第095期……你是否生活在一个模拟世界中？

感谢所有在Patreon上支持这个节目的朋友，网址是 patreon.com/philosophize this。

Thanks to everyone out there that supports the show on Patreon, patreon.com/philosophize this.

感谢通过PayPal自愿打赏支持往期节目的人，也感谢每一位留下评论、写评价的朋友，是你们让这样的哲学对话能持续在人与人之间流动。

Thanks to the people that contribute what they want for the back catalog of the show on PayPal, and thanks to everyone out there who's leaving a comment, leaving a review, helping to keep philosophical conversations like this going between people.

没有你们，我根本做不到这些。

Could never do this without you.

我们好久没聊过这个了——如果你跟我一样，是那种喜欢干点自虐式消遣的人，那你肯定也想过这些问题。

So something we haven't talked about for quite some time on this show are the questions that naturally arise if, well, if you're the kind of person like me and you do the sort of masochistic things I like to do for fun.

比如说，早上醒来的时候。

You know, I'll wake up in the morning.

我会拿芦苇抽自己。

I'll beat myself with reeds.

有时候我甚至会点着自己的上半身，就为了感受一下那是什么滋味。

Sometimes I like to light my torso on fire just to see what it feels like.

折腾一整天之后，我晚上还会用差不多的方式收尾。

And after a long day of that, I like to close out my evenings by doing a very similar sort of activity.

我喜欢琢磨认识论背后那些深层的哲学问题，就是那些特别有意思的东西。

I like to question the deep philosophical problems at the root of epistemology, you know, all the fun stuff.

我们怎么知道自己知道的那些事？

How do we know what we know?

我们怎么确定自己知道的，就是真正知道的？

How do we know we know that's what we know?

这些才是真的让人上瘾的问题。

Know, all the really fulfilling questions to ask.

不过呢，这类问题确实有它的用处。

But, you know, these kinds of questions definitely have their uses.

一开始看着像纯属浪费时间的问题，往往反而能引出哲学里最颠覆性的想法。

The process of asking these kinds of questions that may at first seem like they're completely pointless oftentimes lead us to some of the most revolutionary ideas in philosophy.

比如笛卡尔？

Like, what about Descartes?

有一天笛卡尔窝在炉子边，突然问了自己一个看起来完全没意义的问题。

Descartes sitting around one day in his stove, and he's asking himself a question that may seem like it's a complete waste of time.

我怎么知道我周围这些东西真的存在呢？

How do I know that any of this stuff around me actually exists?

我是看见了，可那又能说明什么？

I mean, I see it.

我也能摸到它们，可这就能证明它们真实存在吗？

I can touch it.

可我到底怎么才能确信这些东西是真的存在的？

But how can I really know that any of this stuff exists?

我怎么才能确定，自己不是个泡在营养液里的大脑？

How can I know for certain that I'm not a brain in a vat somewhere?

说不定真正的现实根本不在这里，这一切都是某个邪恶恶魔在操控，专门骗我的？

You know, that actual reality is somewhere else and that this reality is just being created and maintained by some sort of evil demon that's constantly trying to deceive me?

听起来是挺疯的，对吧？

May it first seem like a pretty crazy idea.

但要是真这么荒谬，我为啥就找不出证据来证明它不可能呢？

But, really, if it is so crazy, shouldn't I be able to come up with a way to prove that it's not the case?

你知道吗，对普通人来说，问这种问题不只是让人困惑，

You know, these kinds of questions to the average person, they're not just confusing to ask.

还真的挺烦人的。

They can actually be kind of annoying to them.

问这些到底有什么意义呢？

Like, what's the point of asking stuff like this?

问这个世界存不存在，图个啥？

What's the point of asking if the world exists?

我就明明白白地看见它在这儿啊。

I I I see it right there.

你看嘛。

Look.

我不是那个意思。

Don't get me wrong.

我其实特别支持多想想这些事。

I'm all for thinking about stuff more.

你一开始问这种问题，我就觉得你是在生你爸的气，还想让所有人都不得安生。

When you start to ask these questions, I I begin to think you're angry at your dad, and you wanna make everyone else's life miserable.

你到底图个啥？

Why are you doing this?

但正是靠这种琐碎又看似没意义的问题，笛卡尔才得出了他的那个观点。

But it's only by asking this sort of pedantic seemingly pointless question that Descartes arrives at his idea of.

你知道吧？

You know?

我可能拿不出铁证，证明我看到的、摸到的就是最根本的现实。

Maybe I don't have a knockdown argument proving that what I'm seeing and touching is the fundamental base reality.

但我们都清楚，就算真有个恶魔整天在我脑子里灌输假想法，我依然在思考。

But as we know, even if an evil demon is sitting around constantly planting deceptive thoughts in my head, I'm still thinking.

所以，我肯定是个会思考的东西。

Therefore, I must be a thinking thing.

我思故我在。

I think, therefore, I must exist.

但你想想看，笛卡尔在这个思想实验里到底在干嘛。

But just think about what Descartes doing in this thought experiment of this.

他明明想证明一件人人都觉得再明显不过的事。

He sets out to try to prove this thing that seems really obvious to everyone.

就是我们意识里感知到的这个世界，它真的存在。

You know, that the stuff in our conscious awareness of the world actually exists.

他就是这么做的。

He does that.

结果碰了一鼻子灰，最后也没能证明出来。

He runs into some roadblocks and ends up not being able to.

换句话说，他从完全怀疑一切都不真实开始，想证明这一切是真的，可因为某些逻辑漏洞，终究没成功。

In other words, he starts from a position of total doubt that any of this stuff is real, tries to prove that it is, and because of certain inconsistencies, is not able to.

这说明什么？

What does that mean?

这意思是不是说，世界根本不存在？

Does that mean the world doesn't exist?

