策劃、編譯■李威撰、謝雯伃

專家學者的心目中，哪一種科學理論最能滿足解惑的渴求？

來自科學及人文社群的192名學者，在Edge.org網站上提出各自心儀的理論。

然而，無論科學理論如何近乎完美，仍有許多偶然現象無法獲得解釋，

但現代科學理論追求者，或許不是完滿的解釋，而是對偶然的征服。

從達爾文的演化論，到認為人類個性主要是由偶然所形塑而成的看法，全球最著名的思想家最鍾愛的理論，就跟科學本身一樣地折衷調和。

From Darwinian evolution to the idea that personality is largely shaped by chance, the favorite theories of the world's most eminent thinkers are as eclectic as science itself.

每年1月，主持線上沙龍Edge.org的作家經紀人博克曼會邀請與他交流的科學家、數位菁英和人文學者，一同解決一個問題。前幾年，他們討論過「網路如何改變你思考的方式？」及「過去2千年來，最重要的發明為何？」

Every January, John Brockman, the impresario and literary agent who presides over the online salon Edge.org, asks his circle of scientists, digerati and humanities scholars to tackle one question. In previous years, they have included "how is the Internet changing the way you think?" and "what is the most important invention in the last 2,000 years?"

今年，他提出了一個開放性問題：「你最喜愛的深奧的、簡明的或完美出色的解釋為何？」參與者的討論結果於15日午夜公布。

This year, he posed the open-ended （1） question "what is your favorite deep, elegant or beautiful explanation?" The responses released at midnight on Sunday.

近2百名學者中，不少人推薦堪稱史上最具影響力的兩大科學理論。牛津大學榮譽退休教授道金斯表示：「達爾文的天擇說不費吹灰之力勝出。」

Several of the nearly 200 scholars nominated what are arguably the two most powerful scientific theories ever developed. "Darwin's natural selection wins hands down," argues Dawkins, emeritus professor at Oxford University.

▲達爾文（Charles Darwin）

「在人類認知領域中，從未有過一個理論像它一樣，在這麼少的假設中，解釋了這麼多事實。」他說，該理論環繞生活中的各項事物，它建立在自然選擇的觀念上，自然選擇的運作則以任意的基因突變為基礎。

"Never in the field of human comprehension were so many facts explained by assuming so few," he says of the theory that encompasses everything about life, based on the idea of natural selection operating on random genetic mutations.

以空間曲率解釋重力的愛因斯坦相對論也贏得部分人的贊同。加州大學聖塔芭芭拉分校理論物理學家吉丁斯寫道：「這個核心思想形塑我們對現代宇宙論的觀念，也賦予我們宇宙持續膨脹的意象。」

Einstein's theory of relativity, which explains gravity as the curvature of space, also gets a few nods. As theoretical physicist Steve Giddings of the University of California, Santa Barbara, writes, "This central idea has shaped our ideas of modern cosmology （2） (and) given us the image of the expanding universe."

▲愛因斯坦（Albert Einstein）

廣義相對論解釋了黑洞、光偏折，「甚至對我們宇宙的源起提供一個可能的解釋－從『空無』的量子穿隧而來。」他寫道。

General relativity explains black holes, the bending of light and "even offers a possible explanation of the origin of our Universe - as quantum tunneling from 'nothing,'" he writes.

沙克實驗室的計算神經科學家史諾斯基表示，發現人類一些重要決定，像是該做什麼工作，或是和誰結婚等，並非由具有意識且審慎思考的心智所決定。在暗中操控的是「稱之為基底核的古老大腦系統，是意識無法企及的大腦迴路。」他寫道。

Terrence Sejnowski, a computational neuroscientist at the Salk Institute, extols the discovery that the conscious, deliberative mind is not the author of important decisions such as what work people do and who they marry. Instead, he writes, "an ancient brain system called the basal ganglia, brain circuits that consciousness cannot access," pull the strings.

