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。
在科学中，我们还没有建立起对收集数据的观察者的模型。
We have not yet modeled the observer that's collecting the data in science.
在牛顿物理里，你会忽略观察者。
So under Newtonian physics, you ignore the observer.
在爱因斯坦的理论中，你会提到观察者，但观察者被简化成了时钟和测量点。
In Einstein, you talk about the observer because the but the observer is reduced to clocks and and measure point is.
在量子理论中，观察者变得至关重要，因为量子理论中有两种不同的情况。
In quantum theory, now the observer becomes front and center because there are two different regimes in quantum theory.
当没有人观测时，系统会按照幺正演化进行。
There's a unitary evolution when no one's looking when you don't observe.
而一旦你进行观测，就会发生所谓的波函数坍缩。
And then there's what they call the collapse of the wave function when you observe.
所以，在量子力学中，观察者一下子成了核心问题。
So all of sudden in quantum mechanics, the observer comes front and center.
但量子理论至今还没有一个被普遍接受的观察者模型。
But quantum theory has no universally accepted model of the observer.
而这一百年来，我们一直都没有这样的模型。
And we haven't had it for now a century.
唐纳德·霍夫曼，欢迎再次回来。
Donald Hoffman, welcome back.
谢谢，汤姆。
Thank you, Tom.
很高兴能再回来。
Great to be back.
能请你回来真是太好了。
It's great to have you back.
我最近刚做了一个视频，讲我们可能生活在一个模拟世界里，我越来越确信这是真的，这让我想再请你来聊聊。
So I just recently did a video about the fact that we are living in a simulation, which I am increasingly convinced is true, which made me want to bring you back on.
我们以前聊过你的理论，说我们其实像是戴着一个VR头盔，整个人类体验都发生在这个头盔里的虚拟世界中。
Now we've talked about your theory before that this is essentially we're in a headset like a VR, and the entire human experience is happening inside of that VR headset.
所以，连时空都不是真实的。
Therefore, even spacetime is not real.
对。
Yes.
不过我觉得我们在‘这是一场模拟’这个说法上会有些分歧，待会儿我会详细说明。
Now I think we're going to diverge a little bit on my sort of blanket statement that this is a simulation, and we'll get into that in a minute.
没错。
True.
但你提到一个非常大胆且让我特别感兴趣的观点：如果这真像头戴设备里的模拟程序，那我们或许能修改它的代码。
But you've started saying something incredibly provocative and very interesting for me, which is that if this is a simulation like thing inside of a headset, then we might be able to edit the code.
如果我们把物理学看作是修改这段代码的途径，那你曾说过，像核弹这样的东西，跟我们未来能做的事相比，简直就像鞭炮一样微不足道。
And if we think of physics as being the pathway to editing that code, then you've said even things like a nuclear bomb would just be firecrackers compared to what we'll be able to do in the future.
是的。
Yes.
所以你真的相信这段代码可以被修改吗？如果可以，我们是不是已经修改过它了？
So do you really believe that the code is editable, and if it is, have we already edited the code?
首先，我同意时空并不是根本性的。
First, I agree that spacetime is not fundamental.
我是个认知科学家，至于时空是否基本，当然得由高能理论物理学家来定论，对吧？
I'm a cognitive scientist, and it's really, of course, up to the high energy theoretical physicists to say whether or not spacetime is fundamental, right?
不是认知科学家的事。
Not a cognitive scientist.
但这一观点他们已经探讨了几十年了。
But they've been doing that now for for quite a few decades.
他们早就说过
They've said
说时空不是基本的。
this Saying that it's not fundamental.
时空不是基本的。
That it's not fundamental.
普林斯顿高等研究院的尼玛·阿尔卡尼-哈迈德就直接这么说。
So, Neema Arkani Hamed at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton says that flat out.
他说时空终将消亡。
Says spacetime is doomed.
它不可能是基本的。
It cannot be fundamental.
还有量子理论也是。
And also quantum theory.
所以时空和量子理论都必须从某个更深层的框架中产生。
So spacetime and quantum theory together are going to have to arise from some deeper framework.
还有很多其他著名的物理学家也持这种观点。
There are others as well, many many other famous physicists.
现在有这么多研究者在推进这项工作，连欧洲研究委员会都投入了一千万欧元，支持所谓‘正几何’的研究。
So many now that are working on this and making progress that the European Research Council has a €10,000,000 initiative on what are called positive geometries.
对。
Mhmm.
现在有数十人，甚至上百位数学家和理论物理学家，正在寻找完全脱离时空的结构，用它们来预测时空中的现象。
And there are now dozens, if not hundreds, of mathematicians and theoretical physicists who are now starting to look for structures entirely outside of spacetime that can make predictions inside spacetime.
而且他们已经找到了。
And they're finding them.
他们找到了这些被称为正几何结构的东西。
They're finding these things that are called positive geometries.
明白了。
Okay.
我得说得快一点，因为很多人在这儿就糊涂了，我向观众保证，我会尽量把这事儿讲得简单些，当然。
Really fast, because I think people get lost at this, and my promise to the audience is that I'm going to try to simplify this stuff Sure.
只要你能稍微理解一点概念，它就能打开一个隐喻，哪怕只是个隐喻也好。
To the point where if you understand just a little bit of the concept, it begins to open up a metaphor if nothing else.
我一直说，我觉得我们活在模拟中这个观点，可能只是因为它是个最好的隐喻，而不是字面上真的如此。
And so I've always said regarding my belief that we're in a simulation is that it may just be that that's the best metaphor, that it's not literally true.
你和我都清楚，无论我们现在说什么，从长远来看，都至少会显得不完整。
You and I both agree whatever we say here over in the fullness of time will be proven to be incomplete at a minimum.
当然。
Sure.
但我认为，我们活在模拟中的这个想法，是一个极其精准的隐喻，非常有启发性。
But I think that the idea that we're living in a simulation is such a profoundly accurate metaphor that it's very useful.
所以当我们说他们发现了这些正几何结构时，我的理解是，理查德·费曼当初搞出一个特别笨重的数学公式，用来描述粒子碰撞时会发生什么。
So when we talk about them discovering these positive geometries, my understanding is basically you have Richard Feynman who creates this really brute force math equation to describe what happens when particles collide.
这个公式复杂得离谱，有人一辈子就研究这一个公式。
And it's this just ridiculously complicated math equation that people will spend an entire career on a single equation.
没错。
Right.
然后出现了阿尔坎·哈马德，我老记不住这名字。
Then you've got Arkanam Hamad, I forget, I can never remember.
你说的是阿尔坎·哈马德，对吧。
You name Arkan Hamad, right.
谢谢。
Thank you.
他突然意识到，等等，这些其实能简化成几何形状，只要算出这个简单形状的体积，就能很快算出粒子碰撞时的相互作用。
He realizes, Oh, wait a second, these can actually be simplified into geometric shape, and when you calculate the volume, I think it is, that simple shape, all of a sudden, in a very fast way, you can figure out how particles will interact when they collide.
说得一点都没错。
That's that's exactly right.
一旦你放下错误的框架，而时空恰恰从原则上来讲就是个错误的框架——这一点其实很好理解，因为空间和时间不可能是现实最根本的基础层面
When you let go of the wrong framework, and spacetime is just the wrong framework for principled reasons that we can talk about that are very, simple, it's it's actually very straightforward to understand why spacetime cannot be the fundamental base level of reality at
你再说一遍。
Please say it.
第一步是，时空不过是一个科学理论而已。
The first step is that spacetime is just a scientific theory.
对吧？
Right?
所有的科学理论都只是理论。
And every scientific theory is just a theory.
它并不是真理。
It's not the truth.
每个科学理论都建立在一些假设之上，它会说：只要你接受这些前提，我就能解释其他所有现象。
Every scientific theory starts with assumptions, and it says if you grant me these assumptions, then I'll explain all this other stuff.
对。
Mhmm.
但它永远无法解释自身的那些假设。
But it can never explain its own assumptions.
我们之所以有时空这个概念，是因为做了一些前提假设，比如爱因斯坦假设光速在所有参考系中都一样等等。
So we get spacetime by making certain assumptions, like Einstein assuming that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames and so forth.
但它没法解释这些假设本身，所以我们总需要更深层的理论，来解释前一个理论的假设。
But it doesn't explain its own assumptions, and so you we will always need a deeper theory to explain the assumptions of a previous theory.
没错。
Right.
但新的理论也总会带着它自己的假设。
But the new theory will always have its own assumptions.
所以说，科学在某种程度上是非常谦逊的。
So so science is a very humble enterprise in in a way.
我们始终清楚，自己的假设并不是最终答案。
We always know that our assumptions are not the final word.
一个出色的科学理论，不仅会提供工具，让你探索它能解释的范围，还会帮你找到它自身假设的边界在哪里。
Now, a great scientific theory gives you not only the tools to explore what it can explain, the scope of what it can explain, It'll also give you the tools to explore the limits of its own assumptions.
这才叫好理论。
That's what a great theory.
结果发现，爱因斯坦的时空观加上量子理论——也就是量子场论和引力理论——恰恰给了我们工具，去揭示它们各自假设的边界在哪里。
And it turns out that Einstein's spacetime together with quantum theory, so quantum field theory and gravity, together give us the tools to show where their assumptions stop.
它们表明，在所谓的普朗克尺度下——也就是十的负三十三次方厘米、十的负四十三次方秒——时空这个概念本身根本没有任何实际意义。
So what they show is that the very notion of spacetime itself has no operational meaning at all at what's called the Planck scale, 10 to the minus 33 centimeters, 10 to the minus 43 seconds.
所以时空是一个极好的框架，非常出色。
And so that means that spacetime is a wonderful framework, brilliant.
爱因斯坦的贡献很了不起，量子力学也同样出色。
And Einstein's contributions are brilliant, so is quantum mechanics.
这些框架本身没有任何问题。
There's nothing wrong with these frameworks.
但我们早就知道，它们不可能是最终答案，毕竟只是科学理论而已。
But we knew a priori that they can't be the final word because it's just a scientific theory.
理论嘛，终究只是理论。
Theories are just theories.
但这次这个理论特别厉害，它明确指出，到了普朗克尺度，这种说法就不再成立了。
And so, but in this case, the theory is so good, it says this stops at the Planck scale.
在那个尺度上，空间时间根本没有任何实际意义。
It has no meaning, no operational mean.
如果你要说得特别清楚一点，想观测越来越小的东西，就得用波长越来越短的光或者辐射，对吧？这样才能分辨出来。
If you want to be very, very clear about that, if you want to measure things that are smaller and smaller and smaller, you need to have smaller and smaller wavelengths of light or radiation, right, To resolve them.
所以你的显微镜是靠不断缩短光的波长来观察更细微的结构。
So your microscope is using smaller and smaller wavelengths of light to resolve things.
但爱因斯坦的理论加上量子力学告诉我们，波长越短，能量就越高。
To but Einstein and and quantum theory together tell us that as you get smaller and smaller wavelengths, the energy is going up.
能量越来越高，爱因斯坦说，能量就是质量。
And as the wave energies are going up, Einstein says energy is mass.
所以质量也在增加。
Mass is going up.
