pale blue dot -carl sagan-第6部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


hich　anthropic　hypotheses　may　be　tested。　Even　if　the　existence　of　such　universes　were　to　follow　firmly　from　well…established　theories—of　quantum　mechanics　or　gravitation；　say—we　could　not　be　sure　that　there　weren't　better　theories　that　predict　no　alternative　universes。　Until　that　time　es；　if　it　ever　does；　it　seems　to　me　premature　to　put　faith　in　the　Anthropic　Principle　as　an　argument　for　human　centrality　or　uniqueness。

Finally；　even　if　the　Universe　were　intentionally　created　to　allow　for　the　emergence　of　life　or　intelligence；　other　beings　may　exist　on　countless　worlds。　If　so；　it　would　be　cold　fort　to　anthropocentrists　that　we　inhabit　one　of　the　few　universes　that　allow　life　and　intelligence。

There　is　something　stunningly　narrow　about　how　the　Anthropic　Principle　is　phrased。　Yes；　only　certain　laws　and　constants　of　nature　are　consistent　with　our　kind　of　life。　But　essentially　the　same　laws　and　constants　are　required　to　make　a　rock。　So　why　not　talk　about　a　Universe　designed　so　rocks　could　one　day　e　to　be；　and　strong　and　weak　Lithic　Principles？　If　stones　could　philosophize；　I　imagine　Lithic　Principles　would　be　at　the　intellectual　frontiers。

There　are　cosmological　models　being　formulated　today　in　which　even　the　entire　Universe　is　nothing　special。　Andrei　Linde；　formerly　of　the　Lebedev　Physical　Institute　in　Moscow　and　now　at　Stanford　University；　has　incorporated　current　understanding　of　the　strong　and　weak　nuclear　forces　and　quantum　physics　into　a　new　cosmological　model。　Linde　envisions　a　vast　Cosmos；　much　larger　than　our　Universe—perhaps　extending　to　infinity　both　in　space　and　time—not　the　paltry　15　billion　light…years　or　so　in　radius　and　15　billion　years　in　age　which　are　the　usual　understanding。　In　this　Cosmos　there　is；　as　here；　a　kind　of　quantum　fluff　in　which　tiny　structures—　much　smaller　than　an　electron—are　everywhere　forming；　reshaping；　and　dissipating；　in　which；　as　here；　fluctuations　in　absolutely　empty　space　create　pairs　of　elementary　particles—an　electron　and　a　positron；　for　example。　In　the　froth　of　quantum　bubbles；　the　vast　majority　remain　submicroscopic。　But　a　tiny　fraction　inflate；　grow；　and　achieve　respectable　universehood。　They　are　so　far　away　from　us；　though—much　farther　than　the　15　billion　light…years　that　is　the　conventional　scale　of　our　universe—that；　if　they　exist；　they　appear　to　be　wholly　inaccessible　and　undetectable。

Most　of　these　other　universes　reach　a　maximum　size　and　then　collapse；　contract　to　a　point；　and　disappear　forever。　Others　may　oscillate。　Still　others　may　expand　without　limit。　In　different　universes　there　will　be　different　laws　of　nature。　We　live；　Linde　argues；　in　one　such　universe—one　in　which　the　physics　is　congenial　for　growth；　inflation；　expansion；　galaxies；　stars；　worlds；　life。　We　imagine　our　universe　to　be　unique；　but　it　is　one　of　an　immense　number—perhaps　an　infinite　number—of　equally　valid；　equally　independent；　equally　isolated　universes。　There　will　be　life　in　some；　and　not　in　others。　In　this　view　the　observable　Universe　is　just　a　newly　formed　backwater　of　a　much　vaster；　infinitely　old；　and　wholly　unobservable　Cosmos。　If　something　like　this　is　right；　even　our　residual　pride；　pallid　as　it　must　be；　of　living　in　the　only　universe　is　denied　to　us。

Maybe　someday；　despite　current　evidence；　a　means　will　be　devised　to　peer　into　adjacent　universes；　sporting　very　different　laws　of　nature；　and　we　will　see　what　else　is　possible。　Or　perhaps　inhabitants　of　adjacent　universes　can　peer　into　ours。　Of　course；　in　such　speculations　we　have　far　exceeded　the　bounds　of　knowledge。　But　if　something　like　Linde's　Cosmos　is　true；　there　is—amazingly—still　another　devastating　deprovincialization　awaiting　us。*

For　such　ideas；　words　tend　to　fail　us。　A　German　locution　for　Universe　is　＇dad　911which　makes　the　inclusiveness　quite　unmistakable。　We　might　say　that　our　universe　is　but　one　in　a　〃Multiverse；〃　but　I　prefer　to　use　〃Cosmos〃　for　everything　and　〃Universe〃　for　the　only　one　we　can　know　about。

