Eric Weinstein: The State of American Science, Breakthrough Coverups, and the Danger of Physics · 苏菲拉底
字幕 字幕位置
--:--
点击播放,这里会跟随视频显示当前句的中英字幕。

Eric Weinstein: The State of American Science, Breakthrough Coverups, and the Danger of Physics

节目发布 2026-08-26 · All-In Podcast
埃里克·温斯坦 大大卫·弗里德伯格
EDITED TRANSCRIPT · 依据现场录音编译整理,可划线生成便签
二〇二五年秋,数学物理学家埃里克·温斯坦(Eric Weinstein)赴华盛顿参与美国科研体制改革的讨论,其间接受了 All-In 播客联合主持人、白宫 AI 与加密事务负责人大卫·萨克斯(David Sacks)的访谈。两人在华盛顿一间租来的录音室里,从美国科学是否停滞谈到共识的暴政、军方撤资的历史、同行评审的来历、弦论的四十二年,直至曼哈顿计划的审稿封锁与今天可能存在的秘密物理计划。本文依据现场录音编译整理,仅删去寒暄、口头语与重复枝节,全部论证与细节悉数保留。

赴华盛顿推动科研改革

萨克斯: 埃里克·温斯坦,数学家、物理学家、经济学家,哈佛大学数学物理博士,曾任美国国家科学基金会(NSF)博士后、哈佛大学海军研究办公室研究员,二〇二一年发表了名为「几何统一」(Geometric Unity)的数学框架与推测性统一场论,曾供职于蒂尔资本(Thiel Capital),也是播客主持人和常客。欢迎来到 All-In 访谈。

温斯坦: 很高兴来。其他几位好兄弟呢?

萨克斯: 他们婉拒了,因为这一期是「科学角」的加长版。

温斯坦: 真不敢相信杰森临阵脱逃了。

萨克斯: 就你和我。先跟听众交代一下,我们俩眼下碰巧都在华盛顿,所以在一间租来的录音室里做这期节目。时机很好。你这次来华盛顿是为了什么?

温斯坦: 为了机会。我很兴奋。我这次和战争部见了面,顺便多留了几天。跟科技政策办公室(OSTP)主任克拉齐奥斯,也就是白宫科学顾问,谈过了,非常好的一次会面。跟老朋友杰伊·巴塔查里亚在国立卫生研究院(NIH)也谈过。接下来要见吉姆·奥尼尔,他有望执掌国家科学基金会。说到底,我是来看一看自二战末万尼瓦尔·布什以来,第一份真正意义上的美国科学改革方案。没有比这更让人兴奋的事了。

萨克斯: 克拉齐奥斯有没有告诉你,我刚就这个题目采访过他?

温斯坦: 没有。

萨克斯: 我采访过。你们是老同事吧?

温斯坦: 对,迈克尔很好。他也提到了,说自己现在担着这个新角色。

萨克斯: 我当时其实有点担心那份报告。他接的是一双大得吓人的鞋子,我担心会是一场灾难,结果读完大吃一惊,写得真好。当然不完美,从来没有完美的。我跟他说了这话,他说你们俩一直在交流,很多问题是你传达给他的。我觉得他真的在这个角色里成长起来了,正在努力成为美国科学事业的学生。听到他说「我们知道自己并非无所不知,我们只是刚刚起步」,我再高兴不过了。这份蓝图看起来很不错。

美国科学停滞了吗

萨克斯: 政府主导的科学,至少在过去五十到七十五年里,是这个共和国成功的根本因素。克拉齐奥斯发表的《科学与新黄金时代》里有一个论点,其他人也在提,我也听你提过:美国的科学确实停滞了。你能把这个论证讲一遍吗?

温斯坦: 要看是哪一种科学停滞了。迈克尔说得好的地方在于,科学是个很大的领域,做法不止一种。如果要俯瞰一下究竟什么面临风险,我会说,是那种只有我们这样一个富裕的、崇尚个人主义的国家才做得起、别人根本负担不起的、真正有胆量的科学。所以每当我看到我们在做渐进式研究,做那些小心翼翼、低方差的东西,还管它叫卓越,我就沮丧。我的看法是,我们该做的是那些别人都赌不起的赌注。

