宇宙和生命实在是不可思议. 让人百思不得其解, 怎样理解"无限"? 生命存在的条件为什么那么精确? 一个科学家说, 我们人类面对宇宙和生命的时候, 就象狗面对高等数学.
下面的文章来自最新一期的TIME:
_______________
Cosmic Conundrum The universe seems uncannily well suited to the existence of life. Could that really be an accident?
Michael D. Lemonick; J. Madeleine Nash
29 November 2004
Time
U.S. Edition
Dealing with cranks is an occupational hazard for most scientists, but it's especially bad for physicists and astronomers. Those who study the cosmos for a living tend to be bombarded with letters, calls and emails from would-be geniuses who insist they have refuted Einstein or devised a new theory of gravity or disproved the Big Bang. The telltale signs of crankdom are so consistent--a grandiose theory, minimal credentials, a messianic zeal--that scientists can usually spot them a mile off.
That's why the case of James Gardner is so surprising. He seems to fit the profile perfectly: he's a Portland, Ore., attorney, not a scientist, who argues--are you ready for this?--that our universe might have been
manufactured by a race of superintelligent extraterrestrial beings. That is exactly the sort of idea that would normally have experts rolling their eyes, blocking e-mails and hoping the author won't corner them at a lecture or a conference.
But when Gardner's book Biocosmcame out last year, it carried jacket endorsements from a surprisingly eminent group of scientists. "A novel perspective on humankind's role in the universe," wrote Martin Rees, the astronomer royal of Britain and a Cambridge colleague of Stephen Hawking's. "There is little doubt that his ideas will change yours," wrote Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute in California. "A magnificent one-stop account of the history of life," wrote complexity theorist John Casti, a co- founder of the Santa Fe Institute. Since then, Gardner has been welcomed at major planetariums and legitimate scientific conferences, explaining his ideas to a surprisingly interested public.
It's not that anyone actually buys Gardner's theory. He admits it's "farfetched," and even those scientists who find it stimulating think it's wildly improbable. But it does have one thing in its favor. The biocosm theory is an attempt, albeit a highly speculative one, to solve what just might be science's most profound mystery: why the universe, against all odds, is so remarkably hospitable to life.
Given that we haven't found any life beyond Earth yet, "remarkably hospitable" may sound a bit strong. At a deep level, though, it's true. Many of the most fundamental characteristics of our cosmos--the relative strengths of gravity, electromagnetism and the forces that operate inside atomic nuclei as well as the masses and relative abundances of different particles--are so finely tuned that if just one of them were even slightly different, life as we know it couldn't exist.
If the so-called weak nuclear interaction were a tiny bit stronger or weaker than it is, for example, stars wouldn't blow up in the mammoth supernovas that spread elements like carbon and oxygen out into space--and without those elements, there would be no water and no organic molecules. If the strong nuclear force were just one-half of 1% stronger or weaker, stars could not make carbon or oxygen in the first place. In 1999 Martin Rees postulated that there were "just six numbers" that make life possible, although other theorists have since added several. And because there is no known law that requires those forces to have the values they do, scientists figure that there must be another explanation for how we got so lucky.
The proposition that the cosmos is--against all odds--perfectly tuned for life is known as the anthropic principle. And while it has been getting a lot of attention lately, there is no consensus on how seriously to take it. Some scientists are confident that there is a law that dictates the values of those key cosmic numbers, and when we find it, the anthropic problem will go away. Others think the answer is even simpler: if the numbers were any different than they are, we wouldn't be around to argue about them- -case closed. "The anthropic principle," complains Fermilab astrophysicist Rocky Kolb, "is the duct tape of cosmology. It's not beautiful or elegant, and it sure as hell is not going to be permanent."
A vocal sector of the religious community, on the other hand, has seized on the anthropic principle as further evidence that God created the universe just for us--adding intellectual support to the so-called intelligent-design movement, which believes that the staggering complexity of nature can be explained only by assuming that some higher intelligence had a hand in designing it. Over the past several years, pitched battles have been fought in school boards in Ohio, Kansas, Georgia and Montana and, just weeks ago, in Dover County, Pa., over whether to give intelligent design and Darwin's theory of evolution equal time in classrooms.
Although intelligent design may appear to have found tiny pockets of support in the scientific community, most scientists consider appeals to a supernatural designer to be an intellectual dead end. Over and over in our history, natural phenomena--lightning, the changing of the seasons, the nature of the sun and moon--have been explained simply by saying God (or Zeus or Odin) did it, only to have that explanation fall away as science provided a more satisfying answer. Maybe we really have reached the limits of intellectual understanding, but few scientists are willing to give up quite yet, even on seemingly intractable problems.