透過神經化學物質多巴胺的運作，能預測一個抉擇將帶來多少益處──如果我選擇了這間公寓，我會有多快樂？──「評估當下的整體皮質狀態，然後指示大腦最佳的行動方針。」史諾斯基解釋。

Running on the neurochemical dopamine, they predict how rewarding a choice will be - if I pick this apartment, how happy will I be? - "evaluate the current state of the entire cortex and inform the brain about the best course of action," explains Sejnowski.

他在一次訪問中指出，人類在作出決定後，才開始建構一套解釋的說法，使自己誤以為行為的起因是意志和邏輯。

Only later do people construct an explanation of their choices, he said in an interview, convincing themselves incorrectly that volition （3） and logic were responsible.

對史丹佛大學神經科學家薩波斯基而言，最美麗的理論是突現論，該理論認為複雜現象的成形，幾乎不可思議地是源自極其簡單的構成要素。

To neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky of Stanford University, the most beautiful idea is emergence, in which complex phenomena almost magically come into being from extremely simple components.

舉例來說，一名人類個體是由數千個基因而來。蟻群群體的智慧（如勞動分工、精細複雜的地底巢穴）是突現自數千隻個體螞蟻看似無意義的行為。

For instance, a human being arises from a few thousand genes. The intelligence of an ant colony - labor specialization, intricate underground nests - emerges from the seemingly senseless behavior of thousands of individual ants.

薩波斯基表示：「嚴格來說，牠們沒有藍圖或發號施令的中心。」每一隻單獨的螞蟻與環境的互動之間有一簡單的規則系統。「從這當中凸顯了高效率的蟻群。」

"Critically, there's no blueprint or central source of command," says Sapolsky. Each individual ant has a simple algorithm for interacting with the environment, "and out of this emerges a highly efficient colony."

史丹佛行為科學高等研究中心主持人柯斯林則對帕夫洛夫反射作用最為折服。該理論指出，一個中性刺激，像是聲響等，會與食物等回報產生連結，進而產生出回應，如唾液的分泌。

Stephen Kosslyn, director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, is most impressed by Pavlovian conditioning, in which a neutral stimulus such as a sound comes to be associated with a reward, such as food, producing a response, such as salivation.

這是大眾較為熟知的部分。我們比較不了解的是，帕夫洛夫式的制約可能解釋了安慰劑效果。在人們使用布洛芬或阿斯匹靈等鎮痛劑多次後，藥物成分在尚未發揮藥效前就產生了作用。

That much is familiar. Less well known is that Pavlovian conditioning might account for placebo effects. After people have used analgesics such as ibuprofen or aspirin many times, the drugs begin to have effects before their active ingredients kick in.

加州大學柏克萊分校心理學家高普尼克偏愛一個說明為何青少年如此焦躁、魯莽又情緒化的理論。她解釋，這是由於情緒促動系統和認知控制系統這2個大腦系統不同步調所致。

Psychologist Alison Gopnik of the University of California, Berkeley, is partial to one that accounts for why teenagers are so restless, reckless and emotional. Two brain systems, an emotional motivational system and a cognitive control system, have fallen out of sync, she explains.

控制系統會約束衝動，讓人能延遲滿足的時間，但與前幾個世代相比，控制系統較晚發揮作用。但在促動系動方面，啟動的時間卻愈來愈早。

The control system that inhibits impulses and allows you to delay gratification kicks in later than it did in past generations, but the motivational system is kicking in earlier and earlier.

加州大學舊金山分校神經生物學家巴隆迪斯所推薦的理論，認為個性大致上是偶然形塑而成的結果。其中一個偶然力量就是，形成胚胎的卵子和精子中，正巧有父母雙方的特定基因。

Neurobiologist Sam Barondes of the University of California, San Francisco, nominates the idea that personality is largely shaped by chance. One serendipitous force is which parental genes happen to be in the egg and sperm that produced the child.