Our　powers　are　far　from　adequate　to　be　creating　universes　anytime　soon。　Strong　Anthropic　Principle　ideas　are　not　amenable　to　proof　（although　Linde's　cosmology　does　have　some　testable　features）。　Extraterrestrial　life　aside；　if　self…congratulatory　pretensions　to　centrality　have　now　retreated　to　such　bastions　impervious　to　experiment；　then　the　sequence　of　scientific　battles　with　human　chauvinism　would　seem　to　have　been；　at　least　largely；　won。



THE　LONG…STANDING　VIEW；　as　summarized　by　the　philosopher　Immanuel　Kant；　that　〃without　man　。　。　。　the　whole　of　creation　would　be　a　mere　wilderness；　a　thing　in　vain；　and　have　no　final　end〃　is　revealed　to　be　self…indulgent　folly。　A　Principle　of　Mediocrity　seems　to　apply　to　all　our　circumstances。　We　could　not　have　known　beforehand　that　the　evidence　would　be；　so　repeatedly　and　thoroughly；　inpatible　with　the　proposition　that　human　beings　are　at　center　stage　in　the　Universe。　But　most　of　the　debates　have　now　been　settled　decisively　in　favor　of　a　position　that；　however　painful；　can　be　encapsulated　in　a　single　sentence：　We　have　not　been　given　the　lead　in　the　cosmic　drama。

Perhaps　someone　else　has。　Perhaps　no　one　else　has。　In　either　case；　we　have　good　reason　for　humility。




CHAPTER　4　　　　A　UNIVERSE　NOT　MADE　FOR　US

　

　

The　Sea　of　Faith

Was　once；　too；　at　the　full；　and　round　earth's　shore

Lay　like　the　folds　of　a　bright　girdle　furl'd。

But　now　I　only　hear

Its　melancholy；　long；　withdrawing　roar；

Retreating；　to　the　breath

Of　the　night…wind；　down　the　vast　edges　drear

And　naked　shingles　of　the　world。

—MATTHEW　ARNOLD；　〃DOVER　BEACH〃　（1867）

What　a　beautiful　sunset；〃　we　say；　or　〃I'm　up　before　sunrise。〃　No　matter　what　the　scientists　allege；　in　everyday　speech　we　often　ignore　their　findings。　We　don't　talk　about　the　Earth　turning；　but　about　the　Sun　rising　and　setting。　Try　formulating　it　in　Copernican　language。　Would　you　say；　〃Billy；　be　home　by　the　time　the　Earth　has　rotated　enough　so　as　to　occult　the　Sun　below　the　local　horizon〃？　Billy　would　be　long　gone　before　you're　finished。　We　haven't　been　able　even　to　find　a　graceful　locution　that　accurately　the　Heliocentric　insight。　We　at　the　center　and　everything　else　circling　us　is　built　into　our　languages；　we　teach　it　to　our　children。　We　are　unreconstructed　geocentrists　hiding　behind　a　Copernican　veneer。*

*　One　of　the　few　quasi…Copernican　expressions　in　English　is　〃The　Universe　doesn't　revolve　around　you〃…an　astronomical　truth　intended　to　bring　fledgling　narcissists　down　to　Earth。

In　1633　the　Roman　Catholic　Church　condemned　Galileo　for　teaching　that　the　Earth　goes　around　the　Sun。　Let's　take　a　closer　look　at　this　famous　controversy。　In　the　preface　to　his　book　paring　the　two　hypotheses—an　Earth…centered　and　a　Sun…centered　universe—Galileo　had　written；

The　celestial　phenomena　will　be　examined；　strengthening　the　Copernican　hypothesis　until　it　might　seem　that　this　must　triumph　absolutely。

And　later　in　the　book　he　confessed；

Nor　can　I　ever　sufficiently　admire　＇Copernicus　and　his　followers＇；　they　have　through　sheer　force　of　intellect　done　such　violence　to　their　own　senses　as　to　prefer　what　reason　told　them　over　what　sensible　experience　plainly　showed　them　。　。　。

The　Church　declared；　in　its　indictment　of　Galileo；

The　doctrine　that　the　earth　is　neither　the　center　of　the　universe　nor　immovable；　but　moves　even　with　a　daily　rotation；　is　absurd；　and　both　psychologically　and　theologically　false；　and　at　the　least　an　error　of　faith。