还有一点,我们最主要的地缘政治对手中国,在自由这件事上有问题。说实话,自由是一件武器。我们能坦然看着自己说「我们并非事事做得对,我们想知道真相」,这是一种货真价实的优势。我想知道福奇是不是害死了一千万人。作为病毒学家、流行病学家,我应该有权去调查,得到答案,走完司法程序。当我们的科学家被捆住手脚,因为结论早已预先定好,我们就限制了自己用「牛仔科学」驱动全世界的能力。说白了,我们正在放弃自己最大的优势,那就是竖中指的能力,美国人可以对一个告诉你什么是真、什么是假的上司说「去你的」。年轻人应该可以说:「我认为我这个领域走的方向完全错了,我愿意押上我的职业生涯,别来干涉我。」

共识的暴政

萨克斯: 这一直是我最大的疑问:怀疑者都去哪儿了?封城期间,新冠疫情期间,那些本该质疑教条的科学家都去哪儿了?我采访克拉齐奥斯时也谈到这一点,一屋子人如果都同意某件事,那它多半是错的。总得有一定程度的怀疑吧,尤其科学的根基就是提问、质询、生成证据、生成数据,然后得出某个结论,再问下一个问题。可提问好像停止了。这是从哪儿来的?听你的意思,是人们在社会层面被捆住了。是经济原因吗?不光是这场疫情,我们在更广泛的科学领域看到这种情况越来越多:所有人围绕一个论题、一个教条站队,你要是问了不同的问题,或者质疑那些假设对不对,你就拿不到经费,交不到朋友,没有同事愿意和你合作,还要挨骂。到底发生了什么?

温斯坦: 这正是问题所在,我直接回答:我们制造了一个「科学无产阶级」(scientific precariat)。我们造出了一个教授们付不起违背共识的代价的世界。而问题恰恰出在「共识」上,因为如果大家真的都同意一件事,你根本不需要共识。没有什么算术共识。我们对二加三等于五有共识吗?没有,它就是这样。所以每当听到「共识」这个词,我就非常非常紧张,因为共识通常是靠压力达成的人为一致。「华盛顿共识」就是这么一回事,大家都要朝一个方向走,你不朝那个方向走,你就没工作。

你问会发生什么,我说杰伊·巴塔查里亚就是应该发生的事的完美例子。一个人有经济学博士和医学博士学位,他用《大巴灵顿宣言》逆流而上,现在他是 NIH 的院长。我认识杰伊的时候,他正被弗朗西斯·柯林斯那个废物叫作「边缘流行病学家」,柯林斯的跟班安东尼·福奇,八成就是我们的生物武器沙皇。

新冠溯源与生物武器疑云

温斯坦: 我要是说安东尼·福奇多半是我们的生物武器沙皇,所有这些人,尤其是体制内的左派,就会说:这是阴谋论。那我的问题是,我们七十年代签了几份协议,日内瓦公约和《生物武器公约》。我们有一套隐秘的系统。不知为什么,在这件事上我们选了一位神秘的乌克兰裔英国动物学家,让他通过一个叫「生态健康联盟」(EcoHealth Alliance)的嬉皮士味十足的慈善机构,接收巨额资金,钱来自国防威胁降低局(DTRA)之类的地方。整件事根本讲不通。

一旦你开始用秘密行动做事,问题就来了:科学家能一眼看穿秘密行动。工具足够强大的时候,你说「我没去过案发现场」,我说「可我们有一根毛囊,我基本可以告诉你,你就在案发现场」。科学就有这么大的力量。于是就有了另一个问题:华盛顿有一大堆 B 减等级的政策人物,尤其是在秘密行动圈子里,不是情报界,是情报界内部的秘密行动圈子,他们不想要厉害的独立科学家,因为他们讲的那些故事和叙事一戳就破。所以我们眼下不光是好科学出了问题,好新闻也出了问题。

萨克斯: 对,新闻也得跟主流叙事保持一致。

温斯坦: 没错。有些时候确实不得不这样。美国参战的时候,罗斯福坐在轮椅上,腿上绑着支架,大家有个默契:不报道总统的健康状况。拜登也是一样,拜登当时患有某种形式的痴呆。有没有人想过去请一位顶尖的老年神经科医生,看看他的步态,看看他的说话方式,告诉我们他的认知轨迹大概走到了哪一步?所以,如果你想撒一个结构上很重要的谎,你真的不希望科学家把它戳破。我并不反对这一点。我们从一九四〇年到一九四五年在新墨西哥州一所男校里做的事,就不该对外说实话,因为科学正在制造地球上有史以来最强大的武器。

萨克斯: 不了解的听众,那就是曼哈顿计划。

温斯坦: 正是。

科学无产阶级

温斯坦: 我想说的是,眼下你并没有把那些挺身而出的人提拔成大学校长或系主任,没有给他们一个讲席。我刚在乔丹·彼得森的 ARC 大会上讲过这个。那极少数站出来的人,你没有把他们重新放回体制里,没有奖赏他们。我的问题是:我站出来了,我的第三套房子在哪儿?