质量一增加，就会让时空发生弯曲。
Curve spacetime is being curved by the mass.
最终，质量大到足以形成一个黑洞。
Eventually, the mass is so great that you create a black hole.
于是，你本来想测量的东西，反而被黑洞给毁了。
And so the very thing that you're trying to measure gets destroyed in a black hole.
如果你不甘心，想再加点能量，用更短的波长，那黑洞只会变得越来越大。
And if you get frustrated and say, I'm just gonna try to put more energy, make it a smaller wavelength, the black hole just gets bigger and bigger.
所以这实际上意味着，在10的负33次方厘米、10的负43次方秒这个尺度上，时空这个概念根本没有任何实际意义。
So it really means that the very notion of spacetime has no meaning operationally at all at 10 to the minus 33 centimeters, 10 to the minus 43 seconds.
我们很清楚，到这里就走不通了。
We know it's over.
不过大多数物理学家其实不用操心这个。
Now most physicists don't need to worry about this.
对吧？
Right?
他们做的都是日常能接触到的、正常的物理范围内的工作。
What they're doing is within the normal range of physics that that we can do every day.
但对高能理论物理学家来说，这可是个大问题，因为他们研究的是极高能量，探索当前理论的极限。
But the high energy theoretical physicists are the ones for which this is a serious issue because they're looking at the very, very high energies, and they're looking at at the at the limits of the current theory.
欧洲研究委员会正资助他们一千万欧元的项目，就是为了问：接下来该往哪儿走？
And they're the ones that that the European Research Council is funding with the €10,000,000 initiative to say, okay, what's next?
我们知道，时空在普朗克尺度那里就失效了。
We knew that spacetime stopped at the plank
因为他们真的想突破这个最小尺度的限制。
Because they really want to get beneath that minimum size.
我们需要一个更深层的理论。
We need a deeper theory.
一定存在某种更根本的科学理论，能够推导出时空。
There has to be some deeper scientific theory that gives rise to spacetime.
所以从这个意义上说，时空是从更深层的框架中涌现出来的。
So spacetime in that sense will be emergent from a much deeper framework.
我们其实已经看到一些线索了，因为人们发现了这些正几何结构，它们能让计算变得可行。
And we already get the hint that that's happening to us because we're finding these positive they're finding these positive geometries that Okay, make the computation
其实我想先跟非专业的听众解释一下，为什么我觉得‘模拟’这个比喻特别有帮助。
so do you see actually, okay, I have a follow-up question there, but I really want to ground the audience who isn't technical on why I think at a minimum the metaphor of the simulation is gonna be so helpful.
我开始做游戏开发的时候，才突然想通了这些事——当你不断做各种设计决策时，再回头看宇宙，就会觉得：等等，我居然在自己创造物理法则。
So this all started clicking for me when I started doing video game development, and all of a sudden you're making all these decisions and you start looking at the universe and you're like, wait, I'm having to create physics.
你一边看着真实世界，一边模仿它的各种规律，就为了让你的游戏能正常运行。
So you're looking sideways at the real universe and you're like, I'm mimicking all of these things that I see in the real world to get this thing to function.
然后你再深入到画面渲染这一步。
And then you start getting to rendering.
当我意识到，我得花这么多心思去设计游戏世界的渲染方式时，突然发现，诺贝尔奖居然颁给了证明‘宇宙并非局域实在性’的研究——换句话说，宇宙只在被观测或互动时才‘渲染’出内容。
And once I realized I've got to put all this thought into how the game world renders, and then you find out that there was a Nobel Prize awarded for proving that the universe is not locally real, which is a fancy way of saying that the universe only renders what is being measured or interacted with.
比如你抬头看月亮，它之所以呈现出来，是因为你这个观测者需要它存在。
So you could say if you look at the moon, it renders because you need to for that, perceiving agent.
要准确定义这一点其实挺复杂的，因为这不光关乎有意识的观察者，不过在这点上我们可能看法不同。
It gets very tricky how you want to define that because it isn't just about conscious agents, though this may be where we disagree.
没错。
Sure.
但我觉得，只要是需要与之互动或测量的东西，它才会被呈现出来。
But I would say it's anything that needs to interact or measure that thing.
这其实就是宇宙运行的方式。
That's how the universe actually works.
这同样也是游戏运行的原理。
That's also how a game actually works.
于是我开始意识到，宇宙本质上只渲染它必须渲染的部分，而且它始终在追求计算效率。
And so I started going, woah, the fact that the universe effectively only renders what it must render and that it is always seeking computational efficiency.
我当时就想，这太离谱了。
I was just like, Yo, this is too weird.
当我们谈到普朗克尺度时，如果有人只是说：哦，对，超过这个尺度的东西就不渲染了，因为你有个像素分辨率。
So when we start talking about the Planck scale, if people just go, Oh yeah, you don't render anything beyond that scale because you have a pixel size.
比喻嘛，我完全接受这个说法。
Now metaphor, sure, I'm fine with that.
但如果你意识到，其中一个迹象能说明这可能不是基础现实——那就是它的边界大小恰好与计算机里的像素尺寸或时间步长完全吻合，因为在做游戏时，代码的检查是有固定频率的。
But if you recognize that, oh, one of the ways that you can tell that this isn't base reality, let's say, is that it has this finite size that happens to map exactly to the idea of a pixel size or a tick speed in a computer, because when you're doing a game, there's a speed at which it checks with the code.
所以，现实宇宙也有自己的时钟频率和像素极限，这简直太不可思议了。
And so the fact that the real universe also has a tick speed and a finite pixel size is just too wild.
就算最后发现我哪里想错了，哪怕这个想法只帮你部分理解了它，也足以让你对这个问题有很深的领悟。
And so if nothing else, even if that ends up being proven like, oh, there's something that I'm missing, and it gets you part of the way there to understanding it, it still gets you a long way to understanding it.
所以今天聊的时候，我会尽量用这个比喻作为切入点，帮大家理解为什么一听到宇宙的真实运作方式，很多人会当场愣住。
And so as we talk today, I'm going to try to anchor the audience at a minimum in that metaphor to help them understand why this kind of thing stops people in their tracks when they start hearing how the universe actually operates.
没错。
Right.
关于只在需要时才渲染这一点，我完全同意你的看法。
Well, I'm on the same page with you completely on the rendering only as you need it.
但我得明确说清楚，目前物理学界对这个问题还存在分歧。
But I should be very, very clear that physics today is divided on this issue.
一些物理学家，尤其是高能理论物理领域的，都承认在普朗克尺度下，时空本身是不成立的。
So some physicists, I mean, they all recognize the high energy theoretical physicists, all recognize that spacetime is doomed at the Planck scale.
这一点是没有争议的。
So that's that's not in question.
有争议的是，我们该如何应对这个问题，以及如何处理量子理论。
What is in question is what to do about it and what to do with quantum theory.
因此，有一些所谓的本体论方法，它们仍然坚持认为，无论你是否渲染，某些东西始终真实存在。
And so there are so called primitive ontology approaches, where they still try to have something that's there all the time, whether you render it render it or not.
对。
Mhmm.
比如德布罗意-玻姆的量子理论解释，就认为粒子始终真实存在，它沿着量子导波运动，而不是在观测时才被生成。
So the Broglie Bohm interpretation of quantum theory, for example, has a particle that's riding on the quantum pilot wave, but there really is a particle all the time, and it doesn't get rendered on the moment.
所以我得特别强调一下，虽然你和我看法一致，但物理学界在这个问题上分歧很大。
So I so I just wanna be very, very clear that even though you and I are on the same page, the physics community is divided on this.
还有另一些人认为，量子波函数其实就像一个叫量子贝叶斯主义的理论，它主张波函数仅仅描述观察者对结果的信念程度，别无他物。
There are others who will say that the quantum wave function really is like, for there's a program called cubism, so quantum Bayesianism, that says the the quantum wave function really just describes the degrees of belief of the observer and nothing else.
完全就是信念的度量。
It's complete Degrees of belief.
对你会看到什么的信念，挺有意思的。
Degrees of belief about what you will see Interesting.
当你观测时，你会发现其实
When you observe, what you'll find when you
观测的时候。
observe.
先休息一下，稍后继续带来《影响理论》。
Taking a short break, but there's more Impact Theory after.
敬请期待。
Stay tuned.
大多数人不知道，美国每四户家庭中就有三户的自来水含有有毒化学物质。
Most people don't realize that three out of four US homes have toxic chemicals in their tap water.
普通冰箱滤芯根本无效，瓶装水也含有大量微塑料。
Standard fridge filters aren't cutting it, and bottled water is also loaded with microplastics.
Aqua True 是一款台式净水器，采用专利的四阶段反渗透系统。
Aqua True is a countertop water purifier with a patented four stage reverse osmosis system.
经过检测认证，可去除多达84种不同污染物。
It's been tested and certified to remove 84 different contaminants.
这远不止是普通滤水器那么简单。
This goes way beyond ordinary filters.
不用改管道，也不用安装，直接喝到真正有益健康、而不是损害健康的好水。
No plumbing's required, no installation, just pure water that actually supports your health instead of sabotaging it.
《商业内幕》和《大众科学》都曾专门介绍过它。
Business Insider and Popular Science have both featured it.
《好管家》评它为最佳台面净水器，98%的用户都说水质更干净、更安全、更健康。
Good Housekeeping named it the best countertop water filter, and 98% of customers say their water is cleaner, safer, and healthier.
去 aquatru.com，用优惠码 impact，立享八折。
Head to aquatru.com and use promo code impact for 20% off.
Aqua True 还提供三十天最佳口感保证。
Aqua True even comes with a thirty day best tasting water guarantee.
赶紧去 aquatru.com，用优惠码 impact，现在就下单吧。
So head to aquatru.com and use promo code impact to get yours today.
咱们来聊聊大多数男性反复犯的最差投资——买便宜衣服。
Let's talk about the worst investment most guys make on repeat, cheap clothes.
你买的时候看着挺不错，可六个月后就开始起球、缩水，或者直接散架了。
You buy them, they look fine, but six months later, they're pilling, shrinking, or just falling apart.
于是你又换新的，一遍又一遍地重复这个过程。
So you replace them and you do it again and again.
时间一长花的钱越来越多，可最后啥好衣服都留不住，穿得也不舒服。
You're spending more over time and you never actually have anything worth keeping or wearing for that matter.
Quince 的理念就是彻底改变这种模式。
That's the whole model behind Quince.
我穿了他们家的100%皮马棉T恤，一拿起来就能感觉到品质不一样。
I've got one of their 100% Pima cotton tees and the quality is immediately obvious from the second you pick them up.
面料柔软，做工扎实，越穿越有味道，这正是他们想做到的。
They're soft, well constructed, the kind of thing that holds up over time, and that is the point.
用真正值得拥有的高品质单品，升级你的日常穿着。
Refresh your everyday with luxury you'll actually use.
去 quince.com/impactpod 下单，享受包邮和365天无理由退换。
Head to quince.com/impactpod for free shipping on your order and three sixty five day returns.
现在加拿大也能买到了。
Now available in Canada too.
这就是Quince，访问 quince.com/impactpod，享受免费配送和365天无理由退换。
That's Quince, Q U I N C E dot com slash impact pod for free shipping and three sixty five day returns.
quince.com/impactpod。
Quince.com/impactpod.