In fact, lots of astrophysicists think the anthropic issue, rather than signaling a problem with modern science, points toward a deeper understanding of the universe. Rees likes to use our solar system as an analogy. Says Rees: "If Earth were the only planet in the universe, you'd be astonished that we just happened to be exactly the right distance from the sun to be habitable." That would be absurdly improbable, but it becomes much less so when you realize that the Milky Way almost certainly has millions of planets. With so many possibilities, it's not surprising that at least one planet is friendly to life.
And so, he contends, it might be with the cosmos. What we think of as the "universe," argues Rees, could well be just one of trillions of universes on an indescribably vaster stage called the multiverse. Each of those universes would have different laws and characteristics. Most of them are totally unlivable; like Earth, ours just happens to be one of the lucky ones.
On its face, the idea that multiple universes exist simultaneously in some parallel spheres of being sounds as farfetched as Gardner's biocosm theory. But scientists have been warily edging toward that conclusion from other directions for reasons that originally had nothing to do with the anthropic principle.
Take black holes. In the 1960s, Princeton physicist John Wheeler coined the term to describe a region where matter is so dense and gravity so intense that even light can't escape. At the core of a black hole is a singularity, a spot where density and gravity appear to become infinitely great-- unleashing forces that could rip a hole in the very fabric of space-time and send a brand-new universe expanding in a direction undetectable and imperceptible to us. Since giant black holes lurk at the cores of many billions of galaxies and smaller holes are left behind by many billions of individual exploding stars, that could mean our cosmos has given birth to a staggering number of baby universes. And each of those could give birth in turn to billions more.
Then there is inflation theory, which came along in the 1980s as a kind of amendment to the original Big Bang. Its basic premise is that when the universe was less than a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second old, it briefly went through a period of supercharged expansion, ballooning from the size of a proton to the size of a grapefruit (and thus expanding at many, many times the speed of light). Then the expansion slowed to a much more stately pace. Improbable as the theory sounds, it has held up in every observation astronomers have managed to make.
And inflation, it turns out, leads once again to multiple universes. The inflationary period in our own region of space ran out of steam early on, but theorists, including Stanford University's Andrei Linde and Tufts University's Alexander Vilenkin, have shown that it should continue in others. Our own part of the cosmos took a sort of off ramp to evolve into the universe we see today, but the rest kept going, at breakneck speed- -and that part is still going, spawning universes along the way, beyond our comprehension. In some, says Linde, the laws of physics could easily be so different that our sort of life would be impossible.
Multiple universes emerge from so-called superstring theory as well. This still evolving theory is based on the notion that, matter is made, not of particles, but of tiny, vibrating loops of energy called strings. The strings exist in a world of up to 10 spatial dimensions, all but three of which are too minute for us to perceive. Strange though it sounds, most physicists agree that it is the most likely candidate for the long-sought theory of everything that could finally unite relativity and quantum mechanics, the two great but mutually incompatible ideas of 20th century physics.
Superstring theory, which has lately been renamed Mtheory for reasons that interest only theoretical physicists, is so dauntingly complex that the smartest scientists in the world are still trying to nail it down. But among other things, it provides for multiple universes.
Last year a Stanford theorist named Shamit Kachru set out with some colleagues to calculate just how many different universes one particular version of string theory could produce. The number he came up with was a 1 followed by something like 100 zeros--roughly a hundred billion billion times the number of atoms in our universe. It was an answer that didn't please anyone. Says Max Tegmark, a theorist at the University of Pennsylvania: "People have tried very hard to get rid of these multiple universes and failed. They just don't like the concept; they think it's weird. And they're right. But don't we already have good evidence by now that the cosmos really is weird?" To Einstein's celebrated musing about whether God had a choice in creating the universe, the answer seems to be a resounding yes: all sorts of universes are possible.
Not everyone is convinced that the anthropic principle is sound evidence for a multiverse, though. "In my view," says cosmologist George Ellis, of the University of Cape Town in South Africa: "Belief in multiple universes is just as much a matter of faith as any other religious belief." Even scientists who are willing to entertain the anthropic position are wary, with good reason. "Astronomers have been burned over and over again," says SETI's Shostak, "on beliefs that seemed to imply we're special--that we're at the center of the solar system or the center of the galaxy, or that the Milky Way is the only galaxy in the universe. Every time, it turned out that we weren't special after all. We just didn't have enough knowledge."
Besides, it's easy to see the anthropic principle as an explanation of last resort. When he first began looking at it back in the late 1980s, particle theorist Steven Weinberg of the University of Texas hoped the anthropic principle might go away. But the opposite happened. "It's not something that we're particularly happy about," he says. Every physicist dreams of being able to calculate everything from a set of fundamental laws. But at the same time, Weinberg says, "it's important to be realistic. We may just have to get used to the fact that some of the things we call fundamental constants may be historical accidents."