那是不是意味着，我们反而该对‘它不存在’这个想法保持怀疑？

Does it mean we should be suspicious of the idea that it doesn't exist?

这时候你可能会很自然地问：这到底意味着什么？

It'd be very easy at this point to say, what does it mean?

其实啥也不意味着。

It means nothing.

你听好了。

Look.

不管笛卡尔之前说了啥，这些东西就是真实存在的。

Whatever Descartes said over there, this stuff is reality.

它就摆在这儿呢。

It's right there.

我看得清清楚楚。

I I see it.

明白吗？

Okay?

我们没法证明这是根本现实，这可不是笛卡尔说得对不对的问题。

The fact that we can't prove this is fundamental reality, it's not that Descartes making a good point or something.

你没法证明这是真实世界，就跟没法证明世上没有小精灵一样。

You can't prove this is base reality any more than you can prove there's not a Rumpelstiltskin.

这就是现实。

This is reality.

但真有那么确定吗？

But is that really true?

你敢说，自己肯定不是个泡在营养液里的大脑，或者被连在什么矩阵装置上，过着假的人生？

Is it really so obvious that you're not a brain in a vat somewhere or someone hooked up to some sort of matrix like apparatus just living out your life?

或者说，更该问的是：我们真有理由觉得，这根本不可能是个值得考虑的假设吗？

Or I guess the better question is, is it really so obvious that we shouldn't even be considering it as a possibility?

你换个角度想想看。

I mean, think about it this way.

要是有哲学家反着来，跟笛卡尔唱反调呢？

What if a philosopher took the opposite approach to Descartes?

要是他们也像笛卡尔那样，从彻底的怀疑开始呢？

What if they started from a place of total doubt just like he did?

但当他们遇到这些矛盾时，反而试着用这些矛盾来反噬自己。

But instead, when they ran into these inconsistencies, they tried to sort of use them against themselves.

要是他们不试图证明这就是真实世界呢？

What if instead of trying to prove that this is reality?

要是他们反过来想，证明我们所熟知的这个世界——我们所有人日常生活的这个空间——根本不是底层现实，而是一个精心设计的模拟？你眼前的一切，都是某个我们完全不了解的存在，为了某种目的造出来的。我们发现的那些科学和认知上的漏洞，恰恰是因为这个世界是人为的。

What if they tried to prove that the only world we've ever known, this realm that we all navigate our lives through, what if they tried to prove that this is not base reality, that what you see around you is an elaborate simulation, and that any inconsistencies that we find in science or epistemology can really be explained by the fact that this is an artificial world created by something else for some purpose that we're not aware of.

听好了。

Now look.

我懂你的意思。

I get it.

这个想法嘛，说实话，我完全同意。

This whole idea, you know, amen.

如果这不是什么模拟，那在过去五年里，这个想法早就渗透进了普通人的脑子里，现在大家说起身边的事，都带着这种视角。

Well, if it's not real man's simulation, That whole idea in the last five years or so has really made its way into the minds of the average person and just how they talk about things that happen to them.

对吧？

Right?

我的意思是，你天天都能听到这种话。

I mean, you hear it all the time.

你知道的。

You know?

前几天我去沃尔玛，有个男的进来，身上连裤子都没穿。

Oh, I was at Walmart the other day, and this guy came in, and he didn't have any pants on.

我当时就想，这肯定是个模拟世界。

And I was like, this has to be a simulation.

这不可能是真实的。

This cannot be real.

再比如，有人讲起自己遇到的那些巧合或怪事，别人一听就直接说：这种事都发生了，你还能不信我们活在模拟里吗？

Or, you know, any example of somebody that references some coincidental or strange thing that happened to them, and people will point to it, and they'll say, how can you not think we're living in a simulation when stuff like this happens?

我们后面还会再聊这种想法，但我想表达的重点是，‘我们活在模拟中’这个观点，早就不是Facebook上那些迷幻剂爱好者随口乱猜的玩意儿了。

And we'll talk more about this kind of thinking later, but I guess the point I wanna get across is that the idea that we're living in a simulation is far from just random conjecture by psychedelic adventurers on Facebook.

其实这背后有很扎实的哲学基础。

There's actually a very solid philosophical grounding to it.

现在市面上有不少书，人们常拿它们当模拟理论的哲学起点。

Now there's a lot of books out there that people might point to as the philosophical ground zero that they build these theories from.

但最让人惊艳的模拟理论论证，根本不是一本书。

But one of the most interesting arguments ever written about simulation theory isn't a book at all.

而是一篇2003年写的短文，大概五千字左右。

It's a short paper from 2003, about 5,000 words long.

你现在就能在网上读到它。

You can read it on the Internet right now.

作者当时在牛津大学哲学系工作。

It's written by a guy that was working in the Philosophy Department of Oxford University at the time.

他叫尼克·博斯特罗姆。

His name is Nick Bostrom.

尼克·博斯特罗姆这篇论文彻底改变了公众对模拟论的看法，因为他的文章根本算不上什么论证。

Nick Bostrom's paper changed the way that the public looked at simulation arguments because his paper really isn't an argument at all.

在尼克·博斯特罗姆那篇论文之前，人们也讨论过世界可能是模拟的。

See, prior to Nick Bostrom's paper, people talked about the world being a simulation.

但大多数时候，他们只是在论证：我们活在模拟世界里，这事儿挺靠谱的。

It's just most of the time they were giving an argument for why it's plausible to assume that we might be living in a simulation.

尼克·博斯特罗姆却换了个角度，更中立、更抽离地来看这事儿。

Nick Bostrom takes a different approach, a more disinterested approach.

他其实就说了这么一句：不管你信不信现实的本质，就冲着现在科技发展的速度，总有一个情况肯定成立。

All he's saying is no matter what you believe about the nature of reality, given what we know so far about the rate of the progression of technology, one of three things has to be true.

