純粹的空無而突然存在, 量子波動從空無出現。 史蒂芬·霍金是這些物理學家中的一位, 到近期的亞歷克斯·維蘭金, 整件事情由另一個非常傑出的物理學家 和我的一個朋友所推廣, 勞倫斯·克勞斯寫了一本書叫 《宇宙起源於空無》 勞倫斯認為他給予的是— 順道一提,他是一個激進的無神論者, 所以他把神的論述拿走。 量子場理論的定律, 一流的物理學,可以展示 如何從空無一物 沒有空間,沒有時間,無論什麼,一切皆空 一小塊假真空 可以將波動置入存在, 然後,透過膨脹的奇蹟, 引爆到這個巨大且多元化的宇宙到 在我們周圍可以看到。
Okay, this is a really ingenious scenario. It's very speculative. It's fascinating. But I've got a big problem with it, and the problem is this: It's a pseudo-religious point of view. Now, Lawrence thinks he's an atheist, but he's still in thrall to a religious worldview. He sees physical laws as being like divine commands. The laws of quantum field theory for him are like fiat lux, "Let there be light." The laws have some sort of ontological power or clout that they can form the abyss, that it's pregnant with being. They can call a world into existence out of nothing. But that's a very primitive view of what a physical law is, right? We know that physical laws are actually generalized descriptions of patterns and regularities in the world. They don't exist outside the world. They don't have any ontic cloud of their own. They can't call a world into existence out of nothingness. That's a very primitive view of what a scientific law is. And if you don't believe me on this, listen to Stephen Hawking, who himself put forward a model of the cosmos that was self-contained, didn't require any outside cause, any creator, and after proposing this, Hawking admitted that he was still puzzled. He said, this model is just equations. What breathes fire into the equations and creates a world for them to describe? He was puzzled by this, so equations themselves can't do the magic, can't resolve the puzzle of existence. And besides, even if the laws could do that, why this set of laws? Why quantum field theory that describes a universe with a certain number of forces and particles and so forth? Why not a completely different set of laws? There are many, many mathematically consistent sets of laws. Why not no laws at all? Why not sheer nothingness?
好吧,這是一個非常巧妙的場景。 非常匪疑所思。非常令人著迷。 但我遇到了一個大問題, 問題是: 這是偽宗教的觀點。 現在,勞倫斯認為自己是無神論者, 但他仍然被宗教世界觀束缚了。 他認為物理定律就像神聖指令。 他認為量子場理論的定律 就像晝夜黑白,"讓這裡有光。" 這個法則有某種本體論的力量或影響力 他們可以從無底深淵, 蘊育而生。 他們可以稱一個世界進入空無的存在。 但這個觀點是一個非常原始的 物理定律,對嗎? 我們知道物理定律其實 在這世界上 是廣義的模式和規律的描述。 他們不存在於外面的世界。 他們沒有任何屬於自己的實體雲。 他們不能在空無中 呼籲出個世界來存在。 那是科學定律 非常原始的觀點。 如果你不相信我所說的, 聽聽史提芬·霍金, 他提出一個獨立自主的 宇宙模型, 它不需要任何外在的原因,任何的創造者, 提出這個模型之後, 霍金承認他仍然感到困惑。 他說,這個模型只是眾公式。 是什麼程式可以作出噴火 及創造一個他們描述的世界? 他對這個問題很困惑, 所以方程式本身不能作魔法, 方程式無法解決存在的謎題。 此外,即使定律可以這麼做, 為什麼是這套定律? 為什麼量子場的理論 是用一定的力量和顆粒等等 來描述? 為什麼不用一組完全不同的定律? 那裡有很多,很多數學上的定律。 為什麼不是完全沒有定律? 為什麼不是純粹的空無?
So this is a problem, believe it or not, that reflective physicists really think a lot about, and at this point they tend to go metaphysical, say, well, maybe the set of laws that describes our universe, it's just one set of laws and it describes one part of reality, but maybe every consistent set of laws describes another part of reality, and in fact all possible physical worlds really exist, they're all out there. We just see a little tiny part of reality that's described by the laws of quantum field theory, but there are many, many other worlds, parts of reality that are described by vastly different theories that are different from ours in ways we can't imagine, that are inconceivably exotic. Steven Weinberg, the father of the standard model of particle physics, has actually flirted with this idea himself, that all possible realities actually exist. Also, a younger physicist, Max Tegmark, who believes that all mathematical structures exist, and mathematical existence is the same thing as physical existence, so we have this vastly rich multiverse that encompasses every logical possibility.