For example, he observes, when it was first realized that planets go around the sun, astronomers hoped they might find an underlying principle that would explain why the planets orbit at the precise distances they do. But now we know the orbits are the result of pure chance. The elliptical shapes of planetary orbits, on the other hand, led to the truly profound discovery of Newton's laws of gravity. "My own feeling," says Brian Greene, a superstring theorist at Columbia University and author of the best-selling The Fabric of the Cosmos, "is that we can give a deeper explanation of why this universe, with its particular properties, came to be."
That may be the most important result of anthropic thinking: it pushes scientists to ask all sorts of new questions--questions that may ultimately provoke a new scientific revolution. For example, how improbable is our universe? If the answer is not very, there ought to be lots of universes like our own. Or if multiple universes come about through inflation, as M.I.T. cosmologist Alan Guth suspects, "does it produce all types of universes about equally, or does it produce just a few types? We don't know the answer--yet."
We also don't know how different from our own a universe could be and still support life. Change one thing--the strength of gravity, say--and life might be impossible. Change several at once, though, as Anthony Aguirre, of the University of California at Santa Cruz, has tried in his calculations, and you get a surprise. It is possible, he says, to get life-friendly universes by twiddling with multiple knobs.
The anthropic principle still makes many scientists uncomfortable- -and not just because it gives comfort to theologians. That discomfort, says Stanford theorist Leonard Susskind, is all to the good. "In the end," he observes, "it doesn't matter whether the anthropic principle makes us happy. What matters is whether it's true"--that is, whether cosmic numbers really are as arbitrary as they seem. If they aren't, physics may eventually succeed in explaining many features of our world that seem so puzzling today. And if the anthropic principle is true? Well, then, says Aguirre, "the universe will seem even more preposterous and baroque than before."
- posted on 11/24/2004
Very interesting indeed. Yet the idea of our universe being designed by superintelligent extraterrestrial beings, just like the Creation idea, has a fundamental error - it puts an end to everything. What further efforts can one make if he knows he exists in a pre-determined nature?
Just as the article says -
Although intelligent design may appear to have found tiny pockets of support in the scientific community, most scientists consider appeals to a supernatural designer to be an intellectual dead end. - posted on 11/24/2004
宇宙和生命实在是不可思议. 让人百思不得其解, 怎样理解"无限"? 生命存在的条件为什么那么精确?
康妮的好奇心尚存,看来童心未泯。
对“无限”的理解首先依赖于讨论本题时采用的坐标系。一只莫比斯环上的蚂蚁面临的空间在我们看来当然很有限,但对它来说,在它前进的方向上是无限的。
我们讨论“宇宙无限”这个概念时,通常假定一个无限延伸的三维直线坐标,加上一个时间。这么一个简单的坐标系在天体力学里可能并不存在,但是作为一个超越天体力学的哲学概念应当是存在的。
如果“宇宙无限”这个前提存在,我们这个地球就很难是唯一的生命载体。
“生命存在的条件为什么那么精确?”这个问题问得不好。它有两个毛病,第一,它假定了生命的存在是一个必然事件。如果假定生命的存在是一个偶然事件,这个问题就不必问了。第二,“精确”二字误解了生命现象。生命现象其实更像模糊数学的范畴一样,在宏观上是极不精确的,其调控的过程基本上是“得过且过”,“随遇而安”。
一个科学家说, 我们人类面对宇宙和生命的时候, 就象狗面对高等数学.
有意思的比喻。对生物学而言,愚意以为更好的比喻应该是“人面对人”:生物学的研究对象的复杂程度等同于研究者本身的复杂程度,因而最终是不可知的。当然这并不是说我们不能在相当程度上接近目标。
- posted on 11/24/2004
八十一子 wrote:
康妮的好奇心尚存,看来童心未泯。
八兄的言外之意怕是说我象文科傻妞吧? :)
对“无限”的理解首先依赖于讨论本题时采用的坐标系。一只莫比斯环上的蚂蚁面临的空间在我们看来当然很有限,但对它来说,在它前进的方向上是无限的。
我们讨论“宇宙无限”这个概念时,通常假定一个无限延伸的三维直线坐标,加上一个时间。这么一个简单的坐标系在天体力学里可能并不存在,但是作为一个超越天体力学的哲学概念应当是存在的。
这样的无限之外又是什么?84年在南京过夏天,奇热无比,拽了个行军床到顶楼阳台过夜,看着星光闪烁的苍穹,我第一次想到了这个问题:无限之外是什么?
所以每次想到宇宙,我都想起南京,想起初次露天睡觉的那一夜.:)
“生命存在的条件为什么那么精确?”这个问题问得不好。它有两个毛病,第一,它假定了生命的存在是一个必然事件。如果假定生命的存在是一个偶然事件,这个问题就不必问了。第二,“精确”二字误解了生命现象。生命现象其实更像模糊数学的范畴一样,在宏观上是极不精确的,其调控的过程基本上是“得过且过”,“随遇而安”。
为什么不能假定生命的存在是一个必然事件?宏观必然,微观偶然.Superintelligent beings设计创造了宇宙和生命,生命又在进化竞争中繁衍生息.设计好了以后, 生物自身又发生了进化和转化就不可能吗?