也许我该展开说说。

Maybe I should expand on that.

想想看，摩尔定律讲的是技术呈指数级增长，现在2017年，我们用VR头盔就能让人沉浸到虚拟世界里了；十年前呢？我们做的游戏还跟《斯派罗龙》差不多画质。

Given what we know about Moore's law of exponential growth, given the fact that we're currently in twenty seventeen simulating worlds with VR headsets that people are getting lost in, and and and ten years ago, we're making stuff that looked like, you know, spyro the dragon.

按这个技术演进的速度，博斯特罗姆认为，必然有且只有三种可能成立。

Given the rate at which technology is maturing, one of three things has to be true to Nick Bostrom.

第一种：人类这个物种，在能模拟现实的技术出现之前，就灭绝了。

Number one, human beings as a species go extinct before we're able to develop the technology to simulate reality.

第二种情况，就像他所说的，会出现某种趋同。

Number two, there's some sort of convergence, as he puts it.

换句话说，不知什么原因，人类对创造这类模拟失去了兴趣。

Or in other words, for some reason, human beings lose interest in the process of creating these kinds of simulations.

或者第三种情况，人类确实达到了能够模拟现实的技术成熟阶段。

Or number three, human beings do reach the level of technological maturity where they can simulate reality.

在这种情况下，仅从统计学角度看，如果你接受这个前提，那你现在生活在模拟世界里的可能性，远大于你生活在真实世界里的可能性。

And in that world, just statistically speaking, if this is the case, it is much more likely that you are living in a simulation right now than not living in a simulation.

在这期节目里，我想抛开这些猜测，不再讨论那些无法验证的幻想，比如我们其实活在某个未来人士的Xbox里。

What I wanna do in this episode is step away from the conjecture, step away from the unverifiable speculation that we're all living in some guy's Xbox in the future.

我想暂且放下这些，转而聊聊尼克·博斯特罗姆在论文中提出的这三种可能性背后所蕴含的哲学。

I wanna step away from that, and I wanna talk about the philosophy that's at the root of each of these three possibilities that Nick Bostrom lays out in his paper.

我希望听完之后，大家能明白，我们生活在模拟中其实是一个真实可能，而理解我们所处的这个世界的关键，或许就在于意识到它可能是被人为创造的——无论带着某种目的，还是毫无目的。

The hope being that by the end of it, we'll understand that us living in a simulation is actually a real possibility, and that maybe the key to understanding as much as we can about this place that we live in lies in understanding that it may have been created artificially for some purpose or maybe for no purpose.

谁知道呢？

Who knows?

那我们先来看第一种可能。

So let's start with possibility number one.

人类在能创造出这种模拟之前就灭绝了。

The human species goes extinct before we can make one of these simulations.

对。

Okay.

也许我们可以从费米悖论说起，这玩意儿要是跟德雷克方程联系起来看，就更有意思了。

Maybe an interesting place to start is to talk about something called the Fermi Paradox, which is made much more interesting when thinking about it in relation to something called the Drake Equation.

德雷克方程是1961年一个叫弗兰克·德雷克的博士提出来的。

The Drake Equation is something written by a guy named doctor Frank Drake in 1961.

他搞这个方程，就是想让大家多聊聊宇宙里可能存在外星生命这事儿。

He wrote it because he was trying to get people to talk more about the possibility of there being alien life in the universe.

这个方程呢，其实是算了一堆不同的因素。

But what the equation does is it looks at a number of different criteria.

比如银河系里有多少颗恒星，其中有多少颗有行星，有多少颗行星可能适合生命存在，等等。

Number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy, number of those stars that have planets, number of those planets that might support life, and so on and so forth.

最终目的，是估算一下宇宙中可能正试图和我们联系的智慧物种总数。

The ultimate goal being to estimate the total number of intelligent species that might be trying to communicate with us out there.

结果发现，宇宙里的恒星多得惊人。

Well, as it turns out, there's a lot of stars out there.

说来也巧。

Just so happens.

行星也多得不得了。

There's a lot of planets out there as well.

有些行星的形成时间比地球早了几十亿年，完全具备孕育生命的条件。

Some of these planets were formed billions of years before our planet was formed and have the conditions that allow them to harbor life as we know it.

由此自然会引出一个谜题，就是常说的费米悖论。

Now, one natural question that follows from this is a mystery that's often referred to as the Fermi Paradox.

明白了。

Okay.

所以，宇宙里有数十亿颗恒星。

So we have billions of stars out there.

其中数百万颗恒星周围都有类似地球的行星。

Millions of them have Earth like planets orbiting them.

那外星人到底都跑哪儿去了？

Where are all the aliens at?

难道不该有成千上万的外星人早就登门拜访，拿着蛋糕说‘嘿，欢迎加入银河社区’吗？

Shouldn't there be tons of aliens on our doorstep with with a buncake saying, hey, welcome to the galactic community?

为什么我们一直没收到任何联络？

Why aren't we being contacted?

关于这个问题，人们已经提出了无数种可能的解释。

Now there's tons of possible answers to this question that people have given.

也许外星人根本不想理我们。

Maybe the aliens don't wanna talk to us.

也许他们已经进化到一个跟我们完全不在一个层次的阶段了。

Maybe they've ascended to a level of being that's just so far advanced in comparison to us.

跟我们沟通这种事，压根儿就没出现在他们的考虑范围内。

The idea of communicating with us, it's not even on their radar.

也许他们看我们，就像我们看蚂蚁一样。

Maybe they see us like like we're insects or something.

我相信很多人都能懂这个道理。

I'm sure many of us can understand.

你们中有多少人真想深入亚马逊雨林，去跟一群蚂蚁打招呼，自我介绍一番？

Like, like how many of you out there are dying to embark on an expedition deep into the Amazon jungle so you can make contact with a colony of ants and introduce yourself?