我想供三个孩子上学。我想分享我们提供给所有人的安全与繁荣。这才是关键。你们制造了美国的科学无产阶级。这也是为什么教授群体的政治倾向如此古怪、如此不平衡的原因之一。你们造出了一种极其危险的局面:我们没有参与到自由之中。

我要特别说一下理论物理。理论物理是唯一一个失去了言论自由的职业,因为有个东西叫「受限数据」(restricted data):只要一个物理方程在任何方面涉及核武器,我就不能把它写在纸上。可你试试看,怎么做出真正好的物理,又完全不碰强子和核子?不可能。所以头上一直悬着这个威胁,连第一修正案都保护不了我。

萨克斯: 我想回到激励的问题。你说你想要第三套房子,我来做一下「温斯坦翻译」:你的意思是,作为教授,要拿到终身教职,要拿到经费,要拿到系主任或者什么研究员的位置,我就得跟着走。如果我不跟着走,如果我是边缘的,说些不合群的话,这么理解对吗?

温斯坦: 异端(heterodox)。

萨克斯: 异端,好。如果我选择违背正统。比如我认为,在新冠起源问题上,把武汉病毒研究所排除在讨论之外,是疯了。

温斯坦: 对。疯了。当时就一清二楚。

萨克斯: 你这么说了,就被叫作边缘科学家,被斥责,被贴上弃儿的标签,于是失去了机会,失去了工作,失去了收入。方程里少了很多东西,就因为你提了异端的问题。

温斯坦: 我一九八七年在微分几何里得到了一组方程,当时受到极其恶劣的对待。那些方程在一九九四年接管了我的领域,可从来没有人回头说:等一下,我们狠狠地欺负了一个很早就把事情做对的人。同理,这个过程非常简单:你不被允许想要更好的生活,你应该谦卑。真正的科学家不在乎钱,真正的科学家不在乎保障,工作本身就是奖赏,如此这般,全是胡说八道。事实是,你们的安全是我们提供的。我说「第三套房子」是故意挑衅。我以前说「第二套房子」,现在不说了。

我们身处这样一个繁荣的世界,基尼系数正在爆表,这几乎完全归功于从科学派生出来的技术,而科学家没有分到一杯羹。你这样做,其实是在制造一种集体主义心态,因为我们拿不到钱,赢不了,做对了就出局。

一九六五到一九七五

萨克斯: 这个变化是什么时候发生的?我们从前不是珍视异端、离经叛道和荒诞的想法吗?科学的起源,伟大创新的起源,美国至今可以说仍是全球领先者,靠的就是那些一开始看起来像异端的东西,看起来牵强、不现实、不可能的想法。可十个里面只要有一个是对的,边界就被推前了,我们就到了一片新的疆域。

温斯坦: 对。

萨克斯: 科学大致应该遵循和创业一样的公式,技术创业或者产业创业那种。可事情是在哪儿变的,为什么?这是不是社会系统随时间饱和的自然进程?泰德·卡钦斯基,那个「大学炸弹客」,在他的宣言里谈到「过度社会化」。归根到底是这个吗?社交媒体起作用了吗?还是有某种刻意的外部力量?

温斯坦: 你刚才那份履历里漏了一样东西。你没提我在希伯来大学和麻省理工的物理系博士后,但最重要的一条是:我和理查德·弗里曼一起在哈佛经济系担任「科学与工程人力项目」的联合主席和联合首席研究员,因为我当时就担心我们正在失去这种东西。这个问题有一个非常清晰的答案:一九六五到一九七五年之间,一切都走错了。

大致上从一九六五年的《医疗保险法》开始,到一九七五年围绕一门叫「人:一门研究课程」(Man: A Course of Study)的争议为止,这十年引入了同行评审和管控。要精确定位的话,一九六五、六九到七一年这段特别惨烈。当时发生的事是,我记得是一九六九年春天,麻省理工物理系走出校园抗议越战,其中包括曼哈顿计划的参与者。

政府看了一眼,说:好吧,你们靠不住了,我们不能信任你们。我们和物理学家之间,有一份非常复杂、隐秘的约定。你们和数学家一起,是最危险、最致命、最聪明、最成功的一群人,我们一直依赖你们,现在我们不能信任你们了,因为在这场战争上你们没有和国家朝一个方向划桨,你们加入了抗议运动。