从办公室的窗户望出去,车水马龙,高楼林立. 一切生命的迹象都让我没办法相信生命纯属偶然的说法.
不过有一点是确定的 - 今天我没心情工作. :)
- Re: 宇宙和生命posted on 11/24/2004
这话题,我能和你侃上三天三夜。
我长期艰苦思索的结论是,除了“神明”之外没有答案。
- Re: 宇宙和生命posted on 11/24/2004
谢康妮姐的贴文,大家都来帮着我照看这里,让我真高兴。 - posted on 11/24/2004
啊,俺十来岁时有次跟着老爸夜间散步,看着星空,问他一些宇宙有多大有多少太阳系多少星球之类的无限问题,结果很是沮丧 - 人在宇宙间之渺小,存在之偶然,之无意义,一起涌上脑门,顿感活着无趣。奇怪的是我又多活了二十几年,尽管这种无趣感还根深蒂固。呵呵。
不过俺还是庆幸活着,偶尔能经历些好东西,比如美味的烤鸭。:)
Connie wrote:
这样的无限之外又是什么?84年在南京过夏天,奇热无比,拽了个行军床到顶楼阳台过夜,看着星光闪烁的苍穹,我第一次想到了这个问题:无限之外是什么? - Re: 宇宙和生命posted on 11/24/2004
我想我还是只能拒绝“神创论”。
数学家们上哪里去了?快来给康妮讲讲“无边”和“无限”的异同,免得她偷换概念,使讨论无法进行。:-)
说到边沿,麦哲伦号飞行器前不久终于在飞了二十多年后飞出了太阳系。每每想到这个孤单的飞行器,我对人类还是满有信心。 - Re: 宇宙和生命posted on 11/24/2004
I am on your side old 8.
琢磨后,觉得康妮和老爱都信神。瞎猜。呵呵。
八十一子 wrote:
我想我还是只能拒绝“神创论”。 - posted on 11/24/2004
这样的无限之外又是什么?
问得好!此题“无”解。“无限之外”乃是“无”。无生一。一之外自然就是无。老子和现代天文学在这一点上是一致的。
这里有没有印度教徒?印度教的庙堂里无数的神龛,其中最重要的一个神龛里什么也没有。那就是“无”。
阿拉伯人发明了“零”这个数。所以阿拉伯人也是有“无”的概念的。
相比之下,古代欧洲人没有“0”的概念,在思辨方面差了很多。
I am glad you are on my side too, adagio. :-) Actually we are probably all on the same side. - Re: 宇宙和生命posted on 11/24/2004
人类智慧的最大功能是为我们酿一杯自欺欺人的美酒。
圣经说得很明白,上帝让智慧的人眼瞎了。
不认识到自己大脑的微渺可笑,我们就无法认识神明。
- posted on 11/24/2004
thesunlover wrote:
人类智慧的最大功能是为我们酿一杯自欺欺人的美酒。
圣经说得很明白,上帝让智慧的人眼瞎了。
不认识到自己大脑的微渺可笑,我们就无法认识神明。
是。我上班路过一教堂。那里有块标语牌说:“Faith is developed in darkness”。信然。
宗教和科学是两个不同的思维范畴。它们之间的交流是单向的:宗教会注视科学的发展,以便修正一下自己的神学理论,比如承认日心说和采用微观进化论,而科学界则不是太关心自己的理论是否合乎宗教界的想法。"We are okay. Thank you very much." - Re: 宇宙和生命posted on 11/24/2004
对於肯作独立思考的人来讲,从心智上认识神与自形式上接受某一具体宗教有所不同,
为人操纵谬误不断的世俗教会更不能构成寻找真理的障碍。
八十一子 wrote:
宗教和科学是两个不同的思维范畴。它们之间的交流是单向的:宗教会注视科学的发展,以便修正一下自己的神学理论,比如承认日心说和采用微观进化论,而科学界则不是太关心自己的理论是否合乎宗教界的想法。"We are okay. Thank you very much." - Re: 宇宙和生命posted on 11/24/2004
老爱,说说看,信神给你的独立思考和心智发展带来了什么积极作用?:)
说不出来,则信神跟不信都差不多,如果不是更坏 - 没脑的人信神对世界是挺可怕的一件事,看看牛皮烘烘的美国红脖子们和杀气腾腾的伊斯兰弟兄们。呵呵。:) - posted on 11/25/2004
在感恩节,我们的确首先要感谢造物主,他创造了这个宇宙----我们存在的前提.关于宇宙的讨论,有一点可以确定: 这个宇宙产生于于130亿年前的大爆破,这个宇宙仍在扩张,但在将来某个时候,估计至少几十亿年,它将开始大塌陷.那个时候仍生活在地球上的我们的后代,并不能预知从那一刻开始塌陷,他们连同所创造的文明一瞬间被毁灭.他们来不及体会痛苦和恐惧.全过程大致相当于阿Q掐死的那个虱子,PIA的一声就完了.最后,宇宙缩成豌豆大小.