估计没几个人真这么想。

Probably not many of you.

那还有没有别的原因，说明我们没被联系呢？

So why else might we not be being contacted?

也许我们其实已经被联系了。

Maybe we are.

也许他们一直在跟我们沟通。

Maybe they're communicating with us.

对吧？

Right?

也许他们现在就在盯着我们。

Maybe they're watching us right now.

但他们用的是一种我们根本没在找的频率或通信方式。

But they're just using some frequency or some method of communication that we aren't looking for.

可能性多得简直没法猜。

It seriously could be anything.

甚至可能只是因为我们所处的位置。

It it could even just be location.

你知道的，我们住在银河系的边缘地带。

You know, we live near the outer edges of the Milky Way galaxy.

就像新iPhone发布时，技术总是先在市中心铺开，再慢慢传到偏远地区。

Maybe the same way when a new iPhone comes out, that technology starts in the city centers and then eventually makes its way out into the more rural areas.

很可能在人口密集的地方，通信早就铺天盖地了。

Maybe there's tons of communication going on where things are more clustered together.

只是还没轮到他们来我们这偏僻地方而已。

They just haven't gotten around to coming out to the boonies where we live.

我想说的是，可能性多得很。

There are many answers is the point I'm trying to make.

但最有趣的一个解释，也是很多人用来破解费米悖论的理论是：任何生命体在能真正掌握星际旅行技术——不管是物理迁徙还是发信号之前，都会遭遇某种灭顶之灾。

But one of the most interesting answers, and really one of the theories people look at and think it might be a real possibility for explaining the Fermi Paradox, is that before any life form can ever get to the stage of technological maturity where they can traverse these vast distances in space, be it physically or with a signal, before they can ever get to that place, something happens to them.

要么自毁，要么得病，要么被太阳耀斑或小行星一锅端。

They destroy themselves, disease, radiation, solar flare knocks them out, asteroid kills them.

我们之所以没被联系上，是因为还没等哪个文明发展到那个水平，它们就全灭了。

The reason we aren't being contacted is that before anything can ever develop that level of technology, the species goes extinct.

咱们人类自取灭亡的方式多得是，这谁都知道。

You know, there's no shortage of ways you can come up with for how we humans may eventually kill ourselves one day or be killed.

你瞧电视上那些末日生存狂，整天囤着一堆香蕉，就等世界末日来。

You know, you have those doomsday preppers on TV, some dude waiting around for the world to end with his hoard of bananas.

就那种人。

That guy.

我们早就笑话过这种人了。

We passed judgment on that guy.

对吧？

Right?

当那个人说下周民调会变，让我们做好准备，我们在电视上看到他，不都是嗤之以鼻吗？

When that guy says the polls are shifting next week, and I'm a be prepared for it, we watch him on the TV and we scoff, don't we?

民调根本不会变。

Polls aren't gonna shift.

你在说什么啊？

What are you talking about?

来，给我根香蕉。

Here now, give me a banana.

但有件事值得想想：真有人把大半辈子都花在预测人类灭绝的可能性上。

But something interesting to consider is that there are people out there that dedicate much of their lives to predicting the likelihood of the human species going extinct.

做这行的人，不光看我们普通人，连那些末日囤货的家伙他们也看，还觉得这人根本低估了我们未来一百年内灭绝的概率。

And the people that do that sort of thing, they not only look at you and me, they look at the doomsday prepper, and they think even that guy is drastically underestimating the likelihood of us dying off in the next hundred years.

我经常提到一个叫‘末日理论’的东西。

Oftentimes, I'll reference something called doomsday theory.

不知道为什么，每当特别聪明的人讨论某件事发生的概率时，总喜欢用 urn（罐子）来做例子。

Doomsday theory, for some reason, whenever really smart people talk about the probability of something happening, they always use urns in their examples.

我也来试着模仿一下。

I'm So a try and do my best impression of one right now.

咱们想象面前有个罐子。

Let's imagine we have an urn in front of us.

罐子里头装着一堆编号的球，就像强力球那样。

And inside of this urn are a bunch of numbered balls, kinda like the Powerball.

不过这罐子不是装几十个球，而是要么只有10个球，要么有一百万个球。

But instead of it having however many that thing has, this has either 10 balls inside of it or a million balls inside of it.

现在你把手伸进去，随便摸出一个球。

Now let's say you reach your hand in this and you pull out a ball.

你一看，抽到了7号球。

You look at it, and you pulled out ball number seven.

你抽到7号球这个事实，其实透露了点信息。

The fact that you pulled out ball number seven tells you something.

这说明，从统计学角度看， urn 里只有 10 个球的可能性，远大于有一百万个球。

It tells you, just statistically speaking, that it's much more likely that there are 10 balls inside of that than a million balls.

因为抽中 1/10 的概率，当然比抽中 1/100 万的概率大得多。

Reason being, it's much more likely for you have just pulled a one in 10 chance than a one in a million chance.

但我们能百分百确定里面只有 10 个球吗？不能。

Now are we absolutely certain there are only 10 balls inside of the No.

当然也可能真有一百万个球。

There certainly could be a million balls in there.

你只是刚好抽到了 7 号球而已。

You just happen to pull out ball number seven.

但如果你永远没法知道里面到底是 10 个还是百万个球，又想找个办法推测最可能的情况——那在抽到 7 号球之后，最合理的猜测还是：里面只有 10 个球。

But if for some reason you couldn't ever know for certain whether there were 10 or a million balls in there, and you're trying to find some method to calculate what's most likely to be in there, again, after pulling out ball number seven, odds are there's 10 balls inside of that urn.

现在你把 urn 里的球总数，想象成人类历史上总共会诞生的人数，而你抽到的那一个球，就是你自己的生命。

Now think of the total number of balls in the urn as the total number of human beings that will ever live, and think of the individual ball that you pulled out as your life.