咱们聊聊你柜子里藏着的东西吧。
Let's talk about what's hiding in your cabinet.
数一数那些瓶子吧——三月就停了的复合维生素，四月就忘在脑后的绿粉，还有深藏在柜子最里头的蘑菇胶囊。
Count the bottles, the multivitamin you stopped taking back in March, the greens powder you forgot about in April, the mushroom capsules buried all the way in the back.
这可不是什么健康养生计划。
That's not a wellness routine.
这分明是个保健品墓地。
It's a graveyard.
问题从来不在成分上。
The problem was never the ingredients.
是形式的问题。
It's the format.
这正是Nondica由Peak与众不同的地方。
That's what makes Nondica by Peak different.
我试过了。
I've tried it.
真的特别棒。
It is awesome.
这是少数不会让你觉得像负担的产品。
This is the rare product that doesn't feel like a chore.
Nondica是一种仪式感可可类神经增强剂，喝起来真的像你每天早上都想喝的东西。
Nondica is a ceremonial cacao nootropic, and it actually tastes like something you want to drink every morning.
但里面的成分非常出色。
But what's inside is fantastic.
含有全谱灵芝，还包括孢子粉，增强细胞韧性。
Full spectrum Reishi, including spore powder for cellular resilience.
喝一杯就能带来平静的能量、更好的心情、更专注的思维，还有细胞层面的支持。
Just one cup can deliver calm energy, an elevated mood, sharper focus, and cellular support.
别再堆一堆你根本不会吃完的补品了。
Stop stacking a bunch of supplements you're never going to finish.
去 peaklife.com/impact 购买，立享八折优惠。
Get 20% off at peaklife.com/impact.
就是 peaklife.com/impact。
That's piquelife.com/impact.
谢谢你的收听。
Thanks for staying tuned.
好了，我们继续。
Now let's get back to it.
现在或许你可以先想想，你认为的‘基础现实’是什么，然后我来坦白一下，我对基础现实的看法——这才是准确的说法。
It may be a good time for you to define what you think is base reality, and then I'll make a confession about what I think about base reality, which is the right way to say it.
所以我们得把这两件事区分开来。
And so we're going to need to keep those things apart.
所以快速说一下，你认为头盔之外的世界是什么样的？
So really fast, tell people what you think is outside of the headset.
基本上，这个想法源自莱布尼茨在单子论里提出的观点。
Basically, the idea is something that Leibniz proposed in his monadology.
他说，我们必须从观察者开始。
He said we need to start with the observer.
他把这些观察者称为单子。
He called them monads.
他还说，我们需要单子，以及某种预先设定的和谐。
And he said we need to have monads and some kind of pre established harmony.
没人知道单子是什么吗？
No one knows what a monad is?
是的，其实就是观察者。
Yeah, so it's just an observer.
这只是一个能观察的主体。
This is just an observing entity.
约翰·惠勒，费曼的博士导师，也得出了同样的结论。
And John Wheeler, who was Feynman's PhD advisor, John Wheeler came to the same conclusion.
他基本上说，我们应该从他所说的‘观测参与者’出发，重新开始物理学。
He basically said, We need to restart physics with what he called observer participants.
我们需要为这些观测参与者建立某种数学模型，并加以说明。
We need to have some kind of mathematical model of those and show
你认为它们必须是有意识的吗？
Do you think they need to be conscious?
我个人认为它们确实需要有意识，但我正在研究的数学模型也允许非意识的解释。
My own personal view is yes, that they need to be conscious, but the mathematics that I'm working on allows a nonconscious interpretation.
这并不会造成问题。
It wouldn't be a problem.
明白了。
Okay.
所以我个人是把它当作有意识的来思考，但当你看数学本身时，并不需要非得说它有意识。
So I'm personally thinking about it as conscious, but when you look at the mathematics, you don't have to say conscious.
你可以说，那只是某种类似意识的表象而已。
You you can just say the the appearance that something is like consciousness or something like that.
所以，当我思考自己在做什么时，其实我是在构建一个观察过程的模型。
So it's really, when I think about what I'm doing, it's it's a model of the observing process.
这种观点在科学中特别重要，因为你要想想，科学本质上是一群人用实验设备仔细观察世界。
And the reason that that's really critical in science is if you think about what science is, it's a bunch of people that are looking at the world carefully with experimental equipment.
我们是在观察这个世界。
But we're looking at the world.
我们彼此交流。
We're talking with each other.
对。
Mhmm.
我们还在相互比对各自的观察结果。
And we're comparing our observations.
你会得到什么样的观察结果？
What kinds of observations do you get?
那我能得到什么？
What do I get?
什么样的世界结构才能解释我们的观察？
What structure of the world would explain our observations?
所以我们并不是置身事外的。
So, we're not removed from this whole thing.
我们必须理解，我们的观察是如何与所构建的理论产生关联的。
There is we have to understand how our observations interface with the theories that we're trying to build.
这才是关键所在。
And so that's the critical thing.
在科学发展中，像牛顿时代那样，我们忽略了观察者本身。
And what's happened in science is we, in Newton, we ignored the observer.
我想问一下，你觉得在生命出现之前，宇宙就已经存在了吗？
Let me ask, do you think the universe was rendered prior to biological life?
生物与非生物之间的区分，其实只是我们认知框架的产物。
The distinction between biological life and non biological life, the non biological entities is an artifact of the headset.
我觉得这并不是一个根本性的区别。
I don't think it's a principal distinction.
明白了。
Okay.
那答案大概就是：是的。
So the answer would then be, I guess yes.
好的。
Okay.
它在生命出现之前就存在了。
It's prior to biology.
我觉得生物与非生物之间的区别并没有实质依据。
I think that the distinction between living and non living is not principled.
我认为这只是我们感知局限所造成的一种假象。
I think that it's an artifact of the limitations of our perceptual headset.
我提醒你一下，你之前说过，等我们谈到人工智能时还会提到这一点。
I'm going to remind you that you said that when we get to artificial intelligence.
因为我以前听过你谈人工智能，本来以为你会给出不一样的回答。
Because I've heard you say things about artificial intelligence that would have made me expect a different answer there.
对。
Yes.
好吧，你还没说那句话，那我就把这副‘认知眼镜’摘下来。
Okay, so we, you haven't said the thing yet, so I take the headset off.
没错。
Right.
那接下来是什么？
And what's there?
根本的结构到底是什么？
What is the fundamental structure?
真正存在的，是一群观察者在相互作用。
What's really there is a bunch of observers interacting.
明白了。
Okay.
真的吗
Really
你称之为有意识的主体。
That you would call conscious agents.
是的，我会称它们为有意识的主体，但如果有人不认同意识是根本的，那我就直接说观察者。
Yes, I'll call them conscious agents, but if someone, I should say if someone doesn't like to have consciousness fundamental, then I would just say observers.
就叫它们观察性主体。
Just call them observing agents.
这就够了。
That's all you need.
明白了。
Okay.
一听到‘观察性主体’这个词，我猜大多数人会想到某种不一定有意识的东西，比如人工智能、青蛙、人类，或者蚊子。
When I think of the words observing agent, I think most people are gonna conjure like a thing that is maybe not conscious, but either is an AI entity, is a frog, is a human, is a mosquito.
他们可能会联想到某种灵体、幻影，或者神明。
Like, they're going to have some sense of like that or a ghost or an apparition or a god.
他们会被自己看过的那些词和画面困住，我担心这个隐喻会不断把他们拉回虚拟现实里，让他们很难触及更根本的真相。
Like, they're going to be so trapped in the words and images that they've seen that I fear that the metaphor is going to keep pulling them back into the headset, and they're going to have a very hard time getting to a more foundational truth.
所以你的说法是意识主体。
So yours it is conscious agents.
这就是最终答案了吗？
Final answer?
是的，那你觉得呢？
Yeah, or what do you believe?
我觉得最能让大多数人理解的说法是，我从数学角度把观察者当作最基础的概念。
Think the thing that I should say that would probably be the most understandable to the widest audience is just simply I have a mathematical notion of an observer as the foundational notion.
给我一个最冷门的观察者例子。
Give me the most obscure example of an observer.
顺便说一句，观察者其实非常
So all by the way, an observer is very,
简单。
very simple.
想象你坐在红绿灯前，注意力全在灯上，能看到红色、绿色或者黄色。
Imagine yourself sitting at a stoplight, and you're focused on the stoplight, and you can see red, green, or yellow.
对。
Yep.
这是一个非常简单的观察者，能分辨三种颜色。
Here's a very, very simple observer that can see three colors.
你有一段时间看到的是红灯，然后可能变成绿灯，接着又变成黄灯。
And for a while you see red, and then maybe it turns to green, and maybe it turns to yellow.
对我来说，观察者就是一个能拥有多种体验的实体，比如看到红、绿、黄，而且这些体验是会变化的。
So for me, an observer is just simply an entity that can have a range of experiences, like red, green, and yellow, and those experiences change.
这也就是我所说的观察者的全部意思。
And that's literally all I mean by an observer.
那灯照着的那块混凝土，算不算观察者？
Is the concrete that the light is shining on an observer?
你所感受到的任何东西，都是一种体验。
Anything that you experience is an experience.
所谓观察者，其实就是有能力拥有各种体验，并且这些体验会不断变化的主体。
That itself is the observer is the capacity to have experiences and have those experiences change.
所以你看到的任何东西——比如这张桌子、混凝土、街道——都是观察者可能经历的体验。
So anything that you see, like this table my or or concrete or, you know, a street, those would all be experiences that an observer can have.
但观察者本质上是一个能拥有多种体验的实体，可能是三种，也可能是上百万种。
But the observer is really an entity that has the capacity to have a range of experiences, maybe three, maybe a million.
在这种情况中
In the case
那我们是否同意，光子探测器也算一个观察者？
of Do we thousand agree and that a photon detector is an observer?
所以我们现在得明确，什么是真正的观察者，什么只是观察者的某种表征。
So now we have to actually say what's an observer versus what is a headset representation of an observer?
当我有
So when I have
不过我们现在讨论的是，头戴设备是关闭的。
Well, so we're talking about the headset is off.
这正是我想弄明白的地方。
This is what I'm trying to figure out.
哦，原来如此。
Oh, okay.
你把头盔摘下来的时候。
And so you take the headset off.
当你提到‘有意识的主体’时，我明白他的立场。
When you say conscious agent, I think I understand his position.
我不认同，但我理解他的观点。
I don't agree with it, but I understand his position.
一旦你开始讲那些限定条件，我就在往你身上投射我的想法。
When you start going into the caveats, then I'm projecting onto you.
这时候我就觉得，他其实想说的是我心目中那个根本问题，但我得先把你的话钉死在某个点上，才能确定。
Now I'm like, Oh, he's trying to get to what I think is the fundamental thing, but I won't know until I can pin you down on Right.
那个根本问题其实是抽象的。
So the fundamental thing is abstract.
根本的东西其实就是一组可能的经验。
The fundamental thing is literally a set of possible experiences
对。
Uh-huh.
还有一组矩阵，说明经验之间变化的概率。
And a matrix that says what's the probability of the changes of experiences.
就这么简单。
That's it.
明白了。
Okay.
那这就是一个马尔可夫链。
So that's a Markov chain.
这确实是个马尔可夫链，而且是抽象的。
It's a Markov chain, and it's abstract.
所以当你提到光子、光子探测器之类的东西时，那完全是另一回事。
So when you talk about a photon a photon detector or something like that, that's a different thing.
现在就是这样
That's now
光子其实已经存在于头显里了
Well, photons are already inside the headset.
这些东西本来就都在头显里面
That's already in the headset.
没错
That's right.
是的，我只是想确认一下，你是否同意这一点？让我简单说说我的看法，然后我们再深入讨论
Yeah, but I was just trying to figure out if you would agree that that is, because, okay, let me briefly say what I think it is, and then let's do battle
我们来看看能不能理清一些东西
and So see if we can figure something
我认为宇宙本质上是可计算的
I think the universe is computational.
我之前还有一件事想坦白，就是当你摘下头显，或者退出这个模拟世界的时候
And I said I had a confession about when you take the headset off or when you exit the simulation.
我觉得，一旦你走出这个矩阵，在我看来，你必须面对唯一真正重要的问题。
I think the second you exit the matrix, in my language, you have to confront the only question that matters.
为什么会有存在，而不是什么都没有？
Why is there something instead of nothing?
这 literally 是所有科学、所有探索、所有问题的核心——上帝在想什么？
That is quite literally every science, every inquiry, every question, what are God's thoughts?
最终，所有这些都会归结到一个问题：一个不动的推动者，怎么可能存在？
All of it is going to wind up with how is it possible that there is an unmoved mover?
有些东西，一直存在，也将永远存在，就这么摆在那里。
Something that always was and always will be is just there.
这真的很难让我们去理解。
Like, it is very hard for us to grapple with.
我的答案只有一个：我完全不知道。
My only answer is I have no idea.
所以我只能试着去思考：我身在矩阵之中。
So I am only attempting to grapple with I'm in the matrix.
我觉得根本逃不出去。
I don't think there's any way out.
我不认为摘掉头盔就能脱身，而我今天想试着
I don't think there is removing the headset, and I will attempt
说服你
to convince you
在我们今天的对话中确认这一点。
of that in our time together today.
对我而言，我想弄清楚的是，你心里一定有一些前提假设，才让你对这场对话感兴趣。
So for me, part of what I'm trying to figure out is there's some set of assumptions that you have that make you interested in this whole conversation.
我觉得，能修改代码的能力，正是推动你的原因之一。
And I think the ability to edit the code is part of what drives
而我
you.
驱动我的是理解这个世界如何运转，好让我作为一个普通人，知道怎么充分利用这段经历。
Whereas for me, the thing that drives me is understanding how the world works so that as a human, I know how to make the most of this experience.
对。
Right.
总之，就这样了。
Anyway, period.
所以我坦白一下头盔外面的情况，是想让大家明白：我们其实身处矩阵之中，就在头盔里，唯一重要的是，这个宇宙和电子游戏一样，本质上是可计算的。
So my confession about what's outside the headset is so I can get people to understand, okay, we're in the matrix, we're in the headset, and the only thing that matters is that the universe is computational in the exact same way that a video game is computational.
没错。
Yes.
宇宙之所以不是局域实在的，原因和电子游戏世界一样——你想想《我的世界》有多大。
The reason the universe is not locally real is for the same reason that a video game world, which feels gigantic to like, think about how big a Minecraft world is.
一旦你在游戏里测量，它的规模是地球的八倍大。
It's eight eight times the size of planet Earth once you take a measurement inside the game.
是的。
Mhmm.
假设游戏里一米是这个单位，和地球相比，它的实际规模大约是八倍。
Say this is a meter in the game, and then compared to the size of Earth, it's about eight times bigger.
所以这些世界大得惊人，却全靠一两块芯片处理。
So the worlds are just staggeringly large, yet it's all processed on one or two chips.
因此，游戏中看似互不相干的事物，其实都是在同一个地方运算的。
And so it's things that feel disparate in the game are actually being processed in the exact same spot.
正因如此，我们才会困惑：这么庞大的时空，怎么可能跨越远超光速的距离进行通信？
So getting people to understand that, I think, is precisely why we're like, wait, how could this gigantic thing called spacetime communicate over distances that would require it to break the speed of light?
但其实并没有，因为所有东西都在同一个地方被处理。
But it's not actually because it's all being processed in the same place.
所以如果你回头想想这一点，就会明白，这确实就像一款电子游戏——而电子游戏本质上就是模拟中的模拟，一切就都说得通了。
So that is where I think if you come back to that, that this is literally functioning like a video game and video games are basically a simulation inside of a simulation, it will all start to make sense.
但只要你一问，模拟之外是什么？我们能接触到吗？
But the second you ask what's outside the simulation and can we access it?
那我就会说，这根本就没什么意义。
Then I'm like, doesn't, it doesn't even make sense.
我首先想说，我同意你的观点，计算确实是界面的核心，而马尔可夫链在计算上是通用的。
First would say, yes, I like your idea about computation being the driver of the interface and the Markov chains are computationally universal.
展开剩余字幕（还有 423 条）
任何图灵机能做的，马尔可夫链也能做到。
So anything that can be done with universal Turing machine can be done with Markov chains.
我赶紧解释一下，这些内容我也是刚查的，如果你听到‘马尔可夫链’这词，心里想‘这到底啥玩意儿’，我懂。
And really fast, I just want to explain, I had to look all this stuff up, so for anybody that's like Markov chain, what the hell is that?
没错。
Right.
我明白你的感受。
I feel your pain.
马尔可夫链是一种数学工具，用来描述一件事如何过渡到另一件事。
A Markov chain is the mathematics that explain how one thing transitions to another.
对，就是这样。
That's right.
我觉得现在比较有帮助的是举个游戏例子，比如《侠盗猎车手》这类游戏。
I guess the direction that would be helpful right now would be to point out that in the video game, say, Theft Auto or something like that.
是的。
Yeah.
对吧？
Right?
你开着一辆车。
You have a car that you're driving.
你看到方向盘。
You see a steering wheel.
你有一个角色形象。
You have an avatar.
你看到角色的手握着方向盘。
You see your avatar hands gripping the wheel.
你看到其他人开着他们的车。
You see other people driving their cars.
你看到他们的角色形象。
You see their avatars.
但你并不是你的角色形象。
But you are not your avatar.
你根本不在游戏里面。
You are outside the game altogether.
你坐在某个地方，喝着可乐之类的，玩着游戏。
You're sitting somewhere with a Coca Cola or something like that playing the game.
但游戏里的角色并不是你。
But the avatar in the game is not you.
它看起来像你。
It looks like you.
如果你完全沉浸在游戏中，就可能暂时把自己代入那个角色。
And if you get immersed in the game, then you can identify with the avatar temporarily.
所以，如果你想成为游戏高手，当然得学会怎么玩好。
So, you do want to learn how to play the game well, to be if you want to be an expert in the game.
但你也可以抽身出来，意识到游戏之外还有一个完全不同的世界。
But you can also step back and say there's a world entirely outside the game.
我在这里想强调的隐喻是：这不只是说说而已，你真的可以去查看代码。
And the metaphor I'm pushing here is it's not only possible to say that, it's possible to actually look at the code.
在虚拟现实游戏之外，还存在着其他软件。
There is software outside of the virtual reality game.
科学完全有能力去获取这些软件，并弄清楚它们是怎么运作的。
And science is eminently up to the task of getting that software and figuring it out.
这正是我目前正在做的事。
So that's what I'm up to.
我说的是，没错，汤姆，我同意你的观点。
I'm saying, yes, I agree with you, Tom.
我们当然应该学会在模拟中好好生活，过得充实快乐，但要想明白我们其实可以跳出这个系统，并不难——因为我不是霍夫曼的那个虚拟形象。
We should learn how to live in the simulation, to live good lives, enjoy ourselves, but it's not at all hard to think about the possibility that we can step out of this because I am not the Hoffman avatar.
我超越了那个形象。
I transcend that.
你也不是那个汤姆的虚拟形象。
You're not the Tom avatar.
你真正的本质，远比那个汤姆或唐的虚拟投影要深刻得多、强大得多，那不过是头戴设备投射出来的一个微不足道的幻影罢了。
You trans whatever you are, the Tom avatar is a trivial headset projection of something far more interesting, far more powerful than the little Tom and the little Don that are sitting right here.
这些只是被困在游戏规则里的小化身。
These are little avatars stuck in the rules of this game.
我们超越了这个游戏。
We transcend the game.
正因为如此，科学才有可能超越时空，找到真正渲染这个头显的最底层软件。
And it's possible because we transcend the game for science to transcend spacetime and to actually find the first layer of software that's rendering this headset.
目前，理论物理学家们正在做这件事。
And so the theoretical physicists are doing this right now.
他们正在发现正几何结构。
They're finding the positive geometries.
他们还在苦苦思索。
They're still scratching their head.
这到底意味着什么？
What does this mean?
但我们才刚刚开始。
We're just starting, though.
我提出用马尔可夫链的方法来解决这个问题，这是一个数学上严谨的框架，能够推导出底层软件，精确渲染爱因斯坦的弯曲时空、量子场论、非定域性，还有你懂的，所有这些都会从更深层的软件中自然涌现。
I'm proposing a Markov chain approach to this, which I'm saying this is a mathematically rigorous framework that will give us the software that can exactly render curved spacetime of Einstein, quantum field theory, non locality, comp you know, all of these things will come out of a deeper layer of software.
科学完全有能力在游戏之外，脱离这个虚拟现实世界，严谨地写出这层底层软件，并清晰展示这个虚拟世界是如何被渲染出来的。
And it's eminently within the power of science to rigorously write down this first layer of software outside of these outside of this game, outside of this VR game, and show exactly how this VR game is rendered.
我之所以想做这个，只是因为我是个极客科学家，纯粹想搞明白它。
And I wanna do that simply because I'm a geek scientist, and I just wanna understand it.
但你很容易就能想到，这项研究会带来什么样的技术突破。
But you can easily see the technology that would come out of this.
因为你想想，如果你是《侠盗猎车手》里的高手，你知道怎么在游戏规则内把车开到极限。
Because if you are the person so if you're a wizard in Grand Theft Auto, you know how to drive the car as fast as you can in the rules of the game.
那你就是游戏里的大神。
And so you're the wizard in the game.
但如果你根本不会开车，却写了这个游戏的代码呢？
But if you're just someone who can't drive very well, but you wrote the software.
对吧？
Right?
你其实开不好车，但你写了这个游戏的代码。
You couldn't actually play the game very well, but you wrote the software.
你懂里面的程序。
You know the code.
你能做出让那个高手觉得不可思议的事。
You can do stuff that's miraculous to the wizard.
你可以把他的轮胎放气。
You can take the air out of his tires.
你可以把他的油箱抽空。
You can take the gas out of his tank.
你还能让他的车变成一头驴，慢悠悠地只跑五英里每小时。
You can make his car turn into a donkey and have him going, you know, five miles an hour.
你能做任何事。
You can do anything.
你能做到奇迹般的改变，因为你不在游戏里面。
You can do miracles because you're not stuck in the game.
你并不是游戏里的那个角色。
You're not the avatar in the game.
你超越了这个游戏。
You transcend the game.
因此，这也是科学将提供的重要证据之一：你不是你的身体。
And so that will be one of the big evidences from science that you are not your body.
当我们真正能够超越时空，像游戏作者摆弄自己写的游戏一样操控时空时。
When we can actually transcend spacetime and play with spacetime, like a game writer can play with the game that they've written.
这正是我想要说明的。
So that's what I'm after.
我说的是，你根本无法想象这些技术将来会发展到什么地步。
I'm saying and then you can't think big enough about the technologies that will come out of it.
对吧？
Right?
如果你能操控时空，你就不会被时空的规则束缚住了。
If you can play with spacetime, you're not stuck with inside the rules of spacetime.
爱因斯坦的定律，你知道的，说不能超过光速。
So Einstein's laws, you know, can't go faster than the speed of light.
在虚拟现实里确实如此。
That's true in the headset.
但如果你在写代码，那就另当别论了。
It's not true if you're writing the code.
你想怎么改都行。
You can do whatever you want.
只要你明白时间和空间是怎么渲染出来的，就能随意操控它们，做出不可思议的事。
And if you can start to play with time and space because you know how they're rendered, then you can do miracles.
所以我才说，我们现在的所有技术，一旦有了第一层脱离头显的软件，立刻就会显得过时。
So that's why I say all the technologies we have right now will look completely antiquated as soon as we get the first layer of software outside the headset.
科学根本没必要被时空数学所束缚。
And there's absolutely no reason why science should be limited to spacetime mathematics.
完全没必要。
Absolutely none.
原因是你并不被束缚在空间里。
And the reason is because you are not stuck in space.
你不是时空中的一个物体。
You're not an object in spacetime.
你的思维和能力超越了时空，因为你此刻正在渲染整个时空。
Your mind, your your abilities transcend spacetime because you yourself are rendering spacetime right now.
真正的证明在于，当我们真正写出代码，展示时空是如何被渲染的，然后像玩玩具一样去摆弄它的时候。
So the proof of that will be when we actually write down the code, show how the spacetime is rendered, and then start to play with it like we're playing with a toy.
那时候才会真正显现出来。
That will really show.
我们先暂停一下，但后面还有更多精彩内容，别走开。
We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere.
每个企业都面临这个问题——大量时间浪费在对账表格、追着要报告、反复在彼此不互通的系统间重新输入数据上。
Every business has it, a ton of it, hours buried in reconciling spreadsheets, chasing down reports, reentering the same data across systems that don't talk to one another.
这些成本从不体现在损益表里，但它们实实在在地消耗着你的时间、效率，还有那些总是来得太晚的决策。
Nobody puts it on the P and L, but it is costing you in time, in speed, and decisions that just come too late.
解决方案是甲骨文的NetSuite。
The solution is Netsuite by Oracle.
这是全球超过四万三千家企业信赖的头号AI云ERP系统。
It's the number one AI cloud ERP trusted by over 43,000 businesses.
它把财务、库存、电商、人力资源和客户关系管理全都整合到一个统一的数据源里。
It brings your financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into one source of truth.
再也不用从五个不同的地方拼凑数据了。
No more stitching together data from five different places.
现在有了NetSuite AI连接器，你可以用任何你喜欢的AI工具，直接访问你真实的业务数据。
Now with Netsuite AI Connector, use the AI of your choice to tap into your actual business data.
你所有想问的问题，都能得到答案。
Ask every question you've ever had.
如果你的年收入达到七位数以上，可以免费领取NetSuite的《AI真相指南》，访问 netsuite.com/theory 获取。
If your revenues are in the 7 figures or higher, get Netsuite's free business guide, Demystifying AI, at netsuite.com/theory.
这份指南免费提供，访问 netsuite.com/theory 即可领取。
The guide is free to you at netsuite.com/theory.
再次提醒，访问 netsuite.com/theory 获取。
Again, that's netsuite.com/theory.
我们来聊聊你到底有多暴露。
Let's talk about how exposed you really are.
假设你在路上别了别人一下。
Let's say you cut someone off in traffic.
对方气得不行。
They're furious.
他们立马拍下你的车牌号。
They snap a photo of your license plate.
几分钟内，他们就能通过人肉搜索网站查到你的家庭住址、电话号码，甚至你孩子的名字。
Within minutes, they can pull up your home address on a people search site, your phone number, the names of your kids.
你的个人信息正躺在上百个数据中介网站上——地址、电话、邮箱，连你的社保号都不例外。
Your personal information is sitting on hundreds of data broker sites, your address, phone number, email, even your social security number.
Incogni 能帮你彻底堵住这个漏洞。
Incogni shuts that down.
他们会跨数百个网站追踪并删除你的数据。
They track your data down across hundreds of sites and remove it.
你只需授权一次，剩下的他们全包了。
You authorize them once, they handle the rest.
而且一旦数据重新出现，他们会持续帮你清除。
And they keep removing it as it comes back.
此外，通过自定义删除功能，你可以把任何显示你信息的链接发给他们，他们的团队会帮你彻底移除。
Plus, with custom removals, you can send them any link where your data shows up, and their team is gonna get it taken down.
Incogni 是唯一经过德勤独立验证的数据删除服务，效果有保障。
Incogni is the first and only data removal service independently verified by Deloitte, so you know it actually works.
前往 incogni.com/impact，使用代码 impact，年度套餐立享六折优惠。
Go to incogni.com/impact and use code impact for 60% off an annual plan.
可以免费试用三十天，无风险体验。
Try it risk free for thirty days.
就是 incogni.com/impact，别忘了用代码 impact。
That's incogni.com/impact, and be sure to use code impact.
我们来聊聊财富积累中最强大的力量——复利。
Let's talk about the most powerful force in wealth building, compounding.
为什么这么多年来，人们一直在谈论它，其实是有原因的。
There is a reason that people have talked about this forever.
你让资产为你工作，它就会不断产生更多的自己。
You put an asset to work, it generates more of itself.
随着时间推移，曲线会越来越向你有利的方向倾斜。
Over time, the curve bends way in your favor.
每一个认真积累财富的人都懂复利的运作方式。
Every serious wealth builder knows how compounding works.
但大多数黄金持有者，却完全错过了这一点。
Most gold owners, though, have completely opted out of it.
Monetary Metals 改变了这个局面。
Monetary Metals changes that equation.
他们创造了一种方式，让你的黄金能获得收益，而且不是以美元支付，而是直接增加更多的实物黄金。
They've built a way for your gold to earn yield paid not in dollars, but in more physical gold.
每年最高可达4%的收益，每月都能增加黄金数量，复利增长在一种无法被印制、通胀或贬值的资产上。
Up to 4% per year, more ounces, stacking every single month, compounding in one of the only assets that can't be printed, inflated, or debased.
顺便说一下，保管和保险都包含在内，这样就不会有隐藏费用蚕食你的收益。
And storage and insurance are included, by the way, so hidden fees don't eat your yield.
普通人正在不知不觉地承受通货膨胀的影响。
The average person is passively absorbing inflation.
这才是你通过复利摆脱通胀的方法。
This is how you compound your way out of it.
点击节目说明中的链接，或访问 monetarymetals.com/impact 了解更多信息。
Click the link in the show notes or visit monetarymetals.com/impact to learn more.
这是一则付费广告。
This is a paid advertisement.
感谢你的收听。
Thanks for sticking around.
我们马上继续回到正题。
Let's get right back into the action.
在继续之前，我们得先明确一下你的意思，因为每次听你讲到这部分，我都想打断你，等等，等等。
Before we can go farther, we have to define you because this is one of the areas that when I'm listening to you talk, I always want to be like, oh, wait, wait, wait, wait.
我们必须说清楚，我想知道你到底指的是什么。
We got to define that because I want to know what you mean.
是的。
Yes.
好的。
Okay.
所以，我们会用一种非常具体的方式来讨论这个问题。
So we're gonna do this in, I think, a very specific way.
矩阵的愿景是这样的，里面的托马斯·安德森，而他真实的身体，其实正躺在一个培养舱里。
So there's the vision of the matrix, and you've got Thomas Anderson inside of the matrix, but the him that's outside of it is literally in a pod.
他秃顶。
He's bald.
他从来都没动过肌肉。
He hasn't moved his muscles ever.
他从未用过眼睛，但他身处一个可以定位的地方，你完全可以去找他。
He's never used his eyes, but he's in a knowable location and you can go and find him.
那就是真实世界。
And that's the real world.
当你选择红色药丸时，会发出一个信号，他们能追踪到，然后去把他救出来。
And when you take the red pill, you send a disruption signal that they can track and then go get him.
所以，那会是你的一个版本，和你在头盔里的样子惊人地相似，但不同的是，你此刻身处外部——而我的版本是，你只是一个NPC，是个程序，纯粹的计算，代码写死的，没有自由意志，只是在做游戏里的NPC该做的事。
So that would be a version of you, which is startlingly similar to the you in the headset, Then but you're outside the you've got my version, which is you're an NPC, you are a program, you're pure computation, you're hard coded, you have no free will, like you're just doing NPC video game stuff.
但你感觉起来像是有自由意志的。
It feels like you have free will.
我明白。
I got that.
但事实上，游戏之外根本不存在所谓的你。
But nonetheless, and so there is no you outside of the game.
所谓‘游戏之外还有你’，这想法本身完全是荒谬的。
The idea of outside of the game plus you is literally nonsensical.
所以，如果你想想游戏里的一个角色，这个角色之所以存在，是因为有程序在运行着这个‘人’——当然，是加了引号的人。
So if you think of a character in a game, that character only exists because there is a program that is running that person and person in quotes, of course.
如果你把这个角色的代码拿出来，放到另一个用类似引擎开发的游戏里运行，它是根本跑不起来的。
If you tried to take that character's code and run it even in a different game on a similar engine, it wouldn't work.
如果你再试着把它拿到现实世界里运行，那它就只是纯粹的代码而已。
If you then tried to take it and run it out in the real world, it's literally just like code.
它只会静静地躺在一张纸上。
It would just sit there on a piece of paper.
你根本不会觉得它代表什么NPC。
You wouldn't even have a sense that it represented an NPC.
它就是一串一行行的代码。
It would literally just be lines of code.
所以，我们还有第三种可能，也就是我以为你会说的——意识是根本的。
And so then we've got a third option, which is what I thought you were going to say, which is consciousness is fundamental.
它就是这么一个东西。
It is one thing.
只有一种意识，这一点我得说，你以前不知说过多少遍了。
There is one consciousness, which in my defense, I've heard you say a gazillion times.
如果意识只有一种，那它本质上就是在向头显里推送各种体验，不管出于什么原因。
And if there is one consciousness, it is basically broadcasting into the headset these experiences for whatever reason.
我听过你和很多人说过，这是宇宙在通过无数个角度试图理解它自己，
And I've heard you and many other people say it's the universe trying to understand itself from all these different angles,
嗯，
which
如果最终结论是这样，那我们可以往这个方向继续探讨。
if that is the final take, we can go down that road.
好吧，这三种说法大概就是你所持的观点。
Okay, so those feel like the three options of you.
对。
Right.
其中第一种，跟你在头显里看待自己的方式几乎一模一样。
So one being distressingly close to how you see yourself in the headset.
第一种观点是：根本就没有你，游戏里的那个‘你’就是全部，到此为止，别想摘下头盔。
One being there is no you, it's the you in the game is it, period, end of story, there's no taking the headset off.
这是你的看法，对吧？
That's your view, right?
没错，这就是我的看法。
That's my view.
还有一种说法是：某种程度上是你，但意识本质上是统一的，而头盔里的那个‘你’，根本无法在头盔之外被体验。
And then there's the, well, it's sort of you, but consciousness is one fundamental thing, and the you in the headset can't really be experienced outside of the headset.
这完全是头盔里的专属体验。
That's a headset only exclusive.
我听过你说，死亡就是摘下头盔，然后意识到自己其实是那整体的一部分。
And so I've heard you say dying is removing the headset and realizing that you're part of the one.
对。
Right.
明白了。
Okay.
这几种说法中，哪一种最接近你的观点？还是说你有别的看法？
Does one of those accurately reflect your view, or is there a different
我觉得第三种最接近我的想法。
I would say that the third one is the closest to my view.
明白了。
Okay.
但只是接近，并不完全一样。
But it's only close.
不够准确。
It's not precise.
没错。
That's right.
这么说吧：这是我目前能表达出的、最贴近我真实想法的说法了。
Put it this way: it's the closest that I can come right now to saying something precise about what I think.
所以你是觉得哪里不对劲，但还没想清楚具体是哪儿。
Okay, so you know there's something wrong, but you're not yet sure what that is.
意思是，每一个科学理论都只是暂时的。
In the following sense: that every scientific theory is always provisional.
我的观点是，每个科学理论都建立在一些假设之上，而你知道，这些假设不可能是最终答案。
That my view is that every scientific theory starts with assumptions, and you know that that can't be the final word.
所以当我作为科学家说‘我将假设’时，我的意思是：我假设只存在一种意识，并且这种意识可以用无限多种相互关联的马尔可夫链来有效描述，我们也能对此进行讨论。
So when I say I'm going to assume, as a scientist, I'm saying I'm going to assume that there is one consciousness and that it is usefully described by an infinite set of different kinds of Markov chains that are all related and we can in a way we can talk about.
所以这就是我的理论。
So that's so that's gonna be my theory.
只有一种意识，它会不断分化出各种潜意识，甚至更细微的潜意识层次。
So there is one consciousness, and it has all these complicated, branchings into subconsciousnesses and even smaller subconsciousnesses.
而整个这个体系，才是最根本的层面。
And that whole thing is is the fundamental layer.
从这个基础出发，我就能推导出我们所熟悉的时空——三维空间加一维时间。
And then from that I can create our spacetime, you know, three dimensions of space, one dimension of time.
我也可以构建出五维空间，甚至百亿维空间的模型。
I could create one with five dimensions, a billion dimensions of space.
我可以创造出任何你想要的头戴设备。
I could create things, any headset that you can want.
现在的情况是，我虽然不确定答案会是什么，但眼下是不是该深入探讨一下，意识是如何催生出那些在虚拟空间中看似真实却实用的数学结构的？
Is right now, and I'll trust you because I'm not sure what the answer is gonna but is right now the right time to go into how consciousness gives birth to the mathematics that give us the artificial but useful within the headset spacetime?
当然。
Sure.
这再合适不过了。
This is perfect.
这从来都不会容易，但也不必强求。
It's never going to be easy, but it's not.
好。
Okay.
那我们干脆把问题说清楚。
So we'll put let's really pin down.
所以，目前最接近的说法是：摘下头戴设备，就是回归到那个统一的整体。
So the closest thing that you can get to right now is that to take off the headset is to return to the one.
对。
Right.
一种意识。
One consciousness.
意识是根本的。
Consciousness is fundamental.
除此之外别无他物。
There is nothing else.
对。
Right.
其他一切都不过是建立在它之上的层次。
Everything else is a layer on top of that.
对。
Right.
在进入数学部分之前，你觉得这个‘头戴设备’的比喻，是想传达某种本质上属于计算性的东西吗？
Now, before we get to the mathematics, do you believe that the metaphor of the headset is meant to communicate something that is inherently computational?
我觉得这完全没问题。
I would think that's perfectly fine.
我的想法是，存在许多有意识的主体，但我们能用数学方式明确地描述它们，而这种数学让我们可以把它们看作是计算过程。
The idea that I've got is that there are all these conscious agents, but we can write down mathematically what how we're going to describe them, and that mathematics allows us to think of them as computational.
我们并不是把它们简化为计算。
We don't reduce them.
‘计算’这个词对我来说特别重要，因为它意味着这一切都是在某种东西上运行的，需要消耗能量来执行所有代码，比如让你在头戴设备里的那个唐纳德·霍夫曼拥有各种属性——细胞如何分裂，DNA如何组合成你的身体结构，你如何属于人类这个物种——所有这些都得靠计算来实现。
Computational is a very important word to me in that computational is making clear that this is being run on something, that energy is somewhere being consumed in order to run all the code that is going to say the Donald Hoffman inside of the headset has all of these different properties, the way your cells divide, the way that your DNA comes together to form your physical structure, that you're a part of the human species, like all of that has to be computed.
还有物理规律、重量分布、衰老过程，所有这些构成了头戴设备里那个‘你’。
And then there are things like physics and weight distribution, aging, like all of that stuff goes into the you that's inside of the headset.
所以当我提到‘计算’的时候，我指的就是这个意思。
So to me, when I say computational, that's what I'm talking about.
它涉及数学、运行计算所需的能量，还有那些已经被以某种方式编码过的输入信息。
It's mathematics, it's energy to run the computations, and you're taking inputs which have been coded somehow, some way.
如果你认同这一点，那你的意思就是：意识在编写计算机代码。
So if you say yes to this, what you're saying is consciousness writes computer code.
一旦代码写好了，就可以运行了。
And once that code is written, then it can be run.
这真的可以被计算出来。
It can be computed quite literally.
所以它必须高效，因为我花了很多心思去确保它能高效运行。
And that's why it has to be efficient, because so much effort from my thinking is that goes into making it efficiently computed.
这一切听起来是对的吗？还是我哪里说错了？
Does all of that feel true, or did I get something
错。
wrong?
从某个角度来看，你说的都对。
That's all true from a perspective.
所以我的想法是，计算这个概念——比如通用图灵机，一种普适的计算观——
So the idea would be that the very notion of computation, of a universal Turing machine, a universal notion of computation.
当你提到图灵机的时候，是不是就只是说输入变成输出？
Well, when you say a Turing machine, do you just mean inputs become outputs?
在计算机科学里，
Well, it's in in in computer science,
我们有自动机理论、形式自动机，还有它们的层级结构，因此我们对计算复杂性的不同层次有了概念，而最高级别就是通用图灵机，它能计算任何东西。
there we we have the notion of automata theory and formal automata and and hierarchy of them, and so we have a notion of the various kinds of levels of computational sophistication that you can have, and the ultimate is a universal Turing machine which which can compute anything.
所以，
And and so
什么样的机器才算通用图灵机？
What makes something a universal Turing machine?
这个嘛，是艾伦·图灵最先定义的。
It well, so this is Alan Turing was the one who defined it.
它是一个拥有有限状态、有限转移规则的机器，有一个起始状态和一组终止状态。
It it has a It's a machine that has a finite set of states and a finite set of transition rules, has a start state, and a set of halt states.
如果你的转移规则足够复杂，而且拥有无限长的纸带——也就是你需要多少纸带就有多少，那么从某种意义上说，它就是计算上通用的。
And you can show that if it has a certain level of complexity in the transition rules effectively, and if it has potentially infinite tape, you you have as much tape as you need for for what you're doing, then then it's, in some sense, computationally universal.
任何能被计算的东西，都可以由一台通用图灵机来计算。
There there's everything that can be computed, it can be computed by a universal Turing machine.
而且通用图灵机还能模拟任何特定的图灵机。
And also the universal Turing machine can sort of simulate any particular Turing machine.
所以基本上，它有一套规则，知道怎么执行这些计算。
So basically, has the rules by which it knows how to run the computations.
没错。
That's
对。
right.
图灵最厉害的地方在于，他把这个概念做得极其简单。
And and it's what Turing did that was brilliant was he he made this very, very simple.
他基本上只用了很少的状态，一个初始状态，几个终止状态，再加上一组状态转移规则。
He he basically had a set of a small set of states, and a start state, some halt states, and then a set of transition rules.
所以，我之前说马尔可夫链在计算上是通用的，意思是你实际上可以用马尔可夫链的一个子集来模拟图灵机。
And and and in fact so when I said that Markov chains are computationally universal, you you can effectively model Turing's machines with a subset of Markov chains.
也就是说，图灵的计算概念被包含在马尔可夫链可能构成的集合之中。
So they include Turing's notion of computation as a subset of the possible, Markov chains.
所以你现在提到的这些概念，其实涉及到了能量、时间，以及执行某些计算所需付出的代价，这些都是非常重要的物理概念。
So so it's now the the notion that you are bringing up are very, important physical notions about energy and time and and the effort that's required for certain computations.
但这些会成为通过头戴设备来看待计算时的一个特定方面。
But that will be now a headset specific aspect of the computation as seen through a headset.
对。
Yes.
但别忘了，我们真正想探讨的是你本人。
But remember, we're trying to get to you.
我们想弄清楚，你到底怎么定义‘你’。
We're trying to figure out how you define you.
明白。
Okay.
我想说的是，只有通过计算，才能让人对‘你’这个概念形成清晰的理解。
And what I'm saying is the computation is necessary to have any intelligible sense of you that people will understand.
我觉得人们之所以对这个话题感兴趣，部分原因是因为它牵涉到死亡。所以，如果生活在一个计算构成的宇宙里，也许我能超越肉体的限制，也许能找到办法逃离矩阵，也许能重写自己的代码，重新变年轻，诸如此类。
I think part of the reason that people find this conversation interesting is it's dealing with death, and so, hey, if I'm in a computational universe, maybe I can transcend this, maybe there's a way for me to get out of the matrix, maybe there's a way for me to skip around on my code and be young again or whatever.
我有个故事，总有一天会讲，关于一个男人，他执着地想搞清楚能不能把数据库里的条目从零改成一——对他来说，零代表去世，一代表活着，而这个条目是他妻子的。
I have a whole story that one day I will tell about a guy that is obsessed with figuring out if you can flip the database entry, for him it's on his wife, from zero, which means dead, to one for alive.
对。
Yes.
我觉得，正是这种东西让人感到不安，也让这场对话如此引人入胜。
And I think this is all what haunts people and or what makes this conversation so interesting.
没错。
Right.
我最后总是回到这一点：你根本逃不出所谓的矩阵，因为无论是否属于计算系统，我们终究是生物体，用化学物质就能彻底颠覆你对自己的认知。
And where I always terminate is that there is no getting out of the quote unquote matrix, because at some point you have to accept, computational or not, we are biological creatures, and I can completely disrupt who you think you are with chemicals.
想象一下，如果有一种化学物质能让你的自我感觉彻底瓦解，那会是什么感觉？
So imagine what I can do with a chemical that can make your ego feel like it's dissolving.
再想象一下，如果你连‘计算性’都不再具备，那该有多震撼。
Now imagine how startling it would be to not even be computational in nature anymore.
那时，你只是与意识融为一体。
You're just one with the consciousness.
那时候的你就根本不是你了。
Like that would be so it wouldn't be you.
真正让你成为你的，是你怕蜘蛛，或者你爱吃番茄酱这类东西。
Like part of what makes you you is that you're scared of spiders or that you love ketchup or whatever.
所有这些都会消失殆尽。
All of that is gone.
到了那时候，你还谈得上什么‘你’呢？
And so what would it even mean to say you at that point?
这时候我就想，该开始区分清楚了。
That's where it's like, I want to start drawing distinctions.
一方面，这样能让我们更清楚地讨论：什么是可能的，什么是不可能的；另一方面，这也凸显了‘你’这个概念的局限性。
One, because I think it makes the setup of what this is, what's possible, what's not possible, we can actually have the conversation, but then it also brings up the sort of finiteness of the you factor.
比如，很多人寄希望于上传意识来摆脱对死亡的恐惧。
So for instance, people will find great relief from death anxiety at uploading their consciousness.
但一旦他们认真想想，就会意识到，那个复制品和他们自己根本没有任何真实的体验联系。
But once they really think about it, they'll realize they have no experiential connection with that duplication.
所以这就像是克隆了你，但你能亲身体验那个克隆体。
So it would be the exact same as cloning you, but you can experience the clone.
克隆体会去干自己的事，成为一个完全独立的个体，除了最初和你一模一样，之后就跟你再无关系。
The clone's going to go do its thing and be its own separate entity that has literally nothing to do with you other than from a starting point, you guys are identical.
所以我想在这里把这个问题真正说清楚。
And so that's where I want to really ground this.
说得非常好。
Very good.
观点很到位。
Great points.
我想说几点。
So I would say a couple of things.
我先抛出一个有点震撼的观点。
I'll put something out there that's sort of stunning to start off with.
我是认知神经科学家，我要说，除非被观察到，否则我根本没有神经元。
I'm a cognitive neuroscientist, and I will I will claim that I have no neurons unless they're observed.
你刚才说的那个渲染问题
The rendering thing that you were talking
所以关于
So about
我的身体，我的
my body, my
神经元，让我来挑战一下这个说法
neurons Let me let me stress test that.
对
Right.
我觉得你其实并不认为自己没有神经元
I would say that you don't believe you have no neurons.
我觉得你真正想说的是，它们只是被编码了，但没有在活动
I think what you really mean is they are encoded, they're just not running.
让它们把输入转化为输出的计算过程处于休眠状态
So the computation to make them turn an input into an output is dormant.
所以在这方面我们可能有不同看法，因为我其实想说的是，像视网膜神经节细胞这样的神经元，就存在于我体内。
And so there we might disagree, because I'm actually saying, you know, like retinal ganglion cells, that's the kind of neuron that's in me.
对。
Yeah.
视网膜神经节细胞，如果不被感知，就根本不存在。
Retinal ganglion cells do not exist unless they're perceived.
它们真的不存在。
They literally do not exist.
让我再试一次，好吧。
There is Let me try one more time Okay.
而且
And
你想到计算机代码，代码会变成画面，我同意，我们确实是在模拟眼睛，或者模拟视觉、模拟声音。
you think of computer code and that code turns into a character, I will agree that we're simulating eyeballs or we're simulating vision, we're simulating sound.
所以你完全可以说，眼睛从来就不是真实存在的。
And so you could certainly say that the eyes, they're not real at all ever.
但我真正想问的是，你的意思是这些细胞根本不存在，只是被模拟出来的吗？
But what I'm getting at is, are you saying that those never exist, so those cells never exist, and they are merely a simulated thing?
没错。
That's right.
如果某个神经科学家用正确的设备检查我的大脑，他们会看到神经元。
If some neuroscientist looked inside my brain with some kind of correct apparatus, they would see neurons.
对。
Yes.
但那只是他们的感知而已。
And that would be their perception.
那些神经元只存在于他们的感知中，实际上从来就不是我的神经元。
Those neurons would exist only in their perception, and they were actually never my neurons.
所以我 literally 说，这个渲染就是真正的渲染，根本 nothing 在那里。
So so I'm literally saying the render is really a render, and nothing is there.
所以我们说的那些化学物质、空间和时间里的东西，还有神经元——
So the chemical we talk about chemicals in space and time and and so forth, neurons.
我说这些根本不存在，只在渲染的瞬间才出现。
I'm saying those absolutely do not exist except in the instant of a render.
所以如果神经科学家打开大脑观察，他们所体验到的神经活动，就是神经元的全部含义。
So if a neuroscientist opens a brain and looks, then that neuroscientist has neural experiences, and that's all that neurons are.
我们真正面对的，其实是一种比神经元更根本的东西。
You What we're think actually dealing with is something much different than neurons.
但神经元放电背后的非视觉数学机制还在运行吗？正是这个机制造就了你，而你看到的只是没能渲染出来的视觉表层？
But is the non visual mathematics of the neurons firing still running, and that's what makes you you, and it's just a visual layer that fails to render?
还是说，你认为我们所说的唐纳德·霍夫曼，根本就是一个被接收的广播信号，而正是这个信号让你成为你？
Or are you saying that the thing we call Donald Hoffman is entirely a broadcast signal that is received, and that's what animates you?
我会说，这个‘霍夫曼’只是一个别人能看见、我也能体验到的特定渲染程序。我们大多数人，其实都把自己和身体、脑子里的想法等同起来。
I would say that that Hoffman is a particular rendering program that other people can see and that I experience, and that I'm not fundamentally I don't Most of us identify with our bodies and with the things that are going through our head.
但如果你开始冥想，静下心来，观察自己的情绪，审视那些对你来说无比重要的东西，你会发现，你其实可以退后一步，意识到：我曾经以为那就是我。
But if you start, you know, a meditation process, for example, and you start to just go into silence and you just start to look at your emotions, and you look at all the things that are so important to you, and you look and you find that you can you can just sort of step back and say, well, I thought that that was me.
我以为，我热爱做这件事——这份热爱本身，就是我。
I thought that the love of doing this particular thing, which I still love, was me.
嗯，不是这样的。
Well, no.
我可以退后一步，看着那些想法，说：这些我能做，也能不做，但我并不是它们。
I can I can step back, and I can look at that and say, that is something I could do or or not do, but I am not that?
我超越了它们。
I transcend that.
当你真正花时间观察自己时，会发现所有你以为是‘你’的东西，其实都可以退后一步，说：不，我更像那片静默，正看着这一切。
So when you actually spend time just looking at yourself, all the things that you think are you, you can step back and say, no, I am more like the silence that's looking at all this stuff.
我在观察自己对篮球的热爱。
I'm looking at my love of, you know, basketball.
我在观察自己对吃东西的喜好，不管是什么。
I'm looking at my love of eating, you know, whatever it is.
比如特别想吃点煎饼之类的。
Like to eat some pancakes or something like that.
我可以观察所有这些我以为是‘我’的东西——比如我是个创业者，这对我特别重要。
I can look at all the things that I think are or, you know, I'm an entrepreneur and this is really really important to me.
这才是真正的我。
That's who I am.
我可以回头看看，然后说：你知道吗？
I can look back at look at that and say, you know what?
我确实做过那些事。
I did that.
我可以抽身离开。
I can walk away from it.
那并不是我。
That's not who I am.
当你彻底静下来，观察所有情绪、所有念头，以及他人的情绪和念头时，你会意识到，我们其实都陷在游戏里了。
So there is a sense in which when you go into complete silence and just watch all the emotions, watch all the thoughts, and watch other people's emotions and thoughts, you realize, yeah, we're we're we're sort of lost in the game.
那不是你。
That's not you.
那是你迷失在游戏中的样子。
That's you lost in the game.
我可以退后一步，问问自己：这个游戏到底是怎么运行的？
And I can step back and just say, okay, well, how is the game rendered?
我怎么就不知不觉陷进去了？
How am I getting sucked in?
我不是那个被困在游戏里的小角色。
I'm not a little thing trapped in the game.
我有能力抽身出来，看清整个游戏，不再认同它。
I am capable of stepping back, looking at the whole game, disidentifying.
对我来说，当教授、做学术研究，发论文确实非常重要。
So for me, being a professor and doing all the academic stuff, very, very important getting papers published.
我回头看看那段经历，心想：其实吧，
I can look back at that and go, well, you know what?
我确实做过那些事。
I did that.
但那些并不等于我。
That's not me.
这对我来说很重要。
It was important to me.
我曾经很长一段时间以为那就是我。
I thought it was me for a long time.
我把自己和它完全绑在了一起。
I identified with it.
我的整个自我认同都系在上面。
My whole personal identity was tied up with it.
但你知道吗？
But you know what?
我五岁的时候，也曾沉迷在沙箱里的玩具里。
At one point, I was tied up with toys in the sandbox as a five year old.
要是有人拿走了我的玩具，我就崩溃了。
And if someone stole my toy, I fell apart.
别人一拿走我的玩具，我就彻底垮了。
I was destroyed because someone stole my toy.
但现在我可以退一步想，哦，不，那只是我的一种表现形式。
But now I can step back and go, oh, no, that was just that rendering of me.
而且你知道，我经历过那种状态，现在我能抽身出来看。
And, you know, I went through that render, and I can step back.
所以，哪怕是我最想做的那些前沿科学工作，那也不是真正的我。
So even my most advanced scientific stuff that I wanna do, that's not me.
那只是我在沙箱里玩玩具罢了。
That's just me playing in a sandbox with some toys.
所以我随时都能退后一步来看。
And so I can always step back.
我的想法是，我们其实早已超越了这些，我们足够聪明，能看透那套塑造我们的代码，以及我们误以为是自我的那些东西。
So my idea is is really we transcend this so much that we can actually we're we're smart enough that we can actually figure out the code that that's rendering us and what we thought as ourselves in this thing.
我们甚至能重新模拟出那套代码。
We can actually render that code.
如果我们真能做到，那这就是最好的证明。
And if we do that, I mean, this here's the proof.
对吧？
Right?
我讲的是一个实证性的观点。
I'm claiming an empirical thing.
我们终将理解时空之外的那层底层软件。
We will be able to understand the first layer of software outside of spacetime.
我们终将能够构建出时空本身。
We will be able to build spacetime.
我们终将能够构建完全在时空内部运行的模型。
We will be able to build models that work completely inside spacetime.
一旦掌握了这一点，我们就会拥有看起来像魔法一样的技术。
And once we know how to do that, we will have technologies that will look like magic.
我们将不再受光速的限制。
We will not be bound by the speed of light.
我们将不再受游戏规则的束缚，因为我们已经看懂了支撑这个游戏的底层代码。
We will not be bound by the rules of the game because we now understand the software behind the game.
我们不再是游戏中的玩家了。
We're no longer the players in the game.
我们已经超越了这个游戏。
We we we transcend the game.
所以我讲的是，汤姆超越了时空。
We so I'm claiming, Tom transcends spacetime.
无论汤姆究竟是什么，他都不被困在这具身体里，也不被困在创业这场游戏里。
Whatever Tom is, is not stuck in this body, is not stuck in the entrepreneur game at all.
汤姆完全超越了这一切。
Tom transcends that completely.
但不知为什么，这股意识偏偏全身心投入，钻进化身里，彻底迷失，把自己当成那个在沙箱里玩玩具的小孩，玩具被抢了会大哭，论文没被发表会大哭，有人离世也会痛哭不止——我真的深陷其中，可后来我又能抽身出来，心想：天啊。
And but for some reason, this one consciousness chooses to go in with both feet, go into the avatar, get lost completely, identify with the kid and the five year old in in the sandbox and the toys and really cry when someone steals my toys, really cry when my paper doesn't get published, really cry when someone dies, really so I really I'm I'm in the game, but then I can step back and go, wow.
那是对更深层自我的一种觉察。
That was a perspective on the deeper me.
不管我是谁，我都非常庆幸自己当了七八十年的汤姆·比利尤。
Whatever I am, I'm really glad I spent seventy, eighty, ninety years as Tom Bilyeu.
但现在我要退出了。
But now I'm stepping out.
那真是一段精彩的旅程。
That that was a that was a great ride.
你觉得你会记得那段经历吗？
Do you think you'll have memories of that?
我觉得你完全可以保留那些记忆，就像我记得自己五岁时在沙箱里因为玩具被抢而大哭一样。
I don't see why you shouldn't be able to have the memories and look at them, just like I have a memory of being a five year old, crying because someone stole my toy in the sandbox.
记忆到底是怎么形成的呢？
What is the mechanism by which memories are formed?
当然，在时空框架内，我们会说
Well, of course, inside spacetime we would talk
是神经元之间的连接之类的机制。
about synaptic connections and so forth.
所以在虚拟现实的语境下，神经科学也会用这类解释。
So in the headset we would use that kind of thing in neuroscience.
在我正在研究的马尔可夫链模型里，这些矩阵的转移概率会存储在记忆中。
In the Markov chain model that I am working on, it would be in the memory of the transition probabilities of these matrices.
但你打算怎么保存这种记忆呢？
But how would you store that memory?
假设我有一辆法拉利，然后把它完全拆了，改造成一台搅拌机，要是我对着这台搅拌机说：‘这机器真是一辆酷车’，你觉得别人会怎么想？
If I have a Ferrari and then I completely disassemble it and I make a blender, and if I go to the blender and I say, That blender's a dope car, right?
别人肯定觉得你疯了，这根本说不通。
The people would be like, That's nonsensical.
我会说：‘对对对，但这些零件本来就是从法拉利来的啊。’
And I'm like, Yeah, yeah, but it's the same parts from the Ferrari.
然后别人会回：‘是，零件是同一批，可它开不动啊。’
And then people be like, Sure, but it doesn't drive.
所以，说它们是‘同一个东西’，其实并不成立。
And so the thought that those are the same thing, like, not really.
对我来说，单一的意识跟这些在头显里穿来穿去的‘皮肤外壳’，根本毫无关联——你听了肯定不爱听这种说法。
So for me, the one consciousness just is completely unrelated to these, you're going to hate this language, these skin suits that it wears inside of the headset.
你脑海中的那个‘单一意识’可能跟我想象的截然不同，咱们根本没法聊到一块儿去。
And you may have an image of the one consciousness that is so radically different than what I'm imagining that we'll just never be able to really have the same conversation.
但对我来说，我们就是我们的生理构造。
But to me, we are our biology.
只要你跟我说，你能超越生理，我就觉得：那已经不是我了。
And so the second you tell me I transcend my biology, I'm like, Oh, it's not me.
我同意你说的，未来我们确实能做出一些像魔法一样的事，但比如，我要是给自己弄个190的智商，那我就不是我了——因为我根本不是个智商190的人。
And while I agree with you on all of the, like, we'll be able to do things that are magical, But for instance, if I went in and gave myself, you know, 190 IQ, I'm not me anymore because I'm not a guy with 190 IQ.
一旦我开始以一种完全不同的方式跟世界互动，我的性格也会彻底改变。
And so the second I begin interfacing with the world in that fundamentally different way, my personality would just be fundamentally different.
那会不会还留下点什么？会不会有某些东西，是我自己或者别人还能认出来的？
And so would there be remnants, would there be things that I recognize or somebody else recognizes?
也许会有一些重叠的部分。
Maybe there might be overlap.
但要是我变成了一只蚊子，那我就不是我了。
But it's like that stuff, if I'm a mosquito, I'm not me.
只是数据处理的方式根本就完全不同。
Like, it's just the way that data is processed is so fundamentally different.
所以我才说，‘你’这个概念，就像在普朗克尺度下时空变得毫无意义一样，不再成立。
So that's where I'm like, I don't think you remains a coherent statement in the same way that you say below the plank scale spacetime is just incoherent.
离开身体之后，‘你’这个概念就站不住脚了。
I would say the concept of you is incoherent outside of the headset.
嗯，
Well,
我觉得这是个有趣又合理的看法。
I think that's an interesting and reasonable point of view.
我只是想说，如果你回望自己的人生，五岁的汤姆、五岁的唐，那时候他们也觉得自己就是那样，有些东西对他们来说至关重要——你要是把他们的玩具拿走，把沙箱搬走，他们会觉得整个世界都崩塌了，除此之外还能剩下什么？
I would just say that if you look back at your life, the five year old Tom, the five year old Don had what they thought they were, things that were very very important to them, that if you said, look, you take these toys away from me, take my sandbox away from me, you've destroyed my world, and what else is there?
你有没有见过阿尔茨海默病患者？
Have you ever met anybody with Alzheimer's disease?
有。
Yes.
你觉得他们是同一个人吗？
Do you think of them as the same person?
我觉得他们就像是头戴设备坏了，没法再用这个设备的人。
I think of them as someone who's had their headset destroyed, and they're not able to use this particular headset.
那从头戴设备的角度看，你觉得他们是同一个版本吗？
So the headset version, though, do you think of them as the same headset version?
不，我同意。
No, but then I don'tso I agree.
他们不是同一个人。
They're not the same.
但我也觉得，无论他们变成什么样，都超越了身体和阿尔茨海默病的限制。
But I also would say that whoever they are transcends their body and their Alzheimer's.
就像你和我，也都超越了五岁、十岁、十五岁时的自己。
Just like you and I transcend our five year old and our 10 year old and our 15 year old versions of ourselves.
我十五岁的时候，有很多事特别重要，但现在回头看，那些都不值一提了。
All of those, when I was 15, there were things that were very important to me at 15 that are just not important to me now.
以前我觉得天大的事，现在回想起来，只会笑着想想：哦，对，你15岁的时候，那确实很重要。
Things that I would say were absolutely essential that I'd now smile and say, well, yes, you when you were 15, that was important.
那时候真的特别重要。
That was absolutely essential.
但现在就不算了。
It's not now.
现在根本不算什么了。
It is not an it's not important at all.
而我现在作为成年人觉得特别重要的事，其实也还没真正到来。
And and so the things that that I currently think are very important as an adult, I I now think would now have arrived.
没有。
No.
我还没到达终点。
I've not arrived.
这不过是路上的又一个阶段而已。
This is just another step along the way.
这是一种意识，从无限多的角度观察自己。
This is the one consciousness looking at itself from an infinite number of perspectives.
我觉得这才是真正发生的事。
I I I think that's what's really going on.
只有一种意识。
There is one consciousness.
它超越一切，于是便从无数个视角来看自己，比如：让我看看，五岁的唐在沙箱里玩耍是什么感觉。
It transcends anything, so it just looks at itself from an infinite number of perspectives and goes, oh, let me let me really look at myself as a five year old Don in the sandbox.
现在让我看看，十五岁的汤姆做着少年该做的事是什么样。
Oh, now let me look as a a 15 year old Tom doing a teenage thing.
让我以各种不同的方式体验自己，沉浸其中，然后突然醒悟：哦，原来我经历过这些。
And let me look at myself in all these different ways and enjoy that, get lost in it, and then wake up and go, oh, I did that.
我很庆幸自己有过这些经历。
I'm glad I did that.
通过这些不同的体验，我对自己、对自身的超越有了更深的理解。
I learned a little bit about me, my my my transcendence effectively, by doing all those different things.
所以，汤姆，我会这么说。
So I would put it this way, Tom.
依我现在的看法，汤姆和唐，其实只有一个意识，只是通过两个不同的化身在表达。
The way I look at it right now is right now, Tom and Don, there's really just one consciousness through two different avatars.
有一个汤姆的化身，一个唐的化身，他们在对话，而这不过是同一个意识从两种不同角度在观察自己，享受着通过汤姆的视角和唐的视角去体验、去玩味的过程。
There's a Tom avatar and a Don avatar that are talking, and and they're two different perspectives that the one is taking, and it's enjoying the process of looking at itself through a Tom lens and a Dawn lens, playing with those perspectives.
总有一天，它会说：够了。
And at some point, it will say, no.
我已经体验得够多了。
I've done that enough.
现在，我要尝试点别的。
Now I'll do something
第一部分就到这里。
That's it for part one.
记得订阅，别错过即将上线的第二部分。
Make sure you are subscribed so you do not miss part two coming up soon.
我们来聊聊一个肯定在拖你后腿的习惯。
Let's talk about a pattern that is guaranteed to be killing your progress.
你明明知道该怎么做。
You know what you need to do.
你需要保持规律的饮食。
You need consistent nutrition.
我们都一样。
We all do.
你需要维生素、益生菌，还有绿叶蔬果。
You need vitamins, probiotics, greens.
谁都知道该多做点这些。
We all know that we should be doing more of it.
早上一乱，你就给跳过了。
When your morning gets chaotic, you skip it.
一出门旅行，你就给抛到脑后了。
When you travel, you skip it.
一旦你的日常安排被打乱，所有事情都会跟着乱套，这种不规律每天都在拖你的后腿。
When your routine breaks, everything tends to break, and that inconsistency compounds against you every single day.
AG1就是为了解决执行难的问题而设计的。
AG1 is designed to solve the execution problem.
一勺粉，兑八盎司水，搞定。
One scoop, eight ounces of water, and you're done.
一勺里含有七十多种营养成分：维生素、矿物质、益生元和益生菌、营养丰富的超级食物，过去你得吃六七种不同的补充剂，还要完美规划，现在全都在这一杯里了，三十秒就能搞定。
You're getting 75 plus ingredients, vitamins and minerals, pre and probiotics, nutrient dense superfoods, everything that used to require six, seven different supplements, and perfect planning now happens in one drink that takes about thirty seconds to make.
现在，购买AG1的首次订阅，还能免费获得价值87美元的赠品。
Right now, AG One is giving you $87 worth of free gifts with your first subscription.
包括欢迎礼包、旅行装、维生素D3加K2，还有几种口味的试用装。
You get a welcome kit, travel packs, vitamin d three plus k two, and flavor samples.
点击节目说明里的链接，或者访问drinkag1.com/impact，立即领取这个优惠。
Click the link in the show notes or visit drinkag1.com/impact to claim this offer.
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。