所以這是一個問題,信不信由你, 思維縝密的物理學家真的非常關注, 在這個觀點上他偏向形而上學, 所以說,或許這一組定律 來描述我們宇宙的, 只是一組定律 說明了真實的一部份。 但是也許每組一貫的定律 描述了另一部份的實相。 事實上,所有的物理世界 真的存在,他們全都在那裡。 我們只是看到由量子場理論法則 所描述實相的一小部份。 但是還有很多,很多其他的世界, 用截然不同的理論 形容某部份的實相 用我們無法想像的,不一樣的方式, 不可思議的異域。 粒子物理學的標準模式的教父 史蒂文·溫伯格 三不五時的自己思考這個觀念, 他認為實際上所有可能的實相都存在。 還有,一位年輕的物理學家馬克斯.泰格馬克 相信所有的數學結構都存在, 數學存在和物理存在 是一樣的, 所以我們有這個極豐富的多元宇宙 包含每個邏輯的可能性。
Now, in taking this metaphysical way out, these physicists and also philosophers are actually reaching back to a very old idea that goes back to Plato. It's the principle of plenitude or fecundity, or the great chain of being, that reality is actually as full as possible. It's as far removed from nothingness as it could possibly be.
如果去除形而上學的方法, 這些物理學家還有哲學家 其實是回到柏拉圖時期 非常老舊的思想。 是富裕原則或繁殖原則 或者是存在的巨鏈, 事實上,實相是完全可能的。 儘可能刪除空無 因為這是有可能的。
So we have these two extremes now. We have sheer nothingness on one side, and we have this vision of a reality that encompasses every conceivable world at the other extreme: the fullest possible reality, nothingness, the simplest possible reality. Now what's in between these two extremes? There are all kinds of intermediate realities that include some things and leave out others. So one of these intermediate realities is, say, the most mathematically elegant reality, that leaves out the inelegant bits, the ugly asymmetries and so forth. Now, there are some physicists who will tell you that we're actually living in the most elegant reality. I think that Brian Greene is in the audience, and he has written a book called "The Elegant Universe." He claims that the universe we live in mathematically is very elegant. Don't believe him. (Laughter) It's a pious hope, I wish it were true, but I think the other day he admitted to me it's really an ugly universe. It's stupidly constructed, it's got way too many arbitrary coupling constants and mass ratios and superfluous families of elementary particles, and what the hell is dark energy? It's a stick and bubble gum contraption. It's not an elegant universe. (Laughter) And then there's the best of all possible worlds in an ethical sense. You should get solemn now, because a world in which sentient beings don't suffer needlessly, in which there aren't things like childhood cancer or the Holocaust. This is an ethical conception. Anyway, so between nothingness and the fullest possible reality, various special realities. Nothingness is special. It's the simplest. Then there's the most elegant possible reality. That's special. The fullest possible reality, that's special.
所以我們現在有這二個極端情況, 一方面我們有純粹的空無, 我們有這個實相的願景 包含各種可以想像的世界 另一個極端想法是:全然可能的實相, 空無,是最簡單可能的實相。 現在是什麼存在這二個極端之間? 各式各樣的中間實相 包括一些實相而忽略其它實相。 所以去除不雅的片段, 醜陋的不協調等等。 這些中間實相之一是 數學意義上最優雅的實相, 現在有一些物理學家會告訴你 其實我們生活在一個最優雅的實相。 我認為布萊恩.格林是在觀眾中, 他寫了一本書叫《優雅的宇宙》。 他聲稱我們居住的宇宙 在數學意義上非常優雅。 別相信他。(笑聲) 那是不實際的希望,但我希望那是真的。 但是我想起有一天他對我承認 這真是個醜陋的宇宙。 它是愚蠢的構思, 有太多任意偶和常數 和質量比 和多餘的又不同類的基本的粒子, 那黑色能量到底是什麼? 那是一根棍子和泡泡糖的玩意兒。 不是一個優雅的宇宙。(笑聲) 在道德意義上, 這全是盡善盡美满有可能性的世界 你現在應該要嚴肅一些, 因為世界裡的眾生 不會白白受苦, 在這點上, 沒有兒童癌症或大屠殺。 這是一個倫理觀念。 總之, 存在於空無和盡可能的實相, 及各種特殊的實相之間。 空無是特別的,是最簡單的。 然後就有一個最優雅的可能實相。 那樣很特別。 最大可能的實相,那樣很特別。