球上的数字，代表你在人类绵延不绝的序列里，是第几个出生的人。

The number on the ball is the number of human being that you are in the grand succession of human life.

我的意思是，每个人都有个号码。

I mean, everyone's got a number.

对吧？

Right?

如果自人类起源以来，总共活过大约六百亿人，那我就是第600亿零1号。

If there are around 60,000,000,000 human beings that have lived so far since the dawn of woman, then let's say I'm number 60,000,000,001.

这就相当于我从这个罐子里抽到的球上的数字。

That's the number on my ball when I pulled it out of this urn.

末日理论认为，当然，人类也可能继续存在很久很久。

Doomsday theory would suggest that, sure, it may be the case that human beings live on for a very long time.

你知道的。

You know?

唐纳德·特朗普说不定真能把全世界团结起来，开启一个持续一千万年的和平时代，最终人类总数达到几百万亿。

Donald Trump may very well unite this world and usher in an age of peace that lasts for ten million years, and we'll have hundreds of trillions of human beings that eventually exist.

但也不排除另一种可能：十年后，某个像乔布斯那样的家伙在麻省理工的宿舍里捣鼓时间机器，一不小心打开个漩涡，把所有人都吸进去了。

But it also might be the case that, you know, in in ten years, some some Steve Jobs looking guy at MIT is gonna try to make a time machine in his dorm room, and he's gonna open up some vortex that sucks everybody into it.

末日理论认为，既然我们已经知道这么多可能灭绝人类的方式，更别说那些我们根本想不到的未知风险了，所以幻想人类飞往仙女座星系，跟外星人握手言和，听起来确实让人挺安慰的。

Doomsday theory suggests that given all the ways we already know about that might exterminate the human species one day, not to mention all the unknown things that we have no idea about, it may feel really good to think about us flying to the Andromeda Galaxy shaking hands with some aliens.

但按这个逻辑来说，你抽中六十亿分之一的概率，远比抽中五百万亿分之一的概率大得多。

But in keeping with the example, it is much more likely for you to have pulled a one in sixty billion chance than a one in five hundred trillion chance.

所以，再简单说一遍。

So, again, real quick.

如果你是尼克·博斯特罗姆，那关于模拟现实，只有三种可能。

One of three things has to be true about simulations if you're Nick Bostrom.

第一种：人类在能造出模拟现实之前就灭绝了。

Number one is that human beings go extinct before we can ever make one.

第二种：我们确实研发出了这项技术，但某种原因让我们根本没去造它。

Number two is that we do develop the technology, but that there's some sort of convergence that prevents us from making them.

这一类情况其实有很多，比如……

Now there's tons of different things that fall into this category.

尼克·博斯特罗姆特别提到一个：一旦我们真能造出这种模拟，说不定会因为伦理问题，干脆就不敢去做了。

One of the big ones that Nick Bostrom points out is that once we can actually make one of these simulations, maybe there will be some sort of ethical consideration that prevents us from actually making one.

比如说，假设特朗普让全世界团结起来，建立了一个全球联盟。

For example, well, let's say Donald Trump unites the world, and he creates a global alliance.

我们整个星球达成共识，齐心协力。

And we all come together as a planet, we decide that we're in agreement.

从今往后，我们共同追求的终极目标就是消除人类的痛苦。

The intrinsic good that we're all going to strive for from now on is the elimination of human suffering.

在这样的世界里，假设我们不仅有能力模拟出一个有意识生命体存在的宇宙，而且这种能力还能通过手机App普及到每个人手里。

Now in that world, let's say not only do we have the ability to simulate a universe with conscious agents navigating it, let's say that ability is available to everyone through an app on their smartphone or something.

在这种以消除痛苦为宗旨的世界里，一些问题就开始浮现了。

In that world where we're trying to eliminate suffering, certain questions start to arise.

比如，你认为一个人为了自己的私欲去创建这样的模拟世界，然后沉浸其中，这道德吗？

For example, would you say that it's morally justifiable for somebody to create one of these simulations and then immerse themselves in it for whatever reason they want?

我的意思是，这些被模拟出来的有意识的人和动物，他们感受到的痛苦和我们一样，难道就只是供我们消遣的工具？

I mean, are these simulated conscious people and animals that suffer the same way that you do, are they just fodder for your amusement?

这说得通吗？

Is that right?

数十亿年里，物种一代代兴起又灭绝？

Billions upon billions of years of species coming and going out of existence?

有万亿生灵出生、活过一生、传下基因，却承受了难以想象的深重苦难，就只是为了让你能沉浸在一个世界里，享受你想要的体验？

Trillions of creatures have been born, lived out their lives, passed on their genes, and gone through untold amounts of abject suffering simply so you could immerse yourself in a world and have a certain experience that you enjoy?

这在道德上能说得通吗？

Is that morally justifiable?

但话说回来，这些生灵虽然受苦，可它们至少活过，要不是这样，它们根本不会存在。

Then again, on the other hand, yeah, all these creatures are suffering, but they're also alive when they never would have been otherwise.

而且，毫无疑问，它们也体验过许多积极的情绪。

Along with that, no doubt, many positive emotional states.

也许我们不该把这些模拟当成供我们消遣的工具，而该把它看作像种树一样，创造新的生命。

Maybe instead of looking at these simulations as fodder for our amusement, maybe we'd see it almost as like planting a tree, bringing about new life.

也许我们会觉得，这其实是一件好事。

Maybe we'd see it as a good thing.

不管怎么说，这个伦理问题很快就变得让人头大，根本没法轻易解决。

I mean, either way, this ethical question quickly becomes pretty daunting to solve.

我的意思是，你实际上是在决定另一个有意识的生命该不该存在。

I mean, you're essentially making a decision about whether another conscious being should exist or not.

