Now, if you believe that the universe is not arbitrary, but is governed by definite laws, you ultimately have to combine the partial theories into a complete unified theory that will describe everything in the universe. But there is a fundamental paradox in the search for such a complete unified theory. The ideas about scientific theories outlined above assume we are rational beings who are free to observe the universe as we want and to draw logical deductions from what we see.
In such a scheme it is reasonable to suppose that we might progress ever closer toward the laws that govern our universe.
Yet if there really is a complete unified theory, it would also presumably determine our actions. And so the theory itself would determine the outcome of our search for it! And why should it determine that we come to the right conclusions from the evidence? Might it not equally well determine that we draw the wrong conclusion.? Or no conclusion at all?
The only answer that I can give to this problem is based on Darwin’s principle of natural selection. The idea is that in any population of self-reproducing organisms, there will be variations in the genetic material and upbringing that different individuals have. These differences will mean that some individuals are better able than others to draw the right conclusions about the world around them and to act accordingly. These individuals will be more likely to survive and reproduce and so their pattern of behavior and thought will come to dominate. It has certainly been true in the past that what we call intelligence and scientific discovery have conveyed a survival advantage. Itis not so clear that this is still the case: our scientific discoveries may well destroy us all, and even if they don’t, a complete unified theory may not make much difference to our chances of survival. However, provided the universe has evolved in a regular way, we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would be valid also in our search for a complete unified theory, and so would not lead us to the wrong conclusions.
Because the partial theories that we already have are sufficient to make accurate predictions in all but the most extreme situations, the search for the ultimate theory of the universe seems difficult to justify on practical grounds. (It is worth noting, though, that similar arguments could have been used against both relativity and quantum mechanics, and these theories have given us both nuclear energy and the microelectronics revolution!) The discovery of a complete unified theory, therefore, may not aid the survival of our species. It may not even affect our life-style. But ever since the dawn of civilization, people have not been content to see events as unconnected and inexplicable. They have craved an understanding of the underlying order in the world. Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from. Humanity’s deepest desire for knowledge is justification enough for our continuing quest. And our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe we live in.
Scheme 方案
Upbringing 養育
現在，如果你相信宇宙不是任意的，而是由確定的定律所制約的，你最終必須將這些部分理論合併成一套能描述宇宙中任何東西的完整統一理論。然而，在尋求這樣的完整統一理論中有一個基本的自相矛盾。在前面概括的關於科學理論的思想中，假定我們是有理性的生物，既可以隨意自由地觀測宇宙，又可以從觀察中得出邏輯推論。
在這樣的方案裡可以合理地假設，我們可以越來越接近找到制約我們宇宙的定律。
然而，如果真有一套完整的統一理論，則它也將決定我們的行動。這樣，理論本身將決定了我們對之探索的結果！那麼為什麼它必須確定我們從證據得到正確的結論？它不也同樣可以確定我們引出錯誤的結論嗎？或者根本沒有結論？
對於這個問題，我所能給出的回答是基於達爾文的自然選擇原理。這思想是說，在任何自繁殖的群體中，存在有不同個體在遺傳物質和發育上的變異。這些差異表明，某些個體比其他個體對周圍的世界更能引出正確的結論，並去適應它。這些個體更可能存活、繁殖，因此它們的行為和思維的模式將越來越起主導作用。這一點在過去肯定是真的，即我們稱之為智慧和科學發現的東西給我們帶來了存活的好處。這種情況是否仍會如此不是很清楚：我們的科學發現也可以將我們的一切都毀滅。即使不是這樣，一個完整的統一理論對於我們存活的機會不會有很大影響。然而，假定宇宙已經以規則的方式演化至今，我們可以預期，自然選擇賦予我們的推理能力在探索完整統一理論時仍然有效，並因此不會導致我們得到錯誤的結論。
因為除了最極端的情況外，我們已有了對所有一切都足夠給出精確的預言的部分理論，看來很難以現實的理由為探索宇宙的終極理論辯護。（值得指出，雖然可用類似的論點來攻擊相對論和量子力學，但這些理論已給我們帶來了核能和微電子學的革命！）所以，一套完整的統一理論的發現可能對我們種族的存活無助，甚至也不會影響我們的生活方式。然而自從文明開始，人們即不甘心於將事件看作互不相關而不可理解的。他們渴求理解世界的根本秩序。今天我們仍然渴望知道，我們為何在此？我們從何而來？人類求知的最深切的意願足以為我們所從事的不斷的探索提供正當的理由。而我們的目標恰恰正是對於我們生存其中的宇宙作完整的描述。
閱讀更多 讀書看劇記單詞 的文章
