埃里克·德·朱利：打破对称性

在零中，我探索了秩序如何从无到有被创造出来的理念——即微小的不稳定性可以被放大，最终在某种大尺度上被其他机制稳定下来。这是物理学中存在的一种机制，实际上是宇宙中秩序形成的主要方式。有趣的是，我能否让这种机制在艺术上变得清晰可辨，并在美学层面或多或少真实地呈现出来。

In zero, I explore this idea of how order is created basically from nothing that you take kind of tiny instabilities that can be amplified, and eventually they can be stabilized by other mechanisms at some large scale. And that's a kind of mechanism that exists in physics. It's actually extremely dominant for how order is created in the universe. It was interesting to see if if I could make that something that was legible artistically and actually more or less honestly represented in terms of the aesthetics.

大家好，欢迎来到新一期的《诗语对话》。本周我们非常激动地邀请到了物理学家兼生成艺术家埃里克·迪朱利。埃里克，欢迎你。很高兴见到你。

Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of Verse Talks. We are thrilled to be joined this week by Eric DiGiuli, physicist and generative artist. Eric, welcome. Great to see you.

谢谢。感谢邀请。

Thank you. Thanks for having me.

是的。能与你合作我们无比兴奋。非常感谢给予我们这个机会，已经迫不及待想深入了解你的最新作品了。不过为了让大家更快进入状态，能否先概述一下你是如何走到今天的？我的意思是，你在从事艺术实践的同时也是一位学者。

Yeah. Incredibly excited to be working together. Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity, and can't wait to dig into your latest work. But I guess to kind of get us up to speed, it'd be it'd be awesome to get an overview of how you kind of got to this point. I mean, you're an academic alongside your art practice.

可以简单介绍一下你至今的职业发展历程吗？

Would it be possible just to kind of walk us through your your career to date?

当然。事实上，我对艺术的兴趣早于对物理学的兴趣。九十年代当我还是青少年时，就开始在电脑上创作。那时就清楚地意识到，通过代码可以极大地掌控生成过程。虽然当时我们不这么称呼，但正是看到简单规则如何在电脑上涌现出复杂性，引导我走向了物理学，因为物理学在宏观层面本质上做着同样的事情。

Sure. So in fact, my interest in art preceded my interest in in physics. And when I was a teenager in the nineties, I started making things on the computer. And at that point, it was kind of clear that with code, you could have huge power over basically generative processes. I mean, we didn't use that language at the time, but it was seeing how I could make complexity emerge from simple rules on my computer, which really led me then towards physics because physics is basically the same thing at large.

我们有简单的定律，它们生成世界上所有的形态。所以我从艺术走向物理，期间偶尔做些艺术创作，但大约五年前开始认真回归，并重新融入我在物理学工作中的主题——这些主题都围绕不同领域中复杂性的涌现，比如生命起源或语言的出现等。我开始更多从艺术角度提问：如何主要通过视觉方式，同时也结合审美体验的其他方面，来探讨这些问题。

We have simple laws and they generate all the forms of of the world. And so I kind of went from art into physics and then was doing a little bit of art on the side, but then came back in earnest about, five years ago and started to weave back the themes of my my work in physics, which are really all centered around the emergence of complexity in different, areas like origin of life or the emergence of language and so on, starting to ask questions more from the art side about how we can interrogate those questions largely visually, but then also with other aspects of an aesthetic experience.

上次交谈时，你大致介绍了你在学术领域的工作。如果我没记错，你当时正试图弄清楚宇宙的起源之类的课题。

The last time we spoke, you kind of walked me through a bit about what you're working on in your work as an academic. I think I'm right in saying you were trying to figure out, like, the origin of the universe and other kind of

其实是生命起源。

Well, origin of life, really.

生命起源。那么艺术和那个领域，它们是如何结合的呢？

Origin of life. So so how do art and and that, how how do they work together?

嗯，关键在于，我们虽然了解物理学的基本定律，但当存在大量相互作用的部件并出现涌现行为时，往往很难推演出这些定律的后果。而从艺术角度提出类似问题的美妙之处在于，你可以更自由些。在科学领域我们必须极其严谨，一切进展都非常缓慢。而当我戴上艺术家的帽子时，可以稍微改变规则，却依然能探索相同的主题——如果改变这些简单规则，会产生怎样的连锁反应？

Well, the the point is that, we know, like, the the basic laws of physics, but it's very often difficult to work out what are the consequences of those laws when you have many, many parts that are interacting and you have emergent behavior that occurs. And what's nice about asking similar questions from the artistic point of view is that you can be a bit looser. In science, we have to be extremely rigorous. Everything is very, very slow. Whereas if I put my art hat on, I can change the rules a little bit, but I can still explore the same general themes about if I change these simple rules, what is the consequences of that downstream?

可能是稍后某个时刻，或是通过复杂性的层层叠加。所以我近期的很多作品都在探索这些主题，某种程度上，我使用的生成系统与现实世界中相关的物理定律存在镜像关系。以生命为例，相关定律主要涉及化学反应和化学反应网络。而新作品更多关注流体运动，但从某种意义上说它们都是相关的——这些定律来自不同体系，在现实世界中相互交织，以复杂的方式相互作用。

Maybe sometime later or by having complexity, piled on complexity, and so on. So a lot of my recent work is really about exploring those themes, in ways, there's some mirror between the generative system that I'm using and the actual laws of physics that are relevant in the world. So for life, I mean, the relevant laws are more mostly to do with chemical reactions and chemical reaction networks. Here in the new work, it's more about fluid flow, but they're all in a sense related. They're from different families of laws, they all in the real world, they all kind of overlap, and they interact in in many complicated ways.

你说是从艺术开始的。嗯哼。具体是怎样的？比如当时你在摆弄什么程序？又是如何意识到物理学值得探索的？这个过程是如何发生的？

You said that it started with art. Mhmm. How exactly? Like, what what programs were you were you playing around with, and and at what point did you realize that physics might be worth exploring? Like, how how did that process come about?

是的。我记得大概是从图书馆借了本书，里面真是一行一行出租程序代码，你得逐字逐句地把它们敲进电脑里。那基本上算是互联网出现之前的事了。在这个过程中你会发现，改掉某一行代码，输出结果就真的会变。作为一个年轻人，意识到这种联系非常震撼——原来电脑不只是一个运行商店买来的程序的黑盒子，实际上你可以进去修改东西，甚至立刻就能看到输出变化。

Yeah. So I think I probably got a book from the library where it had literally programs rented out line by line, and you would, like, literally write them line by line into your computer. This is more or less before the Internet. And then in doing so, you realize that if you change a line here, actually changes the output. Seeing that link is pretty remarkable, like, as a young person that this computer is not just a black box that's just running programs that I bought from the store, but, actually, you can go in and change things and actually see the output even immediately.

具体来说，比如康威生命游戏，这个在八九十年代就已经进入大众视野了。你能找到展示代码的资源，实现起来并不复杂。这个代码之所以著名，正是因为它能用非常简单的规则构建出复杂系统。更重要的是，你可以直接修改规则观察结果。这意味着你并非盲目实现既定内容，而是真正掌握了一个能够自由探索的、充满无限可能的广阔空间。

So, like, specifically, there were there was the the Conway's game of life, which already kind of entered the popular consciousness maybe in the eighties even and early nineties. So was something where you could get something that would show you the code, and it's not complicated to do. And it's one of those codes that's quite famous for building complexity from quite simple rules. And moreover, what's important is that you can just you can change the rules and see what happens. So it's not just that you're blindly implementing something, but that you really have at hand this vast space of possibilities that you can start to explore.

那件事确实值得一提。我清楚地记得曾编写过一个模拟沙子从顶部落下的程序，我设计成你可以移动鼠标让沙子堆积起来，然后移开鼠标，沙子就会全部落下之类的。虽然图形相对原始，但关键元素已经具备——你可以进入并创建一个生成系统，观察输出结果。其中存在一定的随机性和涌现性，因为你并非显式编码所有内容，而是通过实现规则并观察这些规则带来的后果。由此很自然地就会进入物理学领域，因为无论是显式还是隐式，物理学中都有非常相似的行为——简单的定律创造了宇宙的所有复杂性。

That that was one thing. I I remember explicitly coding something where I had a kind of simulation of sand falling from the top, and I made it so that you could move the mouse and you could have the sand pile up, and then you move it away, and it'll it'll all fall down or whatever. I mean, the graphics were relatively primitive, but the key elements were already there that you could go in and and create a generative system, see the outputs. There was some element of chance and emergence because you weren't coding everything explicitly, but you had just the idea of implementing rules and then seeing what the consequences of those rules were. And from that it's quite natural to get into physics because either explicitly or implicitly there's very similar behavior in physics where we have simple laws that create all the complexity of the universe.

那么你当时为什么要做这个？是为了创作图像吗？你是如何发现这种可能性的？是什么引导你走向这个方向的？

And so why were you doing this? Was this in pursuit of creating images? Like, how how did you even kind of discover that this was a thing? What what brought you there?

是的。基本上就是为了创作漂亮的画面和图像。虽然我已经画了很多画，但当我看到在计算机上能实现的效果时，感觉可能性空间如此巨大，这自然就成了值得探索的方向。

Yeah. It was just to create pretty pictures and pretty images, basically. Like, I'd already been drawing and painting a lot, but I think once I saw what you could do on the computer, it seemed the space of possibilities was so huge that this was something quite natural to explore.

这是大学时期的事吗？

Was this at university?

嗯，从高中开始，到大学期间我仍在业余时间做这些，但那时我的注意力已经逐渐转向物理学。大致在接下来的五到十年里，我算是两者兼顾——业余时间搞生成艺术，白天的工作则专注于物理。

Well, starting in high school and then in university, I was still doing stuff in my in my spare time, but then I already getting my attention shifting towards physics. For more or less, you know, the next five to ten years I was more or less doing both, like I was doing generative art stuff in my spare time and in physics in my day job.

你当时意识到自己是在创作艺术吗？我知道很多艺术家都是后来才意识到的，哇，我其实是在创作艺术。我从未意识到这一点。你当时对此有很清楚的认识吗？

Did you recognize that you were making art? I know a lot of artists sort of only recognize later as it, wow, I was actually, you know, making art. I'd never recognize that. Were you quite aware of that?

是的，这个问题很难回答，因为这确实是我认真对待的事情，我对很多事情都非常认真。我不会说我认为自己是艺术世界的一部分之类的，但我确实认为这对我个人很重要。嗯。

Yeah, it's quite hard to answer because it's certainly something that I took seriously, and I take a lot of things very seriously. And I wouldn't have said that I saw myself as part of like an art world or anything, but I did consider it as something that was personally important to me. Mhmm.

那么你有没有想过把它展示给观众？因为那时候这类作品可能还没有太多观众，我觉得在大众层面是这样。

So Did you think about, like, showing it to an audience? Because at that point there was probably not much of an audience for that kind of work, I would think, a mass level.

当时有一些小型的在线社区人群，但除此之外就没什么了。我的意思是，我

There was some small online community of people, but outside of that, not really. I mean, I

这是在90年代中期左右吗？

Was this was this kind of mid nineties?

是的。大概是90年代末到21世纪初。是的。基本上，在现实世界中，我根本不认识有谁关心这些东西。

Yeah. Like, late nineties and then early early two thousand. Yeah. Yeah. Basically, I didn't know anybody in the real world who cared about any of this stuff, basically.

所以我有一个小小的在线群体，其中一些人这些年来我一直保持联系，但大多数时候，这只是一小群人在做事情的小众文化。在现实世界中，只有很了解我的人知道我对这些东西感兴趣。那时候我真的对生成艺术很着迷。能够创造出某种东西，你实际上是在编程算法，本质上是在创造一个完整的世界或其他什么，这真是太神奇了。我的意思是，我不知道你想把它和哪种性格缺陷联系起来，但你能做这种事情，而且它真的有效，这很神奇。

So I had my little online group of people, and a few of them I kept in touch with over the years, but mostly it was just, like, some small little subculture of people doing stuff. And, in the real world, just people who knew me well knew that I was interested in these things. It was really kind of obsession with generative art at that time. It was just amazing to create something where you're really programming the algorithm and you're creating essentially an entire world or whatever. I mean, I don't know what kind of personality defect you wanna link it to, but it's kind of amazing that you can do this kind of thing, and really it it works.

这在当时让我感到惊奇，现在依然如此，我并不真的需要别人的认可。所以我只是自己在做。

And that that was amazing to me then and still is now, and I didn't really need validation from anybody else. So I was just doing it on my own.

你当时有在关注其他做类似事情的艺术家吗？还是你完全沉浸在自己的创作世界里？是的。

Were you looking at other artists at the time who were doing similar things, or were you so in your own world of just creating Yeah.