而这个生命根本没机会表达它想不想来到这个世界。

And you're doing it when that conscious being has no say in the matter as to whether it wants to exist.

表面上看，这好像跟堕胎争议差不多，你可能会想，干脆把支持和反对堕胎的那些论点直接搬过来用得了。

Now on the surface, that might start to sound like the abortion debate, and it may be tempting to think we can just take all the arguments pro and against and sort of just transfer them over to this question.

但其实，这个伦理困境比堕胎问题要严重得多。

But it's actually a much worse ethical dilemma than abortion.

因为至少在堕胎问题上，你还能说：我的身体我做主，我有权利选择。

Because at least in the abortion debate, can have the option of saying, well, I have a certain level of autonomy over my body.

我有权决定。

I should be able to choose.

但在模拟世界里，这些生命根本不是你身体的一部分。

But in the case of the simulation, it's not a part of our bodies.

那我们到底该怎么办？

So what do we do?

那我们还能拿什么来论证呢？

Where does that leave us in terms of arguments?

那些关于堕胎的其他理由，这儿全用不上。

Can't use all the other arguments on that side of the abortion debate.

你不能说，哎，我上网查了一堆资料，终于搞清楚生命是从哪一刻开始的。

You you can't say, you know, based on my extensive research on the Internet, I have come to a conclusive decision about exactly when life begins.

这在模拟问题上根本站不住脚。

That doesn't really apply when it comes to the simulation.

那种‘从现实角度看，允许终止非意愿妊娠对社会更有利’的说法，也帮不上忙。

What's not on like, the argument that, pragmatically speaking, we're better off as a society when people can terminate unwanted pregnancies.

这个理由同样解释不了这个问题。

That one doesn't shed any light on this either.

而且，我们做这个决定时，面对的不是什么‘一小团细胞’，而是地球上所有曾经活过的生命。

Also, the fact that when we're making this decision, it's not just one little ball of cells that we're making this decision on behalf of, but every creature that's ever lived on planet Earth.

更别说，如果我们所在的这个可能无限延伸的宇宙里，还有其他生命存在——那我们能不能允许人们在手机上创建模拟世界，这个决定的后果，简直难以想象。

And in the extremely likely event that we aren't the only life that exists in this fractal, possibly infinite universe, think of the potential magnitude of being able to decide whether people can create simulations on their smartphone or not.

这根本不是堕胎辩论。

This isn't the abortion debate.

这简直是堕胎辩论再乘以无穷大，还加个有线新闻频道。

This is this is the abortion debate times infinity plus cable news.

这可能是我们很快就要面对的一个大问题。

It's a big question that we might be dealing with soon.

尼克·博斯特罗姆说，也许这就是我们从未创建过模拟的原因。

Nick Bostrom saying, maybe this is why we never create simulations.

也许这个问题，或者类似的问题，最终会引发一场全球性的大辩论，要么陷入僵局啥也干不成，要么干脆认定模拟在道德上是错的，于是我们压根就不去做了。

That maybe this question or another question like it will eventually spark some sort of global debate where we either arrive at a gridlock and can't do anything or in a place where we have deemed simulations to be ethically wrong, so we never end up making them.

这只是一个我们可能不会创建模拟的例子。

Now, is one example of why we might not make a simulation.

还有无数其他可能性，比如我们可能只是失去了兴趣。

There's tons of other ones, maybe we just lose interest.

你知道吗，也许未来的人类跟我们现在完全不同了，现在看来，拥有自己的模拟世界挺酷的，但对他们来说……

You know, maybe the human beings of the future are just so different than we are now that, yeah, right now, it seems pretty awesome to have your own simulation.

也许他们根本不在乎。

Maybe they won't care.

也许会出现一种好上十倍的东西，我们现在完全想不到。

Maybe there will be something 10 times better that we have no idea about.

另一个流行的观点是：也许阻碍我们创建这些模拟的，根本不是晶体管和处理器？

Another popular idea is, what if it's not transistors and processors that prevent us from making these simulations?

换句话说，也许未来拖我们后腿的，根本不是硬件？

In other words, what if it's not the hardware that'll hold us back in the future?

而是我们根本写不出这样的软件？

What if it's us not being able to write the software?

讨论模拟理论的哲学家们，对这个问题看法分歧很大。

Philosophers that talk about simulation theories are pretty split on this one.

有些人会说，如果我们真想模拟出足够逼真、对我们有用的世界，那前提是我们得彻底搞懂自然界的运行机制，才能把它编程出来。

Some of them will say, well, if we're ever going to be able to simulate reality in an accurate enough way where it's useful to us, Part of that is having an exhaustive understanding of the inner workings of nature so that we can program them.

这听起来是个不小的障碍。

Seems like a pretty big roadblock.

他们会说，比如宇宙里有70%都是种叫暗能量的东西。

They'll say things like, you know, something like 70% of the universe is this stuff out there called dark energy.

就是那种我们完全搞不懂它到底是什么、有什么用的东西。

This stuff where we really have no idea what it is or what function it serves.

百分之七十。

70.

换句话说，宇宙的绝大部分，我们连它是什么都不知道。

In other words, the vast, vast majority of this universe, we don't even know what it is.

事实上，你把所有通过望远镜或显微镜观测过的东西，所有我们可能知道的宇宙组成部分——行星、恒星、星系——加起来，还不到宇宙总量的5%。

In fact, if you put together everything we've ever looked at through a telescope or a microscope, everything we even can potentially know about the universe, all those planets, stars, galax all that makes up less than 5% of the universe.

这些哲学家会问：连宇宙到底是什么都搞不清楚，我们怎么可能模拟出一个宇宙？更别说模拟得足够逼真，对模拟者本身有用。

These philosophers would say, how can we possibly simulate a universe when we have no clue what it is really, or at least be able to simulate it accurately enough where it's useful to whatever is doing the simulating?

不过也有些哲学家认为，不一定非得彻底搞懂自然规律才能模拟宇宙，只要能理解到足以产生某些关键涌现特性就够了，那些才是实验真正想观察的东西。

Now there are other philosophers out there that would say that, no, we don't necessarily need an exhaustive understanding of nature to have a simulated universe, that all we really need is enough of an understanding to bring about certain emergent properties that are the purpose of the experiment.

比如说，如果这个模拟的目的是研究智慧生命如何与某些变量互动，那我们只需要搞懂怎么生成智慧生命和那些变量就够了。

So if the purpose of the simulation is to study, for example, how intelligent life interacts with certain variables, then all you'd really need to know in that one is how to bring about intelligent life and those variables.

他们就是这么讲的。

That's what they're saying.

但不管你支持哪一方，我想表达的重点，也是尼克·博斯特罗姆想说的重点是：我们至少能看清，对自然深层机制的无知，可能会成为未来模拟现实的障碍。

But wherever you fall on this one, the point I'm trying to make, the point Nick Bostrom's trying to make, is that we can at least see how a lack of understanding about the complex inner workings of nature might be something that prevents us from simulating things in the future.

第一种可能：人类在能实现模拟之前就灭绝了。

So the first option is that human beings go extinct before we can simulate things.

第二种可能：有什么东西阻止了我们开发出这项技术。

The second option is that there's something that prevents us from developing the technology.

第三种，也是最后一种可能：我们确实研发出了这项技术。

And the third and final option is that we do develop the technology.

而在那种情况下，你此刻活在模拟世界里的概率，远大于你活在真实世界里的概率。

And in that world, it is much more likely that you are in a simulation right now than not in a simulation.

这话说得可不小，咱们得说清楚，为什么他们会认为这几乎是必然的。

Now there's a pretty big statement, so let's clarify why they say this has to be the case.

有些人观察周围的一切，试图论证我们其实活在一个模拟世界里。

There are people out there that look at things around them, and they try to give an argument that proves we're living in a simulation.

尼克·博斯特罗姆并没有这么做，这正是他观点的独特之处。

Nick Bostrom's not doing that, which is kind of what makes his position unique.

他说的是，如果我们真有一天达到了能模拟意识的技术水平，那真实世界只有一个，但可能有数万亿个模拟世界。

What he's saying is that if we ever do reach a level of technological maturity that allows us to simulate consciousness, there's only one base reality and potentially trillion untold numbers of simulated realities.

而每一个模拟世界里，还可能藏着更多自己的模拟世界。

Each of those may be harboring their own simulations.

这些层层嵌套的模拟里，意识的数量多到无法计数，但真实世界，只有一个。

All of these harboring untold numbers of simulated consciousnesses, but there's only one base reality.

既然我们根本分不清模拟意识和真实意识的区别——我的意思是，我们这辈子只接触过自己脑子里的东西。

So given the fact that we don't know how to distinguish between simulated consciousness and base reality consciousness, I mean, we've only ever had access to what's inside of our own heads.

尼克·博斯特罗姆只是问：你觉得哪种可能性更大？

Nick Bostrom's just saying, what's more likely?

如果你是个赌徒，你会把赌注押在哪一边？

If you were a gambler, what would you put your money on?

你是那个唯一的现实世界里的人，还是那万亿个模拟世界里的其中一个？

That you're in the one base reality or that you're in one of potentially trillions of simulated realities?

所以，如果宇宙中任何东西——不一定是人类——最终发展出了这种技术，那我们所有人现在活在模拟中的可能性，远大于我们活在真实世界里的可能性。

Hence, the claim that if anything in the universe, not even humans necessarily, does develop this level of technology, it is much more likely that all of us are in a simulation right now than not in a simulation.

那接下来自然会冒出一个问题：如果这真是个模拟，那我们为啥会被模拟呢？

So I guess one of the obvious questions that follows from this is that if this is in fact a simulation, why are we being simulated?

这问题挺有意思的。

Kind of an interesting question to ask.

当然，我们可能永远也找不到答案。

Not that we're ever gonna know.

但这个模拟存在的目的会是什么呢？

But what might the function of this simulation be?

说真的，我研究这个话题越深，就越发现满大街都是胡说八道的东西。

And look, if there's anything I've learned as I've looked into this topic over the it's just how much complete garb garbage surrounds this entire topic when you start to look into it.

我不知道你们有没有去查过。

I mean, I don't know if you guys have checked it out.

网上99%关于模拟理论的内容，都是些人凭感觉瞎猜，根本没法验证，就一句话：我觉得这听起来挺有道理。

But 99% of the stuff you can find about simulation theories on the Internet are people making completely unverifiable claims that are just based on, you know, I think this seems to make sense.

前几天你还突然聊起宝可梦呢。

Oh, the other day, you were randomly talking about Pokemon.

结果我一进屋，穿着件宝可梦T恤就进来了。

And then and then I walked in the room with with a Pokemon shirt on.

我们以前根本没提过宝可梦这事儿。

We never talked about Pokemon before.

这巧合你咋解释？

How do you explain that coincidence?

这肯定是矩阵出bug了。

It has to be some sort of glitch in the matrix.

咱们都懂，要是在真实世界，这种巧合根本不可能发生。

Because we all know if this was the real world, coincidences would never happen.

除了直接断言现实本身有问题，我们还能干啥？

What can we do other than make a sweeping accusation about the nature of existence?

你刚才还提了宝可梦。

You talked about Pokemon.

那我还能怎么办？

What am I supposed to do?

你知道吗？现在这些关于模拟世界目的的理论，很多人管它们叫二十一世纪的宗教。

You know, many of these theories that get constructed about the purpose of the simulation, people often refer to them as the religions of the twenty first century.