Galileo　replied；

The　doctrine　of　the　movements　of　the　earth　and　the　fixity　of　the　sun　is　condemned　on　the　ground　that　the　Scriptures　speak　in　many　places　of　the　sun　moving　and　the　earth　standing　still　。　。　。　It　is　piously　spoken　that　the　Scriptures　cannot　lie。　But　none　will　deny　that　they　are　frequently　abstruse　and　their　true　meaning　difficult　to　discover；　and　more　than　the　bare　words　signify。　I　think　that　in　the　discussion　of　natural　problems　we　ought　to　begin　not　with　the　Scriptures；　but　with　experiments　and　demonstrations。

But　in　his　recantation　（June　22；　1633）　Galileo　was　made　to　say；

Having　been　admonished　by　the　Holy　Office　entirely　to　abandon　the　false　opinion　that　the　Sun　was　the　center　of　the　universe　and　immovable；　and　that　the　Earth　was　not　the　center　of　the　same　and　that　it　moved　。　。　。　I　have　been　。　。　。　suspected　of　heresy；　that　is；　of　having　held　and　believed　that　the　Sun　is　the　center　of　the　universe　and　immovable；　and　that　the　Earth　is　not　the　center　of　the　same；　and　that　it　does　move　。　。　。　1　abjure　with　a　sincere　heart　and　unfeigned　faith；　I　curse　and　detest　the　same　errors　and　heresies；　and　generally　all　and　every　error　and　sect　contrary　to　the　Holy　Catholic　Church。

It　took　the　Church　until　1832　to　remove　Galileo's　work　from　its　list　of　books　which　Catholics　were　forbidden　to　read　at　the　risk　of　dire　punishment　of　their　immortal　souls。

Pontifical　disquiet　with　modern　science　has　ebbed　and　flowed　since　the　time　of　Galileo。　The　high…water　mark　in　recent　history　is　the　1864　Syllabus　of　Errors　of　Pius　IX；　the　pope　who　also　convened　the　Vatican　Council　at　which　the　doctrine　of　papal　infallibility　was；　at　his　insistence；　first　proclaimed。　Here　are　a　few　excerpts：

Divine　revelation　is　perfect　and；　therefore；　it　is　not　subject　to　continual　and　indefinite　progress　in　order　to　correspond　with　the　progress　of　human　reason　。　。　。　No　man　is　free　to　embrace　and　profess　that　religion　which　he　believes　to　be　true；　guided　by　the　light　of　reason　。　。　。　The　Church　has　power　to　define　dogmatically　the　religion　of　the　Catholic　Church　to　be　the　only　true　religion　。　。　。　It　is　necessary　even　in　the　present　day　that　the　Catholic　religion　shall　be　held　as　the　only　religion　of　the　state；　to　the　exclusion　of　all　other　forms　of　worship　。　。　。　The　civil　liberty　of　every　mode　of　worship；　and　full　power　given　to　all　of　openly　and　publicly　manifesting　their　opinions　and　their　ideas　conduce　more　easily　to　corrupt　the　morals　and　minds　of　the　people　。　。　。　The　Roman　Pontiff　cannot　and　ought　not　to　reconcile　himself　or　agree　with；　progress；　liberalism　and　modern　civilization。

To　its　credit；　although　belatedly　and　reluctantly；　the　Church　in　1992　repudiated　its　denunciation　of　Galileo。　It　still　cannot　quite　bring　itself；　though；　to　see　the　significance　of　its　opposition。　In　a　1992　speech　Pope　John　Paul　II　argued；

From　the　beginning　of　the　Age　of　Enlightenment　down　to　our　own　day；　the　Galileo　case　has　been　a　sort　of　〃myth〃　in　which　the　image　fabricated　out　of　the　events　is　quite　far　removed　from　reality。　In　this　perspective；　the　Galileo　case　was　a　symbol　of　the　Catholic　Church's　supposed　rejection　of　scientific　progress；　or　of　〃dogmatic〃　obscurantism　opposed　to　the　free　search　for　truth。

But　surely　the　Holy　Inquisition　ushering　the　elderly　and　infirm　Galileo　in　to　inspect　the　instruments　of　torture　in　the　dungeons　of　the　Church　not　only　admits　but　requires　just　such　an　interpretation。　This　was　not　mere　scientific　caution　and　restraint；　a　reluctance　to　shift　a　paradigm　until　pelling　evidence；　such　as　the　annual　parallax；　was　available。　This　was　fear　of　discussion　and　debate。　Censoring　alternative　views　and　threatening　to　torture　their　proponents　betray　a　lack　of　faith　in　the　very　doctrine　and　parishioners　that　are　ostensibly　being　protected。　Why　were　threats　and　Galileo's　house　arrest　needed？　Cannot　truth　defend　itself　in　its　confrontation　with　error？

The　Pope　does；　though；　go　on　to　add：

The　error　of　the　theologians　of　the　time；　when　they　maintained　the　centrality　of　the　earth；　was　to　think　that　our　understanding　of　the　physical　world's　structure　was　in　soiree　way　imposed　by　the　literal　sense　of　Sacred　Scriptures。

Here　indeed　considerable　progress　has　been　made—although　proponents　of　fundamentalist　faiths　will　be　distressed　to　hear　from　the　Pontiff　that　Sacred　Scripture　is　not　always　literally　true。

But　if　the　Bible　is　not　everywhere　literally　true；　which　parts　are　divinely　inspired　and　which　are　merely　fallible　and　human？　As　soon　as　we　admit　that　there　are　scriptural　mistakes　（or　concessions　to　the　ignorance　of　the　times）；　then　how　can　the　Bible　be　an　inerrant　guide　to　ethics　and　morals？　Might　sects　and　individuals　now　accept　as　authentic　the　parts　of　the　Bible　they　like；　and　reject　those　that　are　inconvenient　or　burdensome？　Prohibitions　against　murder；　say；　are　essential　for　a　society　to　function；　but　if　divine　retribution　for　murder　is　considered　implausible；　won't　more　people　think　they　can　get　away　with　it？

Many　felt　that　Copernicus　and　Galileo　were　up　to　no　good　and　erosive　of　the　social　order。　Indeed　any　challenge

from　any　source；　to　the　literal　truth　of　the　Bible　might　have　such　consequences。　We　can　readily　see　how　science　began　to　make　people　nervous。　Instead　of　criticizing　those　who　perpetuated　the　myths；　public　rancor　was　directed　at　those　who　discredited　them。



OUR　ANCESTORS　UNDERSTOOD　origins　by　extrapolating　from　their　own　experience。　How　else　could　they　have　done　it？　So　the　Universe　was　hatched　from　a　cosmic　egg；　or　conceived　in　the　sexual　congress　of　a　mother　god　and　a　father　god；　or　was　a　kind　of　product　of　the　Creator's　workshop—perhaps　the　latest　of　many　flawed　attempts。　And　the　Universe　was　not　much　bigger　than　we　see；　and　not　much　older　than　our　written　or　oral　records；　and　nowhere　very　different　from　places　that　we　know。

We've　tended　in　our　cosmologies　to　make　things　familiar。　Despite　all　our　best　efforts；　we've　not　been　very　inventive。　In　the　West；　Heaven　is　placid　and　fluffy；　and　Hell　is　like　the　inside　of　a　volcano。　In　many　stories；　both　realms　are　governed　by　dominance　hierarchies　headed　by　gods　or　devils。　Monotheists　talked　about　the　king　of　kings。　In　every　culture　we　imagined　something　like　our　own　political　system　running　the　Universe。　Few　found　the　similarity　suspicious。

Then　science　came　along　and　taught　us　that　we　are　not　the　measure　of　all　things；　that　there　are　wonders　unimagined；　that　the　Universe　is　not　obliged　to　conform　to　what　we　consider　fortable　or　plausible。　We　have　learned　something　about　the　idiosyncratic　nature　of　our　mon　sense。　Science　has　carried　human　self…consciousness　to　a　higher　level。　This　is　surely　a　rite　of　passage；　a　step　towards　maturity。　It　contrasts　starkly　with　the　childishness　and　narcissism　of　our　pre…Copernican　notions。

But　why　should　we　want　to　think　that　the　Universe　was　made　for　us？　Why　is　the　idea　so　appealing？　Why　do　we　nurture　it？　Is　our　self…esteem　so　precarious　that　nothing　short　of　a　universe　custom…made　for　us　will　do？

Of　course　it　appeals　to　our　vanity。　〃What　a　man　desires；　he　also　imagines　to　be　true；〃　said　Demosthenes。　〃The　light　of　faith　makes　us　see　what　we　believe；〃　cheerfully　admitted　St。　Thomas　Aquinas。　But　I　think　there　may　be　something　else。　There's　a　kind　of　ethnocentrism　among　primates。　To　whichever　little　group　we　happen　to　be　born；　we　owe　passionate　love　and　loyalty。　Members　of　other　groups　are　beneath　contempt；　deserving　of　rejection　and　hostility。　That　both　groups　are。　of　the　same　species；　that　to　an　outside　observer　they　are　virtually　indistinguishable；　makes　no　difference。　This　is　certainly　the　pattern　among　the　chimpanzees；　our　closest　relatives　in　the　animal　kingdom。　Ann　Druyan　and　I　have　described　how　this　way　of　viewing　the　world　may　have　made　enormous　evolutionary　sense　a　few　million　years　ago；　however　dangerous　it　has　bee　today。　Even　members　of　hunter…gatherer　group