多重宇宙的存在是可能的.因此,有可能我们的后代会赶在大塌陷之前,从黑洞深处的时空隧道乘飞船转移到更年轻的宇宙去.
从哲学的角度,我们宁肯相信时空是有限的,宇宙就像一个人有一天会死去.会死得很壮丽,如同"太阳与六便士"的结局,但这次是上帝之手毁掉他的作品.
- posted on 11/26/2004
八十一子 wrote:
我想我还是只能拒绝“神创论”。
数学家们上哪里去了?快来给康妮讲讲“无边”和“无限”的异同,免得她偷换概念,使讨论无法进行。:-)
哈哈! 8兄是秀才遇到兵, 有理说不清了.
说实话, 我非常羡慕那些有宗教信仰的人, 特别是一出生就进入DARKNESS的人. 我想把自己从这些恐怕永远都无解的疑问中解放出来, 心安理得地去做些其他的事情. 我只是想获得心灵的平静.
可是我试了几次都失败了, 所以还在继续疑问 :)
我只是想说, 这个世界的未知之处太多了, 人的理解能力太有限了, 断然否定或肯定任何可能性都显得狭隘和盲目.
- posted on 11/26/2004
一九八五年五月米兰·昆德拉获的耶路撒冷文学奖时,在典礼演讲词里引了一句犹太谚语“Quand l‘homme pense, Dieu rit.”-(人类一思考,上帝就发笑。)
维特根斯坦在《TRACTATUS LOGICO--PHILOSOPHICUS》的末尾讲得更清楚:“Die richtige Methode der Philosophie wäre eigentlich die: Nichts zu sagen, als was sich sagen läßt, also Sätze der Naturwissenschaft –also etwas,was mitPhilosophie nichts zu tun hat-, und dann immer, wenn ein anderer etwas Metaphysisches sagen wollte, ihm nachzuweisen, daß er gewissen Zeichen in seinen Sätzen keine Bedeutung gegeben hat. Diese Methode wäre für den anderen unbefriedigend –er hätte nicht das Gefühl,daß wir ihn Philosophie lehrten- aber sie wäre die einzig streng richtige.”-“哲学中正确的方法是:除了可说的东西,即自然科学的命题——也就是与哲学无关的某种东西之外,就不再说什么,而且一旦有人想说某种形而上学的东西时,立刻就向他指明,他没有给他的命题中的某些记号以指谓。虽然有人会不满意这种方法——他不觉得我们是在教他哲学——但是这却是唯一严格正确的方法。”
“Wovon man nicht sprechen kann,darüber muß man schweigen.”-“对于不可说的东西我们必须保持沉默。”
Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché-Epoché - Re: 宇宙和生命posted on 11/26/2004
vivo wrote:我们希望上帝发笑而不是发怒, 所以要继续思考下去 :):):)
一九八五年五月米兰·昆德拉获的耶路撒冷文学奖时,在典礼演讲词里引了一句犹太谚语“Quand l‘homme pense, Dieu rit.”-(人类一思考,上帝就发笑。)
- posted on 11/26/2004
康妮 wrote:
vivo wrote:我们希望上帝发笑而不是发怒, 所以要继续思考下去 :):):)
一九八五年五月米兰·昆德拉获的耶路撒冷文学奖时,在典礼演讲词里引了一句犹太谚语“Quand l‘homme pense, Dieu rit.”-(人类一思考,上帝就发笑。)
上帝还是满可爱的:他不是太在意我们对他怎样想像和理解。
我比较怕的是上帝的代言人。人对上帝既不可知,这位代言人也是人,何以他就知道了?所以历来的各种上帝的代言人以及他们的门徒都很难处理这个问题。耶稣被他的门徒改造成天人交媾的产物,但从此基督教也就不再是纯粹的一神教。穆罕默德宣称自己只是替梦中人传言(“可兰”的意思即为“背诵”),但既然他可以解释上帝的话,他的弟子不可以么?于是就有了逊尼派和什叶派一千五百年的争执和流血。犹太人比较圆滑一点,他们的上帝代言人根本就还没到来,慢慢等罢。
- Re: 宇宙和生命posted on 11/28/2004
对于你的问题,我只能回答 --- 一言难尽。俺对陌生人从来不传教。
神的问题,听别人谈十天,不如自己思考半天,所以,我劝你你还是不要偷懒的好 :-)
adagio wrote:
老爱,说说看,信神给你的独立思考和心智发展带来了什么积极作用?:)
说不出来,则信神跟不信都差不多,如果不是更坏 - 没脑的人信神对世界是挺可怕的一件事,看看牛皮烘烘的美国红脖子们和杀气腾腾的伊斯兰弟兄们。呵呵。:) - Re: 宇宙和生命posted on 11/29/2004
嘿嘿,俺要是偷懒,十年前就信主了。 - posted on 11/29/2004
在此岸救赎此岸
Tertullian:“正因为荒谬,所以相信”(Credo quia adsurdumest)
Augustine:“信仰然后理解”(Credo ut intelligas)
Heidegger:只有上帝才能救我们('Nur noch ein Gott kann uns retten')
陀司妥耶夫斯基:如果没有上帝,一切将成为可能
《论语》:“子不语怪力乱神;未知生焉知死”
but nietzsche announced :"Gott ist tot"(god is dead!)