有时候，还真跟亚伯拉罕宗教的模式挺像的。

And sometimes it really does start to mirror the Abrahamic model.

你想想看。

I mean, think about it.

咱们都活在一个被某种存在刻意创造的临时世界里，它还给我们设了行为准则，好让这目的能更好地实现。

We're all living in this temporary world created by something that did so for a purpose, and they have a way that they'd like you to behave in order to better bring about that purpose.

说白了，你只要把‘上帝’换成那个遥远未来、创造了这个模拟的科学家，本质上根本没区别。

I mean, really, if you just replace God with the scientist in the distant future that has brought about this simulation, not much changes there.

要是你信多神论，比如海浪打翻了船，那就是海神波塞冬发怒了。

If you're into some sort of polytheistic one, you know, and the waves crashed against the boat, it was the wrath of Poseidon, God of the sea.

不对。

No.

其实那是内德。

Actually, that's Ned.

对。

Yeah.

他在海洋部门工作。

He works in the ocean department.

就是他写的波浪运行的代码，所有相关的东西都是他弄的。

He's the guy that programmed how the waves work and everything.

总之，我要说的是，如果你真想深入研究这个，得小心那些动不动就说‘我是人，爱对我来说最重要’的人。

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is if you end up looking into this more, be very cautious of the people that do the whole, I'm a human being, and love is very important to me.

所以他们觉得，整个宇宙就是个模拟器，而爱就是一切的意义。

Therefore, the entire universe is a simulation where love is the meaning of everything.

这些模拟理论很容易变成某些人的避风港——他们觉得，十四亿年来星系堆星系，宇宙的终极目的，就是2017年我穿着这件宝可梦T恤坐在这儿。

These these simulation theories can easily become bastions for people that like to think that the purpose of fourteen billion years of galaxy upon galaxy is me right here in 2017 with my Pokemon shirt on.

不过呢，也确实有些挺有意思的理论。

That said, there are some pretty interesting theories out there.

我觉得最常见的一种说法是经典的黑箱理论，意思是，在创造这个模拟的底层现实中，我们想引入某种东西。

I think by far the most common one is the classic black box theory that in the base reality where the simulation was created, there's something we want to introduce.

可能是某种发明。

Maybe it's an invention.

也可能是某种经济理论，反正就是这么回事。

Maybe it's an economic theory, whatever.

我们想先测试一下，但又不想在底层现实中冒险。

Something we wanna introduce, but we wanna test it out first.

我们不想让现实中的系统出问题。

We don't wanna jeopardize the operation at a base reality level.

不如先建个模拟世界，看看情况怎么样。

Let's make this simulation over here, and we'll just kinda see how it goes.

要是效果不错，咱们就真干。

Things go well, we'll do it.

结果人长得跟《行尸走肉》里的群演似的。

People start to look like extras from the walking dead.

至少不是咱们干的。

Well, at least it wasn't us.

听到这种理论时，你第一反应肯定是：搞这么个宇宙，折腾几十亿年，一波接一波灭绝，就为了让我们这些幸运的两足灵长类能体验一把iPhone 12？这也太不划算了吧。

Now the first thing you gotta think when you hear this sort of theory is seems pretty inefficient to make this entire universe billions of years, mass extinction after mass extinction just so that we lucky bipedal primates can find out what it's like to have an iPhone 12.

但反过来想，万一这正是底层现实里生命诞生的方式呢？也许只有这么搞，实验才够真实。

But on the other hand, what if that's the way life emerged in base reality and that's the only way to run an accurate experiment?

这谁说得准呢。

Hard to say.

你记得前面咱们聊过吗？咱们人类可能最终会认定，消除痛苦本身就是一件天经地义的好事。

You know, earlier in the episode, we talked about the possibility of us as a species arriving at the conclusion that the abolition of suffering should be an intrinsic good.

我之前也听过一种说法：也许某个地方的文明也会觉得，尽可能多地创造有意识的生命才是终极价值，而咱们根本不是什么实验品。

A theory I've seen before is that something out there could just as easily arrive at the idea that bringing about as much conscious life as possible is an intrinsic good, and that we aren't part of some grand experiment here.

咱们的存在，就只是为了存在而已。

Our job is just to be, to exist.

不过呢，还有另一种常见说法：这个模拟世界的真正目的，根本不是为了孕育智能生命。

Then again, another common theory is that the purpose of the simulation isn't intelligent life.

但对某个外星生命体来说——几乎肯定不是人类——模拟这些引力异常，或者只是宇宙中那些看似恒定的东西，比如物理定律，才是他们的目的。

But for some life form out there, almost certainly not a human being, this is to simulate gravitational anomalies or even just things that seem to be constant in the universe, laws of physics, things like that.

你知道吗，有些科学家说，我们可能生活在模拟世界的一个理由，就是因为这事儿听起来完全有可能。

You know, there there are scientists out there that say that one reason to suspect that we may be living in a simulation is that it seems possible.

这话听起来有点怪，但他们想表达的是，宇宙中的东西似乎都有种有限的、有边界的特质。

Kind of a weird statement, but what they're saying is that there seems to be a very finite nature to things.

就像那些东西像是被刻意编程进去的限制一样。

Things that almost look like they were programmed as built in limitations.

比如光速极限、时间、能量，还有那个 E=mc²，你看这些都挺像设定好的参数。

You know, cosmic speed limit, time, energy, e equals m c square look.

我不是物理学家。

I'm not a physicist.

我只是说，真有人自称懂这些，他们觉得这些限制可能暗示我们活在一个模拟世界里。

I'm just saying there's people out there that claim to be that say these limitations might mean that it's possible for us to be in a simulated reality.

但我觉得咱们得聊聊一个大家从我一开头讲这个话题起，肯定都在想的问题。

But I guess one thing we gotta talk about is the question probably everyone's been wondering since I started talking about this.