所有知识都是推测性的
所有知识都是推测性的
对绝对确定性保持怀疑
布雷特: 所有知识都是推测性的。它总是被猜测出来的。它是我们在任何给定时间的最佳理解。
你说公理可能是错误的,这是对的。我们怎么知道一个公理是错误的?传统上的答案是,“因为它显然是事实。“你怎么证明x加零必须等于x?你只能接受这是真的。
但考虑一下像**欧几里得的《几何原本》**这样的东西。任何人都可以自己尝试这个实验:拿一张纸,拿一支笔,在纸上画两个点。现在,你能通过这两个点画多少条独特的直线?对你来说应该相当明显,只能画一条线。然而,我们知道这是错误的。
反思一下,当你盯着那张纸,只画了一条直线时,你有一种确定感。你绝对确定自己没有错。这种感觉是我们应该始终保持怀疑的。当人们绝对确定时,即使在像数学这样显然充满确定性的领域,他们也被证明是错误的。
那么我们如何证明它是错误的呢?你可能会认为我在作弊,但你必须反思一下,当我第一次告诉你要通过两个点画一条独特的直线时,你是否理解了我的意思。把纸弯曲。在三维空间中思考。如果你有篮球,把纸包在篮球上。现在考虑你可以通过这两个点画直线的方式。
你可以用笔在其中一个点上戳一个洞,然后从另一边的另一个洞穿出来——现在你就有了一条不同的直线。你有了用笔画的那条直线,还有一条实际上就是你的笔穿过这两个点的直线。
你最初那种绝对确定只能通过这两个点画一条独特直线的感觉是错误的。你可能会想,“这不公平,这是作弊。“你是在二维空间中思考。我不是。我在更多维度中思考。
卡尔·波普尔有句名言,“不可能以不会被误解的方式说话。” 情况总是如此。
即使在数学中,我们试图尽可能精确,人们也可能犯错,对他们试图提出的论点产生错误的前提假设。
欧几里得几何的这个特殊例子——因为传统上几何是在一张纸上的二维空间中进行的——被各种人解决,并导致了弯曲空间中的几何学,这又导致了爱因斯坦提出广义相对论。
因此,正是质疑我们这些最深的假设——我们认为我们绝不可能出错的地方——才带来了真正的进步,以及在科学和其他所有领域的真正根本性变革。
All Knowledge Is Conjectural
Be skeptical of absolute certainty
Brett: All knowledge is conjectural. It’s always being guessed. It’s our best understanding at any given time.
You’re right to say that the axioms might be incorrect. How do we know that an axiom is incorrect? Traditionally the answer has been, “Because it’s clearly and obviously the case.” How can you prove that x plus zero must equal x? You just have to accept that it’s true.
But consider something like Euclid’s Elements. Anyone might want to try this experiment for themselves: Take a piece of paper, take a pen, draw two dots on the piece of paper. Now, how many unique straight lines can you draw through those two dots? It should be fairly obvious to you that only one line can be drawn. However, we know that’s false.
Reflect on the fact that as you’re staring at the piece of paper, through which only one straight line is being drawn, you have the feeling of certainty. You are absolutely sure that you’re not wrong. This feeling is something we should always be skeptical of. When people have been absolutely certain, even in a domain as apparently full of certainty as mathematics, they’ve been shown to be wrong.
So how can we show it’s wrong? You might think that I’m cheating, but, then again, you have to reflect on whether you understood what I was saying when I first told you to draw a unique straight line through two points. Bend the piece of paper. Think in three dimensions. Wrap the piece of paper around a basketball if you have one. Now consider the ways in which you could draw a straight line through those two points.
You could punch a hole through one of those dots with your pen and push it out through the other side through the other hole—and now you have a different straight line. You have the straight line that is drawn with your pen, and you have a straight line that is literally your pen pushed through these two dots.
Your initial feeling of absolute certainty that only a unique line could be drawn through these two dots is false. You might be thinking, “That’s unfair, that’s cheating.” You were thinking in two dimensions. I wasn’t. I was thinking in more dimensions than that.
Karl Popper has this wonderful saying, “It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.” This is always the case.
Even in mathematics, where we try to be as precise as possible, it’s possible for people to make errors, to think false premises about what argument they’re trying to make.
This particular example of Euclidean geometry—because geometry was traditionally done in two dimensions on a piece of paper—was resolved by various people and led to geometry in curved space, which led to Einstein coming up with the general theory of relativity.
So it is questioning these deepest assumptions we have—where we think there’s no possible way we could be mistaken—that leads to true progress and to a genuine, fundamental change in the sciences and everywhere else.