卫慧《上海宝贝》:上帝太远,我抓不住你的手!
presently how it is possible from chaos 2 logos?
nous ?ration? is enough???
唯一的救赎是我们此生下地狱,所以耶稣走向十字架。
来世的虚妄如同此世的荒谬,我们有太多的奢望!
肉身成佛的真理或许在于《坛经》所说的“即佛行是佛”
天堂的神话与其说是知识的表达,不如说只是一种可选择的态度――我愿意相信
六合之外,圣人存而不论
但我愿意坚信仁者无敌,和头顶灿烂的星空无关,和内心深处的道德法则无关,as Homo Economicus,它仅仅只是博奕论(Game theory)意义上的占优策略。仁者安仁,智者利仁,我们不是天生的仁者,我们只是自私的基因(Selfish Gene),但我们也许会选择仁,它是有工具价值的必需品。
我不下地狱,谁下地狱,人生的壮丽与辉煌便在于勇于选择必败的事去做,并矢志不渝。所以孔丘受厄于蔡,成了至圣先师;佛陀舍生喂虎,他永驻极乐世界:基督上了十支架,此后便是唯一的神。可是我们的世界从没有变好。特里莎修女也清楚的知道,她无从拯救我们的罪恶。
历史的巨轮照旧轰轰烈烈的前行,我只是一粒尘,我也是一个世界。 - Re: 宇宙和生命posted on 11/29/2004
我也不偷懒。对於不信的人来讲我是信的;对於信的人来讲我是不信的。
我比较坚决的是不相信进化论,还有就是相信人(特别是男人)都有原罪。
- Re: 宇宙和生命posted on 11/30/2004
我比较坚决的是不相信进化论,还有就是相信人(特别是男人)都有原罪。
阁下 莫非 传说中的 男人??
Replied By:
VIVO
11/29/04
10:32
毛泽东语录:介位老兄真达人也
(录旧的关系吧?) - Re: 宇宙和生命posted on 11/30/2004
误:阁下 莫非 就是 传说中的 男人??
- posted on 12/02/2004
胡乱插两句。八十一子对“人择原理”的理解很有道理,但“精确调控”一说是科学家回避不了的,尽管它也为“神创论”提供了一个方便之门。理论物理和宇宙学现在很牛了,牛到可以用几个自由参数就可以自圆其说地解释整个宇宙的起源和演化过程。这几个参数如果稍有偏差,那生命就无法形成演化。比如,宇宙膨胀比现在看到的过快过慢,生命就搞不定。膨胀过快,宇宙开始时的那一锅混沌汤就会太稀,星系和恒星就无法形成演化;膨胀过慢,混沌汤就会太干(重),宇宙就会反弹压缩,生命也没时间形成。
“自由”参数到底有几个,说法不一。多到二十多个,少到六个,物理学家的梦想是参数越少越好,因为参数少的理论一般比参数多的简单,自然又总偏爱简单。用托勒梅的地心说来解释行星也能符合当时的观测,但太复杂,最后被证明是错的。Martin Rees 出了一本书, 叫“六个数就搞定宇宙” (Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe),是太牛了,但“六”倒是个吉利数字。
过了“精确调控”这道坎,就像Connie引的Time这篇文章所指出的,加上“人择原理”,自然的推论就导致“多重宇宙”或“神创论”。信神创的也不能太得意,如果Rees真猜对了上帝用来造宇宙的机器上就只有那“六”个旋钮的话,上帝是不会笑的, 说不定会把Rees直接送上天堂,因为玩笑开大了。
- posted on 12/02/2004
胡乱插两句。八十一子对“人择原理”的理解很有道理,但“精确调控”一说是科学家回避不了的,尽管它也为“神创论”提供了一个方便之门。理论物理和宇宙学现在很牛了,牛到可以用几个自由参数就可以自圆其说地解释整个宇宙的起源和演化过程。这几个参数如果稍有偏差,那生命就无法形成演化。比如,宇宙膨胀比现在看到的过快过慢,生命就搞不定。膨胀过快,宇宙开始时的那一锅混沌汤就会太稀,星系和恒星就无法形成演化;膨胀过慢,混沌汤就会太干(重),宇宙就会反弹压缩,生命也没时间形成。
“自由”参数到底有几个,说法不一。多到二十多个,少到六个,物理学家的梦想是参数越少越好,因为参数少的理论一般比参数多的简单,自然又总偏爱简单。用托勒梅的地心说来解释行星也能符合当时的观测,但太复杂,最后被证明是错的。Martin Rees 出了一本书, 叫“六个数就搞定宇宙” (Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe),是太牛了,但“六”倒是个吉利数字。