But what are we leaving out here? There's also just the crummy, generic realities that aren't special in any way, that are sort of random. They're infinitely removed from nothingness, but they fall infinitely short of complete fullness. They're a mixture of chaos and order, of mathematical elegance and ugliness. So I would describe these realities as an infinite, mediocre, incomplete mess, a generic reality, a kind of cosmic junk shot. And these realities, is there a deity in any of these realities? Maybe, but the deity isn't perfect like the Judeo-Christian deity. The deity isn't all-good and all-powerful. It might be instead 100 percent malevolent but only 80 percent effective, which pretty much describes the world we see around us, I think. (Laughter) So I would like to propose that the resolution to the mystery of existence is that the reality we exist in is one of these generic realities. Reality has to turn out some way. It can either turn out to be nothing or everything or something in between. So if it has some special feature, like being really elegant or really full or really simple, like nothingness, that would require an explanation. But if it's just one of these random, generic realities, there's no further explanation for it. And indeed, I would say that's the reality we live in. That's what science is telling us. At the beginning of the week, we got the exciting information that the theory of inflation, which predicts a big, infinite, messy, arbitrary, pointless reality, it's like a big frothing champagne coming out of a bottle endlessly, a vast universe, mostly a wasteland with little pockets of charm and order and peace, this has been confirmed, this inflationary scenario, by the observations made by radio telescopes in Antarctica that looked at the signature of the gravitational waves from just before the Big Bang. I'm sure you all know about this. So anyway, I think there's some evidence that this really is the reality that we're stuck with.
但是我們在這裡留下什麼? 也有可能只是糟糕, 一般的實相 以任何方式都不特別, 是隨機排序的。 他們從空無中永久刪除, 但他們無限地缺乏一個完整的圓滿。 他們是數學的優雅和醜陋中, 一種混亂與秩序的混雜物。 所以我稱這些實相為 一個無限,平庸,不完整的混亂, 一個通用的實相,一種宇宙垃圾彈。 這些實相, 其中是否有神存在這些實相? 也許,但是這個神不完美 像猶太教和基督教的神那樣。 這個神並非都是善良和萬能。 祂可能不是100%壞心 但只有80%有效力, 我認為,極可能詮釋環繞著我們所看到的世界。 所以我想對存在的謎題 提出解決方法 我們存在的這個實相 是這些通用的實相之一。 實相已轉變成某種方式。 它也可以變成空無 或所有東西或某些東西。 所以如果它有某些特徵, 變得非常優雅或非常飽和 或非常簡單,像空無一樣, 這將需要一個解釋。 但如果它只是這些的隨機之一,通用的實相, 就沒有進一步的解釋。 總之,我覺得 那是我們所居住的實相。 那是科學這樣告訴我們的。 在本週初, 我們得到了一個令人興奮的資訊 膨脹的理論預測了一個大的, 神性,混亂,隨意,無意義的實相, 宛如一個大的泡泡香檳 無止境的從瓶子冒出, 浩瀚的宇宙,大多是一片荒地 有著一小口袋的魅力,秩序與和平。 這已被證實。 這個膨脹的宇宙劇本, 透過南極的電波望遠鏡觀測 剛在大爆炸之前 看著引力波的足跡。 我確定你們都知道這件事情。 所以,我認為有一些證據 證明我們真的被這個實相困住了。
Now, why should you care? Well — (Laughter) — the question, "Why does the world exist?" that's the cosmic question, it sort of rhymes with a more intimate question: Why do I exist? Why do you exist? you know, our existence would seem to be amazingly improbable, because there's an enormous number of genetically possible humans, if you can compute it by looking at the number of the genes and the number of alleles and so forth, and a back-of-the-envelope calculation will tell you there are about 10 to the 10,000th possible humans, genetically. That's between a googol and a googolplex. And the number of the actual humans that have existed is 100 billion, maybe 50 billion, an infinitesimal fraction, so all of us, we've won this amazing cosmic lottery. We're here. Okay.
現在,為什麼你得關心這件事呢? 唔 — (笑聲) — 問題是,「為什麼這個世界會存在?」 那是一個宇宙問題, 這類韵意有一個更密切的問題: 為什麼我會存在?為什麼你會存在? 你知道,我們的存在似乎令人不可置信, 因為有大量可能的人類基因, 如果你能這樣計算 基因數和等位基因數等等, 粗估計算將告你 有十到萬分之一可能的 人類基因。 介於天文數字和巨數之間。 人類實際存在的數目是 1000億人,或許是500億人, 一個無窮小的部分,所以我們所有人都是, 我們贏得了這個神奇的宇宙彩票。 我們在這裡。好嗎。
So what kind of reality do we want to live in? Do we want to live in a special reality? What if we were living in the most elegant possible reality? Imagine the existential pressure on us to live up to that, to be elegant, not to pull down the tone of it. Or, what if we were living in the fullest possible reality? Well then our existence would be guaranteed, because every possible thing exists in that reality, but our choices would be meaningless. If I really struggle morally and agonize and I decide to do the right thing, what difference does it make, because there are an infinite number of versions of me also doing the right thing and an infinite number doing the wrong thing. So my choices are meaningless. So we don't want to live in that special reality. And as for the special reality of nothingness, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So I think living in a generic reality that's mediocre, there are nasty bits and nice bits and we could make the nice bits bigger and the nasty bits smaller and that gives us a kind of purpose in life. The universe is absurd, but we can still construct a purpose, and that's a pretty good one, and the overall mediocrity of reality kind of resonates nicely with the mediocrity we all feel in the core of our being. And I know you feel it. I know you're all special, but you're still kind of secretly mediocre, don't you think? (Laughter) (Applause)
所以我們想活在什麼樣的實相? 我們想活在一個特別的實相嗎? 如果我們住在一個最優雅的可能實相呢? 想像我們的生存壓力 是為了達到優雅, 不要推翻它的風格。 或許,如果我們生活在一個完整可能的實相呢? 那麼我麼的存在將得到保證, 因為一切可能的事情 都存在這個實相, 但我們的選擇是無意義的。 如果我真的在道德上爭扎且苦苦思索 然後我決定去做對的事情。 這和它的創作的有什麼不同, 因為我有 無限數量的版本 也在做對的事情 和無限數是在做錯的事。 所以很多選擇都是無意義的。 所以我們不想生活在那個特別的實相。 若不是有空無的特別實相, 我們就不會有這樣的對話。 所以我想住在一個平庸通用的實相, 有令人厭惡的位數資料和很好的位數資料 我們可以使好的位數大一點 令人厭惡的位數小一點 這給了我們一種人生的目標。 這個宇宙是廢的, 但是我們仍然可以建構一個目的, 而且是非常好的一個, 整體的平庸實相 一種很好的平庸共鳴 我們都感到我們生存的核心。 我知道你感覺到了。 我知道你很特別, 但是你仍然是某種秘密的平庸, 你不覺得嗎? (笑聲)(鼓掌)
So anyway, you may say, this puzzle, the mystery of existence, it's just silly mystery-mongering. You're not astonished at the existence of the universe and you're in good company. Bertrand Russell said, "I should say the universe is just there, and that's all." Just a brute fact. And my professor at Columbia, Sidney Morgenbesser, a great philosophical wag, when I said to him, "Professor Morgenbesser, why is there something rather than nothing?" And he said, "Oh, even if there was nothing, you still wouldn't be satisfied."
所以不管怎樣,你可能會說這塊拼圖是存在的奧秘, 它只是個愚蠢的故弄玄虛。 你不會對宇宙的存在感到驚奇。 你有一些好伙伴。 伯特蘭·羅素說, 「我應該說宇宙就是在那裡,就這樣。」 只是個赤祼祼的事實。 我在哥倫比亞大學的教授,摩根貝沙, 一個偉大的哲學迷 當我問他,「摩根貝沙教授, 為什麼會有物質存在而不是一切皆空?」 他回答,「喔,即使是一切皆空, 你也不會感到滿意的。」
So — (Laughter) — okay. So you're not astonished. I don't care. But I will tell you something to conclude that I guarantee you will astonish you, because it's astonished all of the brilliant, wonderful people I've met at this TED conference, when I've told them, and it's this: Never in my life have I had a cell phone. Thank you. (Laughter) (Applause)
所以 — (笑聲) — 好吧. 那麼你不感到驚奇。我不在乎。 但我將告訴你一件事情做總結 我保證讓你大吃一驚, 因為我讓這次TED大會我所遇到的 所有卓越傑出的人士都大吃一驚, 當我跟他們說: 我一輩子從未使用過手機。 謝謝。 (笑聲)(掌聲)