本集简介
双语字幕
仅展示文本字幕，不包含中文音频；想边听边看，请使用 Bayt 播客 App。
嘿，星谈粉丝们。
Hey, Star Talkins.
我是尼尔。
Neil here.
你即将收听一集特别精选自我们档案库的节目，专为满足你对宇宙的好奇心。
You're about to listen to an episode specially drawn from our archives to serve your cosmic curiosities.
我们的档案库内容丰富。
The archives run deep.
如果你喜欢这集，不妨在你最爱的播客平台上浏览一下完整目录。
If you enjoy this, take a peek at the full catalog on your favorite podcast platform.
那里有很多内容能激发你的极客情怀。
There's a lot there to tickle your geek underbelly.
去看看吧。
Check it out.
欢迎来到星谈，这里是科学与流行文化交汇的宇宙之地。
Welcome to StarTalk, your place in the universe where science and pop culture collide.
StarTalk现在开始。
StarTalk begins right now.
这是StarTalk宇宙问答版。
This is StarTalk Cosmic Queries edition.
我是尼尔·德葛拉司·泰森，你的专属天体物理学家。
Neil deGrasse Tyson here, your personal astrophysicist.
当然，我和查克·奈斯在一起。
I got Chuck Nice with me, of course.
查克，我的
Chuck, my What's
嘿，尼尔？
up, Neil?
忠实的联合主持人。
Faithful cohost.
你知道，我们需要你来参与宇宙问答，这样你就可以把每个人的名字都念错。
You know, you're you're we need you for the cosmic queries so that you can mispronounce everyone's name.
嗯，这正是我人生的使命，尼尔。
Well, that's my, purpose in life, Neil.
我活着就是为了糟蹋名字。
I live to butcher names.
不。
No.
你知道的吧？
You know?
那些可怜的提问者。
Those poor questioners.
你会怎么念我的名字？
How would you attack my name?
天哪。
Oh my goodness.
所以尼克·博斯特罗姆，是这么念的吗？
So Nick Bostrom, is that what you is that how?
挺不错的。
It's it's pretty good.
好吧？
Alright?
这样可以吗？
And it's Is that alright?
在瑞典语中，应该是Nicklas Bostrom，不过你念得已经很接近了。
In in in Swedish, it would be Nicklas Bostrom, but that was close.
好的。
Alright.
然后听好了。
And then listen.
我就选接近的吧。
I'll take close.
在我看来，名字就像个游戏，比‘是的’有意思多了。
As far as I'm concerned, names are like a game better than Yeah.
这对我来说就像玩马蹄铁游戏。
That's like a game of horseshoes for me.
接近就足够好了。
Close is is good enough.
足够好了。
Good enough.
所以那确实是尼克·博斯特罗姆在发言。
So that was indeed Nick Bostrom chiming in.
尼克，欢迎来到《星谈》。
Nick, welcome to StarTalk.
伙计，你引发了一件事，让整个世界都陷入了混乱，引发了我们所有人生活在一个模拟世界中的担忧。
Dude, you started something that has got the whole world, you know, spinning in a tizzy for birthing the concern that we all live in a simulation.
让我简单介绍一下你的背景。
And let me just give a fast bio on you.
你是牛津大学人类未来研究所的教授。
You're a professor at University of Oxford in in the Future of Humanity Institute.
那看起来不太对劲。
That's That doesn't look very right.
你知道，看起来不太对劲。
You know, it doesn't look very right.
不。
No.
抱歉。
Sorry.
对不起，尼古拉斯。
Sorry, Nicholas.
这工作可没什么保障啊，伙计。
Not a lot of not a lot of job security in that, buddy.
不。
No
未来。
future.
展望人类的未来。
Looking at the future of humanity.
嘿。
Yo.
所以你你你思考人工智能、人工智能的伦理、生物安全、网络，还有宏观战略之类的。
So you you you think about artificial intelligence, the ethics of of artificial intelligence, biosecurity, net what what have macro strategy.
我们稍后会问你这到底是什么。
We'll ask you what that is in a moment.
仅仅是政策、伦理，以及文明面临的重大挑战的基础性问题，这些挑战不是在遥远的未来，而是在非常近的未来。
Just policy, ethics, foundational questions about serious challenges that civilization faces, not in the distant future, but in the very near future.
我喜欢你有理论物理的背景，所以把你归入物理圈。
I like the fact that you have a background in theoretical physics, so put you in in the physics club here.
很好。
That's good.
还有计算神经科学。
Also, computational neuroscience.
在我的任职机构——美国自然历史博物馆，我们有一些这样的东西。
We have some of those at my home institution at the American Museum of Natural History.
那也是一个相当前沿的领域。
That's quite the frontier as well.
你写过一篇颇具影响力的论文，题目是《你是否生活在一个计算机模拟中？》
And you had a a rather influential paper research paper titled, are you living in a computer simulation?
对我来说，我也记得你的《超级智能》一书，所有这些都引发了人们的思考，正如任何一位优秀的哲学家应该做的那样——激发人们思考。
And for me, also, I remembered your book Superintelligence, which all of these got people thinking, as any good philosopher should do, is to get people thinking.
所以，你能先为我们做个开场吗？
And so could could you just start us off?
你为什么认为我们可能生活在一个模拟中？
Why do you think we might be living in a simulation?
我有一个叫做‘模拟论证’的观点，它实际上并不能证明我们生活在模拟中，但试图表明三个命题中至少有一个为真。
Well, I have this thing called the simulation argument, which doesn't actually prove that we're in a simulation, but it tries to show that at least one of three propositions is true.
那么，我们想听听你的推理过程，鉴于你在逻辑方面的背景，这一定很精彩。
So let's we wanna hear your line of reasoning, which ought to be good given your sort of logical background in this universe.
那我们来听听你的观点吧。
So let's let's hear what you've got.
我的意思是，你可能更能解释清楚。
Well, I mean, you you probably would be able to explain it better.
但没错，我的观点是，模拟论证试图表明三个命题中至少有一个为真。
But, yeah, my story is that the simulation argument tries to show that one of three propositions is true.
所以让我们先看看结论是什么，然后再看我们是如何得出这个结论的。
So let's first look at what the conclusion is and then we can see how we get there.
因此，结论是：要么几乎所有处于我们当前技术发展阶段的文明，在达到技术成熟之前就灭绝了。
So the conclusion is that either almost all civilizations at our current stage of technological development go extinct before they become technologically mature.
所以这是一种可能性，对吧？
So that's like one alternative, right?
第二种可能性是，在那些确实达到技术成熟的文明中，存在一种非常强烈的趋同性。
The second is that amongst civilizations that do become technologically mature, there is a very strong convergence.
它们都失去了创造某种计算机模拟的兴趣。
They all lose interest in creating a certain kind of computer simulation.
我称它们为祖先模拟。
I call them ancestor simulations.
这些是对拥有其历史先辈般经历的人的详细模拟。
These would be detailed simulations of people with the kind of experiences that their historical forebears had.
所以这是第二种可能性。
So that's the second alternative.
而第三种可能性是我们几乎肯定生活在一个计算机模拟中。
And then the third alternative is that we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
所以这就是这种结论。
So so that that's the kind of conclusion.
那么，人们是如何得出这个结论的呢？
Now how how does one get to to that?
假设第一个可能性不成立。
Well, suppose that the first of these alternatives does not obtain.
这意味着，并非几乎所有处于我们这一阶段的文明都无法达到技术成熟。
So that means it's not true that almost all civilizations at our stage fail to reach technological maturity.
有一部分非微不足道的文明能够成功通过。
Some non trivial fraction make it through.
明白吗？
Okay?
那么，我们再假设第二个假设也是错误的。
Then let's suppose that the second alternative is also false.
因此，在那些成功实现技术成熟的文明中，有一部分非微不足道的文明仍然有兴趣利用部分资源来创建这类祖先模拟。
So amongst those who do become technologically immature, some nontrivial fraction remain interested in using some of the resources to create these kinds of ancestor simulations.
那么你可以证明，一个成熟文明所拥有的计算资源足以创建数百万甚至数十亿个详细的模拟，即祖先模拟，重现人类历史。
Then you can show that the kind of computational resources a mature civilization would have would suffice to create millions and billions of detailed simulations, ancestor simulations, runs of human history.
因此，如果前两个假设都不成立，那么拥有我们这类经验的模拟版本数量，将远远超过在基础物理现实中真实存在的、拥有我们这类经验的人类数量。
And so that if the first two alternatives are false, then there would be many many more simulated versions of people with our kinds of experiences than that would be original implemented in basic physical reality people with our experiences.
在这种情况下，如果绝大多数拥有我们这类经验的人都是模拟的，那么我们应当认为，自己很可能是其中之一，而不是极少数非模拟的原生个体。
And conditional on that, if almost all people with our experiences are simulated, we should think we are probably one of the simulated ones rather than one of the rare non simulated ones.
因此，如果你否定了前两个假设，你就必须接受第三个假设。
So that means that if you reject the first two alternatives, you would then have to accept the third one.
这就表明，这三者不可能全为假，因此至少有一个为真。
And then that shows that it's not the case that all three of them are false, so hence, at least one of them is true.
这就是其结构。
So that that's the structure.
为什么不能存在第四种真相，即根本没人关心在任何地方进行模拟？
Why can't why can't there be a fourth other truth that no one gives a rat's ass about simulating anything anywhere?
嗯，那就是第二个可能性。
Well, so that's that's the second.
对吧？
Right?
我的意思是，如果所有这些技术成熟的文明都完全不感兴趣去进行模拟，那这就是第二种可能性。
I mean, so if if all of these technologically mature civilizations are completely uninterested in in in simulating, then that would be possibility number two.
但请注意，要使第二种可能性成立，仅仅大多数文明不太感兴趣是不够的。
But but note that for the second alternative to hold, it's not sufficient that most of them are not very interested.
因为即使只有1%的这些成熟文明稍微有点兴趣
Because even if it were just a 1% of these mature civilizations that were even a little bit interested
这是一个很大的数字。
That's a big number.