过了“精确调控”这道坎,就像Connie引的Time这篇文章所指出的,加上“人择原理”,自然的推论就导致“多重宇宙”或“神创论”。信神创的也不能太得意,如果Rees真猜对了上帝用来造宇宙的机器上就只有那“六”个旋钮的话,上帝是不会笑的, 说不定会把Rees直接送上天堂,因为玩笑开大了。
- posted on 12/04/2004
神!那就是人啊!人就是神自己的游戏。干脆直接从小说里摘录其神论吧:
他打开音响,屋里开始飘荡出卡萨斯沉着、和缓地拉出的大提琴声,孤独、坚韧而略带沙哑。王晓野在落地窗前面朝黑茫茫的大海席地而坐,一串钢琴叮咚的细语很快加入大提琴孤单的叙述,这是巴赫与上帝之间的窃窃私语,也是卡萨斯与上帝之间的。
王晓野从纽约刚到香港时,常常孤独一人在夜色笼罩的愉景湾倾听这盘佛雕般安详、洁净的巴赫二重奏。如今他又回到了孤独时代。大提琴和钢琴和谐、默契的对话在屋里渐渐合为一种唱和,时缓时快,舒展、空灵、柔和,如风随帆,掠过海面,驶向天边……
渐渐地,王晓野不知自己身在何处。
阴阳之动,如蚕抽丝。神无形无像,在道上对王晓野说出无声无息之言:人生如此完美!为什么不感激呢?每一个人,每一件事都是完美的,包括你的仇敌和灾难。你是个因缘聚合而成的血肉之躯,是神从绝对世界跑到相对世界后的一种体验,缘起性空!世界就是这样一个被体验出来的幻觉。藉此迷离缤纷的世界,你寻找回家的路,即从相对世界重归绝对世界的道,通往神之道。道既是道路,又是目的;既是能量,又是生命,也是那万有的一体。道生一,一生二,二生三,三生万物!
每人来到这相对世界都有自己独特的使命。体验生命是这一世为人的意义所在,但生命并非一个结果,而是一个创造!在此世的博弈是由生命进行的。问题是:生命是自己的吗?自己究竟是谁?既然生命无所不在,生命就是永恒,是道,是神,是爱,是自由!死亡不过是生命呈现自己的另一种方式罢了,所以死亡也是相对世界的一种虚幻,一种让人悟道的手段,是生命一体两面的表现。
连死亡都是子虚乌有,而况名利乎?幸福乎?体验所谓‘坏的’‘负面的’‘不幸的’一面,也许才是人此世之大欲!这也正好吻合了阴阳之道。一部《道德经》,是否就是神留在中国《圣经》?神是谁?神就是我们自己,神就在我们之内,我们也在神之内。王晓野进入庄周梦蝶之境界。
- posted on 12/05/2004
Inspiring discussions. But we human beings are too arrogant and eccentric.
Compared to the universe we are like young infants, knowing too little about the universe in which we dwell in a very tiny way. Yes we have explored and studies and thought above everything which have come into our mind, and we are thrilled by the magnificent mansions we have established (religions and Gods, philosophies, and indeed science), cannot help but be carried away by the achievements of human beings. But remember we are only one of the forms of highly intellectual life existence we know. The unknown is huge, almost infinite. So don’t jump into any conclusions (a general human weakness, understandable limitations) for we know so little to make sense on most of things.
The good news is that our scientists are keeping pursuing the truth (which itself a moving target by the way), making our journey a more informed one.
The universe is the place for life to search, to perform, to fulfil, to end and to start again…isn’t itself a beautiful thing?