他在訪問中表示：「不過，在已揭露的神經發展過程中，也存在著偶然──在這裡有一個小病毒，在那兒又有一個子宮內事件，到處都是偶然。」另一個偶然在於：父母親會如何回應孩子的基因排列；孩子因基因影響變得外向、神經質、開放接受新體驗之類的，父母不是加強其固有的傾向，就是反對這一既定傾向。

"But there is also chance in how neurodevelopmental processes unfold - a little virus here, an intrauterine event there, and you have chance all over the place," he said in an interview. Another toss of the dice: how a parent will respond to a child's genetic disposition to be outgoing, neurotic, open to new experience and the like, either reinforcing the innate tendencies or countering them.

威爾森喜愛的理論則是「人們變成他們行為所形塑的那種人」。雖然人類的行為肇因於其個性，有些人因為天性誠實，所以會把撿到的錢包物歸原主，但「相反地也有可能是行為導致個性」。這名維吉尼亞大學心理學家表示。如果我們將撿到的錢包物歸原主，我們對於自我誠實度的評價會有所提高，這是透過一個他稱之為「自我推論」的過程。對個現象暗示了：「我們都該注意一下馮內果所提出的建議。」威爾森說：「他說我們變成了我們假裝是的那種人，所以我們應該要小心我們到底假裝成哪種人。」

Timothy Wilson nominates the idea that "people become what they do." While people's behavior arises from their character - someone returns a lost wallet because she is honest - "the reverse also holds," says the University of Virginia psychologist. If we return a lost wallet, our assessment of how honest we are rises through what he calls "self-inference." One implication of this phenomenon: "We should all heed Kurt Vonnegut's advice," Wilson says: "'We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.'"

霍普學院心理學家梅爾斯則認為，團體極化是一個美麗的理論，因為該理論解釋了與他人互動如何可能地增強了人們最初的看法。特別是，與有同樣想法的同儕討論議題，會把人推向極端。以一個在美國愈來愈常見的現象為例，紅色州吸引了保守派，藍色州則吸引自由派。他在一項訪問中表示：「令人吃驚的地方在於，平均來說，作為一個整體的團體會變得比討論之前更加極端。」

Psychologist David Myers of Hope College finds "group polarization" a beautiful idea, since it explains how interacting with others tends to amplify people's initial views. In particular, discussing issues with like-minded （4） peers -increasingly the norm in the United States, where red states attract conservatives and blue states attract liberals - push people toward extremes. "The surprising thing is that the group as a whole becomes more extreme than its pre-discussion average," he said in an interview.

劍橋大學宇宙論暨天體物理學教授芮斯則提名一項「驚人的概念」，也就是我們所認知的宇宙可能比天文學家所觀測到的「更為廣闊無垠」。

Martin Rees, professor of cosmology and astrophysics at the University of Cambridge, nominates the "astonishing concept" that what we consider the universe "could be hugely more extensive" than what astronomers observe.

如是真的，我們已知的宇宙可能「只是『大爆炸』之後的一小塊餘骸；而那場大霹靂可能也只是無窮整體中的一小次爆炸」。芮斯寫道。更令人迷惑的是，在不同宇宙中，可能存在著不同的物理學定律，於是「某些被我們稱作是『自然法則』的東西，也許……只是地方法規」。

If true, the known cosmos may instead "be a tiny part of the aftermath of 'our' big bang （5）, which is itself just one bang among a perhaps-infinite ensemble," Rees writes. Even more intriguing is that different physics might prevail in these different universes, so that "some of what we call 'laws of nature' may ... be local bylaws."

（路透Reuters）

1. open-ended

(a.) 開放式的

2. cosmology

(n.) 宇宙論

3. volition

(n.) 抑制

4. like-minded

(a.) 氣味相投的

5. big bang

(n.) 大爆炸

立報歡迎您投稿與指教。詳情請參投稿與聯絡立報