他们仍然可以生成数百万个。
They still could produce millions of them.
因此，这必须是一种极其强烈的趋同。
And so that would have to be this extremely strong convergence.
几乎所有的文明都必须完全失去对这种行为的兴趣，第二种可能性才能成立。
Like almost all of them would completely have to lose any interest in doing this in order for the second alternative to be the
好的。
Okay.
所以，我刚才对你的论证做了一些轻微的歪曲。
So so I have publicly mildly butchered your line of argument there.
首先，我向你道歉。
So let me first apologize.
我之前注意到的是，我们目前还没有能力创造出一个像我们所处世界那样的完美模拟。
What I had been noting is that we do not have the power yet to create a perfect simulation of a world such as the one we're living in.
所以我不认为每个人都会创建这些祖先模拟，而我们就是其中之一。
And so I wasn't thinking that everyone would make these ancestor simulations, which we would be.
因此，一个在电影式平行宇宙中的祖先文明，就像是关于斯巴达克斯或克利奥帕特拉的电影。
And so an ancestor civilization in a in a cinematic parallel would be a movie about Spartacus or Cleopatra.
只是一部现代技术讲述的、设定在他们还没有电影的时代的故事。
Just some something a movie, which is modern technology, telling a story set in a time when they didn't have movies.
对吧？
Right?
所以那会是一种祖先模拟，我猜这就是你所说的祖先模拟的意思。
So that would be like an ance I'm guessing that's what you mean by an ancestor simulation.
因此，我原本认为每一个模拟最终都会通过自然的进化过程复制自身。
And so so I was thinking that every sim simulation would ultimately be able to duplicate themselves as a natural evolutionary arc.
如果真是这样，那么我们要么是尚未模拟任何人的原始宇宙，要么就是最后一个被模拟出来的、仍在努力获得模拟自身能力的模拟，这会稍微好一些——实际上，比随机投掷飞镖却恰好落在那些已具备模拟自身能力的所有模拟中的概率要高得多。
If that's the case, then we would either be the original universe that hasn't yet simulated anybody yet, or we'd be sort of the last one simulated still working our way towards the power of simulating ourselves, which would be slightly better odds, well, a lot better odds than throwing a dart and landing in all the simulations that had enough power to create simulations of themselves.
是的。
Yeah.
嗯，我
Well, I
这有道理吗？
Any of makes sense?
首先，我并不认为唯一可能被创建的模拟就是祖先模拟。
Well, so so first of all, I don't claim that the only simulations that might be made are ancestor simulations.
我的意思是，如果你想象一个技术成熟的文明，他们可能会模拟各种各样的东西，比如尽可能还原真实历史、幻想世界、反事实历史，或者虚构的外星文明。
I mean, that you you I mean, if you imagine your technological mature civilizations, you might simulate all kinds of things like real histories as close as you can get, fantasy worlds, counterfactual histories, imaginary alien civilizations.
我的意思是，可能存在着大量这类模拟。
I mean, you could maybe there are like lots of all of these kinds of simulations.
这个论点聚焦于祖先模拟，只是因为这是最容易得出以下三个命题之一为真的方式。
The argument focuses on ancestor simulations just because that's the easiest way to get to the conclusion that one of these three is true.
但这并不意味着不会存在大量其他类型的模拟。
But it doesn't imply that there wouldn't be lots of other simulations as well.
好的。
Okay.
所以我们有一些关于电影历史的数据。
So we we have some data with our own history of cinema.
其中只有极小比例的电影设定在电影发明之前的时代，对此，我会再次将其归类为某种祖先叙事。
And it's some very small percent of movies are set in a time before movies were invented, which I would, again, I would classify as sort of ancestor storytelling.
是的。
Yeah.
所以，我想当我们推及到这些技术高度发达、 presumably 后人类的文明时，首先，我不确定我们能否从自己制作的电影类型推断出他们会运行什么样的模拟。
So I mean, I guess when we extrapolate to these technologically mature, presumably post human civilizations, well, first of all, I'm not sure how much we can infer from the kinds of movies we create to what types of simulations they would run.
但为了论证，我们假设他们运行的大多数模拟都是关于他们当代社会中的人。
But let let's suppose for the sake of the argument that the majority of simulations they run are of people in their contemporary society.
所以，我不知道，也许他们主要在做一些超级先进的太空殖民、超级智能之类的活动，这可能是他们主要的活动。
So I don't know some super advanced space colonizing thing with super intelligence, there's all whatnot, and that that's maybe the majority of what they do.
但他们仍会分配一小部分计算资源来运行这些祖先模拟。
But that they assign some some smaller fraction of their computational resources to doing these ancestor simulations.
我们就假设是这样吧。
Let let let's assume that.
我仍然不认为这会驳倒模拟论，甚至不会驳倒我们身处模拟中的可能性，因为我们已经知道，我们并不是那些后人类。
I still don't think that would defeat the simulation argument or indeed even the alternative that we are in a simulation because we kind of already know that we are not one of the post humans.
我的意思是，你只要环顾四周，就不会看到很多宇宙飞船从你窗外飞过，而且我们自己目前也没有运行任何模拟。
I mean, you just look around, you don't see a lot of starships whizzing by outside your window and we are not currently running any simulations ourselves.
所以我们可以把这些可能性排除掉。
So we can kind of cross those out.
所有真正的后人类，我们知道我们不是其中之一，而且我们也知道我们并不处于一个后人类的模拟中。
Like all the actual post humans, we know we're not one of those, and we also know we are not in a simulation of a post human.
这并不是我们所体验的世界。
That's not the world we experience.
那么剩下的就只有原始历史中处于人类发展水平的人，以及同样处于该发展水平的祖先模拟。
Then that leaves only a, the people in original history at the human level of development, and also whatever ancestor simulations are at that level of development.
因此，我的观点是，如果模拟论的前两种可能性是错误的，那么在我们当前发展水平上的模拟个体，仍然会远远多于处于同一发展阶段的原始个体。
And so my claim would then be that, you know, if the first two alternatives of the simulation argument are false, the simulated ones at our current level of development would still vastly outnumber the original ones at our stage of development.
所以，什么是可能性？不，‘可能性’这个词用错了。
So what what is the likelihood that not likelihood, because that's the wrong word.
我们是否可能只是用有限的技术，创造了我们认为是自己生活模拟的东西？
Is it possible that it could just be the way that we create with our limited technology what we feel are simulations of our lives?
明白吗？
Okay?
比如电子游戏、视频游戏之类的东西。
And that's computer games and video games and things like that.
会不会有一种文明，强大到拥有足够的计算能力，只是为了好玩而创造这一切？
Could it be that a civilization so advanced that they have the computational power to create all of this just for the hell of it?
就像我们这么做一样。
Just because like, the same way we do it.
我们这么做是为了娱乐。
We do it for entertainment.
会不会只是这样，还是说这根本不在哲学的讨论范围内？
Could it just be that, or is that just not a part of the philosophy?
哦，这有可能。
Oh, it could be.
我的意思是，模拟论本身对模拟者的动机是持中立态度的。
I mean, so the the simulation argument itself is agnostic as to what the motivation would be of the simulators.
你确实可以想象出许多可能的动机。
You could indeed imagine many possible motivations.
其中之一就是纯粹的娱乐。
One would be just entertainment.
对吧？
Right?
你还可以想象其他动机，比如某种研究目的，历史上可能探索一些反事实的历史会很有趣。
And you could imagine other like maybe some kind of research like historically, maybe it would be interesting to explore counterfactuals of history.
或者你可以想象艺术项目，或者道德层面的原因；但我想我们对这些假想的后人类文明的心理和动机知之甚少，不清楚他们为何要创建模拟。
Or you could imagine art projects or you could imagine moral reasons for I think we know rather little about the psychology and motivations of these hypothetical post human civilizations and why they would make simulations.
哦，明白了。
Oh, okay.
所以，尼克，我想你完全可以坐在扶手椅上说这些话。
So I so Nick, guess you're allowed to say all this, like, from your armchair.
但总有一天，有人会走进实验室，进行一项测量，以证明支持尼克论点的证据。
But at some point, somebody wants to walk into a lab and make a measurement that says, here's the evidence that supports Nick's argument.
有没有我们可以寻找的东西？
Is there such a, anything we can look for?
有没有什么迹象？
Is there a sign?
有没有什么实验我们可以做，来确认一下？
Is there is there some experiment we can conduct to say, yep.
我们并不是这里发生事情的掌控者。
We're not in charge of what's happening here.
这是一个模拟。
This is a simulation.
模拟论证确实包含一些经验性的前提。
There certainly is sort of empirical premises that flow into the simulation argument.
因此，支持或反驳这些假设的证据，对于评估这个论点是有相关性的。
And so evidence for or against the truth of those assumptions, you know, would be relevant to evaluating the argument.
一个经验性前提是，技术成熟的文明确实具备创建祖先模拟的能力，并且能够创建大量这样的模拟。
One empirical premise is that a technologically mature civilization would indeed have the capability of creating ancestor simulations and indeed to create lots of them.
因此，与此相关的证据可能是关于物理上可行系统所能达到的计算性能的证据。
And so the kind of evidence that would be relevant for that is evidence say of the kinds of computational performance you could get from physically possible systems.
我们目前还无法构建这些系统，但我们可以基于纳米技术等进行第一性原理建模，分析不同的计算系统。
We're not able to build them currently but we can kind of do first principle modelling of different computational systems based on nanotechnology and so forth.
我们可以为它们所能释放的计算能力设定下限。
We can place lower bounds on the kind of compute power that they would unlock.
因此，这将是流入这一论点的一个要素。
So that would be one like element that would flow into this.
接下来，我们需要估算运行祖先模拟的计算成本。
And now there would be some estimate of the computational cost of running an ancestor simulation.
我认为，这一成本的最大部分在于以足够高的细节水平模拟人类大脑，以使模拟具有意识。
I think the largest part of that cost is the cost of simulating human brains at the sufficient level of detail that the simulation would be conscious.
我们显然无法精确确定模拟人类大脑的计算开销，但我们可以为其设定一个上限。
And we can obviously not precisely determine what the computational expense of simulating a human brain is, but we can place some upper bound on that.
我们对人类大脑能够执行哪些计算任务有不同的看法。
We have various views about what computational tasks the human brain is capable of performing.
我们知道有多少神经元、多少突触，以及它们多频繁地放电，这些我们可以大致估算。
We know how many neurons there are, how many synapses, how often they fire, we can roughly estimate that.
现在发现，即使你对可用的计算能力做出相当保守的假设，再对模拟一个大脑所需的计算量做出保守估计，进而推算出模拟所有人类大脑所需的总量，你只需将这个数字乘以一百亿左右——即历史上所有人类大脑的总数。
Now it turns out that if you estimate the amount of compute power available, even if you make rather conservative assumptions about that, And then you make conservative assumptions about how much it takes to simulate one human brain and therefore how much to simulate all of the human brains, you just multiply that by a 100,000,000,000 or something to all of the human brains in history.
这两者之间存在多个数量级的差距。
There are a number of orders of magnitude gap between these two.
因此，即使这些估算略有偏差，这个论点似乎仍然成立。
So even if you are off a little bit in these estimates, it still seems like the argument holds.
这些就是我们可以理论上找到反证的实证前提。
So those would be empirical premises that we could, you know, theoretically obtain evidence against.
比如，如果我们发现人类大脑使用某种奇特的量子计算方式，其成本远高于此，这将影响这一估算。
Like if we discover the human brain uses some kind of weird quantum computation that is a lot more expensive than that would flow into it.
此外，如果你不仅想得出这三个可能性中有一个为真——这正是模拟论证本身所主张的——而且还想更具体地得出我们正处于模拟中的结论，即第三个可能性为真，那么就会有另一系列相关的实证问题浮现出来。
Then if in addition you want to conclude not just that one of these three alternative is true, which is all the simulation argument itself says, but if more specifically you want to conclude that we are in a simulation, that the third alternative is true, then there is an additional range of empirical questions that become relevant.
任何提供证据反对前两种可能性或支持前两种可能性的发现，都会成为评估第三种可能性的相关证据，对吧？
Like anything that gives you evidence against the first two or in favor of the first two would be then relevant evidence for evaluating the third, right?
如果我们发现某种巨大的风险，某种末日机制——我们现在意识到，所有足够先进的文明在接触这项新技术时都会因此毁灭——这将是对模拟假说的反驳，因为它会使第一种可能性更有可能。
So if we discover that there is some kind of big risk, some doomsday mechanism that we can, ah, now we realise this, all sufficiently advanced civilizations will stumble on this new technology and destroy themselves, that would be argument against the simulation hypothesis because it would make the first alternative more likely.
所以我认为，这实际上是主要的
So that that, I think, is actually the main
那将是一个非常令人悲伤的论点。
That would be a really sad argument.
但这是一个非常令人悲伤的反驳，因为它会说：看，这是我们不是被模拟的证据。
But that'd be a really sad argument against it because it would say, here's our proof we're not simulated.
我们即将毁灭它。
We're about to destroy it.
我们即将把一切终结。
We're about everything up.
是的。
Yeah.
嗯。
Yeah.
现在，尼克，让我问你一个问题。
Now, Nick, let me ask you this.
让我问你这个问题，尼克。
Let me ask you this, Nick.
你有没有可能聪明到一直处在高状态却自己都不知道？
Is it possible that you are so smart that you are constantly high and you don't know it?
我想在某种或多或少比喻的意义上，这很可能属实。
I I think in some more or less metaphorical sense, I think that's very likely to be true.
如果你说这是种悲观的元归纳的话。
If if you it's kind of the the pessimistic meta induction.
对吧？
Right?
所以，如果你回顾所有曾经活过的人类，回溯到所有时代，从我们现在的视角来看，他们几乎都在某件大事上严重误判了。
So if you look at all humans who have ever been alive, all eras going back in time, we can now see from our current vantage point, basically, they were all very wrong about some big thing.
我的意思是，从基础物理学开始，他们曾以为地球是宇宙的中心，而如果我们回溯一百多年前，就会发现他们对许多核心问题都理解错了。
I mean, like, starting with simple physics, they thought earth was in the center and then like basically, we can see if we look back more than a hundred years, we see that they all got a whole bunch of really core things wrong.
认为我们现在终于把所有这些基本问题都搞对了，这多少有点自以为是。
It would kind of maybe be a little bit presumptuous to think that now, finally, we've gotten all of these basic things right.
更有可能的是，如果一千年后的人们回望2021年，他们也会看到我们不仅在理解上存在巨大空白，而且在一些根本性问题上完全误入歧途。
It seems more likely that if people a thousand years from now look back at 2021, they will probably also see big, not just gaps in our understanding, but, like, things we were fundamentally confused about.
所以
And so
是的。
Yeah.
他们会笑死我们正在谈论的每一件事。
They'll laugh their ass at everything we're talking about
现在。
right now.
或者，没错。
Or or yeah.
或者哭得稀里哗啦，或者随便怎样吧。
Or cry their out out or whatever.
所以我认为，从根本上讲，我们对最宏大的图景仍然一无所知。
So I do think we are, in a fundamental sense, very much in the dark about the really biggest picture.
嘿。
Hey.
我是品酒师凯文，我在Patreon上支持StarTalk。
This is Kevin the sommelier, and I support StarTalk on Patreon.
你正在收听尼尔·德葛拉司·泰森的StarTalk。
You're listening to StarTalk with Neil deGrasse Tyson.
在我们开始讨论查克收集的问题之前，尼克，模拟所有大脑是一回事。
Before we get to the questions that Chuck has collected, Nick, if it's one thing to simulate all the brains.
我明白这一点。
I I get that.
但另一回事是，我可以走进花园，观察一朵花，或者翻挖土壤，不断深挖，直到触及地球的地幔。
But it's another thing, the fact that I can go into a garden and then look at a flower or dig through the soils and keep digging and reach the mantle of the earth.
模拟我们的任何人，不仅要模拟我的大脑在做什么，还要模拟我的大脑所经历的一切。
Whoever's simulating us has to simulate not only what my brain is doing, but it has to simulate all the things my brain is experiencing.
而这不仅仅针对我一个人。
And that's not just for me.
另一个人如果挖同一个洞，也应该发现同样的东西。
Someone else could dig that same hole, and they should be finding the same thing.
那么，世界的整体复杂性，难道不应该是这个模拟的一部分吗？
So isn't the total complexity of the world, doesn't that have to be part of this simulation?
甚至作为天体物理学家，我凝视宇宙的边缘，解读大爆炸的本质以及之后所有时间和空间的演化。
Even the fact that I, as an astrophysicist, look out to the edge of the universe, decoding the nature of of the Big Bang and all time and space that followed it.
那么，为什么要把估算仅仅局限于人类大脑的计算能力呢？如果整个宇宙故事的展开也必须同时发生呢？
So why just limit your estimates to the power of the human brain if everything and the unfolding of the great cosmic story has to also happen alongside it?
是的。
Yeah.
我认为你确实需要分配一些计算资源来模拟环境中的相关部分。
I think you do need some computation assigned to simulating relevant parts of the environment.
我认为最大的部分将是大脑。
I think the biggest part will be the brains.
但如果你必须持续以亚原子级别的细节模拟整个环境，那当然也是必要的。
But certainly, if you had to simulate the all of the environment at subatomic detail continuously.
我的意思是，如果模拟者拥有的计算能力与我们在这个宇宙中所能实现的相当，那么模拟整个宇宙将是完全不可行的。
I mean, like, simulation of the entire universe would be completely infeasible if the simulators have anything comparable to the compute power that we could realize in this universe.
你知道吗？
You know what?
我不同意。
I'm gonna disagree.
对不起。
I'm sorry.
我知道你是个天才，但事实是这样的。
I know you're a genius, but here's the deal.
这就是为什么我不同意，尼克。
Here's why I'm gonna here's why I'm gonna disagree, Nick.
因为电影制作者拍电影时，并不会渲染每一个细微事物的细节。
Because when movie makers make movies, they do not render the detail in every single little thing.
他们有的是，
What they have,
他还没说到那儿。
he didn't get there yet.
那正是他接下来要谈的内容。
That was the next thing he was gonna talk about.
天哪。
Oh, man.
在我前面。
Ahead of me.
哎呀。
Uh-oh.
是的。
Yeah.
现在看到了吗？
Now see?
你已经想到这一点了？
You already thought of this?
正如我所说
Like I said
没有。
No.
谢谢
Thank
你。
you.
耶稣基督。
Jesus Christ.
我在这儿，我在这儿做出了一项发现，伙计。
Here I am here I am making a discovery, man.
哦，这还不错，查克。
Oh, this is Alright, Chuck.
好的。
Okay.
继续。
Continue.
等等。
Wait.
查克，把话说完，然后我们再
Chuck, finish the point, and then we'll
接下去，你来。
pick it up you.
说吧。
Go ahead.
你们俩早就知道我要说什么了。
Both of you already knew where I was going.
但关键是这样。
But the deal is this.
如果你真的创建了一个背景，那么所有映射到该背景上的角色都会使用几乎相同的背景。
If you actually create a background, that background will pretty much be the same for all the characters that are mapped onto that background.
所以，这正是我想表达的意思。
So that's the way that's that's all I was saying.
不。
No.
我的意思是，我认为这是理解整个模拟论证的关键。
I mean, I I think that's the key to understand this whole simulation argument stuff.
如果你必须持续以亚原子级别的细节模拟整个环境，那几乎肯定是完全不可行的。
That if you had to simulate all of the environment in subatomic detail continuously, it probably would be completely infeasible to do that.
但我认为这并不必要。
But I claim that's not needed.
你只需要在我们观察时，模拟出足够多的被观察部分，使得模拟中的生物觉得一切都是真实的，且无法分辨真假即可。
All you would need to do is to simulate enough of the parts that we are observing when we are observing them that to the simulated creatures, it looks real and that they can't tell the difference.
哦。
Oh.
而且这要少得多。
And that's a lot less.
好吧。
Alright.
等一下。
Wait a minute.
我刚想到另一点支持意见。
I just thought of something else in support.
等等。
Wait.
那意味着什么，查克？
So what that would mean, Chuck?
查克。
Chuck.
等等。
Wait.
查克，这意味着什么？
Chuck, what that would mean?
太平洋中大片区域连一艘船都没有。
Whole sections of the Pacific Ocean where there isn't a boat.
对吧？
Right?
那么没人看到它，它就不存在，直到有人去看到它。
Then no one has so it it it doesn't exist until someone it.
必须先看到、观察并处理它。
Has to then See see it and process it.
所以是的。
So yeah.
所以是程序化内容生成。
So procedural content generation.
所以我们今天在电脑游戏中大量使用它。
So we use it in in our computer games today a lot.
比如，你通常只渲染游戏中某个角色正在观察的部分。
Like, you often only render the parts that some character in the game are observing.
你可能会对整个系统进行一些粗粒度的持续模拟，但只有在需要时才会填充细节。
And maybe you have some very coarse grained simulation of the whole thing continuously, but you may fill in details if and when is needed.
所以，比如现在，我根本不知道我面前这张桌子的原子在做什么。
So if, like, right now, don't have any idea what the atoms in this desk in front of me are doing.
对吧？
Right?
但原则上，如果我拿一个电子显微镜之类的东西来看，我就能看到那里有原子。
But if I took in principle an electron microscope or something, I could look and I better see atoms there.
对吧？
Right?
程序会知道，程序员会知道你即将拿出电子显微镜。
The program would know programmer would know you're about to bring out a electron microscope.
对。
Right.
所以
So
他们把计算直接放在了光束中。
they have the see calculation right in the beam right there.
对。
Right.
如果有必要的话，我的意思是，他们甚至可以暂停模拟、修改或删除记忆，如果他们真的搞砸了的话。
And if if necessary, I mean, they could even pause the simulation or edit it or erase memories if they really screwed it up.
但没错，我认为，即使要创造出类似这种模拟的东西，所需的这种能力也非常先进，而有了这种先进能力，同时也将具备编辑和监控人类思想与意图的能力，从而实现这种我们今天在电脑游戏中使用的程序化生成。
But, yeah, I think the kind of the the kind of capability you would need to even create anything resembling this kind of simulation is very advanced, and I think with that advanced capability would also come the ability to edit and to monitor human thoughts and intentions and then kind of be able to do this kind of procedural generation that even we do in our computer games today.
这或许能解释为什么我听过尼尔说过，我们是糟糕的数据收集者。
That could explain why I've heard Neil say this, that we are terrible data takers.
作为人类，我们在获取信息方面非常糟糕。
Like, as human beings, we are awful at taking in information.
如果我要编程一个模拟器，我肯定会把模拟里的人设计成这样，因为这样我就不用为这些细节费心编程了。
Well, if I'm programming a simulation, I would certainly wanna program the people in that simulation to be like that because that way I wouldn't have to program all this detail into stuff.
它保护
It protects
我模拟器的完整性。
it the the integrity of my simulation.
是的。
Yeah.
不过，公平地说，从模拟器的角度来看，一个人和另一个人之间的区别，就像有一只蚂蚁。
Although, think, to be fair, I think the difference between one human and another from the point of view of the simulator is it's like, well, there is one ant.
它比那只天才蚂蚁多了一些神经元。
It's got a few more neurons since this genius ant.
但我觉得，我们所有人本质上都像蚂蚁。
But, I mean, they we are we are all like ants, I think.
所以我认为成本上的差异并没有那么大。
So I don't think the difference in cost is that big.
哦，酷。
Oh, cool.
非常酷。
Very cool.
好的。
Alright.
好的。
Alright.
查克，来个问题吧。
Chuck, bring on bring on a question.
让我们看看
Let's see what
你有什么。
you got.
我们开始吧。
Here we go.
我们来进入这个话题吧。
Let's let's jump into this.
这是丹尼斯·吉斯兰，丹尼斯说的。
This is Dennis Gislain, and Dennis says this.
等等。
Wait.
拼一下。
Spell that.
G-h-I-s-l-a-I-n。
G h I s l a I n.
我说的是吉斯兰。
I said Gislain.
对。
Yeah.
就是吉斯兰。
It's Gislain.
好的。
Okay.
嗯。
Yeah.
吉斯兰。
Gislain.
丹，但应该是丹妮丝·吉斯兰。
Dan but it would be Denise Gislain.
好的。
Okay.
嗯。
Yeah.
我们想知道。
We'd like to know.
他的文件里写着，医生。
Says in his papers, Doctor.
展开剩余字幕（还有 430 条）
博斯特罗姆谈到了后人类阶段的文明。
Bostrom talks about posthuman stage civilization.
你能详细解释一下吗？并把它和卡达舍夫尺度联系起来，听好了。
Could you please develop on that and situate it in, listen, Kardashev Scale.
现在我不知道这些术语是什么意思。
Now I don't know what any of that means.
好的。
Okay.
我可以告诉你卡达舍夫
I can tell you what the Kardashev
尺度是什么。
Scale is is.
卡达舍夫尺度？
The Kardashev scale?
对。
Yeah.
当我开头讲这部分时，我会先讲，然后把话题交给你，尼克。
When I lead off with that, I'll I'll and I'll hand the baton over to you, Nick.
卡达舍夫尺度是衡量一个文明能够获取和利用多少能量的尺度。
So the Kardashev scale is a scale of how much energy you have access to and can exploit.
哦，原来如此。
Oh, okay.
好的。
Okay.
我认为一共有五个等级。
So I think there are five levels.
其中一个等级是：你是否能获取你所在行星的所有能源？
So one of them is, do you have access to all of the energy sources in your host planet?
如果你能做到，并且能够利用这些能源，那你就是一级文明。
And if you do and you can exploit them, you're civilization level one.
这意味着你可以进入火山并开采其中的能量。
So that means you can go into a volcano and tap the energy.
你可以像开采资源一样利用火山的能量，利用地壳中原本会导致火山和地震的能量。
You can tap it the volcano the way you tap a You could use the energy in the crust of the earth that would otherwise make volcano earthquakes.
你可以获取并利用这些能量为自己服务。
You can tap that and use that for your own means.
风暴系统，类似这样的东西。
Storm systems, this sort of thing.
一个二级文明将控制其恒星所发出的所有能量。
So a a level two civilization would control all of the energy that comes from its host star.
好的。
Okay.
好的。
Okay.
这比行星内部蕴含的能量要多得多。
So it's way more energy than what is embedded in your planet.
三级文明将控制你所居住的星系中的全部能量，所以
A level three civilization would control all the energy of your galaxy that you happen to live So
银河系中心的超大质量黑洞，你可以利用它。
the the massive black hole at the center of the galaxy, you could use that.
是的。
Yeah.
嗯，没错。
Well, yeah.
正是如此。
Exactly.
正是如此。
Exactly.
而你掌控着这一切。
And you wield this.
文明的历史表明，那些拥有最多能量人均消耗的国家或民族国家，往往也拥有最强的权力、政治影响力和文化影响力。
And the history of of of of of of civilization reveals that the the nations or the nation states that had the most power, power, political power, cultural power, were those that that actually wielded the most energy per capita in the world at that time.
所以当人们说，美国是我们这样的能源浪费者时。
So when people say, United States, we're such energy hogs.
我们使用的能源是别人的四到五倍。
We use, you know, four times or five times the energy as anybody else.
这与其他衡量权力的指标是相关的。
Well, that correlates with other measures of power that exist in it.
那我们继续吧。
So let's keep going.
再进一步，如果你们能掌控宇宙中所有的能量，那么你们就和任何人所设想的神无异了。
So one more, this level four, level five, if you control all the energy of the universe and then, you know, you're indistinguishable from a god that anyone would have suggested.
那么，我们是什么呢？
Now so what are we?
我们正在从地球中挖掘化石燃料。
We're digging fossil fuels out of the earth.
所以我们是零点五级。
So we're We're We're level point five.
我们是零点三级。
We're level point three.
不。
No.
不。
No.
不。
No.
我们是零级。
We're level zero.
明白吗？
Okay?
我们是零级。
We're level zero.
好吧。
Okay.
所以，尼克，如果存在超级智能，他们 presumably 能更好地获取能量，尤其是你所说的那种可能需要这种模拟的能量。
So, Nick, if there's a superintelligence, presumably, they have better access to energy, especially the kind of energy you're talking about that might need this simulation.
那么，你有没有想过超级智能在卡尔达舍夫等级中会处于什么位置？
So have you thought about where a superintelligence might fit on the Kardashev scale?
有。
Yeah.
我的意思是，我认为它会更高，因为在那个层次上，你能够运行更多的这类模拟。
I mean, I think that would be higher up just because at that level, you would be able to run a lot more of these simulations.
因此，即使有一些模拟是由，比如说，卡尔达舍夫一级文明运行的——比如他们围绕恒星建造了戴森球，就只做这件事——但一旦文明超越了这个阶段，他们就能运行数十亿倍更多的模拟，并且他们有充足的时间去超越这个阶段。
And so even if there were some simulations run by, I don't know, a Kardashev scale, one civilization, like with the Dyson sphere around their south and that's all they did, you know, Once the civilization expands beyond that, they could run billions of times more and there would be plenty of time for them to expand beyond that.
因此，你可以想象，几乎所有正在运行的模拟，都是由那些已经抵达其可扩张空间极限的文明所运行的。
So you could imagine almost all simulations that are on are being run by civilizations that have reached the limits of whatever space they have to expand into.
这大概会是卡尔达舍夫四级或更高，除非宇宙太过拥挤，每个文明都只能获得星系级别的空间，然后就撞上了邻居。
That that would presumably be Karnache 4 or something, unless the universe is so crowded that each one only manages to to get the sort of galactic level volume before it bumps up against its neighbors.
是的。
Yeah.
这是个好观点，因为在一个星系里只能存在一个卡尔达舍夫等级的文明，其他想参与的，就只能认命了。
That's a good point because you can only have one galactic Kardashev scale civilization because anyone else who wants it, too bad.
我们正在使用所有的能量。
We're using all the energy.
就像现在美国，科罗拉多河盆地正因水资源问题发生争执。
It's like in in The United States right now, there's fights over the Colorado River Basin because it's a water source.
这条河流经多个州，每个州都与其他州达成了关于用水量的协议。
That that river flows through multiple states, and each state has a pact with the other state how much water they're supposed to use.
未来，关于这一单一淡水来源的使用权还会爆发更多争端。
And there and there'll be future fights on access to this one source of fresh water.
所以这是一个有趣的观点。
And so that's an interesting point.
你不可能让整个宇宙都充满高卡达舍夫等级的文明，因为它们会迅速崩溃。
You can't have a universe filled with high Kardashev level civilization because they would implode rapidly.
这似乎
It seems
在我看来。
to me.
那死星是几级文明？
And and what level is Death Star?
死星在卡达舍夫等级中是几级？
What what what level is Death Star on the, Kardashev scale?
哦，
Oh,
在《星球大战》第七集里，它控制了一颗恒星的能量。
well, in in in Star Wars episode seven, it controlled the energy of a star.
所以，我想那应该是
So that would be, I guess, level
二级文明。
Level two.
哇哦。
Wow.
太棒了。
Awesome.
好的。
Okay.
我们开始吧。
Here we go.
让我们直接回到话题。
Let's, let's jump right back
在这里。
in here.
顺便说一下，在《星际迷航》中，博格人是一个具有宇宙级影响力的超级智能体。
By the way, in Star Trek, the Borg were that's a super intelligence that was cosmic in its influence.
所以这甚至还要更高。
And so that would be even even higher here.
是的。
Yeah.
只是为了 contextualize 这一点。
Just to put that in context.
这很酷。
That's cool.
所以，查克，再给我一个。
So, Chuck, give me another one.
好的。
Okay.
这是威廉·D。
This is William D.
A。
A.
很简单。
Quite easy.
全是字母。
Nothing but letters.
我们开始吧。
Here we go.
他说：你对意识这个概念持什么观点？你在哪儿划线？
He says, where do you stand on the concept of consciousness, and where do you draw the line?
模拟现实会改变你对什么具有意识的定义吗？
Would a simulated reality change your definition of what possesses consciousness?
我喜欢这个。
I like that.
所以，尼克，泛灵论是不是意味着意识是一种我们所有人都参与其中的共享实体？
So, Nick, is panpsychic I I presume that means that somehow consciousness is a shared entity that we all participate in as one
泛灵论是一种有机体。
Panpsychism organism.
有不同的定义方式，但广义上是指一切事物都有意识。
There are different sort of definitions, but it's broadly the view that everything is conscious.
哦，哇。
Oh, wow.
那么，你如何把意识融入其中呢？
And and so how do you how do you put consciousness in?
这是对大脑进行足够复杂的计算机模拟后自然产生的结果吗？
Is that a natural out flow of a sufficiently complex computer simulation of the brain?
这会是我的默认假设。
That would be my sort of default assumption.
是的。
Yeah.
是的。
Yeah.
我的意思是，对于模拟论证，你可以代入任何你偏好的意识理论，大多数理论都是适用的。
I mean, I think for the simulation argument, you can kind of plug in whatever your favorite theory of consciousness is and most of them would work.
可能会有一些意识理论不适用。
There might be some theories of consciousness which would not work.
模拟论证的一个假设是我所说的基质独立性假说，即原则上，意识不仅可以实现于碳基生物结构上，也可以实现于任何合适的计算结构上。
The simulation argument, one of its assumptions is what I call the substrate independence thesis, which is just the idea that in principle you could implement consciousness not just on carbon based biological structures, but on any suitable computational structure.
让我们产生意识的，不是我们由碳构成，而是我们的大脑执行了某种特定类型的计算。
That what makes us conscious is not that we're made of carbon, but that our brains perform a certain type of computation.
哇哦。
Woah.
天哪。
Holy crap.
等一下。
Wait a minute.
所以，是的。
So Yeah.
马克斯更有发言权。
Max has more say.
就这个话题。
On that very subject.
是的。
Yeah.
你的朋友马克斯。
Your buddy, Max.
是《星谈》的好朋友。
Good friend of StarTalks.
他的观点是整个宇宙都是由数学构成的，因为一切都可以追溯到基本粒子，这些粒子具有自旋，你可以为它们赋予数值。
And his thing is like the entire universe is made of math because it goes down to particles, and these particles have spin and, you know, so you can assign a value to them.
数学构建的实体。
Mathematically constructed entities.
是的。
Yeah.
那里有很好的重叠。
There's good overlap there.
是的。
Yeah.
是的。
Yeah.
好的。
Okay.
但至于在哪里划线，说实话，我并没有一个很好的说法来说明为什么我认为人类有意识而石头没有，但具体在哪个层级上应该做这个切割，我并不清楚。
But as to where to draw the line, like, I don't really have a very good account of exactly something I think humans are conscious and rocks are not conscious, but, like, exactly where sort of in the hierarchy that would be a cut off.
我不确定，也不确定是否存在一条明确的界限。
I'm not sure or I'm not sure either that there is a sharp line there.
也许更准确的说法是，低等生物在某种程度上具有某种意识，但这种意识逐渐减弱，而不是存在一个明确的阈值，这是我目前的猜测。
It might more be that there is kind of diminishing or more and more strange senses in which lower order organisms have some kind of consciousness and it kind of fades out rather than there being a sharp threshold is what I Now guess.
但是
But
现在我唯一能想到的就是一块有意识的石头。
Now all I can think about is a is a conscious rock.
我就是喜欢这个
I just love the
所以，尼克，我想问你一个问题。
So here's here's what I wonder, Nick.
我只是有一个不太深入的假设，那就是我们人类的思维是不完整的，会飘忽不定，对事情记忆不好，甚至会编造东西。
I just have a not deeply thought out hypothesis that having thoughts such as we do that are incomplete and that we wander and we don't have good memory of things or we make stuff up.
我们之所以认为这种不完美就是意识。
The fact that it's not perfect, we interpret as consciousness.
因为如果它是完美的，那就只是数据，我们的大脑就像一个偶尔会将信息组合出新结果的存储硬盘。
Because if it were perfect, it's just data and our brain is at storage disk that occasionally puts information together with a new result.
但事实上，我们能够坐在那里说：我有这种感觉，却没有那种感觉，这主要是我们如何应对对环境的无知，即使我们正在探索它。
But the fact that we we can sit there and say, oh, I feel this and I don't and it's mostly how we reckon our with our ignorance of our environment even when we probe it for now.
我只是在提出一个观点。
I'm just putting up.
是的。
Yeah.
我的意思是，首先，你完全可以拥有许多人工的、甚至简单的系统，它们在各种方面都不完美。
Well, I mean, I guess, first of all, you could have, I mean, a lot of artificial, even simple systems that would be imperfect in various ways.
你可能会有一些随机擦除数据的故障硬盘。
You could have some faulty hard drives that randomly erase various things.
你也可能拥有某种压缩的表示方式。
You could also have kind of compressed representations.
如果你试图从事人工智能相关的工作，就必须这么做：大量数据涌入，你需要从中提取一些重要特征，而丢弃其余部分。
That's what you have to do if you're trying to do anything with AI is there's a lot of data coming in, and you have to extract some important features based on that that throw the rest away.
所以
So
等等。
Wait.
等等。
Wait.
查克，尼克刚才说的，我一直在想这件事。
Chuck, what Nick just said, I can't stop thinking about it.
所以，查克，每次你我忘记某些事情时，都是那个外星人的硬盘出问题了。
So so, Chuck, every time you and I forget something, the alien's hard drive That messed up.
没错。
Exactly.
所以每次你走上楼，都会想：我上来是干嘛的？
So every time you go, what what did I come upstairs for?
这是一个写入错误，也是一个读写错误，是程序员磁盘上的I/O错误。
It was it's it's a it's a write it's it's a it's a read write error, an IO error in the programmer's disk.
嗯，我不这么认为。
Well, so I don't I don't think so.
不。
No.
我只是在探讨你对意识的描述。
I I I was just exploring the your account of consciousness.
某种意义上，意识所必需或充分的条件是存在某种故障或有限的信息处理。
That somehow what's necessary or sufficient for consciousness is that there is some kind of faulty or limited information processing.
对。
Right.
所以，我
So I
否则，它就是一个完美的计算机。
was Otherwise, it's a perfect computer.
我说的是，计算机在某些方面也是不完美的。
Well, I'm saying that computers are also imperfect in certain ways.
我不确定当你越接近完美时，就会失去意识。
And I'm not sure that the closer you get to perfection that you would lose consciousness.
我觉得情况可能恰恰相反，你可能会变得更加有意识
I'm thinking anything it might go the other way around that you might become more conscious
如果你
if you
想要更多的话。
want more.
是的。
Yeah.
如果你想要更详细地阐述这一点，可能需要尝试说明，究竟是哪些类型的不完美使得系统具有意识。
You might have to if if I wanted to sort of elaborate on that, might wanna try to say, like, which types of imperfection are the ones that are supposedly making a system conscious.
嗯。
Mhmm.
也许进一步探索这条思路，你会得到某种关于意识的合理解释。
And maybe maybe exploring that line of thought further, maybe you would get to something that would be some kind of plausible account of consciousness.
我不确定。
I'm not sure.
哦，哇。
Oh, wow.
是的。
Yeah.
在电影《我，机器人》中，请原谅我没有读过艾萨克·阿西莫夫的原著短篇系列，但在电影里。
In in the film in the film I, Robot, forgive forgive me for not having read the original series of short stories, but in the by Isaac Asimov.
但在电影中，他们假设了什么可能解释了编程机器人中的自由意志，并描述了多代操作系统如何层层叠加。
But in the film, they hypothesized what could account for free will in a programmed robot, and they were describing how many generations of operating systems are layered on top of one another.
而且总有一些遗留的部分，你知道，你并不总是清理干净，因为进化也是如此。
And there there's always these dangling parts that, you know, you don't always clean it up after because it's evolution is like this too.
那些曾经有用但现在不再需要的遗留部分，或者它们可能造成干扰，甚至最终害死你。
The the dangling parts that worked at some point, now you don't need them or that night they could get in the way or they can end up killing you.
但从程序上讲，这些可能是早已失去用途的代码行，但在某些刺激组合下，它们可能会显现出来，看起来就像机器人突然产生了新想法。
But programmatically, they could be lines of code that have long lost their utility but could manifest under certain combinations of stimuli that look like the robot just thought of a new idea.
当我在这部电影中听到这个观点时，我对此很感兴趣，因为它可能是我们所谓的意识的来源。
And I was intrigued by that suggestion when I heard it in the film that that could be the way you end up with what we call, consciousness.
但不管怎样，我们得休息一下了。
But, anyway, we gotta take another break.
当我们回来进入第三部分也是最后一部分时，我们将进行一轮快速问答，由尼克·博斯特罗姆告诉我们，我们是否身处模拟之中。
When we come back for the third and final segment, we're gonna go through a lightning round with our questions, and it's it's Nick Bostrom just schooling us on whether or not we're in a simulation.
而且，剧透警告：听起来我们确实身处其中。
And, spoiler alert, it sounds like we kinda are.
听起来是的。
It sounds like yeah.
好的。
Okay.
当《星谈》回归时。
When star talk returns.
我们回来了。
We're back.
星谈。
StarTalk.
我请来了尼克·博斯特罗姆。
I've got Nick Bostrom in the house.
实际上，他现在人在英国，但他正在我们的Zoom会议室里，我们正在讨论模拟假说，而这一假说主要是他提出的。
Actually, he's in The UK right now, but he's in he's in our Zoom house, and we're talking about the simulation hypothesis and which he's largely started.
好吗？
Okay?
所以我们把所有晚上睡不着觉的责任都推给他。
And so we blame him for all of our lost sleep at night.
至少，尼克，如果别人不怪你，我就怪你。
I at least I Nick, I blame you if no one else does.
所以，尼克，模拟假说要求每个模拟都离不开计算机。
So so, Nick, the simulation hypothesis requires that every simulation has computers.
对吧？
Right?
但为什么这是显而易见的呢？
But why is that an obvious thing?
事实上，我们只有大约半个世纪的计算机历史，而我们人类以当前形态已经存在了几十万年。
In fact, we've only had computers for, like, half a century, and we've been human for a couple hundred thousand years in our current form.
为什么计算机一定是会被发明出来、然后被人用来进行模拟的那项技术呢？
Why should it be inevitable that a computer is the thing that gets invented that then people wanna simulate on?
我的意思是，我不确定这是否是必然的。
I mean, I don't know that it is inevitable.
也许有很多类人物种从未发展出计算机，我不知道。
Maybe if there are a lot of humanoid species that never developed computers, I I don't know.
我的意思是，只要有一些文明发展出了计算机，进而发展出我们目前虽无法建造、但物理上可行的更先进计算机，这就足够了。
I mean, it suffices that some civilizations do develop computers and then more advanced computers of the type we can already see are physically possible, although we cannot build.
但毫无疑问，许多文明未能达到我们当前的发展水平，这也是完全可能的。
But certainly it's consistent with a lot of civilizations failing to reach even our stage of development.
我的意思是，如果你在讨论必然性，即使这与模拟论证无关，它也挺有趣的，比如你想定义一下，如果这是必然的，那是在哪个时间点上变得必然的。
Mean, think if you're asking about inevitability, even if it's not relevant for the simulation argument, it's kind of interesting like it you wanna, I guess, define what what point in time if it's inevitable.
比如，你回溯得越早，如果你从那个时间点重新运行进化过程，得到类似我们今天这种结果的可能性就越小。
Like, it seems like the farther back you go, if you sort of reran evolution from that point, the less likely that you would get something similar to what we have today.
如果你从细菌开始，谁知道呢，也许演化出智能技术物种的概率会非常小。
If if you started with just bacteria, and who knows, maybe the chances would be very small perhaps that you would get an intelligent technological species.
但如果你从五万年前开始，我的猜测是我们那时已经进展得差不多了，只是时间问题。
But if you started like fifty thousand years ago, then, I mean, my guess would be we were already pretty well underway and it was just a matter of time
哦，这是个有趣的观点。
Oh, that's an interesting interesting point.
好的。
Okay.
因为进化的偶然性，对吧。
Because the contingencies of evolution right.
事实上，如果六千五百万年前小行星没有撞击地球，恐龙就会继续存在，而我们肯定就不会出现了。
It would take in fact, if it if the asteroid didn't hit 65,000,000 years ago, the dinosaurs would be here and we wouldn't for sure.
如果你把时间点定得足够晚，尼克，这个论点很有道理。
You take it late enough, Nick, you that's a good argument.
从五万或十万年前开始，我同意这个说法。
Started 50 or a 100,000 ago, it's I'm I'm good with that.
我们肯定会有某种进化路径。
We surely there'd be some evolutionary path.
对于那些《星际迷航》的粉丝来说，想想看，我们都会认为罗马帝国是一个智慧文明，但外星人如果用无线电波与他们沟通，可能会得出地球上没有技术的结论。
And just for those who are ET fans, consider that we all would judge the Roman Empire to be an intelligent civilization, yet aliens trying to communicate with them with radio waves would conclude that there's no technology on Earth.
对吧？
Right?
所以我们花了很长时间聪明地活着，却没有技术。
So we spent a lot of time being smart but without the technology.
这才是真正的问题。
And so that's the real question.
我们在自我毁灭之前，还能拥有技术多久？
How much longer do we have technology before we exterminate ourselves?
但不管怎样，查克，让我们开始这个《宇宙问答》吧。
But anyhow, Chuck, give let's this is Cosmic Queries.
来吧。
Bring it on.
而且，尼克，我们将在第三也是最后一部分尽量多讲一些内容。
And, Nick, we're gonna try to bang out a whole lot in this in this third and final segment.
所以让我们尽量让回答简洁一些。
So let's try to keep the answers tight.
好吗？
Okay?
来吧。
Bring it on.
好的。
Alright.
这是迪伦和戈登·吴。
This is Dylan and Gordon Vu.
把他们的问题合并在一起。
Gonna mash up their questions.
大家好，来自新墨西哥州阿尔伯克基的新朋友们。
Hello, everyone from new, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
我是高中生高年级学生，这个问题困扰了我很久。
I'm a senior in high school, and this question has been bugging me forever.
我们有自由意志吗，还是一切都是命中注定的？
Do we have free will, or is everything set in stone?
如果我们生活在一个模拟中，我们的生命是被预设好的吗？
Are we living a predetermined life if we are in a simulation?
然后Gordon Vu补充说，如果我们成功证明了我们生活在模拟中，那是否意味着神存在或不存在？
And then Gordon Vu says on top of that, if we manage to prove that we are living in a simulation, does that mean there is or is not a god?
谢谢。
Thank you.
哇。
Wow.
我刚才谈了一些非常宏大的哲学问题。
I was talking about some philosophical big big big gun questions.
神学和哲学。
Theological philosophical.
所以，尼克，我很喜欢这些问题。
So, Nick, I love those questions.
你有什么
What do have
要说的吗？
to say?
嗯，关于后者，我认为这既不能证明也不能否定上帝的存在。
Well, I mean, on the latter, I think it it wouldn't prove or disprove God.
我们是否身处模拟中，与上帝是否存在，这是两个独立的问题。
I think it's an independent question whether we are in a simulation versus whether God exists.
因此，我看不出这两者之间有必然的联系。
So I don't see any necessary connection there.
关于自由意志，我认为即使在模拟中，我们拥有的自由意志也会和不在模拟中时一样多。
On the free will, I think we would have as much free will in the simulation as we would without the simulation.
我自己是相容论者，所以我认为，即使我们生活在一个决定论的物理宇宙中，这与我们在相关意义上拥有自由意志也是相容的。
I'm a compatibilist myself, so I think that even if we are living in a deterministic physical universe, that that would be consistent with us having, in the relevant sense, free will.
但你对自由意志的形而上学可能有不同看法，但我认为，我们身处模拟这一事实并不会必然改变这一点。
But you might have a different view on the metaphysics of free will, but I I don't think the fact that we would be in a simulation would necessarily change that.
这意味着，那个模拟的程序员会在我们的大脑中植入一种自由意志的感知，即使他们早已预知了每一刻的结局吗？
Would that mean that the programmers of that simulation would program into our brains a perception of free will even if they know the outcome in advance at every moment?
我认为他们不需要特别编程来实现这一点。
I don't think they would need to especially program that in.
我的意思是，和我们如果不在模拟中时一样，我们也会产生这种自由意志的观念。
I mean, for the same reasons we, if we are not in a simulation, would have this notion of free will.
模拟中的人们 presumably 也会因为同样的原因发展出这种观念。
People in a simulation would presumably develop that for for the same kind of reasons.
我的意思是，这显然与对人们所作所为追究责任有关。
I mean, it connects obviously to holding people accountable for certain things they do.
我的意思是，如果你不小心撞到别人，我们会说，算了，你不是故意的；但如果你主动打人，造成了同样的淤青，那你就要承担责任，因为这是你凭自由意志做出的行为。
I mean, you stumble into somebody and bump them, we say, well, you're excused because you didn't intend it, but if you go and punch them and achieve the same bruise, then you will be held accountable because that's something you did off your own free will.
因此，我们需要做出一些选择，必须在内心做出某种决定。
And so and we make choices that we have to actually internally come up on a certain decision.
所以，所有这些对于模拟世界中的人和模拟世界外的人来说，都同样成立。
So all of those things would hold equally true for people in a simulation as as people outside a simulation.
对吧？
Right?
嗯。
So Mhmm.
好的。
Okay.
如果你拥有这种自由意志，我认为其实并没有什么区别。
If if you have this free of free will, there wouldn't really be a difference, I think.
有意思。
Interesting.
好的。
Okay.
为什么程序员不能就像上帝一样不可区分，如果他们拥有对
Why can't just the programmers be indistinguishable from God if they have power over
我的意思是，这取决于你如何定义上帝的概念，是的，在很多方面，这与传统上人们对上帝的理解是相似的。
That I mean, depending on what you bake into the concept of a God, yeah, in many ways, that would be analogous to how some people have traditionally conceived of god.
对吧？
Right?
意思是，他们会某种程度上创造了我们的世界，尽管他们并没有创造整个世界，只是我们所看到的部分。
In the sense that they would kind of have created our world, although they wouldn't have created the whole world, just the parts that we see.
他们可能并非全知，但会知道很多，并且也不是全能的。
They would presumably maybe not be omniscient, but they would know a lot and they would not be omnipotent.
他们自己也会受到其所在现实层面的物理规律约束，但他们可以干预我们的现实，包括以违背我们所感知的物理定律的方式。
They would themselves be subject to the physical constraints operating at their level of reality, but they could intervene in our reality, including in ways that contravene the laws of physics that we perceive.
从而创造奇迹。
And thereby produce miracles.
是的。
Yeah.
但那些在模拟中表现为奇迹的事物。
But the things that appear to us in the simulation as miracles.
所以从某种意义上说，这是一种结构上相似的关系。
So in one sense, there is the kind of structurally similar relationship.
另一方面，它们会受到所有这些限制和约束， presumably 是有限的，从这个意义上讲，它们与许多传统上对上帝的构想——即一个真正无限、全知、全能的存在——相去甚远。
On the other hand, they would be subject to all these they would presumably be finite and subject to all these kind of limitations and constraints, and in that sense kind of being infinitely far removed from a lot of the traditional conceptions of God, which is like a literally infinite and omnipotent and omniscient being.
所以我认为，无论模拟假说的真相如何，它都不会解决是否存在这种传统意义上真正无限的上帝的问题。
So I think that whatever the truth is about the simulation hypothesis, it it wouldn't settle the question of whether there is this this kind of more traditionally conceived literally infinite God.
好的。
Okay.
明白了。
Got it.
完美。
Perfect.
好的。
Alright.
好吧。
Okay.
查克，继续。
Chuck, keep
保持下去。
it going.
弗雷德里克·约翰森想知道，通用人工智能真的是一个关于硬件和处理速度的问题吗？
Fredrik Johansson wants to know, is general AI really a question about hardware and processing speed?
如果是的话，为什么今天的计算机不能像拥有千年处理时间那样模拟几秒钟的人工智能？
If it was, wouldn't a computer today be able to simulate a few seconds of AI like it had a thousand years to process?
是的。
Yeah.
我的意思是，这是个好问题。
I mean, a good question.
我认为，在过去八年左右的深度学习革命中，计算能力是推动人工智能进步的一个非常重要的因素。
I think compute is a very important factor in driving AI progress over the last eight years or so with the whole deep learning revolution.
我认为，我们所看到的进步中，大约三分之二是由于增加了计算资源，另外三分之一则是算法上的进步。
I think it's maybe two thirds of the progress we've seen is due to we are applying more compute, and then maybe one third is algorithmic progress.
即使这一切都归功于计算能力，也不意味着我们用现有的计算资源就能运行至少一小部分人类水平的思维，因为你需要计算两样东西。
Even if if it were all compute though, it doesn't necessarily follow that we would be able to, with our current compute, run at least a small fraction of a human level mind because there are two things you need to compute for.
一是运行人工智能，也就是让它实际执行任务，但你还需要训练那个最终成为人工智能的神经网络。
One is to run the AI, right, like to actually have it do, but you also need to train up the neural network that becomes the AI.
所以，如果你没有足够的计算能力来完成完整的训练过程，你就可能根本无法开发出这样一个系统，而这个系统一旦运行，就可能达到某种人类水平的通用人工智能。
So if you don't have enough compute to do the full training run, you you might not even be able to develop the system which then, if run, would constitute some kind of human equivalent level AGI.
明白了。
Got it.
对。
Right.
因为这个计算或决策并不是在真空中做出的。
Because the the calculation or the decision is not made in a vacuum.
它已经完全预加载了世界上的全部生活经验，或者说是支撑那个决策背后的所有内容。
It's it's been completely preloaded with the world's life experience or whatever is sitting right behind that one decision.
这样理解这个问题公平吗？
Isn't is that a fair way to think about this?
人类要达到正常成年水平的表现，需要二十年或十五年的时间来成长和学习。
So for for humans to arrive at some sort of normal adult level of performance, we need twenty years or fifteen years to kind of grow up and learn.
我们当前的神经网络在这方面类似，尽管它们在学习效率上可能更低。
And our current neural networks are similar in that, although they're probably less efficient in learning.
因此，它们可能不需要十五年的经验，而是需要相当于一千年的经验。
So they might need instead of fifteen years of experience, maybe they need like a thousand years equivalent.
但你仍然需要大量的计算资源，才能完成类似于人类成熟过程的事情。
But you still need a lot of compute just to be able to complete something analogous to like a human maturation process.
所以，即使我们拥有足够的算力来运行AGI（人类水平的人工智能），也可能没有足够的算力来创造它。
So even if we had enough compute to run AGI, human level AI, We might not have enough compute to sort of create it.
我认为，除了更多的算力之外，我们还需要一些额外的算法洞察。
I think also though, in addition to more compute, we also need some additional algorithmic insights.
但这并不是非黑即白的，算法越优秀，实现这一目标所需的计算量就越少。
But it's not all or nothing, like the better the algorithms, the less compute you need to achieve this result.
而目前所需的计算量远远超出了我们当前的承受能力，但随着算法的进步和计算机速度的提升，这一需求会逐渐降低。
And right now, the amount of compute you need would be, like, way more than we can currently afford, and then it comes down as we make algorithmic progress at the same time as our computers become faster.
在某个时刻，这两条曲线将会相交。
And at some point, these lines will intersect.
你刚刚非常清楚地指出，人类需要花费生命中四分之一的时间，才能作为社会中的正常成员发挥作用。
You just made a point embarrassingly clear that humans require, like, a fourth of our lives just to function as participating humans in civilization.
这很尴尬，但却是事实。
That's that's embarrassing, but true.
对吧？
Right?
没错。
Right.
在你满二十岁之前，没人会信任你的决定。
You you no one trusts your decisions you make until you're at least 20.
即使如此，对一些人来说，也永远不会。
And even then, so for some people, never.
是的。
Yeah.
我的意思是，大脑有
I mean, you can The brain have
即使到了那时也根本无法正常工作。
really not working even after.
作为集体，我们仅仅勉强具备了创造技术文明所需的智力。
As as a kind of collective, we have just kind of barely, you know, intelligence to create a technological civilization.
我认为我们正站在这一临界点上。
I think we look like we're right on the cusp of that.
这或许并不令人惊讶，因为如果你想象我们的祖先拥有更少的抽象推理能力，而这种能力在生物时间尺度上逐渐提升，对吧？
And it's not so surprising maybe because, like, if you imagine our ancestors had a lot less abstract reasoning ability and it gradually improved over biological time scales, right?
而一旦我们具备了创造技术文明的能力，我们就几乎立刻做到了，或者是在大约一万年之后。
And then as soon as we became capable of creating a technological civilization, then we pretty much did it or after, you know, ten thousand years or something.
所以我们或许应该预期，我们在实现这一切所需的能力中处于较低水平。
So we should kind of maybe expect that we are at the lower end of what is needed to do this at all.
这或许能解释我们在这个世界上所看到的一些现象——我们正在摸索前行。
And that maybe explains some of what we see in the world that we're kind of fumbling our way.
我们在世界上看到的很多东西。
A lot of what we see in the world.
是的。
Yes.
是的。
Yes.
好吧。
Alright.
查克，再给我多一点。
Chuck, give me a a more.
再多一点。
A more.
我们有
We got
还剩几分钟。
a few minutes left.
斯凯勒·格拉瓦特说，如果这是一个模拟，为什么运行模拟的人如此有耐心？
Skylar Gravatt says, if this is a simulation, why are the people running the simulation so patient?
宇宙的年龄估计为130多亿年，而他们等了将近100亿年才模拟出生命。
The universe is estimated to be 13 something billion years old, and they waited almost ten billion years to simulate life.
嗯
Well
什么？
What?
首先，没有特别的理由认为那千万年是被模拟的。
So first, there's no particular reason to think that those ten million years were simulated.
他们只需要从大爆炸之后开始模拟即可。
They only need to do it from the big bang onwards.
你可以从一个更晚的时间点开始模拟。
You could start the simulation from a later point.
你会在模拟中植入证据，让那个模拟科学家将其解读为一个古老的宇宙。
You'd embed the simulation with evidence that that simulation scientist would then interpret as an old universe.
是的。
Yeah.
但这一切都是假的。
But it's all just fake.
我的意思是，你可能不想花上整整一百亿年看着气体云凝聚。
I mean, you probably don't wanna sit through like 10,000,000,000 of just gas clouds congealing.
就像，那会相当
Like, that would be a pretty It's
有点无聊。
kind of boring.
对吧？
Right?
是的。
Yeah.
是的。
Yeah.
但即使你假设他们对整个人类历史感兴趣，比如说从一万年前开始，那也不意味着他们需要花一万年来做这件事。
But even even when you get into the say they were interested like in all of human history, for the sake of the argument, that that's the ten thousand years ago and onward.
对他们来说，完成这个过程并不需要花一万年。
Like, it doesn't mean that for them it would take ten thousand years to do this.
他们可以以更高的速度运行模拟，比如他们的一分钟可能就模拟了一千年。
They could run the simulation at a higher speed, like maybe, you know, one minute of their time could could simulate a thousand years.
这取决于你用来运行模拟的计算机有多快。
It depends on how fast the computer is that you run the simulation on.
明白了。
Gotcha.
哇。
Wow.
对。
Right.
当计算能力在二十世纪七十年代被天体物理学家采用时，我们在这方面是率先行动的。
So when we had a great revelation when computing power was adopted by astrophysicists in the nineteen seventies, we were early out of the box on this.
当时宇宙中有一些看起来很奇怪的星系，我们制作了名为‘特殊星系’的目录。
There were these galaxies in the universe that were kinda funky looking, and we made catalogs called peculiar galaxies.
我们可能只是以为星系本来就是这样的。
We didn't you know, the the maybe we just thought galaxies were made that way.
直到我们能够模拟两个星系的碰撞，才意识到这些星系其实是星系碰撞后留下的残骸，而我们能在几分钟内模拟十亿年的时间。
Only after we were able to simulate the collision of two galaxies did we realize that this is like the the the crash scene leftovers of what happens when galaxies collide, and we simulate a billion years in a matter of minutes.
通过这种方式，我们仅通过观察星系碰撞时发生的情况并加速时间进程，就填满了整个星系形态目录，包括那些扭曲怪异的星系形态。
And in so doing, we were able to populate the entire catalog of galaxy parts and and nasty, twisted looking galaxy forms simply by seeing what happens when they collide and speeding up the time to do so.
这只是个小插曲。
That's just a little aside.
哇。
Wow.
什么是
What are
你预知未来吗？
you prescient or what?
这是纳撒尼尔·米切尔说的：如果我们能模拟出一个与我们宇宙完全一致的复制品，精确到每个量子粒子的自旋，我们能否加速这个模拟，从而像现在预测气候那样，在宇宙尺度上预测我们的未来？
This is Nathaniel Mitchell who says, if we could ever simulate an exact replica of our universe down to the spin on the components of quantum particles, could we speed it up and then use it to predict our future as we now do with simulations for climate and otherwise, but yet on a cosmic scale.
嗯，这类事情不可能在我们的宇宙中实现，比如一台模拟整个宇宙的计算机。
Well, so that kind of thing wouldn't fit into our universe, like a computer that simulated all of our universe.
好吧。
Okay.
在我们的宇宙中建造这样一台计算机是不可能的。
It it it wouldn't be possible to build that in our universe.
哦。
Oh.
所以这是一个哲学上的挑战。
So that's a philosophical challenge.
这就像说‘是的’。
That's like saying Yeah.
我的意思是，这也很
I mean, it's also
你希望你的地图详细到什么程度？
How detailed do you want your map to be?
如果你有一张和英国一样大的地图，那它就会包含整个岛屿的所有细节，但那样你直接用岛屿就行了。
If you if you have a map the size of The UK, then it'd have all the detail of the actual island, but then you could just use the island.
你不需要那样。
You don't need that.
这样并没有更多用处。
There's no more useful to like that.
所以，是的。
So so you yeah.
我的意思是，所以，是的。
I mean I mean, so and yeah.
我认为，要在量子属性的层面上模拟我们的世界，是极其不现实的。
I think I think it would be very infeasible to simulate our world at at the level of, you know, quantum properties.
至少如果模拟者的宇宙看起来和我们的宇宙相似的话。
At least if the simulator's universe looked anything like our universe.
但也许他们那个层面的物理规律是不同的。
But maybe the physics at their level of reality is different.
我的意思是，也许他们的世界可以建造出更强大的计算机，你甚至可以想象，在某种其他物理体系下，超计算是可能的，这样他们就能进行无限的计算，从而模拟出一个像我们这样的世界，并包含完整的量子细节。
I mean, maybe they have more maybe it's possible to build more powerful computers in, you could even imagine hypercomputation being possible in some other kind of physics so that they could run literally infinite computations and then maybe they could simulate a world like ours at full quantum detail.
但那那，然后继续往前看，
But that that And then moving forward and
关注未来
watch the future
但从我们的角度来看，无论他们是用那种方式，还是用更便宜的方式——只渲染出足以让内部的人感到信服的足够细节——实际上并不会有多大区别。
But I mean, from our point of view, it would presumably not make much difference whether they did it that way or the much cheaper way that would only render things at a sufficient level to be convincing to the people inside.
事实上，即使你想象存在一些模拟者能够以完整的量子细节进行模拟，但那会耗费他们多得多的计算资源，因此几乎可以肯定，绝大多数模拟仍会采用更高效的方式。
And in fact, even if you imagine that there were some simulators that could do this at full quantum detail, it would cost them so much more compute that it would still likely be the case that almost all simulations would run-in the more efficient way.
那只会以较粗略的层级模拟事物。
That would only simulate things at the coarser grade.
所以，即使存在一些完全精细的模拟，我们很可能仍处于其他类型的模拟中，因为那样成本低得多，因此可以创建数量级更多的这种模拟。
So so even if there were some fully full grain simulations, we would probably be in one of the other ones because that would be a lot cheaper, and so you could create orders of magnitude more of that.
这在多大程度上与‘事物难以理解自身’这一事实有关？
And how much of this relates to the fact that it's hard for something to understand itself?
比如，人脑真的能够理解人脑本身吗？
Like, can the brain the human brain actually come to understand the human brain?
是需要比人脑更高智商的存在，才能将人脑作为一个外部对象来研究吗？
Is that or do you need a higher intelligence than the human brain to then study the human brain as a thing outside of itself?
理解是一个程度问题。
Understanding is a matter of degree.
对吧？
Right?
我们现在对自身已经有了一些了解。
We understand a bit about ourselves now.
我们可以理解得更多。
We could understand more.
我的意思是，显然，人类大脑不可能把自身所有细节的完整模拟都存储在大脑的某个部分里。
I mean, obviously, you couldn't have a full simulation of all the details in the human brain stowed away in a part of the human brain.
对吧？
Right?
那将和英国一样大。
That's math of The UK, would be as big as UK.
是的。
Yeah.
如果你想要所有细节的话。
If you wanted all the details.
我去过天堂，但从未去过自己。
I've been to paradise, but I've never been to me.
查克。
Chuck.
谢谢你，查克。
Thank you, Chuck.
所以我们得把这架飞机安全着陆。
So we we gotta land this plane.
让我来提供我認為我們生活在模擬中的最佳證據。
Let me just offer my best evidence for why I think we live in a simulation.
我要公開說出這個觀點。
I'm just gonna go public on this.
我覺得當文明正處於順利發展時，就會發生某些事情。
I think right when civilization is kinda going smooth, then something happens.
明白嗎？
Okay?
一位政治家崛起。
A politician rises up.
爆發了戰爭。
There's a war.
爆发了世界大战。
There's a world war.
发生了海啸。
There's tsunamis.
我认为这是外星人为了娱乐而编入的程序。
And I think they the aliens program that in for their own entertainment.
因为我们以前在模拟游戏中就是这样做的。
Because that's what we did in the sim in the sim games.
在《模拟城市》里，你作为市长，一切都很顺利，但突然间，哥斯拉毫无预兆地横扫你的城市。
In Sim City, where you're mayor of a city and everything's going fine, unannounced, Godzilla trounces trounces through your city.
现在你必须动用消防队和警察，重建学校。
And now you have to deal with it with the fire and the police and the to rebuild the schools.
这就是程序员在不告知你的情况下，将这些事件注入进来。
And that's the programmer sending that in without telling you that's gonna happen.
我认为我们世界中所有这些麻烦，都是程序员需要娱乐的证据。
I think all of the troubles we have in the world is evidence that the programmers need entertainment.
是的。
Yeah.
好吧，尼克，正如我所说，我们必须安全降落这架飞机。
Well, Nick, like I said, we gotta land this plane.
感谢你来到《星谈》。
Thank you for coming out to StarTalk.
这次对话真的拖得太久了。
This conversation was long overdue.
我几年前就想邀请你了，但那时你太忙了，现在你依然如此。
I wanted to get you a few years ago, but you were in high demand, and you still are for sure.
但如果咱们当中有人发现什么异常，比如掀开帷幕，看到本该是沙发的地方却有个CPU，我就给你打电话。
But, if if any of us discover something like a we part the curtain and we see, like, a CPU there that when it was supposed to be a couch, I'll call you.
如果任何观看者发现了这种情况，请联系尼尔，而不是我。
Well, if if anybody viewing that does that, contact Neil rather than me.
我不需要更多了。
I don't need more.
当然。
For sure.
好的。
Alright.
和你交谈真是一大乐事，尼克。
It's been a delight, Nick.
《超级智能》这本书是你建议人们了解这种思维基础的吗？
And is is the superintelligence the book you would have people sort of check out in terms of the foundations of this thinking?
是的。
Yeah.
但并不是专门关于模拟论证的。
Well, not specifically on the simulation argument.
那篇文章在网上可以找到。
There, the article is online.
直接搜索‘模拟论证’就能找到。
Just Google it, simulation argument, you'll find it.
但如果你想读一本关于人工智能未来的书，我会推荐《超级智能》。
But if you wanna read a book about the future of AI and stuff, then superintelligence would be the one I would point to.
非常好。
Excellent.
非常好。
Excellent.
好的。
Alright.
很好。
Good.
好的。
Alright.
尼克，再次感谢你加入我们。
Nick, again, thanks for joining us.
很高兴我们能完成这次对话。
I'm glad we could do it.
终于。
Finally.
是啊。
Yeah.
是啊。
Yeah.
终于，这期《宇宙问答》节目。
Finally, this Cosmic Queries episode.
我是尼尔·德葛拉司·泰森，你们的专属天体物理学家。
I'm Neil deGrasse Tyson, your personal astrophysicist.
一如既往，继续仰望星空。
As always, keep looking up.
关于 Bayt 播客
Bayt 提供中文+原文双语音频和字幕，帮助你打破语言障碍，轻松听懂全球优质播客。