我想我当时不知道还有其他人。我的意思是，我对绘画和古典的东西了解很多，但我真的不知道还有其他艺术家在做生成作品。我肯定在某个时候查找过，但回想起来，现在人们觉得，你知道，你只需要在谷歌里输入点什么，但是，好吧，谷歌那时还不存在。即使在那时，早期的搜索引擎，互联网上的信息也没那么多。对吧？

I don't think I knew of anybody else. I mean, I knew a lot about painting and and and classical things, but I didn't know about other artists doing generative work, really. I'm sure that I looked at some point, but one thing looking back, people think now, okay, you know, it's you just type something into Google, and, okay, Google didn't exist. And even then, the earlier search engines, there was not that much information on the Internet. Right?

当时确实有一些学术网站，但并没有太多易于获取和搜索的信息。所以我在寻找一些东西但没找到。事实上，我的职业生涯就是一系列这样的经历：我对某些寻找的东西有某种直觉，但实际找到它却花了数年时间。我相信对很多人来说都是这样——你并不总是知道如何表达自己的直觉，可能需要多年时间才能找到合适的词汇，然后找到你的社群或兴趣点，等等。

There was, like, were academic websites, but there was not a lot of information that was easily accessible and easily searchable. So I was looking for things and didn't find them. In fact, my career has been a long series of things where I had some intuition about something that I was looking for, and it took years to actually find it. I'm sure it's true of many people that you don't always know how to enunciate your intuition, and it might take years for the words to find themselves and then for you to find your community or find your interest or whatever, you know.

我太喜欢这个说法了。

I love that.

当时你是如何考虑引导这种直觉的？我的意思是，我记得你学的是物理或数学？

How did you think about how to channel that at the time? I mean, I think you studied physics or maths?

两个都学，是的，数学和物理都学。

Both, yeah, both math and physics.

你当时认为自己算是一种艺术家的类型吗？

Did you consider yourself a kind of artist on the size?

我想我当时可能把艺术当作一种爱好，因为对我来说那个方向没有明显的职业道路。那是个比较早的时期，我当时想，也许我会进入计算机图形学和电脑游戏设计等领域，但我不知道具体该怎么做。而我对数学和物理的兴趣似乎更现实，更适合构建职业生涯。不过，回头看，其实我当时并不太在乎职业发展，因为我在学校一直表现很好，从来没有人质疑过我的人生规划。

I would guess I would I would consider the art as as a hobby at the time because, I mean, there was no career path in that direction that was obvious to me. Mean, it was kind of earlier time when I thought, well, maybe I'll go into computer graphics and computer game design and so on, and that I just didn't know how to do it or whatever, and I had these interests in math and physics that seemed more more realistic for building a career. Although, don't know. I mean, looking back, I I I know at the time, actually, I didn't really care about a career because I'd always done so well in school. Nobody was ever questioning what I was gonna do with my life.

大家都觉得，你想做什么都可以。

It was all just like, you can do whatever you want.

所以你他妈真是太聪明了。

So I You're fucking you're so smart.

是的。当时有各种各样的事情推着我往不同方向走，最后事情以某种方式解决了。我可以详细讲述我走过的各种路径等等。但回头看，肯定会比当时实际经历的要简单得多，因为...

Yeah. I I had all kinds of things pushing me pulling me in different directions, and then things worked out one way or the other. I mean, can go into many details about all of the different paths that I took and so on. I'm sure looking back, it will look much simpler than it actually was at the time because

当时你有没有任何一部分想过要追求艺术家的职业道路？

Did did any part of you at the time think I'm gonna pursue a career as a as an artist?

所以不是。但有趣的是，高中时我获得了一个艺术奖。有位美术老师给我的职业建议是应该当艺术家。我记得在接下来的十年里，我反复回想这个建议有多疯狂。因为我选择了离艺术最远的道路——成为一名科学家。

So no. However, what's funny is that in in high school, got, like, an art award. One of the art teachers told me, like, as career advice that I should be an artist. And I remember over, like, the next ten years, thinking back, like, how crazy that advice was. Cause I'm going and I'm doing the thing that's furthest from art, is, you know, being a scientist.

但实际上她算是笑到了最后，因为二十年后的现在，艺术成了我生活中很重要的一部分。

But actually she got kind of the last laugh because now like, you know, twenty years later, it's a big part of my life.

所以你进入了教育领域，成为全职学者。那么是什么时候重新转向艺术的？我猜应该与某个契机有关，请和我们分享。

So you went into teaching, you became a full time academic. Then when did the turn back into the art? I'm assuming it must have come with a release, but tell us.

在我开始成为物理学专业人士时，处理复杂数据集必须思考如何可视化它们——不仅是为了在演讲中向观众展示，更重要的是当你想理解其中涉及的物理现象时，必须思考如何呈现数据以获得洞察。这不同于艺术创作，因为你没有完全的自由度，核心目标是从数据中提取信息。但当时我一直在思考可视化技术，也知道Reddit上存在生成艺术社区，我...

So while I was starting to be a professional in physics, when you deal with complex data sets, you have to think about how to visualize them, and not only for presenting them to audiences in talks and whatever, but also just when you have data sets and you want to understand what is the relevant physics going on, you do have to think about how do I present this in a way that I can get some insight out of it. So it's not exactly the same as making art because the the purpose is not you don't have total freedom. You're really trying to get information out of the data. But I was thinking about visualization and so on, so I kind of knew that there was this generative art community on Reddit, for example, and I would kind

这是哪一年的事，Eric？抱歉打断。

of What year was this, Eric? Sorry.

大概是2015年左右，那个时期。

Say, like, the mid twenty like, 2015, that kind of era.

好的。

Okay.

当时我全职从事物理研究，但心里始终惦记着那个艺术社区。直到2020年Art Blocks平台出现时，一位深耕加密货币领域的朋友——他知道我多年前就痴迷生成艺术——对我说：兄弟，你必须参与进来，这完美契合你当年想做的事。他说得完全正确。于是我立即开始思考如何将物理研究的兴趣转化为艺术。

So I was really doing physics full time, but I was thinking I mean, I still had in mind I knew I kinda knew there was this other community. And then in 2020, when Art Block started, a friend of mine who was, like, deeper into crypto, he knew that I had been obsessed with generative art years previous, and he's like, dude, you gotta get in on this. This is, like, the perfect opportunity for exactly what I think that you were doing. And he was completely right. And so right away, I just started thinking about how I could translate some of my interests in physics into art.

2020年10月我的女儿出生，我忙于照顾孩子。但到2021年有空闲时间时，我开始开发一些代码，并在当年秋天发布了第一个系列《异形语言》，它基于我在语言物理方面的研究。我甚至将某篇论文的研究成果直接应用于代码中，这种体验既奇妙又非凡。

And, so my my daughter was born, October 2020, and I had my hands full with with that. But then kind of during 2021, when I had some free time, I started developing some codes, and then in the fall of that year, released my first series, which was, called Alien Tongues, and it's based on my physics work in language. I mean, I actually could use, like, a result from one of my papers in the code, which has been kind of strange and, remarkable.

请问那篇论文是关于什么内容的？不好意思打断。

And what and what was the what what was the paper about? Sorry.

好的。我感兴趣的领域之一是语言的涌现现象。我有一个模型，它着眼于所有可能语言构成的空间。这是一个非常庞大的空间，我需要找到合适的坐标轴来获得方向感。我发现了一个控制语言从胡言乱语到高度有序状态的坐标轴，这里存在一个转变点。

Okay. So what so one of my interests is about, like, the emergence of language. So I I kind of have this model that is looking at the space of all possible languages. I mean, it's a very huge space, and it look at what are the right axes in this space in order to get some orientation here. And so I found this axis that is controlling when you get kind of gibberish in the language versus when something is very orderly, and there's a a transition point.

于是我创建了一些人工语言，这些语言的句法通过几何方式表达，我可以将它们定位在有序与无序之间的这个临界点上。

And so I made these kind of artificial languages where the syntax was expressed geometrically, and I could position them on this point between ordering.

句法通过几何表达——抱歉，我正在努力理解这是什么意思。

Syntax was expressed geometr sorry. I'm trying to get my head around what that means.

是的。人类语言中的句法关乎词语的排列顺序，使得当我与你交谈时，你能毫不费力地解析出词语的含义——首先是句法层面，然后是语义层面。人类语言主要通过词序和词缀等方式实现，但你可以用任何元素来玩同样的游戏。

Yeah. Mean, know, syntax in in human language is about how what order the words are placed in such a way that when I'm speaking to you, you can effortlessly parse back what is the meaning of the words. I mean, first in terms of the the syntax and then the semantics. With human language, it's basically in terms of the order of the words and the suffixes on the words and so on. But you can play the same game with the words being anything.

所以在设计外星语言时，我创造了自己的字体（可以这么说），字符以特定方式连接，你可以将其视为一种句法形式。通过这种方法，我成功将这些语言置于有序与混沌的边界，这个结果相当令人满意。

So in alien tongues, I've kind of made my own fonts if you like, and the the characters are connected together in such a way that you could think of this as kind of syntax. That's what I did, and I, yeah, I could use this result to place the languages at the edge between order and chaos, which was quite nice.

抱歉，我还在努力完全理解。如果要彻底弄懂你在物理学领域的所有工作，我们可能需要很长时间。

I'm sorry, I'm trying to fully understand. I guess if we try to fully understand everything you've been working on the physics side, we could be here a while.

是的，如果你感兴趣，可以来参加我的研究生研讨会。

Yeah, can attend my graduate seminar if you want.

Eric，你觉得我们有必要谈谈你在物理学方面的研究吗？上次交流时，我完全被震撼和吸引，难以置信世界上有你这样聪明的人。

Do do you think, Eric, it's worth us touching on what you've been working on in physics? Because, I mean, yeah, last time we spoke, I was mind blown and fascinated and couldn't believe that there are people as smart as you in the world.

这个问题我一直不知道如何把握，因为人们来自如此多元的视角和背景。特别困难的是，像科学概念这类事物——我与同事的讨论方式、面向大众的讲解方式，甚至艺术圈也会以不同方式探讨相同主题。

Yeah. It's something that I never know how to navigate because people are coming at at this from so many different points of view and different backgrounds. It's particularly tough because if you take things like scientific ideas, then there's, like, the the way that I talk about them with my colleagues. There's the way that I would talk about it to a popular audience. But then some of the same things are kinda talked about also, say, in artistic circles.

就在今天早上，我还在从艺术家的角度阅读控制论的相关内容，这与科学家的视角截然不同。所以本质上没有标准答案，因为你不可能同时满足所有受众。

So just this morning, I was reading about, cybernetics from the point of view of an artist, and that's quite different from what it would be from the point of view of a of a scientist. So there's basically no right answer because you're never gonna reach everybody at the same time.

对你来说，让观众了解所有这些细节有多重要？

How important is it for you that your audience knows all those details?

好的。我当然不会期望人们像我一样了解所有细节，这既不现实，也不是重点。我的想法是，如果我和一位可能不在同一领域工作的同事讨论物理，最终，如果我们进行正常对话，我必须用自然语言表达那些可能有些数学化或抽象的概念，并传递其中的直觉。我们能够成功进行这些对话，这意味着存在某种方式可以用直观的自然语言来讨论非常抽象的概念，至少作为一种近似是可行的。

Okay. I I certainly would not expect people to know everything at the level that I know them, and that's both unrealistic and just it's not really the point. The way that I think about it is that if I'm talking physics with one of my colleagues, who's maybe not working exactly in the same area, then in the end, if we're having a normal conversation, I have to express ideas that are maybe kind of mathematical or abstract. I have to express them in natural language, and I have to to carry the intuition. And we can have these conversations successfully, so it means that, you know, there's some way to talk about very abstract ideas in intuitive natural language that that works, I mean, at least as an approximation, you know.

所以这告诉我，应该也有可能将这些思想传递给那些可能没有相同训练，或者在不同层次上有丰富训练的人。就像看一幅画，有一种天真的观看方式，你只是看并识别其中的物体，但还有其它层次的感知，更懂艺术的人可能更擅长这些。因此，我认为没有理由不能将这些思想转化为视觉语言，我的兴趣之一就是用图形或视觉的方式表达那些在其最精确表述中可能是数学化的东西。

So that tells me that, okay, it should be possible then to also carry these ideas to people who maybe don't have the same training or maybe who have a lot of training in seeing at many levels. So, you know, it's not I mean, looking at a painting, there's a kind of naive way of looking at the painting. You just look and you just identify the objects that are there, but there are other levels of perception, and people who are more in the arts are probably more attuned to those. And so I don't see why we can't translate ideas into those visual languages, and that's one of my interests is is, you know, expressing things in that might be mathematical in their most precise expression and to express them graphically or visually.

我想，这就是我们所认识的世界的本质吧。

I mean, I guess that's what the world as we know it kind of is.

是的， precisely。我的意思是，我们看到的一切都是某些物理定律的表达，这些定律最精确的表述是数学化的，但我们看到的是它们以其它方式呈现的后果。总的来说，科学思想和概念只有在你能首先在美学上传达你的想法时才有意义，如果人们在美学上产生共鸣，他们就会有动力去进一步探索背后的思想。我认为这很自然，我并不期望更多。

Yeah. Precisely. Mean, everything that we see is an expression of of some physical law that is, you know, most precisely expressed mathematically, but we see its consequences, expressed otherwise. I would say overall, the scientific ideas and the concepts, they they only matter if you can carry your ideas aesthetically first, and if people connect aesthetically, then they can be motivated to pursue further what are the ideas behind it. And I think that that's natural, and I don't really expect more than that.

所以美学就像是特洛伊

So the aesthetics for a Trojan

木马。是的， exactly。

horse. Yes. Exactly.

而且我认为如果美学足够强大，就像你的直觉告诉你的那样，你需要知道更多，我认为人们会对此进行更多研究。他们是否完全理解这个概念是另一回事。但我认为，如果某物在视觉上吸引了你，你不太可能不去进一步探究，尤其是在你的情况下，作品是抽象的，而不是一个具象的、提供最终答案的表征性图像。所以，是的，我认为这会开启更多的探索。但我觉得将每个系列拆开，说它们是某项特定研究的直接代表是不公平的，因为我假设本来也不是那样运作的。

And I think if the aesthetics are strong, like your intuition tells you, need to know more, and I think people will do more research on it. Whether they fully understand the concept or not is another story. But I think if something visually intrigues you, it's very unlikely that either you don't look further into it, especially if in your case, the work is abstract, and it's not, you know, a figurative final representational image that gives you the final answer. So yeah, I would think it opens up for more quest. But I would think it'd be unfair to take every series apart and say that they're a direct representation of a particular research because I'm assuming it wouldn't work like that anyway.

不。很少是那样的。更多的情况是，有一些思想源自物理学。我们了解了事物在世界上如何运作的机制，有趣的是将这些机制简化到最基本的形式，看看它们是否能以某种方式转化为视觉的东西。例如，在‘零’这个作品中，我探索了秩序如何从无到有被创造出来的想法，即你取一些可以被放大的微小不稳定性，最终它们可以通过其它机制在某个大尺度上稳定下来。

No. It's it's it's rare that it's like that. It's more that there are some ideas that come from physics. We learn about mechanisms for how things can work in the world, and it's interesting to take those mechanisms into their simplest form and see, does that somehow translate to something visual? So for example, in zero, I explore this idea of how order is created basically from nothing that you take kind of tiny instabilities that can be amplified, and eventually they can be stabilized by by other mechanisms at some large scale.

这是一种存在于物理学中的机制。它实际上在宇宙中秩序的形成过程中极其重要。有趣的是看看我是否能使其在艺术上清晰可辨，并且在美学上或多或少真实地表现出来。

And that's a kind of mechanism that exists in physics. It's actually extremely dominant for how order is created in the universe. It was interesting to see if if I could make that something that was legible artistically and actually, I mean, more or less honestly represented in terms of the aesthetics.

能否请您为我们讲解一下那个物理学原理？

Would it be possible to just talk us through that physics principle?

好的，当然。我的意思是，秩序从何而来？因为物理定律非常简单。你知道，大爆炸时一切都很简单。

Yeah. Sure. I mean, where where does order come from? Because the the laws of physics are very simple. You know, with the big bang, everything was very simple.

各处的一切都大致相同。没有恒星。没有行星。甚至没有化学物种。什么都没有。

Everything was more or less the same everywhere. There were no stars. There were no planets. There were no there were not even chemical species. There was nothing.

事实上，所有力也大致相同。各处都非常均匀，除了存在极其微小的不均匀性。随着宇宙冷却、膨胀等过程，有些机制会放大这些不均匀性。到某个阶段，原本像池塘微小涟漪的东西会变得足够大，能够自我维持并独立存在。所以大致可以这样理解行星的形成：某些气体或尘埃聚集到一定程度，就会形成相对稳定的天体。

In fact, all the forces more or less were the same. There every everything was very homogeneous everywhere, except that you had very, very tiny inhomogeneities, and you have processes that as the universe was cooling, as it was expanding and so on, there are processes that kind of amplify inhomogeneities. And at some point, you could have something that instead of being like a tiny ripple on the pond, it starts to be something that is big enough, and it can actually sustain itself and and exist on its own. So more or less, you can think about, okay, how is a planet formed? Well, at some point, was some gas or dust or whatever, and at some point, you get enough of it that you become something that is more or less stable.

这个过程在宇宙演化的许多不同阶段不断重复。即使在日常生活中，它也始终以更抽象的形式存在。这是个非常基础的原理，最专业的术语称为自发对称性破缺。之所以叫对称性破缺，比如最初像一条平坦直线时，此处彼处没有区别，我们称之为对称——因为从此处移动到彼处无法察觉差异。

So that process, it repeats itself over the course of the universe at many, many different stages. Even in everyday life it's present all the time in more abstract forms. It's a very fundamental principle. It's called spontaneous symmetry breaking in the most technical form. It's symmetry breaking because say if I initially have something that's like a flat line, there's no difference between here and there, and so we say that there's a symmetry because if I go from here to there I can't tell the difference.

后来对称性被打破，出现了非均匀分布的模式。之所以是自发的，不是因为有人指定在确切位置打破，而是由于微小不均匀性自然产生的过程。这是个非常普适的机制，在基础物理学和其他物理领域都极为重要。

And the symmetry is broken later on there's some pattern that's not the same everywhere. And it's spontaneous because it's not that I tell it to break it exactly here, it's something that just occurs naturally because you have some tiny inhomogeneities. That's a process that's very, very generic. It's very important in fundamental physics and in other physics also, I mean, not fundamental physics.

那么埃里克，您之前在作品中探索过基础物理学的这个方面吗？我的意思是，这是否在您其他既往作品中出现过？

So had you explored this aspect of fundamental physics, in previous works before? I mean, is this something that has surfaced in any other of your previous works, Eric?

其实没有，因为以往我都是从已有一定结构的东西出发进行演变，而这次我真正想从无——或近乎无——开始创作，这和我平时的创作方式不同。

So not not really because other times I'd already kind of started with something that was more structured and then went with it and evolved it, whereas here I really wanted to start from nothing and that was or close to nothing, and that was something that I was not normally doing before.

嗯。

Mhmm.

这部分是出于美学考量——我想避免使用自己或他人用过的现成结构单元，希望尝试些不同的东西。

And that was partly motivated by aesthetic concerns that I I wanted to not use building blocks of structure that I had used before or that other people had used before, and I wanted to do something different.

那么你是说，在你迄今为止的所有作品中，你都在使用这些结构的基本构建模块。这具体是什么意思，结构的基本构建模块？

So you would say that in all of your previous works up to this point, you use these building blocks of structure. What does that exactly mean, the building blocks of structure?

对于生成艺术家来说，有一套技术工具箱，里面是出于各种原因发明出来的已知方法。实际上很多技术最初是为特效而发明的。比如在八十年代

So for generative artists, there's a kind of toolbox of techniques, things that are known that were invented for one reason or the other. So lots of things actually were invented for special effects actually. So in the eighties

嗯。

Mhmm.

最早的特效是用计算机图形学完成的。然后人们需要一种方法来制作看起来像人造行星之类的东西。大家开始思考如何制作表面看起来自然粗糙的效果，就像我们在现实世界中经常看到的那样。Perlin噪声就是一个著名的例子，它基本上是为特效而发明的，但后来成了生成艺术家用来构建各种其他事物的基本构建模块。所以这是一种获得类似自然结构的方法，你可以用它做你想做的事。

The very first special effects being done with computer graphics. Then people needed, okay, what's a routine to make something that looks like an artificial planet or something? People started thinking about how do I make surfaces that look kind of naturally rough as we see often in the real world. Perlin noise is one famous example that was basically invented for special effects, but then became a kind of building block for generative artists to use to build other all kinds of things. So it's some it's a way to get kind of natural like structure, and that you can do what you want with it.

但我想避免使用那些方法，因为如果你用了，在某种意义上，你就是在通过强行加入的其他东西破坏任何可能产生其他新型秩序的动态过程。在动态过程中，你有某种反馈机制，经过长时间演化，它可能变得与开始时截然不同，因为它朝着某个方向进化。但如果它在进化，而你却通过强行施加另一种简单结构来重置它，那你基本上就抹去了所有那些变化。所以我想避免这种情况。我想要的是依靠其自身动力学，基本上可以无限演化，看看能产生出什么样的奇异形态。

But I wanted to avoid that because if you use that, it's kind of like you're, in a sense, corrupting any dynamical processes you have that might generate other new types of order by this other thing that you're putting in by fiat. Under dynamic process, you have kind of feedback processes, and you can get something where over a long time it starts to look very, very different from how it started because it's evolving and it's going a certain direction. But if it's evolving but then you're just kind of resetting it by imposing this other simple structure by fiat, then you're kind of erasing all that. So I wanted to avoid that. I wanted something where on its own dynamics it could evolve basically arbitrarily long to see what kind of strange forms I could generate.

这有点抽象，但确实有某种东西激励我去寻找秩序的新来源。

It's a bit of an abstract motivation, but I mean there was something there that was motivating me to look in new directions for sources of order.

你说的'无限长'是什么意思？抱歉，

What do you mean by arbitrarily long? Sorry,

Eric。我的意思是，如果你拿像流体这样的东西，原则上你可以让它永远运行下去。在现实世界中，事物通常会逐渐稳定下来。我的意思是，并不总是这样，但如果你有，比如说，大气中的湍流，它会永远保持湍流状态，永远不会重置为零或回到某种简单结构。所以你其实并不知道会发生什么。

Eric. I mean that if if you take something like a like a fluid, you can just run it forever in principle. Now in the real world, normally, things kind of settle down. I mean, not always, but if you have, say, turbulence in the atmosphere, it'll just stay turbulent forever, and it's never reset back to zero or back to some simple structure. And so you you you don't really know what's gonna happen.

我的意思是，在现实世界中，有各种因素在纠正它，防止我们的大气一下子全部散失等等，诸如此类的事情。但在计算机上，具体的限制并不那么明显。这非常棘手，因为当你创作一件动态的生成艺术作品时，你希望它能够探索某种可能性空间。但如果它完全失控，那也不好，因为你希望对发生的事情有一定的控制。所以有一些技术可以用来约束混沌。

I mean, okay, the real world, there's various things that are kind of correcting it to prevent that our atmosphere doesn't blow away all at once and so on, things like that. But, you know, on the computer it's not so obvious what are the limitations exactly. And it's very tricky because when you're doing something that is a dynamic work of generative art, then you want to have the thing explore some space of possibility. But if it just goes completely crazy, then that's not very good either because you you want to have some control over what happens. So there are techniques that you can do to rein in the chaos.

例如，你可以防止一个东西离它开始的状态太远。如果你从某种非常有序的结构开始，可以确保随着时间的推移它不会偏离太远。但我想避免这类方法，真正想看看在长时间内能创造出什么样的结构。所以我有一种流体流动，被强迫向不同方向运动。我有某种重力，所以东西会开始下落，但然后重力改变方向，东西又开始上升。

For example, you can kind of prevent a thing from getting too far from however it started. If you started with some very orderly structure, can make sure that over time it doesn't get too far from that. But I wanted to avoid these kinds of things and really to see what kind of structures could be created over over long times. So I have a kind of fluid flow that's being, forced in different directions. So I have kind of gravity so that things will start to fall down, but then the gravity changes directions, things start to fall up.

你会注意到有些看起来像是相互穿透的现象。基本的流体模拟技术叫做格子玻尔兹曼方法。这实际上是物理学家发明的一种在计算机上模拟流体的技术。在格子玻尔兹曼方法中，基本上每个点都有向上、向下、向左、向右流动的流体。如果它们在各个节点处混合得不够充分，这些流体就可能相互穿透。

You'll notice you have things that look like they're kind of going through each other. So the basic fluid simulation technique is something called lattice Boltzmann. It's something that was invented, in fact, by physicists to simulate fluids on the computer. And in lattice Boltzmann, basically, at each point you have, like, some fluid that's going up, some that's going down, some that's going left, some that's going right. And you can kind of have those things go through each other if they don't mix well enough at each of the nodes.

这有点难以解释，但当你看到图案相互穿透时，从某种意义上说是因为它们在节点处混合得不够充分。如果你在做模拟，你会想要避免这种情况，因为在真实

So it's a bit tricky to explain, but when you see that you have patterns that are going through each other, it's in a sense because they're not mixing well enough at the at the nodes. And if you were doing a simulation, you would wanna you would wanna avoid that because in the real

世界中的'节点'是指什么？抱歉。

world mean by at the nodes? Sorry.

好的。你可以想象有一个网格，网格的每条边上都有小管道。流体在各个不同方向上流动，然后在节点处汇聚，就像有小连接点的地方。

Okay. It's kind of like you can imagine that you have, like, a, like, a grid. Imagine you have, like, a grid, and there's little pipes on each of the edges of the grid. And so you have, like, fluid going in all the all the different directions. And then they they come together at, like, nodes where you have little junctions.

我明白了。

I see.

有点像那样。在现实世界中，连接点处会有混合和均匀化，但我可以强制它们不这样做，让它们能够相互穿透等等。我总是喜欢将真实和物理上正确的元素与我认为在美学上有趣的东西混合在一起。

It's a bit like that. Now in the real world, at the junctions, would have some mixing and homogenization, but I can force things to to not do that and to kind of be able to go through each other and so on. And, like, I always like to mix elements of what is real and physically correct with things that I think are interesting aesthetically.

但核心上，我想你是说你编程和创作的方式呼应了作品的概念——作品标题是《零》。你也提到了《破缺对称性》对此的影响。但作品的核心，如果用抽象和概括的方式来说，是关于理解世界中的一些物理定律，对吗？在这个例子中，你提到了万物如何从零开始，以及你如何在作品中表现这一点。你已经说过你没有使用任何构建模块，我想这再次呼应了相同的概念。

But at the core, I guess you're you're saying that the way you programmed it and created it is echoing the the concept of the work, which is, well, the title is Zero. You mentioned Broken Symmetry being an influence within this as well. But the core of the work is, if you were to say just about like abstract in an abstract and generalised way is about I mean, this is really diluting it, but understanding some of the laws of physics within the world, right? And how in this instance, you brought up how everything starts from zero and how you are representing that in this work. And you already mentioned you didn't use any building blocks, which which I guess echoes again the same concept.

但你在我们通话时还提到了关于零的一些内容，你解释如何在代码中使用零以及它如何创造这个构图的方式相当复杂。

But you also mentioned something when we were on a call about zero, and it was quite complex how you explained how you're using that within the code, the zero, and how it creates this composition.

好的。在现实世界中，如果你让流体非常轻柔地流过管道，它会保持非常有序的流动。但如果你倾斜得稍微多一点，它就会转变为湍流，开始产生各种漩涡和涡流等等。本质上，我在代码中做的就是强制它处于这种湍流状态。我的意思是不完全一样，因为我超越了物理真实，但在某种意义上，就像真实流体流动中一旦出现湍流，就会产生这些不可预测的漩涡和涡流。

Okay. So in the real world, if you have a fluid, if you can flow a fluid down a pipe very, very gently, it will just have a very orderly flow. But if you tilt a little bit too much, it will go it'll have this transition to turbulence, and we'll start to have all kinds of whirls and eddies and so on. And, essentially, what I am doing in the code is kind of forcing it to be in this kind of turbulent regime. I mean, not exactly because I go beyond what is true physically, but in a sense, just like in a real fluid flow where once you have turbulence, you get these unpredictable whirls and eddies.

就像当你在飞机上飞越大西洋时，他们说我们正在进入湍流区，飞行员并不完全知道具体会发生什么。他们知道这个区域比正常情况下更难以预测。同样在这种情况下，漩涡具体出现在哪里等等细节，比如飞机会在哪里稍微下降，都是不可预测的，这是因为这种结构是从那里存在的非常小的不稳定性中被激发出来的。我的意思是在那种情况下是在大气流动中。而在这里，我基本上是从接近零的状态开始，然后通过某个过程放大微小的不稳定性。

Like, you know, when you're in airplane going over the Atlantic and they say we're entering turbulence, the pilot doesn't totally know what's gonna happen exactly. They know that there is this region where it's less predictable than it normally is. So also in that case, the details of where the vortices are and stuff, I mean, where you're gonna have the the airplane drop a bit or whatever, it's not predictable, and it's because that structure was excited from very small instabilities that were there. I mean, in that case, in the flow of the atmosphere. Whereas here, what I start with is basically something where it's essentially close to zero, and you have some process that is amplifying small instabilities.

所以，从小规模开始，你有一个能量级联，逐渐扩大到越来越大的规模。那些起初非常微小的事物，开始变得越来越大，直到它们破裂，出现波浪破碎，然后发展出宏观的自发流动。从某种意义上说，这是受物理学启发的，但我所做的并非精确模拟任何事物。我编程并展示的内容由于各种原因无法在现实世界中完全发生，但我认为这在美学上并不重要。关于意义和概念还有一点：一旦你意识到可以从无中创造出所有这些结构，就意味着，如果我看到某个有结构的事物，那它在告诉我什么？

So what you have this starting from small scale, you have a cascade of energy to larger and larger scale. So things that started very small, they start to get bigger and bigger and bigger until they kind of break and you start to have wave breaking and then you have macroscopic flows that develop on their own. So it's in a sense inspired by physics, but it's not that I'm what I'm doing is exactly a simulation of anything. What I have programmed and showed you cannot occur exactly in the real world for various reasons, but that's not I think important aesthetically. And well actually one other thing about the meaning and the concept: part of it is that once you realize that from nothing you can create all this structure, it means that okay, if I look at something that is structured, then what what is it telling me?

是不是所有存在的事物也都来自虚无，还是说它是其他地方某种结构的印记？我认为有些江湖骗子会告诉你，看这个复杂的东西，哦，这是你正在见证的极其复杂的过程，但往往并非如此。你基本上是在看随机噪声。这种现象有很多表现。比如有些人整天盯着股票图表，他们说每一个微小的波动都是一个信号，但很多时候并不是。

Did, like, is everything that is there, did that also come from nothing, or is it somehow the imprint of some other structure somewhere else? And I think that you have snake oil salesmen who are telling you look at something complicated, oh, this is this vastly complicated process that you're you're seeing the the witness of, and it's often not like that. You're you're basically looking at random noise. You have many manifestations of this. You have people who are staring at stock charts all day, and they they say that every single little movement that you see is is a signal, and many times it's not.

那只是噪声。你看到的是微小随机信号的放大，却称之为非常有意义的东西。

It's just it's noise. And you're seeing the amplification of small random signals and calling it something very meaningful.

我想另一个哲学问题是，'无'存在吗？

I guess another, like, a philosophical question, does nothing exist?

是的。这取决于你如何定义。我的意思是，许多数学概念作为理想化的柏拉图式实体存在，它们以这种形式很有用，因为我们可以精确地引用它们。例如，无穷大不是一个数字，对吧？

Yeah. It depends how you define it. I mean, many mathematical concepts, they they exist as idealized, like, platonic entities, and they're useful in that form because then we can make precise reference to them. So for example, infinity is not a number. Right?

无穷大是一个概念，学习数学时需要经历一个飞跃才能理解这一点，但一旦理解，你就可以非常有效地将其作为一个理想概念使用。还有整数中的朴素零，比如我有一个杯子，拿走它，现在我有零个杯子，这没问题。但就物理物质而言，零就有点棘手了。如果你问我这类问题，我可以走向各种你可能不想我深入的方向，比如量子场论等等。好吧。

Infinity is a concept, and there's a leap you have to go through when you learn mathematics to understand that, but then once you do, you can use it very very usefully in that form as an ideal concept. There's like the naive zero of the integers that if I have one cup and I take it away then now I have zero cups, and that's that's fine. Zero in terms of physical matter, then it's a bit trickier. But the problem if you ask me this kind of question, then there's all kinds of roads that I can go down that you don't want me to go down about quantum field theory and, so on. And okay.

我就说到这里吧。

I'll just stop here.

我想我现在比十五分钟前更明白是怎么回事了，但真的很抱歉。能不能请你从头开始，再讲一下世界缺乏均匀性，以及这如何成为起点。

I think I've I've got a better sense of what's going on now than I did fifteen minutes ago, but I'm really sorry. Would it be possible to just, like, start at the beginning again with the lack of homogeneity in the world and how that's the kind of starting point.

所以，我们环顾四周，到处都能看到各种形式和秩序。人们会想知道，从基本物理定律的角度来看，这些是从哪里来的，因为我们知道基本的物理定律。你或多或少可以把它们写在一件T恤的背面。这些定律并没有以任何明确的方式编码我们周围看到的所有复杂性。所以，一定存在某种机制来创造这种复杂性。

So so everywhere we look around, we see all all kinds of form and order. And one wonders where it comes from in terms of fundamental physical laws because we we know the basic physical laws. You can write them on the back of a t shirt, more or less. They then and they don't encode in any explicit way all that complexity that we see around us. So there has to be some mechanism for how the complexity is created.

这不是由FIA（注：此处可能为口误或特定指代，保留原缩写）放进去的。我们没有关于复杂事物的明确指令。你有非常抽象但简单的指令，用于与我们周围所见一切相去甚远的事物。例如，据我们所知，所有生物学都源自物理学，但在物理定律中，你无处可寻关于生或死的任何内容。我的意思是，在那个描述层面上，这个概念并不存在。

It's not put in by by FIA. We don't have explicit instructions for complicated things. You have very abstract but simple instructions for things that are very, very far removed from everything that we see around us. Like, for example, by all of biology comes from physics as far as we know, but we have no in in the laws of physics, you can't look anywhere and see anything about what is alive or dead in the laws of physics. Mean, It's a concept that is not there at that level of description.

一切都是由更简单、更基础的事物中涌现出来的。

Everything is all emergent from much, much simpler things.

抱歉，这是什么意思？它是从...

I'm sorry, what does that mean? It's emergent from

好的，我可以为你解释整个理论，这是一个很美妙的理论。这个理论叫做重整化群。它告诉你，如果你从非常简单的东西出发，你可以问，如果我有一个由许多许多相互作用的部分组成的简单系统，会发生什么？那么，我能做的就是想象对其进行粗粒化，使其变得稍微简单一些，这样你就会在所有可能理论的空间中得到一种流动。而当你走向越来越大的尺度时，这种流动可以让你远离初始行为，比如从原子层面或其他什么层面，进入某种相当不同的状态。

Okay, can explain the whole theory for you, and it's a nice theory. The theory is called the renormalization group. It tells you that if you start from something very simple, you can ask, okay, what happens if I have something simple with many, many interacting parts? Well, what I can do is I can imagine coarse graining to something a little bit simpler, and you get you get a kind of flow through the space of all possible theories. And what happens is that this flow, as you go to larger and larger scales, it can lead you far from the initial behavior, like in terms of atoms or whatever, into something that is quite different.

而你最终到达的地方，其行为可能与你开始时的东西毫无关系。例如，大脑中的集体行为就是心理学和智能，诸如此类的东西。它是许多相互作用的神经元的集体行为。原则上，可以想象从神经元的描述出发来获得所有这些行为，但这做起来非常、非常棘手。但我们有理论工具可以帮助我们理解这在原则上是如何可能的。

And the place where you get to, it can have behavior that's that's, not at all related to the things you started with. For example, the collected behavior in the brain is psychology and intelligence, all that kind of stuff. It's the collected behavior of how many interacting neurons. In principle, can imagine starting from a description with the neurons and getting all that behavior is very, very tricky to do it. But we have theoretical tools that help us understand how in principle it's possible.

好吧。所以我可能扯得太远了，没什么帮助，不过确实如此。

Okay. So I I probably went way far down the rabbit hole that is not so helpful, but yeah.

我有点明白了。所以，如果我现在看着我面前的一株植物，尽管有一套规则，但没有哪株植物和它一模一样，正是因为这个非零的随机化因素的存在，它才如此独特。我的理解大致对吗？

I'm I'm kind of there. So if I'm looking at a plant in front of me now, there's no plant quite like it despite the fact that there's a set of rules, but it's totally unique because of the fact that there's this nonzero randomizer thing. Is that is that at all along the right lines?

是的。就像在许多其他情况下一样，在这个例子中也是如此，例如，植物的某些特性是由其基因组指定的，但即便如此，它在发育过程中也会受到各种环境波动的影响，这些波动会导致它朝这个方向或那个方向长出一片叶子。世界上的大多数过程都是这种形式，我们有很多反馈和动力学效应，最终会放大微小的不均匀性、微小的随机性，并最终使其成为结构的一部分。就像，最终植物长出了一片叶子，然后那片叶子就稳定地存在那里了。所以你看到的是非常、非常微小的随机噪声所造成的结果。

It is. It's true in in that case as it is in many others that the plant, for example, has things specified in in its genome, but even then, it's subject to all kinds of environmental fluctuations over the course of development that will lead it to build a leaf in this direction or this direction or the other. And most processes in the world are of that form where we have a lot of feedback and dynamical effects that in the end amplify small inhomogeneities, small randomness, and it eventually becomes structural. Like, eventually, the plant grows a leaf, and then it's it's stable that that leaf is there. So you're witnessing the consequences of very, very tiny random noise.

所以，抱歉再确认一下。所以，噪声既存在于实际的，呃，DNA本身之中，但也存在于那个更大的系统之中，也就是那个，嗯，是的。比如，环境也在影响着它。

So so sorry. So there's noise there's noise in the actual, like, DNA as it were, but there's also noise in the kind of the bigger system that's kind of how yeah. Like, the environment that's that's impacting it as well.

是的，主要是环境中的噪声才是重要的那个，它导致事物不会沿着某个非常明确的路径发展。如果你把植物种在真空玻璃管里，也许能让它长得笔直，也许分枝会非常均匀。但一旦你把那株植物种在有风、周围有其他昆虫等的土壤中，那么一切就不再那么有序了，这是所有那些微小随机效应不断冲击的结果。

Yes, it's mainly the noise in the environment that is the important one that causes things to not go along some very well defined path. If you grew the plant maybe in a vacuum glass tube, could maybe get it to grow perfectly straight and maybe it would branch very evenly. But once you grow that plant in soil with wind and with other insects around and so on, then things are not so ordered anymore, and it's a consequence of all those tiny bombardments of random effects.

所以在《零》中，你有了植物内部的噪声和环境的噪声，这...这...这在艺术作品中，嗯，在...

And so in Zero, you've got the noise in the the plant and the noise in the environment, which is which is which in in the in the artwork Well in the

这其中有两者兼有的成分。很难完全区分开来，因为就像我说的，它并不完全是对真实物理过程的精确模拟。所以并没有一个完全清晰的界限，它更像是环境噪音。因为它就像是一个完全平静的湖泊，然后你以某个非常浅的角度开始吹气，就可以激起一些涟漪，最终它们可能会破裂并开始产生类似湍流的现象。从这个意义上说，噪音某种程度上来自于环境，来自于外力作用。

there's a there's a bit of both. It's hard exactly to separate it because like I said, it's not it's not exactly the a simulation of a true physical process exactly. So if if there's not exactly a clean separation, so it's kind of like environmental noise. It because it's kind of like you have a a lake that's perfectly calm, and then you you start to blow on it at some very shallow angle, then you can start to excite some ripples, then eventually they might break and start to get something like turbulence. So in that sense, the noise is kind of coming from the the environment, the forcing.

嗯。你无法做出如此清晰的区分，而且这其实并不重要。就像在现实世界中，我们认为物体是截然不同的，但当我们回到某些基本描述时，事物并不是那么清晰分离的。比如，是什么将我的鼻尖与它前面的东西分开？我的意思是，如果深入到原子层面，在某个点上，这里就只有原子。

Mhmm. It's not exactly that you could make such a clean distinction, and it's not important, really. Like, in the real world, we think of objects as being very distinct, but when we go back to some fundamental description, things are not so cleanly separated. Like, what separates the tip of my nose from what's in front of it? I mean, if I go down to the atomic level, at some point, there's just atoms that are here.

有些东西会进入我的鼻子，即使我们在日常生活中习惯于做出这些区分，但要做出非常清晰的区分还是非常困难的。这又是另一个兔子洞。打住。

There's things that are going to my nose that are all it's very hard to make very clean distinctions even though we're used to making those in everyday life. Again, another rabbit hole. Stop.

如果，我...我想我没有看过任何一个零输出超过五分钟。比如，让单个输出持续运行数小时、数天、数年，这种噪音会开始逐渐放大吗？

If, I I've I don't think I've watched any single zero output for more than maybe five minutes. Like, keeping a single one on for hours, days, years, does this noise start to kind of get more and more amplified?

我认为不会。我没有证据证明它不会爆发，但我不认为

I think it will not. I don't have a proof that it will, like, not blow up, but I don't think

它会。

it will.

是的。我的意思是，这当然是个棘手的问题，实际上创造比单纯不可预测更复杂的东西比你想象的要难。比如，要真正产生涌现的结构，并不是那么简单。人们经常谈论这个，但特别是在动态过程中，这并不容易。我的意思是，你可以让某些东西完全爆发成故障和噪音，变得完全无法控制，这并不难做到。

Yeah. I mean, that that's of course a tricky thing, and it's actually harder than you think to create something that is more than naively unpredictable. Like, to have something where you really have emergent structure that comes, it's not so simple. People talk about it a lot, but especially in a dynamic process, it's not so easy. Mean, okay, you can have something that blows up to total, like, glitch and noise where it's just completely uncontrollable and that's not hard to do.

要保持某种在某种意义上仍然控制着美学，同时又以某种方式不可预测的东西，在这个边界上冲浪是相当棘手的。我尝试运用我对物理学的理解，来知道哪些因素如果改变，可能会引发一些有趣的行为。即使我无法准确预测会发生什么，我也不需要。我可以转动旋钮，然后观察会发生什么。

To keep something where you're still, in a sense, controlling the aesthetics and having it be unpredictable in some way, it's quite tricky to surf that boundary. And I try to use my understanding of physics to kind of know which things, if I change them, are likely to lead to some interesting behavior. Even if I can't predict exactly what's going to happen, I don't need to. I can turn the knob and then see what happens.

所以每件作品都是某种模拟的类生命环境。

So each artwork is some kind of simulated kind of living environment.

你在《Alcohol Ones》中将其描述为一场表演。我说你提到了表演这个词对吗？如果是的话，你能再多解释一下你是从哪些方面将其视为表演的吗？

You described it in Alcohol Ones as a performance. Am I right to say that, that you brought up the word performance? And if so, can you explain a bit more in which ways you see it as a performance?

是的，所以在这种情况下，完全相同的代码即使运行两次也不会给你完全相同的结果，你正在见证的是通过动态过程实时创造出来的东西。我对它的控制程度实际上是在尝试引导这个过程朝着某个方向前进。所以我并不是在告诉它具体要做这个或那个，而更多是在试图引导整体表现。因此，这确实是一场字面意义上的表演——你在实时观看某些东西，它并非完全可预测。但在艺术控制的层面上，我会说它处于那个层面，而不是我给出非常明确的指令来规定将要发生什么。

Yeah, so because in this case the exact same code run just twice will not give you exactly the same outcome, then what you're witnessing is something that's really created on the spot through a dynamical process. And the level of control that I'm exerting on it is really at the level of trying to conduct the process to go in a certain kind of direction. So it's really I'm not telling the thing to do exactly this or this, and it's more at the level of trying to conduct the overall performance. So it's it's gonna be a performance in a literal sense that you're viewing something in real time and it's not exactly predictable, But also at the level of artistic control over what's going on, it's it's really, I would say, at that level, rather than me telling quite explicit instructions about what what what's gonna happen.

这是否适用于大多数生成艺术，即每次生成都是一次独特的表演，还是说这个有所不同？

Could you say that about most of generative art that every time you generate there is a performance of its own, or would you say this is different?

人们可能会加以区分。否则，我认为有点不同的是，在标准的生成艺术过程中，创作时会有一些随机性加入，然后你可能会创造出某个静态图像之类的。是的，那里确实有表演的元素，因为你是在获取比如随机哈希值并用它作为生成输出的手段。有点不同的是，在这里你真正观看的是整个动态表演。

People might make the distinction. Otherwise, I think what's a bit different is that, okay, in say a standard generative art process, there is some randomness that comes in at the time of creation, then, yeah, yes, you maybe created a certain static image or whatever. Yeah. There there's an element of performance there because you're taking the, say, random hash and using that as the means to generate the output. What's a bit different is that here, you're really viewing the whole dynamical performance.

我的意思是，它更像是一场现场表演，就像你去剧院看戏一样，你真的看到整个事情在你面前展开。我不会说这是根本性的巨大差异，但可能在某种程度上有所不同。

I mean, it's really more like a live performance as you would go and watch a play on the stage, and you're really seeing the whole thing unfold in front of you. I I would not say it's a difference of, fundamental distant difference, but it's kind of different sub degree maybe.

抱歉。所以你不是在取一个随机哈希值。它们不同不是因为不同的哈希值，而是因为零实际上并不

I'm sorry. So you're not taking a random hash. They're not different because of a different hash. They're different because the zero is not actually

对，对。好的。所以，就像有哈希值输入，而我们设置这些东西的方式，我选择那些哈希值只是为了能让收藏者从可能性集合中选择他们的铸造内容，仅仅是为了这个原因。所以会有哈希值来固定各种参数、调色板等等。

Right. Right. Okay. So, like, there are hashes that go in, and the way that we are setting these things up, I I have chosen those hashes just so that we can have the collectors be able to choose their mints from the set of possibilities, I mean, just for that reason. So there are hashes that will fix then the various parameters, the palette, and so on.

但对于每一件给定的作品，每次运行时，它都始于不同的随机浮点误差，这些是非常非常微小的波动，但会被放大，所以你不会看到完全相同的东西。它们在某种意义上看上去会相似，但不会完全一样。

But then for each given piece, every time you run it, it starts from different random floating point errors that are very, very, very tiny little fluctuations that get amplified so you don't see exactly the same thing. They kind of will read the same way, I mean at least in some sense, but they will not be exactly the same.

那这些误差是从哪里来的？所以你不是在创造它们？你不是

And and where do the and where do these errors come from? So you're you're not creating them? You're not

基本上是因为在计算机上，我们实际上并不精确地做事。通常计算机使用浮点运算，所以存在一定的精度，比如十的十四次方分之一，我不知道，大概是一百亿分之一之类的。通常情况下，你做的多数事情不会放大误差，这通常是人们所期望的。如果我让计算机做某些非常严格可靠的事情，然而它们从根本上并不是以那种方式工作的。

It's basically because in the on the computer, we don't you don't do things exactly, actually. Normally on the computer, things are done with floating point arithmetic, so there's some accuracy which is, one part in 10 to the 14, I don't know, a 100,000,000,000 or something. And normally, most things that you do, they don't amplify the errors, that's what normally what you want. If I ask the computer to do something that it's very, very that's strictly reliable. However, they don't fundamentally work in a way where it actually is like that.

只是大多数时候误差不会放大，所以一切都很

It's just that most of the time the errors don't amplify, so everything's un

抱歉。所以零通常就是零点，尽管这个零是1.29之类的数字？

Sorry. So zero is usually zero point although the zero is one two nine or something?

是的。我的意思是，初始零实际上可以是严格的零，但到了下一个时间步当你开始施加这个力时，它就会接近零但不完全等于零，可能会是10的负14次方这样。然后随着时间的推移，这会不断累积、累积、再累积，事物会呈指数级增长。所以即使某物开始时只有1000亿分之一，经过很短时间后，它就能增长到量级为一，变得足够大。

Yes. Okay. I mean, the the initial zero could actually be strictly zero, and it's only that at the next time step when you start to add this force, it would be close to zero but not quite, and it's gonna be, you know, 10 to the minus 14. Then what happens is that just over time, that can build up and build up and build up and build and things will grow exponentially really so that even if something starts and it's one part in a 100,000,000,000, then after a pretty short time, it can grow to be order one to be, I mean, big enough.

抱歉。这个问题完全没意义，因为我反正听不懂答案。为什么零实际上不是零点？

Sorry. Completely pointless question because I'm not gonna understand the answer. Why is zero not actually zero point?

这取决于具体实现方式，因为它会被设置为严格的零。然而，仅仅经过一个时间步后，就会有一个动力学过程告诉系统如何演化。它不会严格保持在零，而是会变成某个非常非常小的数字，然后这个数字就会不断持续增长。就像我说的，在现实世界中，虽然这个过程大致类似，但并非完全相同。

Mean, depends a bit on implementation because it will be set to what would be strictly zero. However, already after one time step, there's a dynamics which is telling the thing how to evolve. It will not stay strictly at zero. It will go to some very, very tiny number, and then that will just keep going and going going going going. And like I said, in the real world, although this happens more or less analogously, it's not strictly the same.

这一点很重要，因为当我们在计算机上操作时，需要这些过程是可靠的，这意味着我们实际上要驯服所有这些微小的不稳定性。

That that's important because when we do things on the computer, we need those things to be reliable, and that means that actually we tame all these tiny instabilities.

几乎没有人能真正理解你作品背后的原理，这会让你感到沮丧吗？

Is it frustrating that the chances are almost no one who sees your work will properly understand what's going on under the hood?

我认为重要的是在审美上他们觉得它有趣、新颖，并能引领他们走上某种发现之路。至于这条路是否如我所设想，或是另一条不同的道路，这并不那么重要。如果人们朝着我未曾预测的方向发展它，也许甚至更好。对吧？那也很美妙。

I think what's important is that aesthetically that they find it interesting and and novel and that it leads them along some path of discovery. And whether that's the path that I envision or whether it's a different one that's not so important, maybe it's even better if people are taking it in directions that I would not have predicted. Right? That's that's also wonderful.

现在单从构图层面来说，如果我们暂时抛开科学角度。这很难，因为正如我之前所说，大多数时候我们都是凭直觉与艺术作品产生共鸣。我相信你甚至也是凭直觉完成作品的，不会过多思考概念。我觉得这个系列的美妙之处在于它们的展开方式，因为结构本身具有这种随机性，它们的展开过程如此流畅。

Just on the compositional level now, if we kind of break away from the scientific. And it's hard because, as I said earlier, very often, I think most of us connect intuitively to artworks. I'm sure you even finish your artwork intuitively. You don't think about so much about the concept. I think what's beautiful about this series is just the way they unfold, because there is this randomness that's inherent in structure, the way they are unfolding is so fluid.

它如此迷人，感觉如此有机，是的，看起来很美。不过我意识到，也许这个系列——嗯，还有其他系列也使用了你引入的这种非常鲜艳、近乎霓虹色的调色板。我想知道，这只是风格上的选择吗？还是感觉正好合适？因为你有过色调可能更暗沉的系列。是的，我想知道你能否稍微谈谈这一点。

It's so mesmerizing, and feels so organic and so, yeah, beautiful to look at. I have realized, though, maybe this and well, there are other series that have used this color palette that you've brought into the series, but it's a very quite vibrant, almost neon colored palette. And I was wondering, yeah, was this just a stylistic choice or did it just feel right or because you have had series that are maybe more have more darker undertones. Yeah. And I was wondering whether you could talk a little bit about that.

是的。总的来说，在色彩方面，我倾向于自然主义的方法。所以我通常使用的调色板来自我的照片，我有一个这样的色彩库。我倾向于

Yeah. So in general, with color, I tend to like a naturalistic approach. So usually I have palettes that are are sourced from my photos, and I have a kind of library of them. And I tend

抱歉打断你。这些是你拍摄身边事物的照片，还是关于什么的照片？

to Sorry to interrupt you. Are they photos that you take of things around you, or photos of what photos of what?

是的，通常是我旅行时拍的照片，比如来自不同自然地方的，我的意思是有时也包括其他东西，比如我找到的一块漂亮石头之类的。各种东西都有，我在墨西哥买的一件T恤，我也不知道。但重点是，我的工作方式往往是在创作时已经同时在探索各种可能性空间，特别是调整调色板等等。经常发生的情况是，最初我在探索一个很广的范围，我也会看看，这个黑白效果行不行，或者颜色反转后效果如何等等。然后在某个时刻，某个方向开始奏效，我就沿着那个方向深入。

Yeah, photos from my travels often, like from different natural places around, and I mean sometimes other things like a nice rock that I found or whatever. I mean the various things, a t shirt I bought in Mexico, I don't know. But the point is, I tend to work in such a way where as I'm working on something I already have it already exploring like kind of various spaces of possibilities, in particular changing the palettes and so on. It often happens that initially I'm exploring a very wide range, and I'll also see, okay, does this work in black and white, or does it work if I invert the colors and so on. Then at some point just something is starting to work, then I just go in a certain direction.

我经常发现，在颜色方面，它相对独立于概念，所以我可以沿着一个在审美上有效的方向前进，然后从那里继续。因此，结果在颜色、色调等方面往往不是预先注定的。我的意思是，并不总是这样。有时会有更重要的风格选择，但通常我只是在尝试，看看什么有效，然后从那里继续。

I often find that with the colors, it's relatively free from the concept, so I can just go in a direction that is working aesthetically and then go from there. So it's often not so preordained what the result will be in terms of of color and and tone and things like that. I mean, not not always. Sometimes there is more of a important stylistic choice, but often it's just I'm going and seeing what what's working and then going from there.

但总的来说，考虑到你的思维运作如此复杂，并且似乎永久处于受刺激状态，你身处学术环境中，这如何转化为艺术实践呢？这是你下班回家后需要从繁忙的一天中休息一下，就坐在笔记本电脑前开始工作吗？还是你心里有某个特定的想法，比如‘我真的很想深入研究这个概念，并找到一种将其转化为艺术作品的方法’？它是如何渗透到创造力中的？

But just in general, I mean, given, given how complex your mind works and it's, like, permanently stimulated, you're in an academic environment, How does that translate into like artistic practice? Is this something that you just come home, you need a break from a busy day, you just sit on your laptop and you just start working? Or is there one particular thing that's on your mind? You're like, I really wanna get into this concept and find a way of translating that into an artwork? How does it seep into creativity?

它是自然流露出来的，还是计划好的？

Does it just come out, or is it planned?

我的思考方式是，我有些概念，我认为它们包含一些可以转化为视觉语言的真理内核，这让我觉得很有趣。但通常，具体如何实现，或者用哪种类型的代码才能使其有意义，并不明显。这些东西经常在我脑海中徘徊。同时，我也有一些当下觉得有趣的审美方向。比如说，在过去几年里，我对实时演变的、正在运行的、不会重复的代码等等很感兴趣。

The way that I think about it is that I have concepts that I think have some kernel of truth that could be translated to a visual language, and that's just interesting to me. But often, it's not obvious exactly how to do it or in what type of code would actually make that make sense. Those things are kind of lingering in my mind often. Then I also have just aesthetic directions that are interesting for me at the moment. I mean, say in the past couple years, I'm interested in codes that are evolving in real time, that are running, that don't repeat, and so on.

在审美方面，我有一些特定的方向想去探索，我不是每天晚上都做，但当我有灵感时，我就会去编码，看看会发生什么。我有一些这样的‘轨道’在运行，也许在某个时刻它们会相交，我发现某个概念通过我一直在研究的这种审美找到了表达方式，然后我可能会从那里继续。但这通常不会那么顺利，有些东西会被放弃，或者被搁置数月或一年之后才会重新拾起，所以这是一个相当非线性的过程。我想说我总是有某种创造性表达的需求，有时它在艺术领域找到表达，其他时候更多是在物理学和我实际的理论工作中，这取决于...

There are certain specific things in terms of the aesthetics that I want to go in, and I don't do it every night, say, but when I'm feeling inspired then I will go and I will code and see what happens. I have these kind of tracks that run and at some point maybe they intersect and I find that some concept finds expression with this aesthetic that I've been working on, and then maybe I'll go from there. But it often doesn't work like that, and there are things that are abandoned or things that are put on the shelf for months or a year and will come back to, so it's quite a nonlinear process. I would say I always have some need for creative expression, and sometimes it is finding expression here in the art world, other times more in in physics and in my actual theoretical work, and it just depends on

在物理学中，创造力是如何体现的？

is that how does that manifest itself, creativity in physics?

正如我之前提到的，科学中的棘手之处在于，你受到已知知识和我们所知的物理定律的极大限制，即使你意识到有些事情不相符，也许我想提出一个新的想法来解释它们如何吻合，但实现方式有太多的约束，所以非常非常困难。因此，我喜欢发挥创造力。我喜欢提出新模型、新想法、新理论。要成功地做到这一点非常困难，要做一些...

As I was alluding to before, what's tricky in science is that you're so constrained by what is known and by the laws of physics that we know that even if you have in mind that there's these things that don't fit together, and maybe I wanna propose a new idea for how they fit together, There's so many constraints on how that can work that it's very, very hard. So I like to be creative. I like to propose new models, propose new ideas, new theories. It's very difficult to do that successfully, and it's very tricky to do something that's that's

你是指跳出那些约束之外吗？抱歉打断。

Outside of those constraints, you mean? Sorry.

是的，要提出一个可能是正确的、并且基于我们已知的一切尚未被证明是错误的观点，这非常棘手。这就是为什么你会听到人们批评现代科学没有取得任何进展。比如物理学就常被这么说。实际上物理学更像是自身成功的受害者——我们知道得太多，以至于要真正找出那些我们可能知道但尚未知晓的东西变得极其困难，而这仅仅是因为这些事情远远超出了我们在地球上容易进行实验的范围，等等等等。

Yes, it's very tricky to propose something that could be right and is not already wrong based on all the things that we know already. So that's why you hear people criticizing modern science saying that it's not making any progress. People say this about physics for example. It's more like physics is a victim of its own success that we know so much that to actually figure out what's unknown that we could know, it's extremely difficult, and it's just because things things are way beyond the scope of what we can experiment with easily on Earth and blah blah blah.

我我之前没意识到存在这种停滞感。

I I wasn't aware that there's this kind of sense of stagnation.

嗯，好吧。如果你和YouTube上的人交谈，他们会说物理学正在停滞。不完全是我做的领域，但更基础的理论物理学确实在停滞。这基本上是因为在七十年代，我们开始理解这个叫做标准模型的东西，它实际上已经足够好地解释了地球上和太阳系内一切事物的基础物理，或多或少吧。所以有些事情我们解释得不是很清楚，比如宇宙的起源、黑洞中心发生了什么等等，但它们都离实验可探测的范围非常遥远。

Well, okay. If you talk to people on YouTube, they will say that physics is stagnating. Not really what I do, but more fundamental physics is stagnating. It's it's basically because in the seventies, we start to understand this thing called the standard model that is actually good enough to explain the fundamental physics of of everything on Earth and in the solar system more or less. So there are things that we don't explain understand very well, the very beginning and what happens in the middle of a black hole and so on, but they're very far from what can be experimentally probed.

因此，探测它们的唯一方法本质上是通过数学、通过逻辑论证，但这非常棘手。与一百年前相比，情况截然不同，那时你可以进行桌面实验来研究或多或少的基础物理，并得到主导理论无法解释的结果。而现在基础物理如此成功，我们已经远远超越了那个阶段，这就是为什么我们要建造那些长达30公里的粒子加速器隧道。因为我们必须将粒子加速到它们在地球上通常永远无法达到的速度。所以，好吧。

So the only way to probe it is essentially through the mathematics, through logical arguments, but it's it's very tricky. It's it's a very different situation compared to a hundred years ago when you could do tabletop experiments of more or less fundamental physics and get results that could not be explained with a dominant theory. So now fundamental physics is so successful that we're way beyond that stage, and that's why you build these particle accelerators that are, a 30 kilometer tunnel long. It's because we have to accelerate particles up to speeds that normally they would never get to on Earth. So okay.

这就是基础物理领域正在发生的事情。但这并不完全是我的研究方向，因为我更感兴趣的不是粒子物理尺度和大爆炸等基本定律是什么，而是我们如何获得复杂性，这更多是关于从简单的事物出发，形式与秩序如何涌现，生命如何产生，以及所有诸如此类的事情。结果发现，在理论结构和我们使用的技术等方面有很多相似之处，但目标有点不同。所以，像我研究的东西通常被称为复杂系统，它与从事粒子物理之类研究的群体有些不同。

That's what's going on in fundamental physics. And it's not really what I do because I'm interested more in not knowing what are the fundamental laws at the scale of particle physics and Big Bang and so on, and more about how do we get complexity, which is more about starting from something simple, how do we get the emergence of form and order, how do we get life, and all these kinds of things like that. It turns out there's a lot of similarities in terms of the theoretical structures and the techniques that we use and so on, but, the goals are are a bit different. So, like, I what I study are we call them complex systems usually, and it's a bit different from the community people doing, like, particle physics and that kind of stuff.

复杂系统指的是人类、天气

Complex systems being humans, weather

是的。基本上，任何由许多许多相互作用的部分组成的系统，而你关心的是由此产生的涌现行为，而不是简单的事物。例如，就天气或气候而言，你有像飓风、龙卷风等各种涌现现象，它们源于基本定律，但用这些定律并不容易解释。在经济中，你有像股市崩盘、商业周期等各种涌现行为。在大脑中，你有从神经元涌现出的心理学。

Yeah. Basically, any system where you have many, many interacting parts, and what you care about is the emergent behavior that you get rather than the simple things. So in terms of, say, in terms of the weather or climate, you have emergent phenomena like hurricanes and tornadoes and all kinds of things like that that are coming from the fundamental laws, but they're not so easily explainable in terms of them. In economies, you have emergent behavior like stock market crashes, business cycles, all kinds of stuff. And in the brain, have psychology, which is emergent from neurons.

我的意思是，许多许多系统都有这些不同尺度上发生的事情，而有趣的是你从较小尺度获得较大尺度的行为，但两者之间的联系并不明显。

I mean, many many systems, they have these different scales of what's going on, and what's interesting is the larger scale behavior that you get from the smaller scale, but it's not obvious what is the link between them.

人工智能会彻底颠覆一切吗？有没有可能我们关于基础物理的所有想法实际上并不成立，或者虽然成立，但我们在其上发现了其他东西？我是说

Is is AI gonna blow everything open, and is there a chance that everything that we thought about fundamental physics actually is maybe not the case, or maybe it is, but we discovered some other things on top? I mean

对。好吧。嗯，一个重要的事情是托马斯·库恩引入了范式和范式转换的概念。例如，从经典世界到量子世界的转变等等。通常不太被充分认识到的是，当我们经历范式转换时，并不意味着旧的预测完全错误。

Right. Okay. Well, one important thing is that Thomas Kuhn introduced this idea of, of paradigms and paradigm shifts. For example, there was a shift from the classical world to the quantum world and so on. What's not so well appreciated usually is that when we have a paradigm shift, it doesn't mean that the old predictions are completely wrong.

通常，旧的预测在其相关领域内是正确的，而现在我们只是扩展了那个领域，于是就有了新的领域。所以我认为，人工智能确实会在基础物理学方面取得进展，部分原因是我们不愿承认，但作为人类我们确实存在局限。我们进化来适应这个三维空间等等，而我们试图通过数学超越这个限制，去探索更抽象的空间，理解那些我们并非为理解而进化的事物，比如量子力学等等。很难想象人工智能在探索那些我们从未有能力进化去探索的空间方面不会变得更强。我认为它们会在一些棘手问题上取得进展，这些问题之所以难以理解，是因为在进化历程中我们从未需要面对它们。

It's often that the old predictions are true within their domain of relevance, and then now we just kind of expand that domain, and now we have a new new domain. So I I do think that with AI, will make progress in fundamental physics, and partially because we don't like to talk about it, but we are limited as humans. We are we have evolved to live in this, three-dimensional space and so on, and we try to go beyond that with mathematics to look at more abstract spaces, to understand things that we did not evolve to understand, like quantum mechanics and so on. And it's really hard to see how the AI would not become better at exploring those spaces that we never had the ability to evolve to explore. I think that they will make progress on some of these thorny issues where it's just hard for us to get our heads around because we never had to in evolutionary time.

你在尝试提出新理论时会使用人工智能吗？是的，我刚

Are you using AI when you're trying to kind of put forward new theories or whatever? Yeah. I've just

我过去六个月刚开始使用，就像是作为一个共鸣板。我告诉学生们，做演讲或向他人解释你在做的事情非常有用，即使对方完全听不懂——就像对着一堵砖墙说话一样。因为思考如何解释能迫使你理清思路。人工智能至少在这方面肯定有用。如果我遇到某个问题，尝试向AI提出，那么这对解决问题是有帮助的。

I've just started in the past six months, like, kind of as a soundboard. I tell the students, like, giving a talk or explaining what you're doing to somebody else is super useful even if the person you're talking to a brick wall. They don't understand anything because thinking of how you would explain it forces you to clarify your thought. The AI is certainly useful, at least for that. If I have some problem and I try to confront the AI with it, then it's useful for that.

我发现我更多是用它来学习未知的东西。也就是说那些已经为人所知的内容，所以它基本上只是从各种来源整理信息。但我确实觉得它很有用。我的意思是，它有时还是会犯非常愚蠢的错误，但进步速度快得惊人。

I find that I'm using it kind of to learn things that I don't know already. So it means stuff that is already known, so it's more or less just collating information from various sources. But I do find it to be useful. I mean, it does it makes very stupid mistakes sometimes and still, but it's getting better remarkably fast.

你在创作生成艺术时考虑过在代码中也使用它吗？

Have you considered using it in your code as well when you're creating generative art?

是的。目前它还不太适合我的工作流程，但我喜欢的是编写能让我在每一行代码层面都清楚发生了什么的作品——至少就基本规律而言，即使我不知道涌现的行为和后果。目前人工智能在这方面不太有用。所以我用它来做一些像构建HTML、测试样式表之类的事情，那些主要是语法问题，但我还没有将它深度融入我的创作实践中。可能将来某个时候会，要么我适应它，要么它适应我，总会找到合适的工作方式。

Yeah. For the moment, it doesn't really work with my my process that well, but I what I like is to have a code where I know at the level of each line, like, what's what's happening, at least in terms of the kind of fundamental laws, if I don't know the emergent behavior, emergent consequences. And at the moment, the AI is not so useful with that. So I've used it for things like like building HTML and test gating style sheets and things like that where it's just a matter of syntax and stuff like that, but I have not had it deeply embedded into my creative practice. Probably it will be at some point just with some method that either as I adapt or as it adapts, that starts to work well.

是的。我发现艺术家们在这个问题上分歧很大。威廉·马潘的态度是绝对不用。但我也和其他艺术家聊过，他们表示并不从根本上反对。

Yeah. I found artists are quite divided on that. William Mappan was like, absolutely not. I am not gonna use it. But I've spoken to other artists who said not fundamentally against it.

所以看来你也持开放态度，如果你的工作适合使用它的话。

So it seems like you're also open to it if if your if your work is conducive to it.

是的，没错。

Yeah. Exactly.

是的。

Yeah.

比如，对我来说，我会希望在初期拥有非常强的控制力，这样如果它要用于探索性方面，就能从我想要的方向出发，然后在此基础上进行探索。目前，它还不适用于通常使用的那些范式，但这是有可能实现的。

Like, think for me, I would want to have very strong control at the beginning so that if it's gonna be used in an exploratory aspect that it's like starting from the place where I I want it to go and then exploring from there. And at the moment, it doesn't work with the kind of paradigms that are usually being used, but it could.

我们生活在数字现实中吗，埃里克？

Do we live in a digital reality, Eric?

我们生活在数字现实中吗？我不这么认为。我的意思是，我们并不

Do we live in a digital reality? I don't think so. Mean, we we don't

我们生活在一个模拟中。对吧？但那不是数字现实。我认为这是不同的。

We live in a simulation. Right? But that's not a digital reality. I think it's different.

是的，不是生活在模拟中。我的意思是，这么说其实根本解释不了任何问题。这种想法中有一些方面是正确的，因为我们对外部世界的感知体验实际上更多是心理构建的，有点像我们的大脑填补了它看不到的空白。你知道，有各种视觉错觉可以证明这一点，你以为自己同时看到了视野中的所有地方，但其实不是。这只是错觉。

Yeah, don't live in a simulation. Mean, saying that, really doesn't explain anything at all. There are aspects of that kind of idea that are true in that a lot more of our perceived experience of the outside world is actually constructed mentally, and kind of like our brain filling in the gaps of what it doesn't see. You know, there's various visual illusions about this kind of thing where you can show that it's the case, that you think you're seeing everywhere all at once in your field of view, it's not. It's just false.

所以，好吧。这其中有一些元素，我们以为自己有一个普遍共享的外部世界，但实际上我们知道这不是真的。但如果你只是说，哦，整个宇宙是由一台计算机模拟的，这其实什么也解释不了，因为那样的话，好吧，那么是谁创造了这台计算机？是谁

So okay. There's some elements of that where we think that we have this universal shared external world, and actually we know that it's not true. But if you just say that, oh, the whole universe is simulated by a computer, it actually explains nothing because then, okay, well, who's who created the computer? Who's

嗯，它可能什么也解释不了，但这是否意味着情况并非如此呢？

Well, it might it might explain nothing, but does that mean that it's not the case?

不。但那样的话，你就有相当重的举证责任来证明你为什么提出这个观点。

No. But then you you have a pretty strong burden of proof to show why you would propose it.

嗯，这个论点不就像是……我的意思是，我们拿《侠盗猎车手6》来说。在某个时候，世界将由AI创建并由AI收割，那些AI会相信自己是“真实”的。因此，如果那些AI的数量以数十亿比一的比例超过人类，那么我们生活在基础现实中的几率就是数十亿分之一。这个论点……这个论点站不住脚吗

Well, isn't the isn't the argument something along the lines of I mean, we take Grand Theft Auto six. At some point, world is gonna be created with AIs and harvesting it, those AIs will believe themselves to be, quote unquote, real. And therefore, if those AIs outnumber humans by billions to one, then the chances of us living in base reality is billions to one. Is that is that not does that fall apart

抱歉，看看埃里克的表情。对于任何无法透过锅看到的人，他的表情，我想，是我在这里得到的最大反应了。哪里

from Sorry. Eric's face. For anybody who can't see through the pot, his face, I think, is the biggest reaction I've gotten at. Where

那会崩溃吗？

does that fall apart?

埃里克的表情就像在说，不。你看了太多Instagram链接。不。是的。

Eric's face is like, no. You watch too many Instagram links. No. Yeah.

因为这样就没有解释是谁创造了这个模拟。比如，模拟之外是什么？

Because it doesn't then explain who who created the simulation. Like, what what is outside the simulation?

为什么需要解释那个？

Why does it need to explain that?

嗯，如果你不解释，那么你从这个所谓的解释中并没有获得任何东西。

Well, if you don't, then you're not gaining anything from that ex the so called explanation.

即使你不知道上一层级是什么，这难道不更表明我们更可能是处于一个模拟的数字现实中，而不是非模拟的吗？

Even if you don't know what's the level above it, doesn't it suggest that it's more likely we're in a simulated digital reality than than not?

不。说得好

No. Nice

尝试。我认为我们生活在模拟中。我的意思是，正如你刚才说的，埃里克，我认为每个人对自己的现实都有如此不同的理解。因此，它只是一个不同的版本。每个人都有不同的版本同时共存，但我此刻的现实永远不会和其他人完全相同。

try. I think we live in simulations. And I think what I mean by that is that exactly what you were saying, Eric, I think everybody has such a different understanding of their reality. And as a result, it's just a different version. Everybody has different versions that coexist at the same time, but it's never my reality of this moment is never going to be the same as everybody else.

因此，它是完全不真实的。我不知道，我无法完全解释它。但我发现这个概念非常迷人，因为它意味着在任何时刻，没有任何事物真正具有整体性。

And as a result, it's completely unreal. What I don't know, I can't quite explain it. But I find that concept really fascinating because it means nothing really has a totality in any moment.

是的。没错。就像威廉·詹姆斯说的，当两个人相遇时，房间里有六个人：每个人自己眼中的自己，每个人在对方眼中的样子，以及每个人真实的自己。

Yeah. Yes. It's like as William James said that when two men meet, there's six men in the room. There's each man as he appears to himself, each man as he appears to the other as the to the other, and each man as he really is.

这太迷人了，我可以永远聊下去。但我也想问你些别的。我的意思是，基于我们的对话，让我们回到NFT领域和我们的社区等等，你觉得你的作品如此根植于科学理念是怎样的感受？

That's fascinating. I could talk about it forever. But I also wanna ask you something else. I mean, given our conversation, how do you feel like let's take it back to the NFT space and our community, etcetera, etcetera. How do you feel about your works are so much more rooted in scientific ideas?

说实话，从概念深度而言，它们比我合作过的99.9%的艺术家都要深刻，仅就你投入作品的研究量而言。你是如何...是的，你如何与空间中的其他艺术家建立联系？在创作实践方面你是否感觉相当不同？

They're honestly conceptually deeper than I would say 99.9% of artists that I've worked with before, just in terms of the amount of research that you've probably put into your work. How do you? Yeah. How do you connect to other artists on the space? Do you feel quite different in terms of your practice?

还是你觉得这其实无关紧要，因为归根结底，重要的是编码、视觉效果以及我们在美学上的整合。另外，我确实想了解更多你这些年来与社区的关系。

Or do you feel actually that's irrelevant because at the end of the day, you know, it's about how the coding and the visuals and what we're putting together aesthetically. And, yeah, I wanna know more about your sort of relationship with the community, over the years, actually.

是的，这真是个很好的问题，因为涉及很多线索。尽管从外部看我们似乎是一个社区，但我认为内部存在一些平行社区。有些人或多或少和我属于同一代，可能是X世代，从小就接触计算机，我认为我们有许多相同的成长经历，很早就见识到计算机的力量。特别是因为早期计算机非常简单，你不会被迷惑以为它是某种神谕。

Yeah. It's really an excellent question because there's a lot of threads. Even though maybe we seem like we're one community from the outside, I think there's some parallel communities inside. There's people who are more or less from the same generation as me, maybe generation x, who grew up with computers quite small, and I think we had many of the same formative experiences of seeing quite early on what the power of computers was. Especially because at the beginning computers were so simple that you could not be fooled that this was a kind of oracle.

它是你可以通过改变成分非常原始地看到输出的东西。我认为我们很多人都有那种成长经历。在 intervening years 中人们做了不同的事情。但就像我说的，我从艺术开始，然后转向物理，又某种程度回归。所以有些人从艺术起步，然后可能进入网页设计，或者做了些略有不同的事，但我认为我们在基本 outlook 上有一些相似之处。

It was it was something where you could see very primitively by changing the ingredients, the output. And I think a lot of of us had those kind of formative experiences. People did different things in the intervening years. But, like as I said, I started with art and then went to physics and kind of came back. So there are people who just started with art and then maybe they went into web design or maybe they did something also a little bit different, but I think there is some similarity in our basic outlook there.

真正从事科学实践的人非常少，绝对如此，所以在 fundamental interests 上肯定有些差异，比如我对机制有这些兴趣，并试图为其找到表达方式，这可能有点不常见。

There are very few people who are really practicing scientists, absolutely, so there certainly is some difference in like fundamental interests that I have these interests in mechanisms and I am trying to find expression for that and that's maybe a bit uncommon.

你经常和人交流吗？

Do you converse much with people?

在多伦多我们有一个小型的艺术家社区，数字艺术家，其中包括Def Beef和Mitchell Chan，我们有时聚在一起，即使对艺术的兴趣有些不同，也能很好地交谈。

We have a little community of artists, digital artists in Toronto and so among them Def Beef and Mitchell Chan and we get together sometimes and we can talk very well even though our interest in in art are are are a bit different.

听起来像是个很棒的酒局。Eric DeJulie、Mitchell Chan和Def Beef。我也想去参加那个聚会。听起来对话会很精彩。请继续。

That sounds like a great, like, drinks to join. Eric DeJulie, Mitchell Chan, and Def Beef. I wanna make it to that meetup too. That sounds like a great conversation. Go on.

是的，是的。所以我发现即使兴趣迥异，我们的思维方式有些平行，你知道，Mitch来自更传统的艺术背景。Deaf beef有点中间路线，他拿了工程学位，之后一直在做其他事情。我确实觉得我们至少说着同一种语言，所以尽管有这些差异，但没有任何限制。

Yeah, yeah. So I find that we think in some parallel ways even though our interests are quite different and, you know, Mitch is coming from more of a traditional art background. Deaf beef is a bit intermediate. He did an engineering degree and then has been, doing other stuff since then. And I do find that we at least kind of speak the same language, so even though we have these differences, it's not limiting in any sense.

总的来说，我觉得自己既在某些方面属于这个社群，又在某些方面不属于，这对我来说并不那么重要。我喜欢的是我的审美品味在商业化之前就已经形成，所以这已经根深蒂固成为我的一部分。而且我的学术兴趣也在物理学中独立发展，因此我有信心做自己想做的事，不需要外界的认可。当然，能找到志同道合的人很好，但对我来说，这

Overall, there are ways in which I feel like I'm part of the community, ways in which I don't, and it's not really so important to me M and A. What I like is that my taste aesthetically developed like before anything was commercialized, so that's kind of just cemented and part of me. And also my intellectual interest also developed separately also in physics, so I have the confidence to just do what I want and I don't need external validation. So it's nice to find people who are thinking similarly, of course, but for me, it's

并非宇宙是

not that the universe is

不，这并不关键。

not, it's not crucial.

嗯，这让你的作品更有力量。

Well, that gives your work strength.

埃里克，你对你未来的职业生涯有什么总体看法？你设想自己会永远成为一名艺术家兼物理学家吗？

How how do you think about your, future career in in general, Eric? Do you envisage kind of being arsat sound physicists forever?

是的。我发现，在任何时候，我要么有更迫切想通过艺术表达的想法，要么有更迫切想通过物理学表达的想法，这在某种程度上似乎是交替进行的。我没有任何确切的计划。总的来说，我强烈认为必须抓住机会，所以目前我在多个方向都有机会，我只是在所有这些方向上探索，同时还要兼顾家庭等等。所以目前，我并没有一个确切的计划。

Yeah. So what I find is that at any one point, I either have ideas which I feel more urgent to to express through art or more urgent to express through physics, and it seems to just alternate back and forth in some sense. I don't have any true plan. Mean one thing I feel very strongly about in general is that one has to seize opportunities, so at the moment I have opportunities in many directions and I'm just navigating all those, I mean alongside having a small family and so on. So for the moment, I don't really have a plan exactly.

我有很多想做的事情。我对物理学中的一些想法非常兴奋，并且正在积极探索。我只是在尽力平衡一切，看看它会带我走向何方。

I have many things I want to do. I have ideas in physics I'm very excited about, and I am exploring those actively. And I'm just trying to juggle everything and see where where it takes me.

你认为自己拥有两份职业，还是说你是一名物理学家，而艺术只是一种创造性的副业？

Do you consider yourself as having two careers, or are you a physicist and this is something a kind of creative outlet alongside it?

它们是互补的，但这并不意味着它们完全相同，就像我之前说的。比如，当我戴上艺术家的帽子时，我可以比戴上物理学家的帽子时更自由，我不想给人留下做艺术项目就像做物理学工作一样的印象。它们真的非常不同。但由于有一种共同的灵感和动机源泉将这两者联系在一起，所以从这个意义上说，它们在心理层面是统一的。因此，我不需要把自己定义得太清楚。

They're complementary, but it doesn't mean that they're exactly the same as as I was saying. Like, when I have my art hat on I can be freer than I could be with the physics hat on, and I'm it's not I don't want to give the impression that, like, making an art project is the same as as doing something in physics. It's it's really quite different. So but since, like, there's a kind of common wellspring of inspiration and motivation that is really linking those two things together, so in that sense they're unified, like, at the psychological level. So I haven't had to define myself that well.

我的意思是，我不再是匿名的了，所以从这个意义上说，你知道，我有一个公开的形象，我在物理学界遇到的人会问起我的艺术等等。我也给一些科学家做过关于艺术和科学的讲座。然而，我认为艺术家的个性表型与大多数科学家截然不同。我的意思是，在某些亚型中，相关性更强。所以实际上数学家与艺术家非常接近，非常非常接近。

I mean, I'm not anonymous anymore, so in that sense, you know, I have one public persona, and people I meet in physics, they ask about my art and so on. I've given some talks to scientists about art and science and so on. However, I would say that the personality phenotype of an artist is quite different from most scientists. I mean, there are certain subtypes where there's a stronger correlation. So actually mathematicians are quite close to artists, very very close.

其他科学家与他们距离更远，特别是如果你去接触实验主义者等等。所以在科学家群体内部，有些人我会认为更像是艺术家，而对我来说，我自然就属于那一类。例如，在理论物理学中，有一小群人真正想要推动新的创造性方向，从心理层面来说，他们与艺术家非常接近，即使他们中的大多数人可能没有任何

Other scientists are further from them, especially if you go to experimentalists and so on. So within, say, the group of scientists, are people who I would identify more as like artists, and then for me, I just naturally fit in that. So for example, in theoretical physics, there's a very small group of people who really are wanting to push new creative directions, and psychologically, they're quite close to artists even if most of them would not have any

创造数字作品的倾向。是的。这边是数字领域。对吧？

Kind of inclination to create Yes. Digital things over here. Right?

是的。是的。是的。就像，在心理层面上，那里仍然存在一些共同的联系。是的。

Yes. Yes. Yes. Like, at the psychological level, there is still some some common connection there. Yeah.

我同意你的观点。实际上我本来想说，当我们之前提到科学家时，我的意思是，你说科学家与艺术家不同，但我实际上认为科学家、艺术家和数学家实际上比我们想象的更相似，因为我认为他们是少数我能想到的能够进行非常抽象思考的个体。对我来说，这就像是艺术家的一个优势。如果你能真正跳出常人思维，那就是你做事情的方式，这让你成为真正优秀的艺术家。

I I agree with you. I actually was gonna say when we said earlier, scientists. I mean, you say scientists are different to artists, but I actually think scientists and artists and mathematicians are actually more similar than we think because I think they're part of the only individuals that I can think of that can think very abstract. And that is to me like a strength of an artist. If you can think really outside of what normal people think as that's how you do things, that makes you really good artist.

我想这也适用于数学家或科学家，因为你只是不相信极限。是的，我不确定。

And I guess the same applies to a mathematician or a scientist because you just don't believe in a limit. Yeah, I don't know.

是的，确实如此。科学是一个相当广泛的谱系，并非每个人都如此接近创造性的一面。但在我们这些更偏向那一侧的人当中，是的，存在某种亲和力。

Yeah, it's true. Science is quite a big spectrum and not everybody is so close to the creative side. But within those of us who are more on that side, then yes, there's a certain affinity.

你说得对。

You're right.

Eric，不想占用你太多时间。如果我们还有时间的话，我很想花一分钟聊聊Kayleon和Atlas，Phil可能

Eric, don't want to keep your money. If we do have any time, I would love a minute on Kayleon and Atlas, Phil's probably

100%同意。

100% wish.

是的。我有两件你的特定作品花了相当多时间研究。对于这两件作品中所发生的事情，有什么主要的主题或亮点吗？

Yeah. There are two particular works of yours that I've just spent quite a bit of time with. Is there a kind of headline for what's going on in in in both of them?

在《Calian》中，我真正想探索的理念是：你可以创造出某种具有生命感的东西，但它并不完全像我们所知的真实生命。这会迫使你去思考——当我认定某物具有生命感时，这究竟意味着什么？因为通常当我看到昆虫之类的东西时，更像是识别出它属于昆虫类别，并不会真正迫使我思考'生命意味着什么'。而我希望能引导观众提出这个更原始、更根本的问题。至于《Atlas》，这又回到了我之前谈到的尺度问题——我对物理系统的兴趣在于：在微观尺度上事物相对简单，而在宏观尺度上可能变得复杂，但二者之间的联系并不显而易见。

In Calian, what I really wanted to explore was the idea that you can create something that's kind of lifelike, but that does not resemble life exactly as we know it. So it then forces you to interrogate, like, when I'm identifying something as lifelike, what what does that really mean? Because normally if I see an insect or something, it's more like I'm recognizing that this is something in the class of insects. It doesn't actually force me to ask what does it mean for something to be alive, whereas I wanted to lead the viewer to ask this more primitive fundamental question. With with Atlas, it was a bit going back to what I was talking about with scales earlier that my interest in physics are systems where you have some kind of microscopic scale where things are more or less simple and then a macroscopic scale where they can be complicated, it's not obvious how you what is the the link between the two.

我想展示这样一种系统：当你放大时，它看起来非常混乱、无序且充满暴力，而在大尺度上却可以相当有序。这实际上是我们理解许多复杂系统的范式，比如经济体系——在微观层面是激烈的竞争过程，但在宏观层面却呈现出有序行为。所以我希望创作一个能同时展现这两个层级、并能平滑切换的作品，让你看到事物随尺度变化会呈现截然不同的面貌，而且它们之间没有明确界限——你可以从放大连续过渡到缩小，看到这是同一个系统，却在不同尺度下呈现出完全不同的观感。

And I wanted to show something where when you zoom in, looks very chaotic and disorganized and violent, and at the large scale it can be quite orderly. And that's actually the paradigm for how we understand a lot of complex systems that things like an economy or something, where at the small scale actually it's quite a violent competitive process, and yet at the large scale you can have quite orderly behavior. So I wanted something where you could see both of those two levels and kind of go between them smoothly so that you see that things can appear quite different as a function of scale and there's not such a clean line between them, because you can go continuously from zoomed in to zoomed out and see that it's the same system and yet it looks, it feels very different at the different scales.

说到这个，首先关于作品：《破缺对称》将是一个256件的系列，预计九月中旬发布。更多细节会在播客播出前后公布。现在一切即将成型，你感觉如何？

Well, maybe on that note, first of all, the work. Broken Symmetry is going to be a series of two fifty six. It's going to be released in mid September. And yeah, more details to be followed after or before the pod pending. How do you feel about it all coming together at this point?

在结束前，我很想听听你对作品的感受。你完成它已经有一段时间了。

Just before we go, I'd love to hear from you how you feel about the work. You completed it a while.

是的，我对此非常满意。这个系列的新特点在于对整套作品进行了策展，特别是对图像的精心筛选。通常我会有延迟或其他处理方式，但这次很棒，因为我对每件作品都花费了时间，试图选择决定性的瞬间来捕捉快照。

Yeah. I'm super happy with it. And one thing that is new with this series is really curating the whole set, and in particular, like, curating the the images. So normally, I'm doing it with some delay or something. That's quite nice because it means that for every single piece, I spent some time with it and tried to choose a decisive moment to take the the snapshot.

这种感觉很好，我很好奇人们会被哪些作品吸引。你知道，这个系列涵盖了从混沌到有序的多种状态。

So that that's quite nice, and I'm curious to see which ones people gravitate towards. You know? There's a a range of chaos and order and so on.

这是经过策展的。也就是说你精选了全部256件作品，而人们将有机会选择自己心仪的作品。

It's curated. So you've selected all 256 pieces, and people will have a choice to select their work.

是的，正是如此。

Yes. Exactly.

太棒了。那么Eric，你现在处于什么状态？是暂时休息直到下一个项目，还是继续在创作层面进行编码？我知道你已经开始了学术年度，但目前你的创作计划是怎样的？

Amazing. So where are you at right now, Eric? Are you taking a break from it until the next? Or do you just keep on coding, I mean, on on the creative level? I know I know you started your academic year, but where are you at with?

是的，学术和其他方面有太多事情需要完成，所以我不得不暂缓创作。灵感会在脑海深处酝酿，可能过几个月我就会开始捣鼓新东西。但目前暂时没有其他创作计划。

Yeah. I have way too many things to finish in academic side and other things, so I have to take a bit of a pause. Things will bubble up in the back of my mind, and I'll get some idea, and probably in a couple months I'll start tinkering away at something else. But for the moment, no other plans for creative activity.

这是最好的状态。我相信我们的听众会和我们一样对这些感到兴奋，因为我要实事求是地说它们太不可思议了。就这样吧。非常感谢你，埃里克，来参加我们的节目。有你在这里真是令人愉快。

It's the best way of being. I'm sure our audience is gonna be just as excited as us about these because I'm gonna factually say they're incredible. So that's that's that. Thank you so much, Eric, for joining us. It's been a delight to have you.

如果我们俩都完全摸不着头脑，我很抱歉。

I'm sorry if we were both completely clued this.

我

I

想我需要回头再听一遍这个。

think I need to listen to this on back.

我不

I'm not

确定我能

sure I can

忍受听我自己向埃里克提出那些，呃，真的很令人难受的问题。但是，是的，感谢你开阔了我们的思维，让我们更多地审视周围的环境。并且，是的，非常期待你即将发布的作品。

stomach listening to myself asking, like, really painful questions to Eric. But, yeah, thank you for opening our minds and making us question our surroundings a little bit more. And, yeah, looking forward to your release coming up very soon.

太棒了。非常感谢。

Excellent. Thank you very much.