- posted on 12/05/2004
God is a playboy. 原本小说《焦虑年代》的名字就是这个。 上帝是个花花太岁。
狗狗说得有趣。 要去google一下这个Rees。
狗狗 wrote:
胡乱插两句。八十一子对“人择原理”的理解很有道理,但“精确调控”一说是科学家回避不了的,尽管它也为“神创论”提供了一个方便之门。理论物理和宇宙学现在很牛了,牛到可以用几个自由参数就可以自圆其说地解释整个宇宙的起源和演化过程。这几个参数如果稍有偏差,那生命就无法形成演化。比如,宇宙膨胀比现在看到的过快过慢,生命就搞不定。膨胀过快,宇宙开始时的那一锅混沌汤就会太稀,星系和恒星就无法形成演化;膨胀过慢,混沌汤就会太干(重),宇宙就会反弹压缩,生命也没时间形成。
“自由”参数到底有几个,说法不一。多到二十多个,少到六个,物理学家的梦想是参数越少越好,因为参数少的理论一般比参数多的简单,自然又总偏爱简单。用托勒梅的地心说来解释行星也能符合当时的观测,但太复杂,最后被证明是错的。Martin Rees 出了一本书, 叫“六个数就搞定宇宙” (Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe),是太牛了,但“六”倒是个吉利数字。
过了“精确调控”这道坎,就像Connie引的Time这篇文章所指出的,加上“人择原理”,自然的推论就导致“多重宇宙”或“神创论”。信神创的也不能太得意,如果Rees真猜对了上帝用来造宇宙的机器上就只有那“六”个旋钮的话,上帝是不会笑的, 说不定会把Rees直接送上天堂,因为玩笑开大了。
- posted on 12/05/2004
神明,数学都是错误的.它们都不可能知道作为生命的本体如何来到这世上,也不能预知生命何时完结.
用神明,宗教,数学,理性,甚至科学来探讨生命都是极端愚蠢的,吃饱饭没事干.
生命的完结正如生命之始一般,作为本体,你几乎一无所知.
花朵的芬芳,刀刃的锋利
当它们未来到世界
没有芬芳,也没有锋利
当它们死亡
没有芬芳,也没有锋利
知识和精神属于哪里?
人类以为你们属于生命
实在狂妄,实在愚不可及
生命一朝形骸消散
你们何遁何从?
关于生命起源的问题,我能谈上10个版本.本人不喜欢在周长上绕圈.我为人类感到羞愧:人类是自然界超级吝啬鬼,自私鬼,无聊鬼,满嘴黄牙嚼着蛆虫的兽鬼.
不管你耍不耍无赖,不管你知道什么,不管你用什么来自慰.大自然会恢复到原来的样子.大自然是强者,它不必向人类解释.到期就得还,人类! - posted on 12/07/2004
“无限之外是什么?”
“既是‘无限’,何来‘之外’?”
“......‘精确’二字误解了生命现象。生命现象其实更像模糊数学的范畴一样,在宏观上是极不精确的,其调控的过程基本上是‘得过且过’,‘随遇而安’......
〉一个科学家说, 我们人类面对宇宙和生命的时候, 就象狗面对高等数学.有意思的比喻。对生物学而言,愚意以为更好的比喻应该是“人面对人”:生物学的研究对象的复杂程度等同于研究者本身的复杂程度,因而最终是不可知的。当然这并不是说我们不能在相当程度上接近目标。”
“说的好,说的妙,说的上帝点头弯腰笑。”
其实“人类一思考,上帝就发笑”也没什么不好,大家共娱共乐而已。生命里值得快乐的事情可能不多,但可以很简单。
- Re: 宇宙和生命posted on 02/06/2006
不管怎么样,不是传扬人类本性的善爱和美德吗 - posted on 02/06/2006
四岁儿子涂鸦的表现欲非常强,但表达能力不够,于是半年前我带他去求师。我提出期望值,从绘画基本功练起, 比如线要画直,圈要画圆之类。然而老师给了最典型的美国式回答,亦即任由他画啥就画啥,只是多加培养细致的观察能力。我有点泄气,就暂时没有报名。但老师有一句话,抄到这里比较有关联。她说,其实大自然没有一条精确的直线,为什么要强求画得笔直呢?
我不清楚她的宗教信仰,我自己早已不再去教堂。不过,我笃信造物神的力量,只是神与教在我的眼里,是截然可以独立分开的。记得小学的同桌有一天突然缺席课堂,老师说他昨夜溺水身亡,也记得第一次在产房抱起初生儿,那些时刻无不感到生命的脆弱渺小。如果说这脆弱的力量来自于无数次偶然的变异,如果水、阳光、土壤和空气都偶然地等候这种脆弱力量的出现,如果自然界不精确展现如此的和谐巧妙, 那些无穷的不精确的偶然实际上已证明一种必然。
曾经在实验室抱着电子显微镜看了几年,非常的不情愿,但至少知道在微观的空间里,物质完全遵循另一套规律,呈现与宏观状态不一致的性能,也就是所谓的纳米现象。换一个宇观的对象,则早已超出期末考试划定的重点范围,在此不敢胡言,但至少可以断定那又是一套肉眼看不透的法则。
我相信上下天地的神, 但不信任前后左右的教。这与99有点共通吧。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation