埃里克·韦尔兰德：这位物理学家（出人意料地）从信息中推导出引力

所以当我们身处外部时，实际上无法窥视黑洞内部，因为任何东西都无法从中逃逸，我们本质上与它断开了联系。

So when we are on the outside, there's some, well, we cannot even look inside of a black hole because nothing can escape it, so we are basically disconnected from it.

因此，事件视界以某种方式构成了我们空间的边界。

So there's some way that the horizon forms the boundary of our space.

我也把这看作是将空间切割成两部分：一部分是外部，一部分是内部，而这两部分在某种意义上已无法再相互交流。

So I think about this also as basically cutting the space into two parts, where we say there's the outside and the inside, where the outside and the inside in a certain way don't talk to each other anymore.

正是通过研究这个视界，我们才了解到：相对于外部，内部所对应的某种信息量是确定的。

And it's precisely by studying this horizon that we are learning these facts about, well, that there's this amount of information that we should associate to the inside compared to the outside.

所以在这里，我可能需要向你们介绍一下那些思考过这些想法的其他物理学家，以及哪些人的观点影响了这一领域。

So there's maybe here I have to indeed tell you about the other physicists that have been thinking about these ideas, and sort of whose ideas have been influencing this.

当我提到我和我哥哥在高中时一起研究的内容时，我们当时关注的一位人物就是霍金，他在70年代就因发现黑洞的某些基本定律而闻名——他发现，当引入量子力学时，黑洞会辐射出能量；同时，他与贝肯斯坦共同发现，黑洞具有某种熵，即某种可关联的信息量，其大小恰好与这个视界的面积成正比。

I mean, when I mentioned what I looked at with my brother in high school, one of the people we watched was Hawking, who was famous already in the 70s for discovering very fundamental laws about black holes, where he discovered that black holes, when you include quantum mechanics, they emit radiation, but he also discovered, and it was together with Beckenstein, that there's a certain entropy, a certain amount of information that you can associate to black holes, that goes exactly like the area of this horizon.

这一洞见具有根本性意义，它清晰地表明，引力本质上关乎信息，或诸如纠缠这样的性质。

And this is kind of a fundamental insight that actually makes clear that indeed the gravitational force is about information or about these properties like entanglement.

因此，他的见解在我们当前理解时空的方式中扮演着关键角色，也影响着我们对时空更微观图景的思考。

So his insights play a crucial role in our current understanding of how to think about spacetime, and also about the more microscopic picture of spacetime.

我想谈谈熵引力。

I wanna get to entropic gravity.

熵引力是一个很大的范畴，有时它指的是泰德·雅各布森的成果，但这里我们并不讨论那个。

So entropic gravity is a large umbrella, and sometimes it refers to Ted Jacobson's results, which we're not referring to here.

我想知道你的理论和泰德·雅各布森的理论之间有什么关系。

And I would like to know your the relationship between yours and Ted Jacobson.

我的理解是，泰德·雅各布森利用克劳修斯的熵和林德勒视界推导出了爱因斯坦方程，而你则是用它来推导牛顿方程。

So my understanding is Ted Jacobson used Clausius' entropy along with Rindler Horizons to get Einstein's equations, whereas you are using it to get Newton's equations.

你的理论是从泰德·雅各布森的理论推导出来的吗？还是他的理论从你的理论推导出来的？两者之间没有交集吗？你如何看待这两种不同的方法？

Does yours derive Ted Jacobson's, does Ted Jacobson's derive yours, is there not an intersection between them, how do you view those two different approaches?

泰德·雅各布森无疑是第一个意识到这个想法的人——我们这里跳过了一步——即视界与熵、面积与熵之间存在某种关系，可以用来推导爱因斯坦方程。

Well, Ted Jacobson certainly was the first to realize that this idea of, well, we're skipping a step here, but this idea that there's some relationship between the horizon and entropy, this areas and entropy, can be used to derive the the Einstein equations.

实际上，这个想法可以追溯到霍金和贝肯斯坦，他们提出了看起来像热力学定律的黑洞定律，而雅各布森则表明，如果你假设所谓的纠缠熵——我们之前讨论过的这种量——等于某个视界表面的面积，那么你就可以推导出爱因斯坦方程。

Actually, this go back to Hawking and Beckenstein, they wrote down laws that look like the laws of thermodynamics that apply to black holes, and so what Jacobsen showed is that if you assume that the, say the entanglement entropy, this kind of this quantity that we've talking about, is equal to the area of some horizon surface, then you can derive the Einstein equations.

现在，我在他的理论基础上增加了一点内容，因为当然在我的方程中，我也希望讨论推导爱因斯坦方程，这非常重要，但还有一个更根本的步骤：我提出的一个观点是，雅各布森本质上已经预设了时空的存在。

Now one of the things that I added to his theory, because certainly in my equations I also like to talk about deriving the Einstein's equation, which is very important, but there's a much more fundamental step, because one of the things that I put in is that I thought, said that Jacobson basically already assumed spacetime.

他假设存在一种纠缠熵，其行为与面积成正比，然后写出第一定律，从而得到爱因斯坦方程。

He assumed He that there is an said there is an entanglement entity that goes like the area, let's write down the first law, and then it becomes Einstein's equations.

但我认为这种推理存在循环性，因为假设时空本身就意味着假设了它的几何结构，你不能从某种东西中推导出它的几何结构。我意识到的是，这正是我在论文中强调的：你首先必须理解时空，而比引力定律更根本的是某种东西。

But I think there's something circular about the reasoning, because assuming spacetime also is assuming its geometry, you cannot derive its So geometry from something what I realize is that, and this is sort of what I emphasized in my paper, is that the first thing that you have to get to is understanding spacetime, and there's something more fundamental than just the gravitational laws.

引力定律只是关于力的变化，这已经是牛顿第一定律的内容了。

The gravitational laws are about forces that are changing just already Newton's first law.

牛顿提出了三条定律：第一条是关于惯性的，第二条是作用力与反作用力相等，第三条是引力。

So Newton wrote down three laws, the first law being about inertia, the second law about the reaction is minus reaction, and the third law being the gravitational force.

从某种意义上说，雅各布森所做的，是推导出了第三条定律。

In a certain way, what Jacobson did, he derived the third law.

因为如果你推导出爱因斯坦方程，你也推导出了牛顿第三定律，但你并没有告诉我惯性是如何产生的。

Because if you derive Einstein's equations, you also derive Newton's third law, but you don't tell me how inertia arises.

惯性是一个更根本的概念，它本质上说明了质量意味着什么，以及为什么当我们移动物体时，必须施加力才能使其加速。

Inertia is a much more fundamental concept, it basically tells you what mass means, how when we move something, why do we apply a force, need to apply a force to accelerate it.

所以 F=ma，这是我推导出的定律，我认为这仍然非常重要：在我们当前取得的进展中，我们最终不仅要推导出爱因斯坦方程，还需要先推导出空间和时间的本质。

So F=ma, that's the law that I derived, and I think that's also still a very important thing, is that in the progress that we are making now, we're eventually not deriving only Einstein's equations, we need to derive first what space and time are.

因此，空间和时间是涌现的这一事实，我在论文中强调了，而他却没有看到。

And so the fact that space and time are emergent is something that I emphasized in my paper, and that he didn't see.

所以，我的论文在某种方式上超越了他的方程和结果，我认为它也在某种形式上包含了它们。

So there's some way that my paper transcends his equations, his results, and I think it also contains it in some form.

因此，我认为这种方法是不同的，但我强调的重点更多在于空间和时间本身的涌现，以及首先需要推导出的基本定律，即牛顿第一定律——惯性定律。

So I think the approach is different, but I think the emphasis that I made was much more on the emergence of space and time itself, and also on the fundamental laws that first need to be derived, namely the first law of Newton, the law of inertia.

好的，所以引力是从热力学中涌现出来的。

Okay, so gravity emerges from thermodynamics.

这对我来说意味着某种平衡态。

To me, that implies some equilibrium.

但与此同时，我们需要引力来驱动结构的形成。

But at the same time, we need gravity to drive structure formation.

而这在我看来显然是非平衡的。

And that seems to me to be nonequilibrium, like manifestly so.

那么这两者如何协调一致呢？

So how do those two cohere?

平衡可能指的是宇宙中粒子和所有填充物的某种平衡状态。

Equilibrium may mean something in in terms of the equilibrium in in the particles and in everything that's filling the universe or something like that.

这有点像我们之前讨论过的。

It's kind of what we had.

但如果你问是什么导致了引力的消失，那并不是粒子在起作用，而是时空本身的微观构成单元在起作用。

But if you ask what is driving the loss of gravity, it's not the particles that are doing this, it's really these microscopic building blocks of the spacetime itself.

它们在黑洞的视界和宇宙学视界的边界处处于平衡状态。

And they are in equilibrium at horizons of black holes, they are at equilibrium of the horizon of a cosmological horizon.

它们并不在时空中的任意一点处于平衡状态。

They're not in equilibrium in some arbitrary point of spacetime.

因此，平衡在那里可能会被某种方式扭曲，这是其中一点。

And so there's some way that equilibrium can be distorted there, that's one thing.

但另一点是，宇宙的膨胀以及我们在当前宇宙学和结构形成理论中使用的所有内容，都源自爱因斯坦方程。

But the other thing is that the expansion of the universe and all the things that we use in our current formulation of cosmology and structure formation are derived from Einstein's equations.

所以，如果你首先想推导出爱因斯坦方程，那么其他方程就会随之而来，但我认为更微观的描述可能与爱因斯坦方程本身所揭示的内容大不相同。

So if you first wanna derive Einstein's equations, then these other equations follow, but I think the more microscopic description might be quite different from what Einstein's equation already is telling us.

所以，平衡的假设我认为确实进入了热力学定律，但这种假设只需要在某个非常小的局部区域内成立，这其实也是雅各布森论点的核心。

So the assumption of equilibrium, I think, certainly goes into the laws of thermodynamics, but that only needs to apply sort of very locally in some very small neighborhood, and this is sort of also what Jacobsen's argument was about.

所以，并不是存在一个整体的平衡状态。

So it's not like there's an overall equilibrium.

因此，从某种意义上说，我应该说，平衡的假设并不是推导爱因斯坦方程之类所必需的。

So in a certain way, I should say the assumption of equilibrium is not what is necessary for deriving the Einstein equations or something like that.

它只是，是的，总之，我认为这两种看待方式之间并不存在矛盾。

It's only, yeah, anyway, I don't think there's a contradiction between those two ways of looking at it.

所以，结构形成我认为是在推导这些方程的更后期阶段才会涉及的内容。

So structure formation I think is something that's eventually gonna fall at a much later level in deriving those equations.

因此，它们与我们应用于引力方程的平衡定律并无关联。

So they're not connected to the equilibrium laws that we apply for gravitational equations.

在坍缩或非平衡状态下，纠缠熵是否定义良好？

Is entanglement entropy well defined in collapsing or non equilibrium configurations?

这也是个好问题。

Also a good question.

人们已经在这方面有了描述，实际上我们对纠缠熵已经有了相当精确的定义，这些理论已经被研究了二十多年，其根源可以追溯到内尔达森的想法，而内尔达森又建立在贝肯斯坦、霍金、苏斯金德和特霍夫特的思想基础上。

People have so in So we have a description of entanglement entropy in, a quite precise one actually, in theories that, well, have been studied for now more than twenty five years actually, it goes back to the ideas of Naldasena, which was building on ideas of Beggenstein and Hawking, Suskind, Thoth.

但无论如何，我们已经以非常精确的方式计算了纠缠熵。

But anyway, there we calculated entanglement entropy in a very precise way.

这项工作已被扩展，我们现在也能在动态情境中定义纠缠熵。

This work has been extended, where we also have dynamical situations where we can define entanglement entropy.

也就是说，这背后有一些相关的名字，比如胡巴尼、兰加马尼、汉密尔顿，确实有一些人已经在动态情境中定义了纠缠熵。

I mean there's names associated to that, Hubani, Rangamani, Hamilton, I mean there are some people that have defined entanglement entropy also in dynamical situations.

所以这方面没有问题。

So there's no problem there.

我们现在获得的一个重要见解，也是当前激烈讨论的一个话题，是除了纠缠之外，还有更多因素将在这种微观描述中变得重要。

One of the insights we are having now actually, one of the big discussions going on, is that there's more than just entanglement that's gonna be important in this microscopic description.

虽然在这些情境中可以定义纠缠熵，但我们还有其他需要关注的问题，比如计算复杂性——我只是提一下这个词，但还有很多其他概念，对，我们又要回到这个词了，它们都在这个微观理论中发挥着作用。

So entanglement entropy can be defined in those situations, but we have other things to worry about, I mean things like computational complexity, I mean I'm just dropping a word here, but there are many more concepts, I mean we're going back to that word, that are playing a role in this microscopic theory.

这显然远远超出了我们在这个播客中能讨论的范围，但我们确实在不断推进，逐步定义出更贴近真实世界所需描述的物理概念和情境。

I mean it's clearly going way beyond what we can discuss in this podcast, but we are really making progress in defining all these physical concepts and situations that are closer and closer to what we really need to describe the real world.

我们还没有达到那一步，很明显，这个理论还需要进一步发展，我认为我们正在取得很多进展，但距离获得更好的理解、获得我所说的下一代理论——即真正找到对我们所称的自然更根本的描述——可能仍需数年，甚至数十年。不过，这可能还不是最根本的描述，我认为我们无法抵达最根本的描述，但我们会在通往更根本描述的道路上不断进步。

We're not there yet, mean it's clear that this theory needs further development, and I think we're making lots of progress, but we're still, well, years, and maybe even decades away from having this better understanding, and having what I would call sort of the next theory, where we indeed have found a more fundamental description of what we call nature, but maybe not the most fundamental, so I don't think that we will get to this most fundamental description, but we'll make progress towards a more fundamental description.

所以当谈到推导空间时，如果我发音正确的话，这个公式依赖于一个空间区域a。

So when speaking about deriving space, in the if I'm pronouncing that correctly, the formula, it relies on a spatial region a.

那么，这是否已经编码了局域性，比如通过边界几何来推导体几何？

So does that not already encode locality, like a boundary geometry to derive the bulk geometry?

所以空间并不是单纯从纠缠中涌现出来的。

So space doesn't emerge from entanglement per se.

它只是体几何从边界处较少的纠缠中涌现出来？

It's just the bulk emerges from boundaries less entanglement?

你说得对，我们在具有边界的时空中有了一些微观描述的理解，这种边界被称为反德西特空间。

You're right, we have some understanding of microscopic descriptions in space time where we have a boundary, which is called anti de Sitter Space.

它与我们所生活的宇宙看起来完全不同，而那些最早开展这项工作的人——比如里永·塔卡纳吉——研究了这种微观描述中的纠缠熵，而这种微观理论可以被看作是生活在某个边界上，这个边界本身已经具有一些空间结构。

It doesn't look at all like the universe that we live in, and they have, I mean that Riyun Takanjagi, which is kind of indeed the people that have done this initial work, they studied entanglement entropy in this microscopic description, and this microscopic theory can be thought about as living on a boundary where already is some space associated to it.

确实，拥有一个现成的几何结构非常有用，但我们要在空间中所称的‘体’中获得的嵌入几何，是需要额外添加的一个方向。

And it's true that it's very useful to have already some geometry there, but the immersion geometry is the one that we have sort of in the space which we call the bulk, it's some additional direction that we have to add.

你说得对，我们在这里定义的面积并不是完全涌现的，因为它在边界上已经具有一些定义。

You're right that the area that we define there is not totally emergent in the sense that it already has some definition on the boundary.

这正是我认为ADF CFD并非理解时空的最终答案的原因之一，因为我们确实需要摒弃‘存在一个边界’这一观念，因为我们的宇宙并没有这样的边界，但这并不妨碍我们朝着这个方向取得进展。

This is one of the reasons why I think ADF CFD is not the final story of how we're gonna understand spacetime, because we indeed have to get rid of this idea that there is a boundary, because our universe doesn't have a boundary of that sort, but it still means that we can make progress towards it.

我认为过去十年发生的事情，是利用了里奥·塔加尼雅吉的想法，并尝试以某种方式重新表述它，以便可能摆脱这种边界依赖，而这正是你所提到的面积选择所依赖的。

And I think what happened in the last decade maybe, is using this Rio Taganiyagi idea, and see how we can formulate it in ways where we can maybe get rid of this boundary, and so does this dependence on the choice of this area that you're talking about.

而在这里，我认为我们需要新的概念，不仅仅是纠缠熵，也许还包括复杂性的概念，但这也正是我们在理解雅各布森等人的思想时遇到困难的地方。

And this is where I think we need new concepts, not just maybe entanglement entropy, but also maybe this idea of complexity, but this is also where I think we are having trouble following the ideas, for instance, of Jacobson.

雅各布森假设我们可以定义纠缠熵，并将其与面积等同起来，这正是我们和塔吉纳吉所做的，此外还有一些其他人，特别是来自拉姆孙克的学者，我应该提一下他的名字，因为‘空间与时间因纠缠而关联’这一观点实际上源于范·拉姆孙。

Jacobson did assume that we can define entanglement entropy, did assume that we can identify it with the area, which is kind of what we and Taginejagi have done as well, and there are other people like, in particular from Ramsunk, I should mention his name, because this idea that space and time are connected because of entanglement is kind of due to Van Ramsong.

马尔特·塞纳和苏斯金德也支持这一观点，他们有一个著名的口号叫‘EPR等于ER’，也许你听说过。

Also Malte Senna and Suskind have sort of advocated this, and they have this slogan which they call EPR is ER, which maybe you have heard about.

是的。

Yeah.

我觉得其实你几个月前就已经想到这一点了。

Which I think you actually thought of a few months before.

2012年的时候，你和赫尔曼之间不是有过一些邮件往来吗？那时你就已经预示了这个想法，但没有发表出来，即ER等于EPR？

Wasn't there some email exchange in 2012 between you and Herman, where you presaged this idea but you didn't publish it, ER equals EPR?

没错。

That's correct.

确实如此。

That is correct.

我们当时已经有了这个想法，但我想那时我们就已经意识到，这个想法的首创者其实是冯·阿姆斯特朗。

We already had this idea, but I think at that time we already realized that the first idea really was due to von Armstrong.

从这个意义上说，荣誉完全应该归于他，尽管这个口号当然是苏斯金德和马尔特·塞纳发明的。

I think in that sense the credit should be going fully to him, although the slogan was of course invented by Susskind and Malde Sener.

当然，马尔特·塞纳早前就做过相关研究，他意识到当两个共形场纠缠时，会产生某种连通性等等。

But of course, I mean there was earlier work by Malde Sener where he also realized that when you entangle two conformal fields you reach cold that you get some connectivity and so on.

因此，马尔登·塞纳无疑以及后续的研究者都值得肯定，但我们确实早就有了这个想法。

So there's a way that Malden Senna certainly and subsequent also deserve it, but we had indeed this idea already.

但那是在黑洞的背景下，而我想我们现在正在学习的是，也许必须将这种仅依赖纠缠的想法加以扩展。

But that was in the context of black holes, and I think what we are learning nowadays is that we are maybe have to extend this idea of only using entanglement.

所以，Substack 还以另一个口号闻名，他说纠缠还不够，他在这一描述中加入的是所谓的计算复杂性，我认为这个概念也很重要。

So Substack is also known for the other slogan where he says entanglement is not enough, and what he tried to add in that description is what's called computational complexity, and I do think that that notion is also important.

因此，我们仍有许多步骤需要完成，但我想说的是，雅各布森从假设纠缠熵与面积成正比出发，推导出了爱因斯坦定律，也就是广义相对论。

So there are many steps that we still need to go through, But what I, okay, maybe what I wanted to say is that Jacobsen derived the laws of Einstein, I mean the general relativity, from assuming that the entanglement entropy goes like the area.

我的意思是，我们可以用这些思路来推导它，当我们使用爱因斯坦方程时，可以以某种方式推导出来，但我们实际上是反过来做的，因此逻辑上有些不同。

I mean, we can derive it using sort of these ideas that we, when we use Einstein's equations we can derive it kind of, but we have then sort of worked the other way, so there's some way that the logic changes.

所以，如果我们假设纠缠与面积成正比，就可以推导出爱因斯坦方程。

So if we assume that entanglement goes like the area, we can derive the Einstein equations.

但这是一种假设，你可能会怀疑这种假设是否总是成立。

But this is an assumption, and you may wonder whether that assumption is always true.

我认为在某些情况下这可能不成立，这正是我之前提到的：我们的宇宙与我们一直研究的反德西特空间不同，也许在那里情况会不一样。

And I think that there are situations where that might not be true, and this is where I was already saying that our universe is different from the one that we have been studying all the time, namely this antidissive space, and maybe things work differently there.

而且我确实相信，当我们重新开始分析如何推导爱因斯坦方程时，在一个具有暗能量、更接近我们自身宇宙的宇宙中，可能会出现偏离。

And I think I'm actually convinced that when we start redoing our analysis of how to derive Einstein's equations, that in a universe where there is dark energy, which is more like our own universe, that there can be deviations from it.

因此，我希望我们在理解引力定律起源方面的探索，能帮助我们弄清楚暗能量究竟是什么，甚至暗物质又是什么。

And so I hope that our quest in understanding what the gravitational gravitational laws come from will help us understand what is dark energy and even what is dark matter.

所以那里还有很多东西有待发现。

So there's a lot of things, I think, to be discovered there.

是的，你把暗物质和暗能量联系起来了，我想更多了解一下这一点。

Yes, you've connected dark matter and dark energy, and I'd like to know more about that.

克鲁曼·瓦法也把暗物质和暗能量联系起来过，但那是不同的想法，叫暗维度，是格鲁泽-克莱因引力子，而你的理论并不是那样。

Kruman Vafa has also connected dark matter and dark energy, but it's a different idea, it's dark dimensions, it's gluzer Klein, gravitons, and so yours isn't that.

没错。

That's correct.

不，它与这样一个观点相关：我们所处的宇宙，正如我所说，与我们迄今为止研究的宇宙非常不同，那个宇宙被称为反德西特空间。

No, it's connected to the idea that the world, the universe we live in is, as I said, a very different one than the one that we've been studying so far, is called anti de Sitter Space.

反德西特空间应该被理解为一个没有暗能量的宇宙。

Anti de Sitter Space should think about as a universe without dark energy.

而我们所处的宇宙中包含暗能量，这创造了一种非常不同的时空，其中存在一个类似于黑洞视界的边界，这个边界也关联着熵，许多想法——尤其是这种奇特的达戈尼吉思想，或者最近研究的一些推广，比如量子极值面等等——都基于此。

So the space that we have has dark energy in it, and it creates a very different spacetime where there's a horizon, very much like the horizon of a black hole, there's also entropy associated to that, and many of the ideas, especially this weird Dagonyagi idea, or some generalizations of that that have been recently studied, which called quantum extremal surfaces and so on.

这些想法并不适用于这种宇宙，你会看到，要理解我们当前这种具有暗能量的、正曲率的时空，需要不同的微观描述。

They don't apply to this kind of universe, and you see that there's different microscopic descriptions required to understand how this positively curved, I mean the space time that we have now, with dark energy, how that is gonna be described.

我之前提到过‘计算复杂性’这个词，我认为它在理解这一点上将起到关键作用。

I already mentioned this word computational complexity, which I think is going to be crucial in understanding this.

但我们需要回到雅各布森推导爱因斯坦方程的过程，也就是说，我们是如何推导出这个方程的？

But what we have to do is to go back to this derivation, basically the derivation of Jacobsen of the Einstein equation, so how do we derive it?

如果我们不假设纠缠熵与面积成正比，而是这个宇宙中存在其他形式的熵，那么你就会得到其他的方程。

If we don't have these assumptions that the entanglement goes like the area, if there's some other form of entropy that's in that universe, then you will find other equations.

我实际上发现了一点，这可以追溯到米尔格拉姆关于星系及其旋转曲线行为的研究，他发现星系旋转曲线开始偏离牛顿和爱因斯坦方程描述的位置，与宇宙膨胀之间存在某种关联，也就是我们的宇宙在某种方式上的表现。

And I have found a, well actually it's going back actually to discoveries by Milgram about ways in which galaxies and their rotation curves behave, he found a connection between where the rotation curves of galaxies start deviating from what is described by Newton's and Eisen's equations, and the cosmological expansion, I mean some way in which our cosmos is behaving.

我认为这一发现和这种关联非常重要，因为它实际上告诉我们，宇宙的膨胀——我们通过哈勃常数观测恒星远离我们的速度——也揭示了这个视界的位置，因为如果物体远离我们的速度随距离增加，那么必然存在某个距离，在那里远离速度达到光速，这就是我们所说的视界。

And that discovery and that connection I think is quite an important one, because it actually tells us indeed that the expansion of the universe, the way that we are viewing the stars moving away from us using this Hubble constant, that's also telling us where this horizon is sitting, because if things are moving away from us at a speed that increases with a distance, there will be some distance in which it's moving away with the speed of light that we call the horizon.

这实际上也告诉我们宇宙中存在多少熵。

That actually also tells us how much entropy is there in the universe.

因此，我所发现的是，通过思考这种熵，你实际上可以解释米尔格拉姆的观测结果，即这种引力偏离恰好出现在我们观测到的星系中。

So what I discovered is that by thinking about this entropy, you can actually explain the observation that Milgram made, namely that there is this deviation from the gravitational loss exactly where we are observing it in these galaxies.

是的，总之，我认为还有一些地方需要进一步发展，理论上我们必须更好地理解它，但毫无疑问，这是物理学中我们即将与观测建立联系的领域，因为迄今为止，我们对量子引力的理论探索一直远离任何观测；但我确实认为，关于暗物质等这些宇宙学观测，实际上源于量子引力效应，因此，这正是我们最终做出预测或观测到能够检验我们理论的现象的希望所在。

Yeah, so anyway, I think that there's something that needs further development, and certainly theoretically we have to understand it much better, but it's certainly the area in physics where we're gonna make a connection with observation, because I think our theoretical explorations of what quantum gravity is So far I've been very far from any observations, but I do think that these cosmological observations about dark matter and so on are actually due to effects in quantum gravity, and therefore that's our hope to finally make a prediction or have some observation of something that where we can test our theories.

当我与嘉宾就意识的难题或量子基础等议题辩论时，我绝不允许哪怕一丝困惑被忽视。

When I'm wrestling with a guest's argument about, say, the hard problem of consciousness or quantum foundations, I refuse to let even a scintilla of confusion remain unexamined.

克劳德是我的思考伙伴。

Claude is my thinking partner here.

事实上，他们刚刚发布了重大更新——Claude Opus 4.6，一款顶尖模型。

Actually, they just released something major, which is Claude Opus 4.6, a state of the art model.

克劳德是为那些不满足于及格线的头脑而生的AI。

Claude is the AI for minds that don't stop at good enough.

它是真正理解你整个工作流程、与你一同思考而非替你思考的合作者。

It's the collaborator that actually understands your entire workflow, thinks with you, not for you.

无论你是在午夜调试代码，还是在规划下一个商业决策，克劳德都会延伸你的思维，帮助你解决对你重要的问题。

Whether you're debugging code at midnight or strategizing your next business move, Claude extends your thinking to tackle problems that matter to you.

实际上，我在这次与伊娃·米兰达的访谈中，正在实时使用克劳德。

I use Claude actually live right here during this interview with Eva Miranda.

这其实是一个叫‘工件’的功能，其他任何大语言模型提供商都还没有能与之媲美的东西。

That's actually a feature called artifacts, and none of the other LLM providers have something that even comes close to rivaling it.

Claude 能够处理技术哲学、数学严谨性以及深度研究综合等多种任务，且从不产生粗糙的推理。

Claude handles, inter alia, technical philosophy, mathematical rigor, and deep research synthesis, all without producing slovenly reasoning.

它的回应得体、精确、结构清晰，从不阿谀奉承，与其他一些模型截然不同。

The responses are decorous, precise, well structured, never sycophantic, unlike some other models.

它不仅仅直接把答案交给我。

And it doesn't just hand me the answers.

我给它的提示是，它帮助我逐步思考问题。

The way that I've prompted it is that it helps me think through problems.

准备好应对更大的问题了吗？

Ready to tackle larger problems?

今天就注册 Claude，使用我的链接 claude.ai/theorysofeverything（全部连写），即可享受 Claude Pro 五折优惠。

Sign up for Claude today and get 50% off Claude Pro when you use my link, claude.ai/theorysofeverything, all one word.

是的。

Yes.

你推导出米尔格拉姆的加速度等于哈勃常数的六分之一。

You derive Milgram's acceleration as equaling the sixth of the Hubble constant.

据我所知，你是唯一一个从第一性原理出发做到这一点的人。

So as far as I know, you're the only person who's done that from first principles.

我可能错了。

I could be incorrect.

你是否知道其他任何方法也能得出同样的结果？

Are you aware of any other approaches that get that same result?

没有，但我必须说，我当然知道米尔格拉姆的研究工作。

No, but I have to say that of course I was aware of the work by Milgram.

我有一个想法，想把它与涌现引力的概念联系起来，并希望看看这是否也能解释我们观测到的实际现象。

I have this idea of how to connect it to the ideas of emergent gravity, and I wanted to see if that could work in also explaining the actual phenomena that we are observing.

我写下了我称之为有效描述的内容。

And I wrote down what I would call also an effective description.

正如我之前提到的，我认为我们的理论理解还需要改进。

As I already mentioned, I think our theoretical understanding has to be improved.

我希望能最终激励我的同事们，那些正在思考引力如何从更微观的量子描述中涌现的人——比如通过纠缠或复杂性等概念——去思考这些问题，因为我认为我们真的有机会通过观测事实来验证我们的理论。如果真能实现，那当然会非常惊人，但目前我相当确信这一定会发生，我希望在未来的十年或十五年内，这能被普遍接受。因为我相信，我们从量子原理和量子信息出发、更根本地理解引力的计划，最终将导出修正的引力方程。

And I like to eventually motivate my colleagues also who are thinking about gravity and the way it's emerging from a more microscopic quantum description in terms of, well, entanglement or complexity and so on, to even think about those questions, because I think we have really a chance to verify our ideas in observational facts, and if that happens, of course that would be spectacular, but I'm quite convinced actually at this moment that this is gonna be happening, and I hope it's gonna be even generally kind of accepted in the next ten or fifteen years, because I do think that our programme of understanding gravity more fundamentally from quantum principles and quantum information is gonna lead to these modified equations for the gravitational force.

无论如何，我们需要在理论上取得很大进展，才能更精确地理解这一点，但如今，我认为我们甚至正在讨论许多关于天空的问题。

And anyway, we need to make a lot of progress in our theory to see how we can make that more precise, but certainly nowadays, I think currently we are even discussing many problems about the sky.

我的意思是，上个月，也就是十二月，我参加的一个会议正是关于如何思考引力，或者更准确地说，是关于所谓闭合宇宙的产生——也就是没有边界的宇宙，不像反德西特空间那样。

I mean there's one of the conferences I went to last month, in December actually, was about precisely how we can think about the gravitational force in, or even the emergence of what are called closed universes, so where we have universes without boundary, not like anti De Sitter Space.

这实际上是一个非常令人兴奋的进展，我认为它正朝着我之前设想的方向发展。

So that is actually a very exciting development, and I think that it's gonna go in the direction that I was already envisaging.

我的意思是，在某些方面，我所做的许多假设，或者更准确地说，我在描述中所采取的直觉性步骤，正在这个背景下得到验证。

I mean, are some ways in which many of the assumptions that I made, or how should I say, the intuitive steps that I made in my description are being verified in that context.

在闭合宇宙的情况下，边界-体对偶会是什么样子？

What would a boundary bulk duality look like in the case of a closed universe?

当然没有边界，所以我认为‘微观理论存在于边界上’这一想法从来就不相关；我认为人们容易混淆：微观理论存在于某个空间，而体理论存在于另一个空间。

There's no boundary of course, so I think the idea that the microscopic theory lives on the boundary, I always think that was not a relevant thing, in the sense that I think people will confuse themselves in the sense that there's a microscopic theory, it lives on some space, and there's a bulk theory, it on some other space.

微观理论所处的空间恰好看起来像边界，这并不等于说它就存在于边界上。

The fact that the theory, the space on which the microscopic theory lives happens to look like the boundary is not the same as saying that it lives on the boundary.

我认为人们把事情想得太简单了，这其实是一种过度简化。

Think that people have, think that's really an oversimplification of what's going on.

因此，我认为即使在封闭宇宙中，也存在一种微观理论。

And so what I think is true even in closed universes is that there is a microscopic theory.

但你会问我它存在于什么空间中，而我并不关心它存在于什么空间，它应该是一种微观理论，具体在什么空间上其实并不重要，它根本不需要空间。

But you're gonna ask me what space does it live on, and I don't care about what space it lives on, it should be a microscopic theory, it doesn't really matter, it doesn't need a space.

空间是涌现出来的，而且这实际上回到了你的问题：在里德·图尔热纳基中，空间并非完全涌现，因为我们已经假设微观理论存在于某个空间上。

The space is emergent, and it's not like, and that's actually going back to your question that in Reed Turgeneaki, space doesn't entirely emerge because we already assumed that the microscopic theory was living on some space.

我认为，如果你不对微观理论做任何假设，不预设它必须存在于某个空间上，那会更好。

I think it's much nicer if you don't assume anything about the microscopic theory, it doesn't need to live on some space.

我们现在谈了这么多关于空间的内容，却很少谈到时间。

Now we've spoken so much about space, and not much about time.

啊，我喜欢这个话题，你继续说。

Ah, I like that, go ahead.

观察者对于时间是必要的吗？

Are observers necessary for time?

我认为观察者并不是必要的，但它们非常有用，因为它们体验时间，同时也告诉我们需要考虑空间的哪一部分。

I don't think they are necessary, but they're very useful in the sense that they experience time, and they also tell us which part of space we have to consider.

所以如果你生活在某个地方，你只能观察到空间的某一部分，而有一部分是你看不到的。

So if you are living somewhere, you can only observe a certain part of space, and there's a certain part that you cannot see.

在微观描述或基本描述中，确实存在我们能观察到的部分，也存在我们无法观察到的部分。

And it's certainly true that in the microscopic description, or the fundamental description, there are parts that we observe, and there are things that we cannot observe.

我最近一直深入研究，也有很多其他人也在关注的一个有趣问题是：你甚至不需要时间，时间也能自然涌现。

Now one of the nice things that I have been, well, studying myself a lot recently, but also that many other people have been looking at, is that you don't need time to even have time emerge.

因此，空间可以涌现，而时间也同样可以是涌现的。

So we can have space emerge, but there's also time can also be emergent.

这种涌现通过纠缠以一种非常美妙的方式实现。

That also emerges from entanglement in a very nice way.

这涉及到这样一个观点：如果我有一个观察者，他只能看到空间的一部分，我甚至应该说，他只能看到微观理论的一部分，因此有一部分是他看不到的。

And this has to do with indeed saying, well, if I have an observer, he can only see part of the space, and I should say part of even the microscopic theory, so there's some part that he doesn't see.

量子力学中的情况是，你只能看到部分量子信息、比特，但有一些你看不到的部分与你所看到的部分是纠缠在一起的。

And quantum mechanics what happens is that you then can see only part of the, say, quantum information, the bits, but there are things that you don't see that are entangled with the things that you do see.

因此，你可以再次计算纠缠的程度。

So you can count again the amount of entanglement.

这也意味着，你所观察到的事物的描述并不是像薛定谔所写的波函数那样，而更像冯·诺依曼所考虑的密度矩阵。

It also means that the description of the things that you do see is not given in terms of say, a wave function like what Schrodinger wrote down, it's more like a density matrix, a thing that von Neumann thought about.

密度矩阵实际上是一个让你能够思考时间的工具，因为在量子力学中，我们看待时间的一种方式是它与能量有关，能量在描述时间演化中扮演某种角色，这被称为哈密顿量，因为它决定了时间如何演化，而这一点实际上也可以通过纠缠来定义。

And a density matrix is really an object that allows you to think about time actually, because I mean a density matrix, one way that we think about time in quantum mechanics is that there's a relationship with energy, so there's some way that energy kind of plays a role in describing time, it's called the Hamiltonian, because that is sort of how it tells that time evolves, and this is actually possible to define also using entanglement.

这被称为所谓的模型哈密顿量，但这就是时间如何涌现的方式。

It goes under the name of what's called the model Hamiltonian, but this is the way that time emerges.

因此，我们有一种方式可以在不假设时间存在的前提下定义时间。

So we have some way that time can be defined even without assuming that it exists.

关于这一点，冯·诺依曼早在五十多年前就已经发展出了一套优美的数学理论，其中包含大量精确的数学方程，表明仅通过研究量子力学，我们就能定义时间。

And there's a beautiful mathematical theory already about it that also von Neumann already developed, and talking about, whatever, more than fifty years ago, where really there's lots of very precise mathematical equations that are telling us that just from studying quantum mechanics that we can define time.

实际上，这与我关于熵引力的论文中的思路非常相似。

And actually it goes very much in the same way that I had in my paper on entropic gravity.

其原理是，我观察到的是某一部分，比如说空间的右半部分，而左半部分我无法观察。

The way it goes is that I have this part that I observe, say it's the right part of the space, the left part of the space I cannot observe.

如果我忽略掉左边的部分，那么右边的部分就不是用一个明确的量子态来描述的，而是用一个密度矩阵，而仅凭这种分割，我就能生成一种时间流，根本不需要从一开始就假定时间的存在——时间正是从这一理念中涌现出来的。

If I just forget about this left part, the right part, well, is described not in a very precise state, it's not a quantum state, but it's this density matrix, and then there's a time flow that I can generate just from this separation, and I don't need actually to assume time from the beginning, I mean there's something that time really emerges from from this idea.

我认为，量子纠缠和量子力学的语言——即时空如何涌现——正是近期进展的核心所在。我得提一下其他在这方面做出重要贡献的人，比如杰夫·彭宁顿、恩格尔哈特、毛德·刘，还有很多参与者，包括在麻省理工学院、加州大学伯克利分校和圣塔芭芭拉的年轻人，他们都在研究这些想法。

And I think that language of quantum entanglement and quantum, yeah, the spacetime, how that emerges, I mean, is really where recent advances, I mean, people, I I have to maybe mention other people in this context, I mean, people like Jeff Pennington who played an important role, Engelhardt, Maud Liu, there's many people involved, young people also, at MIT, at Berkeley, at Santa Barbara, who are working on these ideas.

这是一个全球性的努力。我相信我刚才所用的这种语言，虽然很多听众可能觉得难以理解，但这是我们当前讨论乃至会议的核心内容——我们大量使用这些观点来探讨时间和空间如何通过量子纠缠获得微观层面的描述。

It's a worldwide effort, and I think the language I just sort of am using here, which I'm sure that many listeners find difficult to understand, but it's something that our current discussions and even the conferences are about, I mean, we are using these ideas a lot actually about how time and space sort of had this microscopic description in terms of quantum entanglement.

当谈到唐纳德·拉姆斯菲尔德所说的熵时，有人提到‘已知的未知’与熵有关，但‘已知’这个词本身就暗示了观察者的存在——当我们说‘已知’时，意味着有人知道它。

When talking about entropy in Donald Rumsfeld, it was said that the known unknowns is related to entropy, but known implies an observer just when we hear the word known, like someone knows it.

因此，熵有两个层面。

So there are two aspects of entropy.

一方面，它与观察者的粗粒化有关，是观察者依赖的；另一方面，它又在某种程度上是一种客观的划分。

One is that it's observer dependent regarding a coarse graining, but then another is that it's somehow an objective partitioning.

所以我假设你思考的是客观划分的角度。

So I assume that you're thinking in terms of an objective partitioning.

那么，究竟是什么决定了自然界所采用的这种划分方式呢？

What is it that's determining this partition that nature uses?

好吧，这里我必须承认，观察者确实扮演着重要角色，因为当我们有观察者时，他能够使用测量仪器之类的东西，你可以进行所有测量，这意味着你将发现更多关于宇宙状态的信息。

Well, okay, here I have to admit that the observer has to play an important role, because when we have a observer, he has access to a measurement apparatus or something like this, and you can do all your measurements, and that means you're gonna be discovering more about what the state of the universe is.

我的意思是，你可以尝试确定所有这些事物的位置，可以做大量测量，但也有一些东西是你无法测量的。

I mean, you can try to determine where all those things are located, you can do lots of measurements, but there are also things you cannot measure.

而在时空当中，这与我们所说的视界有关，也就是说，有些东西位于视界之后，你根本无法观测到。

And we have and this also in spacetime is connected to what we call the horizon, there's namely things you cannot observe are behind the horizon.

我们必须以某种方式将时空划分为可观测的部分，我们称之为可观测区域，也就是观察者所能看到的范围，而这个区域的边界则意味着，边界之外的东西是我们无法观测的。

There's some way that we have to split the spacetime in the part that we can observe, which we call our observable patch, kind of what we call the observer's area which we can see, but then its boundary is kind of then saying that there's things beyond that that we cannot observe.

因此，我们目前所测量的熵，实际上正是关于那些我们没有观测到的事物；而我们所发现的有趣之处在于，这与彭罗斯、霍金和瑞亚卡纳吉的定律密切相关——即我们无法观测的部分，恰好由视界的面积来精确衡量。

And so this entropy that we are currently measuring is indeed about the things that we are not observing, and the nice thing about what we are discovering, which kind of goes back to these laws of Peckenstein and Hawking, and Riyadhakanjagi, is that this amount that we cannot observe is exactly measured by this area of the horizon.

我承认，在精确定义这一点时，我认为观察者必须发挥作用：我们把‘我们原则上能够观测到的事物’定义为‘已知’，这并不意味着我们必须实际去观测，但至少我们必须有能力通过某种测量来实现；而那些我们永远无法观测的部分，我们则称之为‘已知的未知’，因为某种方式上，我们可以计算，或至少估算出有多少内容是未知的、无法被我们测量触及的。

And I admit that in defining this very precisely, I think we need the observer by saying, well, we define what we know as the things that we can observe in principle, it does not like we have to observe it, but that we have to at least be able to do this by some measurement, but then there's the part that we cannot never observe, and that part we then called basically the known unknowns, because there's some way that we can calculate, or at least we have an estimate of how much is not known or not accessible to our measurements.

所以，听众可能会问：教授，您是说，作为观察者，引力动力学取决于我任意选择的粗粒化方式吗？

So the person listening, what if they're saying, just a moment professor, are you saying that I, as an observer, the gravitational dynamics depends on how I arbitrarily coarse grain my choice?

不，情况并非如此，因为正如我所说，你无法观测或无法知晓的事物，更多是原则性的问题。

No, is not the case, because I mean there's some way that, as I said, the actual thing that you are not observing or not know is more like a matter of principle.

我的意思是，如果你说原则上你可以观测一切，那么你当然可以测量很多东西——比如你决定去测量一颗遥远恒星的距离，原则上你确实能做到；但即使你选择不去做这个测量，也不意味着它就突然变成了未知。

I mean if I say you can in principle observe everything, I mean there's some way that you can measure lots of things, if you decide now to wanna measure some, the distance to a certain star very far away, and then you can in principle do this, but even if you decide not to do it, it doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes an unknown.

我的意思是，我们必须说，以某种方式可访问或已知的信息，原则上是可以被测量的。

I mean there's some way that we have to sort of say that information that is accessible or known in a certain way is what in principle can be measured.

我的意思是，宇宙中有一部分可观测的区域，确实对应着那些我称之为已知的事物。

I mean there's some observable part of the universe that indeed corresponds to the things that are, I would say, known.

因此，当我们谈论观察者时，我们在数学方程的框架下，赋予他们能够观测所有原则上可被观测事物的极大权限。

So we do give, if we talk about observers, we give them lots of power in terms of being able to observe everything that they could in principle observe, in terms of at least our mathematical equations.

你是否认为引力的吸引力只是统计性的？如果你足够近距离地观察，或者观察足够长的时间，你会看到波动。

Do you imagine that gravity's attractive property is just statistical, and that it's just, if you were to observe close enough, or for long enough, you would see fluctuations.

在某些时刻，引力可能会逆转或暂时消失。

Some moments where it either reverses or vanishes potentially.

无论如何，我并没有一个能预测这些现象的理论，但我确实认为，在量子力学中，波动总是存在的；然而，引力具有吸引力这一事实是非常根本的，我们不可能以任何方式改变它。不过，正如我所说，引力定律在某些情况下确实可能发生改变，尤其是当我思考熵引力这一概念时——当引力变得非常微弱时，比如你认为存在偏差，这些偏差非常微小，但在引力本身很弱的情况下更容易被观测到，因为那时这些波动或偏差可能会超过引力本身的强度。

Now, anyway, I don't have a theory that predicts any of that, but I do think that in quantum mechanics there is always fluctuations, but that the fact that gravity is attractive is a very fundamental fact, that it's not something that we're gonna change in any way, but I do think that as I said, that the gravitational laws can change in certain situations, and especially, and this is one of the things I already thought about when I thought about this idea of entropic gravity, when the gravity becomes very weak, I mean if you think there are deviations, and they're very small, they're more easily seen when the gravitation, the force that we would calculate is not strong, very weak, because then these fluctuations or these deviations might actually exceed the actual strength of the gravitational force.

当我了解到我们在星系中观测到的这些效应时，我感到非常震撼，因为正是当引力和引力加速度变得非常微弱时，我们才看到了这些偏差。

And that's what I found so amazing when I learned about these effects we observe in galaxies, is precisely when the gravitational force and the acceleration due to gravity becomes very small, that we are seeing these deviations.

因此，这些偏差的发生与引力的强度有关。

So it's related to the strength of the gravitational force when the deviations occur.

所以你可能会说这是一种波动，但我不认为这会突然变成排斥力，这并不是真正发生的变化。

And so you might say this is a fluctuation, but it's not like it's gonna be suddenly repulsive, I don't think that that is the actual change that is going on.

但再说一遍，我没有一个完整的理论来解释或预测这类现象。

But again, I don't have a full theory that explains or even predicts any of that sort.

你的熵引力理论是否与宇宙学问题有关？

Does entropic gravity, your version, have any bearing on the cosmological problem?

我是说宇宙常数问题，抱歉。

The cosmological constant problem, sorry.

我认为宇宙常数问题，我觉得我们可以解决它。

I think the cosmological constant problem, I think we can solve this.

我的意思是，问题恰恰出现在你像威尔逊那样思考时，认为唯一的根本尺度是我们在紫外区、极短距离上截断的尺度，因为那样你会预期宇宙常数非常大。

I mean, it's not like, I think the problem arises precisely if you start thinking about it in the way that Wilson did, by saying that the only fundamental scale is the scale at which we cut off things in the UV, in the very short distance, because then you expect this cosmological constant to be very large.

我认为我们的宇宙还有另一个尺度，是一个非常大的尺度，这个尺度 somehow 必须进入微观描述中。

I think our universe has another scale, which is a very large scale, and somehow this has to come into the microscopic description.

我认为最终我们不必认真对待这个问题，甚至在反德西特/共形场论（AdS/CFT）中，我认为我们实际上已经解决了它，因为那里我们也会遇到同样的问题，但我们并没有看到它，所以一定有某种方式让这个问题——我想我该称它为一个误导性的问题，因为我觉得我们不必过于担心它。

I don't think we, in the end, will have to deal with this problem in any serious way, and I think even in ADS CFT, which is this anti decipher space, I think we basically already solved it there, because there we would have had the same problem as well, but we don't see it, and so there's some way that this problem, think, I mean, maybe I should call it a red herring, because I think it's not something that we should worry so much.

你说这是因为大尺度可能对小尺度产生影响。

You said it's because the large scale may have some influence over the small scale.

现在，在你对米尔格拉姆加速度的计算中，出现了类似的回响。

Now there's this echo of that in your calculation for the Milgram acceleration.

大多数物理学家认为，零等于 c h 除以六只是一个巧合，就像狄拉克的大数假说一样，我接触过的大多数物理学家都认为这只是另一种形式的数字神秘主义。

Do most physicists think that a zero equaling c h divided by six is a coincidence, just a numerical coincidence, like Dirac had his large number hypothesis, and most physicists that I speak to think that that's another form of numerology.

那么你的同事们如何看待米尔格拉姆加速度呢？

So how do your colleagues view that Milgram acceleration?

我必须说，这在社会学上是截然分开的：有些人专注于暗物质，深受它是一种粒子这一观念的影响，或者认为它必须被解释给CB；而另一些人则专注于量子引力，他们根本不会考虑粒子或暗物质的问题，甚至根本没想过这个问题。

Well, I have to say that there are really separate, sociologically separated, in the sense that people either think about dark matter, and then they're very much influenced by the ideas that it's a particle, or by the fact that, well, it has to be explained to CB and so And then there are the people that think about quantum gravity, and they don't think about particle or dark matter at all, I mean, so they have not even thought about this question.

甚至在真正关注暗物质的群体中，我认为也分为两类：一类是做观测的天文学家，他们确实被米尔格拉姆的描述非常有效这一事实所震撼，因此认为这里一定有需要解释的东西；而粒子暗物质群体则并不总是诚实地参与这场游戏，因为他们实际上是在构建模型，进行某些有效的计算，看似重现了米尔格拉姆的结论，但我认为他们并没有真正解释他的发现。

And even the community that really thinks about dark matter, I think is split between the people that are doing observations like astronomers, and the astronomers, they are really struck by this fact that Milgram's description works rather well, and so there's something that needs to be explained there, and I think that the particle dark matter community is not always playing this game honestly, because what they're doing is actually making models and having certain effective calculations that seem to reproduce what Milgram is saying, but I don't think they're really explaining his findings.

所以，无论如何，我认为这更多是一个社会学问题，但在我所在的领域，人们甚至根本不知道 A零 与 I 之间的这种巧合，我认为这并不是广为人知的事实。

So anyway, I think this is, as I said, more of a sociological thing, but certainly the people in my field are not even aware of this whole coincidence between the value of A zero and I the think it's not something that's generally known.

我本人之前也不知道这一点，我最初提出关于熵引力的想法时，并不知道这个巧合。

And I even didn't know about it, so I had written my idea about, or mean my theory about entropic gravity, and then I learned about this.

正是在那时，我开始意识到可能存在某种联系，但在此之前这从未进入我的视野。

This is when I started realizing there might be a connection, but it's not something that was on my radar before that.

我认为很多人都忽视了这一点，正如我所说，这是因为不同的社群在思考这些不同的概念。

And I think it's something that many people have ignored, and as I said, that's because it's simply different communities thinking about these ideas, these different concepts.

细心的听众可能注意到，‘复杂性’这个词被提到了几次，但随后就被搁置一旁，因为谈论复杂性本身可能太过复杂。

The Sharp eared listener probably heard that complexity was mentioned a few times, and then it was brushed aside because it may be too complex to talk about complexity.

那么，关于复杂性及其与你理论的关系，一个人至少应该了解些什么呢？

But what is the minimum that someone should know about complexity and its bearing on your theory?

复杂性是一种信息可能被隐藏的方式，我们之前谈到过，有些信息我们无法获取，这实际上是一个在量子计算中发展起来的概念：如果你考虑计算机，它们会对你的比特进行某些操作，然后你可以问，需要多少次操作才能得到某个结果。

So complexity is a way in which information can also be hidden, we talked about that we may not access certain amount of information, and it's actually a notion that was developed in quantum computing, the sense that if you think about computers, they do certain operations on your bits and so on, and then you can ask how many operations do I need to do before I get a certain result.

如果我想从一个非常复杂的数据库中提取某些信息，你可以去搜索这些信息，你可以把它想象成一个巨大的图书馆——如果你想在一座庞大的图书馆里找到一本书，你就得进行很多次查找。

If I want to sort of extract some information from a very complicated database, then you can search for, well, that amount of information, and you can think about it as a very big library, if you wanna find a book in a very big library you have to do many searches.

因此，你为找到某样东西所需执行的步骤数，本质上就是复杂性。

And so the number of steps that you need to do to find something, that is basically complexity.

所以，如果你想进行量子计算或其他计算，你需要多少次操作才能从一个计算或搜索中得到某个特定结果？

So if you want to do a quantum computation or other computation, how many operations do I need to do to get a certain outcome from a calculation or from a search?

因此，这也可以应用于物理学中，正如我之前提到的黑洞，它们可能会发射粒子等等。

And so this can also be applied in physics in the sense that I talked about black holes indeed, about how they might maybe emit particles and so on.

我们还担心的一个问题是，我们投入的任何信息是否最终会丢失，是否能够最终恢复？

One of the things we also worry about is that, well, is any information that we throw in, is it eventually lost, can we recover it eventually?

还有一个问题是，也许你可以恢复它，但这可能需要你进行海量的计算，从而使它变成一个极其复杂的操作。

There's also a question about, well, maybe you can recover it, but it might require you an enormous amount of calculation, and then it becomes a very complex operation.

所以，即使信息最终出来了，它也可能无法访问，因为你需要花费极长的时间来计算，比如使用量子计算机。

So even though it comes out, it might be inaccessible because it takes you a very long time to compute, to use a quantum computer.

因此，复杂性本质上是指我需要执行多少计算步骤，而在我们对时空如何运作甚至如何涌现的描述中，我们使用了许多与量子计算机相同的概念。

So complexity is basically how many computational steps do I need to do, and also in our description of the way that spacetime works, or even how it emerges, we are using many ideas that are actually the same as what we use in quantum computers.

我的意思是，量子计算机也基于纠缠，基于量子比特，以及信息传递的各种方式。

I mean, we think about also quantum computers are based on entanglement, they're also based on qubits and all kinds of ways in which information is being transferred.

我目前正在研究的一个想法是，我们如何在量子计算机中传递信息？我们不能直接把量子比特搬到别处，通常我们是通过量子隐形传态来实现的，也就是说，有一种叫做量子隐形传态的操作，它也需要若干步骤，而我隐形传态的量子比特数量也决定了其复杂程度。

I mean, one of the ideas I'm currently working on is also that how do we transfer information in a quantum computer, we cannot take the qubit and bring it somewhere, we usually teleport it, I mean there's something called quantum teleportation, which is also an operation that needs some steps to do it, and how many qubits I'm teleporting also will determine how complex it is.

因此，复杂性、隐形传态，以及我们在量子计算机中执行的所有步骤，某种意义上也在描述时空的微观理论中发挥着作用。

So there's some way that complexity, teleportation, or all the steps that we do in quantum computers somehow play a role also in describing this microscopic theory of spacetime.

特别是，黑洞内部似乎是一个复杂性变得非常高的地方，这也许就是为什么我们看不到它的原因——也许信息仍然可访问，但对我们来说，解码它太过复杂了。

And in particular, the interior of black holes seem to be a place where this complexity becomes very large, and that is why indeed maybe we don't see it, is because, well maybe it's still accessible, but for us it's too complex to be able to decode it.

如果你考虑黑洞，它隐藏信息并不是因为信息超出了我们的接触范围，而是因为它被以一种极其复杂的方式编码了，我们无法访问它，因为要看到它，我们必须进行这种极其复杂的计算。

And so if you think about a black hole, it might be hiding information not because it's not in our reach, but it has been encoded in such a complex way that we have no access to it, because in order to see it we have to do this very complex calculation.

当前的讨论，实际上我之前提到过上个月在普林斯顿举行的会议，我认为这些复杂性的概念在那里也扮演着重要角色。

And the current discussions, and actually I already mentioned the conference that was happening in Princeton last month, I think these notions of complexity also play an important role there.

我的意思是，量子复杂性可能比量子纠缠更能帮助我们描述宇宙，也就是说，要更好地理解像我们这样的宇宙，还需要引入这一额外的要素。

I mean there's way maybe that quantum complexity is gonna be more important to describe our universe than maybe quantum entanglement, I mean there's this additional ingredient that's gonna be needed in understanding better how we describe universes like our own.

你一个月前去的那个会议是什么会议？

What was the conference you just went to a month ago?

这是普林斯顿高等研究院举办的一次会议，那里正是爱因斯坦生命最后阶段所待的同一个研究所。

This was a conference on the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, that's the same institute where Einstein was during the last part of his life.

但那里也是我哥哥在普林斯顿大学工作的地方，所以他离得很近，而且那里还有马拉·塞纳、爱德华·威滕这样的人物。

But it's also a place where my brother actually is at Princeton University, so he's close by, but Malta Senna is there, people like Ed Witten.

但近年来，他们每年十二月都会举办一次会议，也许我该解释一下这个会议的名称——真正开创了‘信息是宇宙最重要语言’这一理念的人，其实是约翰·惠勒，我也曾在普林斯顿时认识他。

But what happened in the last years is that every December they had a meeting, and maybe I should explain the title of the meeting, mean the that really initiated the idea that information is the most important language of our universe is actually John Wheeler, also a professor I knew actually when I was at Princeton.

哦。

Oh.

他去世了，不管怎样，大概是二十年前，但他确实是许多想法的奠基人，他创造了‘黑洞’这个术语，他确实思考过这个概念。

He died, whatever, two decades ago, but he was really the founding father of many ideas, I mean, he coined the phrase black hole, I mean, he thought about this term.

他是费曼的导师，还有许多其他美妙的想法，他还曾建议贝肯斯坦思考：一杯咖啡掉进黑洞后，其中的信息会发生什么？正是这个问题促使贝肯斯坦开始思考这些议题，但唐·惠勒更进一步——我认为这是他晚年时的一个重要观点，他坚信信息是自然界最根本的语言。

He was the advisor of Feynman, and he had many other beautiful ideas, he also asked Beckenstein to talk about, to think about what was happening to the information of a cup of whatever coffee that drops into a black hole, and this is sort of what made Beckenstein think about these questions, spawking, but what Don Wheeler did further, and that's something that he did, I think towards the end of his life, actually he was very much in this idea that information was the most fundamental language of nature.

为此，他提出了一句口号，叫‘它来自比特’（it from bit）。

And so he had a phrase for that, again a slogan, it from bit, it was called.

这个观点的意思是，‘它’——也就是物质，抱歉，是我们所知的、能触摸到的事物——必须从信息中产生，而信息就是比特。

And this idea is that, namely it, which is the information, sorry, it's the matter, sort of the things that we know, I mean, that we can touch, but it has to arise from information, which is the bit.

所以‘它来自比特’正是总结了这样一个理念：信息比我们从中衍生出的事物更为根本。

So it from bit is really the summary of the idea that information is more important than the things that we derive from it.

我的意思是，粒子源自信息，时空也源自信息，因此是‘它来自比特’。

I mean, the particles are derived from information, spacetime is derived from information, so it from bits.

但现在，随着量子问题的出现，我们把这个口号更新为‘它来自量子比特’，把‘比特’变成了‘量子比特’，意思是零和一可以处于叠加态。

But now, with this whole quantum question, we've changed this into a slogan that's called it from Qubits, we make this bit into a qubit, which is this idea that zeros and ones can be sort of in superpositions.

因此，我参加的这个会议实际上来自一个已经活跃了八年的联盟，它被称为'It From Qubit'。

And so the meeting that I was at actually is from a consortium that was already active for, well, I think more than eight years, it's called It From Qubit.

是的。

Yes.

因此，我们正在讨论如何仅从基本的量子信息中推导出空间、时间、物质以及一切。

So it's really where we are discussing the question of how to derive space, time, matter and everything from just fundamental quantum information.

我认为这个联盟现在已经停止了，因为它们最初是由吉姆·西蒙斯的西蒙斯基金会资助的，但现在资金已经用完了。不过他们仍然继续推进，并举办了这一系列的下一次会议，会上有很多关于‘婴儿宇宙’的讨论，或者类似我们自身宇宙的封闭宇宙，这些概念是通过使用ADS/CFT或某些更量子化的微观描述而提出的。

And so this consortium I think already stopped because, I mean, they were funded by the Simons Foundation, from Jim Simons, but they don't have the funding anymore, but they continued, and they had now this sort of next meeting in that series, and there was lots of discussions about, well, are called baby universes, or things that are kind of like closed universes, like our own that were, well, obtained from ideas by using, well, this ADS CFT, or some more quantum microscopic description.

正如我所说，我认为有很多人在研究这个问题，正在出现大量发展和想法，我们正运用量子信息、量子纠缠和量子复杂性的语言来研究时空和引力的涌现。

And so I think, as I said, I mean there's lots of people working on this, and there's lots of developments and ideas happening where we are using the language of quantum information, quantum entanglement, quantum complexity to study the emergence of the spacetime and the gravitational loss.

无论如何，我相信这将推动我们进一步理解它在我们自身宇宙中的运作方式。

And anyway, so I believe this will lead to further progress in understanding also how it works in our own universe.

你个人是如何选择要从事的研究项目或研究方向的？

How do you personally choose what research programmes to work on, or research directions to take?

我当然会关注其他人正在做什么，有时他们的想法会与我正在思考的问题产生共鸣。我也认为，我需要了解别人在研究什么，因为我相信其他人也有非常出色的想法，其中可能包含我发展自己理论所需的工具。

I do of course follow what other people are doing, and sometimes idea resonates with what I'm thinking about, and I also think that I need to learn what other people are working on, because I do think that other people have very bright ideas as well, and they may contain the tools that I need to also develop my own theory.

所以我确实会关注有哪些想法存在，尤其是那些看起来对我所做的事情有用或非常相关的想法。

So I do look at what ideas are around there, and ideas that kind of seem useful or very relevant for what I'm doing.

而且我们之前也谈到了我的直觉，或者我还在学生时代就形成的那种感觉。

And again, we talked about the intuition or what I developed when I was already actually as a student.

有时候你会觉得，啊，这个方向是对的，它和你自己的想法产生了共鸣。

There's some way that you do feel that, ah, this is something that I think is in the right direction, and it kind of resonates with your own thoughts.

我对自己想达到的目标有一个长远的愿景。

I have a long term vision of where I wanna get to.

困难在于如何把这些想法转化为方程式，并以一种让我的同事们能够理解的方式写下来。

The difficulty is putting all the ideas into equations and writing it down in a way that my colleagues will sort of understand it.

但若我能更多地了解他们是如何思考的，以及他们产生了哪些新见解，我就能取得更大的进展。

But if I learn more about how they are thinking and what are the new insights that they are generating, I can even make more progress myself.

因此，我认为与同事合作、进行讨论，以及让年轻人进入这个领域，对于整个计划的成功至关重要。

So working together with our colleagues, I think, and having discussions, and having also younger people entering the field, that is very important for having this whole programme sort of be successful.

我不能一个人闭门造车，只靠自己推导这些方程式，我需要更多的想法和来自他人的输入。

I cannot sit by myself and simply work on my own and work out these equations, there's more ideas I need and more input from other people.

而且希望也有年轻人会来接触这些想法，并在此基础上迈出下一步。

And hopefully also some young people will come around and they will pick up these ideas and they will take the next step.

我不必独自完成所有事情。

It's not like I have to do it all by myself.

事实上，物理学通常也不是这样运作的，通常一个人迈出一步，下一个人再接着走一步，其间充满了合作与讨论。

Actually, this is usually also not the way that physics works, it's usually one person makes one step and the next one takes another one, and there's a lot of collaboration and discussion going on.

我还积极参与组织了许多会议，我们在欧洲内部进行交流讨论，当然也在美国，不过我也很高兴看到有很多年轻人在思考这些问题，还有很多聪明的人在探索新想法。

And I also involved actually in organizing many of these meetings where we are meeting and discussing also within Europe, and of course also in The US, but no, I'm happy with also the fact that there are many young people that are thinking about these questions, and very clever people that are also thinking about new ideas.

你至少需要对所追随的想法有一定选择性，而在这里，判断标准往往涉及个人品味，以及对自身应走向何方的直觉。

And you have to at least be a bit selective about what ideas you follow, but here a matter of taste and also just maybe a sense of what direction you have to go into is then necessary to select those problems.

所以你关注着这个领域，但依然追随自己的直觉。

So you keep an eye on the field, but you still follow your own nose.

没错，是的。

That's correct, yes.

正如我所说，我认为每位科学家都应当如此工作：首先了解自己的长处，同时也清楚自己相信的正确方向。

That's the way that I think, as I said, every scientist should work is that they should have a feeling of, first of all, what they're good at, but also what they believe is the right direction.

有意思。

Interesting.

你如何磨炼这种直觉，知道自己走在正确的道路上？

How do you sharpen that feeling of being on the right track?

显然，没人能确定自己是否走在正确的路上，但你确实有一些直觉。

Now, obviously, no one knows if they're on the right track, but you have some intuition.

很多学生，我相信我确实和苏斯金德谈过这个问题。

And many students, I'm sure I actually I spoke to Susskind about this.

很多学生往往会看着他们的教授，心想：好吧。

Many students, they they tend to look at their professors and say, okay.

我该学什么？或者给我一个研究课题吧？

What should I be studying or or give me a problem to work on?

苏斯金德曾抱怨，当他年轻时，他那一辈人会看着教授们，几乎带着讽刺的想法：他们根本不知道自己在说什么。

And Susskind was lamenting that when he was younger, he would look at his generation would look at the professors and almost sarcastically think they don't know what they're talking about.

真正该提出新想法的是我们。

Like, we are the ones that gotta come up with the new ideas.

我的意思是，他当时有点开玩笑。

I mean, he was joking a bit.

从某种意义上说，这确实是真实的，因为我当初和我哥哥一起做PC，他是罗伯特·德格拉夫，我还有另一位同事卡尔·容格尔·舒滕斯，我们当时属于杰拉德和霍夫的团队，现在回想起来，他那时可能快四十岁了，但霍夫已经告诉我们了。

Now in a certain way this is true even, because I started doing my PC with my brother, and that was Robert Deigraf, and I have another colleague Carl Jungal Schoutens, and we were in the group of Gerard et Hof, who I, if I now think about, was probably in late thirties, whatever, maybe almost 40, but he already told us, et Hof told us.

听起来可能有点奇怪，他说，但我已经是个老头了，你们应该去干。

It may sound strange, he said, but I'm already an old guy, you should do it.

而我们那时才二十三四岁，正是从那时起，我们决定应该追随自己的准则。

And we were like 23, 24, and this is where we already decided that we should sort of go ahead and follow our own norms.

我们没有，我必须承认，我认为没必要看着你的教授说，我想追随他的方向。

We didn't, and I have to admit that I don't think it's necessary to look at your professor and say, I wanna follow what he's saying.

不，你应该有自己的直觉，知道什么才是正确的方向。

No, you should have your own feeling of what is the right direction.

我认为这正是每一位伟大的理论物理学家应该具备的天赋，我认为仅仅追随别人的做法不会带来新的想法，你必须追随自己的想法。

I think this is what makes, I think every great physicist, a theoretical physicist should have already this talent, and I think following what other people are doing is not gonna bring the next idea, I mean, you have to follow your own ideas.

我的意思是，你必须超越别人正在做的事情，因为如果你只是跟随，你就不是在引领。

I mean, you have to go beyond what other people are doing, because if you just follow, then you're not leading.

我的意思是，你必须成为第一个提出想法的人，而不是第二个。

I mean, there's some way that you have to be the first one to have an idea, and not the second one.

大卫·格罗斯和爱德·威滕给了你哪一条建议让你印象深刻？

What's a piece of advice from David Gross and Ed Witten that stuck with you?

我觉得爱德一直强调，你也应该做自己擅长的事情。

I think with Ed, always said indeed also that you wanna work on the things that you're also good at.

我的意思是，你不可能解决所有问题，你必须专注于那些你觉得擅长的问题。

I mean, it's something that, I mean, you cannot solve all problems, I mean, you have to work on the problems that you feel that you're good at.

无论如何，这是我从他身上学到的，当然我也会观察他们做事的方式，比如他在工作上非常严谨，他的方法更偏向数学。

Anyway, that's something that I learned from him, but also, I I of course also look at the way they do work, I mean they are very precise in terms of how they do, I mean, is more mathematical in his way of working.

大卫·格罗斯提出的是大问题，我从他身上学到的是，你真的想要理解自然是如何运作的。

David Gross asked the big questions, I mean this, what I learned from David Gross is that you really want to understand how nature works.

我的意思是，这正是让他兴奋的地方，而且作为一个榜样，他思考重大问题时流露出一种由衷的喜悦。

I mean, this is really what makes him excited, and also as an example, I mean, radiates a certain joy in thinking about big questions.

我一直觉得，能思考自己感兴趣的问题，还能有像他这样的同事，我真的很幸运。

And I always think this is also how I feel is that I'm very lucky to be thinking about questions that I'm interested in, and having colleagues like him is inspiring.

我的意思是，指导不仅仅是提供建议，更重要的是以身作则，这也许就是我对它的理解。

I mean, think the mentoring is not just giving advice, it's really just also leading by example, think that's maybe how I see that.

现在为了收尾，我想回到最开始，谈谈那些乌龟。

Now to wrap, I wanna go all the way back to the beginning with the turtles.

所以当谈到什么是好问题时，我感觉你是在说，就是要发现下一只乌龟。

So when speaking about what does a good question look like, sounded to me like you were saying, it's to discover what the next turtle is.

换句话说，就是取得一些进展。

So in other words, make make some progress.

别以为你能取得终极性的突破。

Don't think you're gonna make the ultimate progress.

只要取得一些进展就行。

Make some progress.

是的。

Yes.

我想知道的是，在你心目中，这些无限的乌龟，你认为这真的就是自然的运作方式吗？

What I wanna know is, in your mind with the infinite turtles, do you imagine that that's actually how nature is?

还是你觉得下面有一只最终的乌龟？

Or do you imagine that there is a bottom turtle?

不，我认为我已经比我的大多数同事走得更远了。

No, I think I'm already going much further than most of my colleagues are.

他们很满足于在当前的框架内工作，而我认为还有一套新的理论有待发现，还有一只下一个乌龟，这让我感到高兴，因为我感觉有一件大事等着我们去做。

They're very happy to sort of work within the current framework, and I think there's a next theory to be discovered, a next turtle, and that makes me happy in the sense that I feel there's some big thing to be done.

如果我开始思考下面那只乌龟，我也会迷失方向，我的意思是，我完全不知道。

If I start thinking about the one underneath it, I'm also lost, I mean I have no idea.

所以我希望专注于下一只乌龟，我觉得我们正站在开创一种全新的引力和时空理论的边缘。

And so I wanna be thinking about the next one, and I feel that we are on the verge of making a totally new theory of the gravitational force and of spacetime.

如果你从科学如何进步的角度来看，我们曾经历过牛顿时代，他提出了一个非常优美的理论，当时人们觉得这可能就是终极答案——十九世纪的人们确实这么认为；然后爱因斯坦带来了相对论，量子力学出现后，人们虽然很高兴，但也感到困惑。

And if you think about this in the perspective of how science progresses, we went from Newton, who had a very beautiful theory where we felt that maybe that's the final thing, that's certainly what they thought in the nineteenth century, Then Einstein came along with quantum mechanics, and suddenly people were very happy but also confused.

我认为我们现在正处在一个阶段，正在用新的理论取代那些旧理论，也许不是量子力学，但肯定包括广义相对论，超越我们过去对时空等概念的理解。

And I think we're now at a level where we are replacing those theories, maybe not quantum mechanics, but certainly general relativity, by a new theory, where we go beyond what we thought was spacetime and so on.

我不认为这会是终极理论，但至少它是一大步前进，而这正是我希望贡献的理论。

I don't think it's a final theory, but at least it's one step further, and this is the theory I wanna be contributing to.

所以我不去想下一个乌龟或者下面的那个。

So I'm not thinking about the next turtle or the one underneath.

我认为我们必须跳到下一个层次这一事实很重要，但帮助我的是，我不把它视为终极理论。

I think the fact that we have to make a jump to the next one is important, but what helps me is that I'm not thinking about it as the final theory.

如果我真的把它当作终极理论，我就会以不同的方式去思考它。

I do think about it as the final theory, I would start thinking about it differently.

我希望你摘下物理学家的帽子，戴上形而上学的帽子。

I want you to take off your physics hat and put on a metaphysics hat.

我想知道的是，我知道你相信我们所能接触的，或者我们应当关注的，只是下一个乌龟。

What I wanna know is, I know that you believe that all we have access to or perhaps all we should focus on is the next turtle.

但我刚才问的是更进一步的问题：你提出了一些主张，称之为命题X。

But what I was asking was something more along the lines of, you make some propositions, call it proposition proposition x.

然后我说：那你为什么相信这个呢？

And then I say, well, why why do you believe that?

你说因为理由A。

You say reason a.

然后我说，但你为什么相信这一点？

And then I say, but why do you believe that?

你说，理由b。

You say, reason b.

然后我又说，但你为什么相信这一点？

And then I say, but why do you believe that?

你说，理由c。

You say, reason c.

然后我再次问你，你却说，理由a。

And then I ask you again, and you say, reason a.

我们会说这是循环论证，不希望这样。

Well, we would say that's circular, and we wouldn't like that.

好的。

Okay.

但这是人们可以走的一条路。

But that's one route people can take.

另一种方式是直接说：理由c，当我问你为什么相信理由c时，你回答说理由c是公理。

Another one is to just say, well, reason c, and I ask you why why reason c, and you say, reason c is axiomatic.

我无法再进一步了。

I can't go further.

还有一种方式是接着说：理由c是因为理由d，理由d是因为理由e，以此类推。

And another one is to then go, well, reason c because of reason d, because of reason e, dot dot dot.

你一直这样无限延续下去，假装字母表有无穷多个字母。

And you just keep going ad infinitum, pretend there's infinite letters of alphabet.

所以，这些都是为某种观点辩护的三种可能路径。

So those are three routes one could take for justifying something.

公理化、循环论证，还是无限倒退？

Axiomatic, circular, or infinite regress?

我想知道的是，你是否相信宇宙真的存在这种无限倒退？

What I wanted to know is, do you believe that the universe actually has this infinite regress?

还是你觉得，库尔特，这个问题很愚蠢？

Or do you believe, well, Curt, this is a foolish question.

你问我的问题超出了我的专业范围。

You're just asking me something out of my wheelhouse.

我是一名物理学家。

I I'm a physicist.

这对我来说太哲学了。

This is too philosophical for me.

或者你相信存在一个基础层面吗？

Or do you believe that there is a foundational layer?

或者你认为它是循环的吗？

Or do you believe it's circular?

所以你是从宇宙运作的逻辑方式来思考的吗？

So you think as a logical way in which the universe works?

也许存在一个终点。

Well, there may be an end.

事实上，‘乌龟一直往下堆’这个说法更多反映了我们人类能力的局限。

It's true that the turtles all the way down has more to do with what we are capable of as humans.

我认为宇宙可能以某种有限的方式描述自身，但我一直倾向于相信的一个假设是：假设存在一种描述宇宙运行方式的方法，你可以将它输入计算机，它就能计算出将要发生的事情，我们就能做出预测。

I think the universe might have a finite way in which it's describing itself, but one of the assumptions I always think that I like to believe in, is the following, that suppose there is a way of describing what's going on in the universe, and you can put it on the computer, and it would calculate what would be going on, we would be able to make predictions.

任何预测。

Any prediction.

我认为这类系统最终都会失败。

I think any system of that sort will fail.

我认为运行宇宙的最佳计算机，就是宇宙本身。

I think that the best computer to run the universe on, is the universe itself.

因此，总结宇宙运行状态最高效的方式，就是宇宙自身。

So there's no more efficient way of summarizing what is going on in the universe than the universe itself.

所以任何试图用更小的系统来做到这一点的尝试，都必须做出近似。

So any smaller thing that would try to do it will have to make an approximation.

你必须舍弃一些东西。

You have to throw away something.

宇宙本身是让宇宙运行的最高效方式。

The universe itself is the most efficient way of making the universe work.

我的意思是，这个想法对我来说也非常令人安心。

I mean, it's also for me a very reassuring idea.

我的意思是，如果宇宙的代码出现故障怎么办？

I mean, what if there is a glitch in the code of the universe?

意思是说，那里可能有个bug，导致世界明天就终结。

In the sense that there's some bug there that may make the world end tomorrow.

但事实是，这种事情从未发生，我每天都能安然入睡、醒来，我知道自己明天还会醒来。我的健康是我唯一担心的事，但宇宙不会停止运转。

The fact that that doesn't happen, I go to sleep and I wake up, I know I kind of wake up tomorrow, I mean, my own health is the only thing that I worry about, but the universe will not stop.

所以，宇宙并不像可能有什么错误，或者这些方程并不完美。

So it's not like the universe may have something wrong about it, or maybe that these equations kind of are not perfect.

不，我认为宇宙是一个完美的存在，但我觉得这正是涌现的本质。

No, I think the universe is a perfect thing, but I feel this is also what is emergence.

我的意思是，即使是意识或生命这样重要而复杂的问题，我认为我们也应该用涌现的角度来理解它们。

I mean, I think about even consciousness or life, which are very important and difficult questions, I think the way we should understand them is also in terms of emergence.

所有这类现象都是涌现。

Everything like that is emergence.

从某种意义上说，即使这种宏伟设计的想法——可能存在某种智能设计——所有这些，但我认为，如果宇宙以某种方式运行，那么涌现实际上正是让事物达到如今这般高效的方式。

And in a certain way, even this grand design idea, maybe there's some intelligent design, all those things, but I feel that if a universe works in a very, I think emergence actually is the way to make things as efficient as they are now.

我有一位同事，罗伯特·迪克哈夫特，他是一位相当著名的人物，他也经常做非常精彩的演讲，其中提到物理学家长期以来一直在寻找一种美，一种能让人感到极其优美之物。

I have this colleague, Robert Diekhaft, quite a famous guy, but he makes very nice talks also where he says one of the things that physicists were looking for for a very long time is beauty, something that makes a very beautiful thing.

但自然中也存在某种更像杂乱无章的东西，如果你看下一层，它看起来就像一堆垃圾。

But there's also something about nature that's sort of more like garbage, where if you look at the next layer it looks like garbage.

在某种意义上，美可以源自杂乱，而杂乱也可以源自美。

And in a certain way beauty can come from garbage, but even garbage can come from beauty.

如果你写下标准模型的方程，它们非常优美，但如果你构建一个极其复杂的东西，它可能会变得非常复杂，然而随后又会出现某种极其优美之处。

There's, if you write down the equations for the standard model, they're very beautiful, but if you make a very complicated thing it can become very complicated, but then there's again something very beautiful.

所以这与这些层次多少有些关联。

So this is a little bit related to these layers.

如果你读过费曼的小册子，他会提到同样的观点：在自然演进的过程中，我们看到了这样的阶段——某事物看似复杂，但突然又重新变得优美。

If you read the little books by Feynman, he kind of says the very same thing, that somehow in the progress of nature we have seen these steps where something looks complicated and suddenly it becomes beautiful again.

上世纪五十年代就是这样，当时人们发现了许多强子、介子，看起来一团混乱，但随后突然出现了夸克理论。

The fifties was like this, where people discovered many hardrons, mesons, and it looked like a mess, and then suddenly there was the quark theory.

它非常简单，又再次变得优美。

It was very simple, it was very beautiful again.

我认为最终，它是混沌的。

I think that in the end, it's chaotic.

我认为我们基本的方程可能是混沌的，而我们所看到的美或结构，只是从这种混沌描述中涌现出来的。

I think our fundamental equations probably are chaotic, and that the beauty or the structure that we see are just arising from that chaotic description.

顺便说一下，最后再提一点，也许我们根本没谈过这个话题，因为如果你真的问我，我有一个宏大的目标，甚至对我当前的物理定律感到沮丧的是，我对人类描述宇宙起源的方式并不满意。

Now by the way, now one final comment, maybe we didn't talk about this at all, because if you really ask me, I have my big goal, and actually my big, even frustration with our current laws of physics, is that I'm not happy with the way we are describing the beginning of our universe.

我认为像暴胀、大爆炸之类的所有这些概念，都只是对真实发生之事的近似。

I do think that things like inflation, or even big bang, and all that stuff, is only approximation of what really happens.

我认为混沌，甚至量子混沌，是我们讨论过复杂性但尚未提及的概念，我本该提到它，这也是一个非常重要的概念——如果你问我世界从何而来，我的答案很可能是量子混沌，一种真正的混沌微观理论。

And I think this idea of chaos, or even quantum chaos, is something that we talked about complexity, but we didn't talk about quantum chaos, which I should have mentioned, is also one of those very important concepts that if you ask me where does the world come from, probably my answer would be quantum chaos, really a chaotic microscopic theory.

所以你并不是说暴胀或大爆炸没有发生，你只是说那不是完整的故事，只是一个近似的描述？

So you're not saying that inflation or the big bang didn't happen, you're just saying that that's not the full story, that's an approximate story?

那只是一个近似的描述，但我的意思是，如果说它没有发生，其实是指它并非完整的故事，也仅仅是一个近似。

That is an approximate story, but I mean, in a sense that what I mean if it doesn't happen, it really means that it's not the full story, and it's also just an approximation.

但这也在告诉我们，我们在描述早期宇宙时忽略了很多东西。

But it's also telling us that we have been ignoring a lot in our description of the early universe.

这就是我的方法与众不同的地方，实际上这也让我更加重视‘涌现’这一概念，因为涌现总是意味着背后存在某种你可能无法完全描述或理解的东西，但至少你能理解由此衍生出的方程。

And this is where my approach is different, and actually this also makes the idea of emergence much more of an important concept in my mind, because emergence always means that there's something underneath that you may not sort of fully describe or understand, but you can at least understand the equations that follow from it.

而我所知道的最美丽的例子就是玻尔兹曼如何推导出热力学定律：他根本不知道原子或分子究竟是什么，也不了解元素周期表等一切，但他依然能够仅通过假设有原子和分子的存在，推导出热力学定律。

And again, the most beautiful example I know about is how Boltzmann got to the laws of thermodynamics, he had no ideas what the atoms were, or the molecules were microscopic level, he didn't know about the periodic table and all that stuff, nevertheless he could derive the laws of thermodynamics, simply by assuming there were molecules and atoms.

所以某种程度上，我们正在做同样的事——我们假设存在一种以量子信息为基础的微观语言，并且我们已经有一些例子，但我认为我们不会发现宇宙的微观描述，但我们确实理解了我们的定律是如何被推导出来、如何涌现的普遍原理。

So in a certain way I think we're doing the same thing, we're assuming there's a microscopic language in terms of quantum information, and we have some examples, but I don't think we will discover the microscopic description of our universe, but we do understand the general principles by which our laws are derived, are emergent.

我觉得研究这个是一件非常美妙的事，这让我感到快乐，我会在未来几十年里继续做下去，我希望如此。

I find this a beautiful thing to work on, and that's what makes me happy, and I will be doing that for the next, whatever decades, I think, so I hope.

先生，我觉得这场对话非常美妙，也让我感到开心。

Well, sir, I found this conversation beautiful and it made me happy.

所以谢谢您。

So thank you.

谢谢你，库尔特。

Thank you, Curt.

我也很喜欢。

I enjoy this too.

非常感谢。

Thank you very much.

你好，我是库尔特。

Hi there, Curt here.

如果你想获取更多《万物理论》的内容并享受最佳的收听体验，请务必访问我的Substack页面：curtjaimungal.org。

If you'd like more content from Theories of Everything and the very best listening experience, then be sure to check out my Substack at curtjaimungal.org.

其中一些顶级福利是，你每周都能提前收到全新的剧集。

Some of the top perks are that every week, you get brand new episodes ahead of time.

你还能获得专为会员提供的额外文字内容。

You also get bonus written content exclusively for our members.

网址是 c u r t j a I m u n g a l 点 org。

That's c u r t j a I m u n g a l dot org.

你也可以在谷歌上搜索我的名字和‘Substack’。

You can also just search my name and the word Substack on Google.

自从我开始这个Substack，它不知怎的就已经跃居科学类第二名。

Since I started that Substack, it somehow already became number two in the science category.

对于不熟悉的人，Substack就像一份电子通讯。

Now Substack, for those who are unfamiliar, is like a newsletter.

而且排版非常精美。

One that's beautifully formatted.

完全没有垃圾信息。

There's zero spam.

这是追踪本频道独家内容的最佳渠道。

This is the best place to follow the content of this channel that isn't anywhere else.

它不在YouTube上。

It's not on YouTube.

也不在Patreon上。

It's not on Patreon.

只在Substack上独家发布。

It's exclusive to the Substack.

这是免费的。

It's free.

如果你愿意，你可以在Substack上以多种方式支持我，这样你还能获得特别的奖励。

There are ways for you to support me on Substack if you want, and you'll get special bonuses if you do.

好几个人问我，嘿，库尔特。

Several people ask me like, hey, Curt.

你已经采访过这么多理论物理、哲学和意识领域的专家了。

You've spoken to so many people in the field of theoretical physics, of philosophy, of consciousness.

你怎么看，老兄？

What are your thoughts, man?

虽然我在采访中保持中立，但这个Substack能让你一窥我目前对这些话题的思考，也是直接支持我的最佳方式。

Well, while I remain impartial in interviews, this Substack is a way to peer into my present deliberations on these topics, and it's the perfect way to support me directly.

访问 curt jaimungal.org，或者在谷歌上搜索“Curt Jaimungal Substack”。

Curt jaimungal.org or search Curt Jaimungal Substack on Google.

另外，我收到了多位教授和研究人员的留言、邮件和评论，说他们把《万物理论》推荐给了自己的学生。

Oh, and I've received several messages, emails, and comments from professors and researchers saying that they recommend theories of everything to their students.

这太棒了。

That's fantastic.

如果你是教授、讲师或其他类似身份，并且有某一集特别出色，学生或朋友能从中受益，请务必分享。

If you're a professor or a lecturer or what have you and there's a particular standout episode that students can benefit from or your friends, please do share.

当然，衷心感谢我们的广告赞助商《经济学人》。

And of course, a huge thank you to our advertising sponsor, The Economist.

访问 economist.com/toe,toe，即可享受其年度订阅的大幅折扣。

Visit economist.com/toe,toe, to get a massive discount on their annual subscription.

我本人订阅了《经济学人》，相信你也会喜欢。

I subscribe to The Economist, and you'll love it as well.

ToE 实际上是《经济学人》目前唯一合作的播客，这对我来说是莫大的荣誉。

Toe is actually the only podcast that they currently partner with, so it's a huge honor for me.

而对你来说，你将获得专属折扣。

And for you, you're getting an exclusive discount.

那就是 economist.com/toe,toe。

That's economist.com/toe,toe.

最后，你要知道这个播客在 iTunes 上。

And finally, you should know this podcast is on iTunes.

它也在 Spotify 上。

It's on Spotify.

它在所有音频平台上都有。

It's on all the audio platforms.

你只需要搜索“ theories of everything”，就能找到它。

All you have to do is type in theories of everything, and you'll find it.

我知道我的姓氏比较复杂，也许你不想打 Jaimungal，但你可以搜索“ theories of everything”，就能找到它。

I know my last name is complicated, so maybe you don't wanna type in Jaimungal, but you can type in theories of everything, and you'll find it.

我个人通过重看讲座和播客受益匪浅。

Personally, I gained from rewatching lectures and podcasts.

我也在评论中看到，Toe 的听众也通过回放获得了收获。

I also read in the comment that Toe listeners also gained from replaying.

那么，你为什么不试着在 iTunes、Spotify、Google Podcasts 等平台重新收听呢？

So how about instead you relisten on one of those platforms like iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts?

无论你使用哪个播客客户端，我都在那里陪着你。

Whatever podcast catcher you use, I'm there with you.

感谢你的收听。

Thank you for listening.

《经济学人》以一种展现不同国家如何看待发展及其对市场影响的方式，报道数学、物理、哲学和人工智能。

The Economist covers math, physics, philosophy, and AI in a manner that shows how different countries perceive developments and how they impact markets.

他们最近发表了一篇关于中国新型中微子探测器的文章。

They recently published a piece on China's new neutrino detector.

他们还报道了通过线粒体移植延长寿命，开创了一个全新的医学领域。

They cover extending life via mitochondrial transplants, creating an entirely new field of medicine.

但他们的分析不仅限于科学，还涵盖文化、金融、经济、商业以及全球各个地区的国际事务。

But it's also not just science they analyze culture, they analyze finance, economics, business, international affairs across every region.

我特别喜欢他们本月刚推出的新功能——‘内部人士’。

I'm particularly liking their new Insider feature it was just launched this month.

它让我能近距离了解《经济学人》内部的编辑讨论，资深编辑们每周两次与世界领袖和政策制定者展开长篇辩论。

It gives you, it gives me, a front row access to The Economist's internal editorial debates, where senior editors argue through the news with world leaders and policymakers in twice weekly long format shows.

基本上是一档极其高质量的播客。

Basically an extremely high quality podcast.

另一件你该知道的事情是，如果你前往

Something else you should know about is that if you go

他们的应用程序，不仅有每日文章，还有与编辑和撰稿人合作的长篇播客。

to their app, they not only have daily articles, but they also have long form podcasts with their editors and writers.

这同样可以在网上获取。

This is also available online.

无论是科技创新还是全球政治格局的变化，《经济学人》提供的报道都超越了头条新闻，更加全面。

Whether it's scientific innovation or shifting global politics, The Economist provides comprehensive coverage beyond headlines.

作为Toll的听众，你可以享受特别折扣。

As a Toll listener, you get a special discount.

前往economist.com/toe订阅吧。

Head over to economist.com/toe to subscribe.

访问economist.com/toe即可享受你的折扣。

That's economist.com/toe for your discount.