紧接着发生的是,麻省理工的仪器实验室,我想那是大量政府资金流经的地方,被剥离出大学,变成了德雷珀实验室。一九六九到七一年的《曼斯菲尔德修正案》,以蒙大拿州的迈克·曼斯菲尔德命名,规定军方不得再资助大学系统内的「蓝天研究」(blue sky research),除非它有直接、明确的军事目的。这就是灾难。因为军方原来的做法是:我们要你们吃饱喝足,去做你们认为该做的蓝天研究,我们信任你们,我们只想知道,需要的时候你们在。

所以军方曾经是我们最好的朋友。这种关系当然让人不舒服,因为坦率地说,一个高能量、高动态的科学项目里,观点五花八门。一个系里如果没有共产主义者和法西斯分子坐在一起喝茶,那就说明出了问题,因为科学家非常极端。泰德·卡钦斯基写过一篇很精彩的故事,叫《愚人船》,讲一群人在船上过分操心政治正确,结果撞上了冰山,因为没有人真正在意船怎么开,他们都在争论别的。

萨克斯: 这个我都不知道。

温斯坦: 是的,每个人都该读一读。当然,我不是在推荐一个杀人狂。

萨克斯: 承认卡钦斯基本身就是异端了。

温斯坦: 但要点在于,科学家是怪人,至少很多科学家是怪人。如果你不打算和真正危险的头脑打交道,我都不明白你为什么要穿上球衣来打科学这场比赛。

怪才无处可去

萨克斯: 那这些头脑去了哪儿?如果他们进不了体制,进不了美国科学的机器,他们还在吗?还是他们的大脑被磨钝了,只被允许说某些话?我们是不是在把伟大的科学家重新编程,错过了全部的阿尔法?

温斯坦: 对,你错过了阿尔法。你用这个词很有意思,既像「阿尔法男」,也像投资理论里的阿尔法。

萨克斯: 两个意思都行。

温斯坦: 我还玩即兴说唱呢。不过大体上,你正在做的事是给你最好的头脑做绝育。另外,看看帕尔默·拉基。在我眼里那家伙就像个科学家。他是个牧师,穿着夸张的衬衫,造杀人的东西。他要是在物理系里,就很难做那样的人。要说仍在科学界、在我看来像伟大科学家的人,我会指给你尼玛·阿尔卡尼-哈米德(Nima Arkani-Hamed)。魅力惊人,聪明得没边,绝不妥协,没有在深层次上迎合弦论的风潮,虽然他对弦论的很多方面抱有同情。你们知道他在那儿吗?他是我们当中眼下最好的,年纪还不算大。

我的感觉是,我们的效能大幅下降了,而且我知道原因。你把詹姆斯·沃森从他一手建起的冷泉港赶出去,你在干什么?你知道马克·普塔什尼已经八十多岁了吗?写了《基因开关》、研究 λ 噬菌体的那个人,最聪明、最不敬的人之一。有一回我把一个记者派去见他,记者夹着尾巴回来说:那家伙是个疯子。

埃里克·兰德当过白宫科学顾问,就是克拉齐奥斯现在的位子。他的照片没挂在墙上,我想是因为他是个绝不妥协、很难相处的人。我不得不说,这东西就是这么严酷。你看过电影《爆裂鼓手》吗?

萨克斯: 喜欢,我最爱的电影之一。

温斯坦: 那个指挥能带出最好的乐队是有原因的,他不发纸巾。我不是说要一个残暴的地方,我不想要那样,但这行当就是相当不留情面。

改革方案:在民权法案上凿洞

萨克斯: 那这种停滞的泥沼怎么解?我们怎么重新追上?怎么重组?是体制的问题,资金的问题,人的问题,还是重新编程?一个已经被彻底编好程的社会回路,怎么跳出来?

温斯坦: 好问题,真的是好问题。我们干脆挑衅一点,扔几个想法出来。国家利益豁免。我想在《民权法案》上凿一个大洞,好让团队不用整天怕人力资源部门。

萨克斯: 《民权法案》做了什么,让人没法做自己该做的事?

温斯坦: 我大学时最要好的朋友,我们三个人一组,两个犹太人和一个穆斯林。那个穆斯林老拿犹太人开涮,说你们把银行和报纸都攥在手里,我们也开他玩笑说他是恐怖分子。这种模式我没法向任何人解释,但我们从一九八二年起就亲密无间。我的主张是,你们根本不懂高能动性的人是怎么结成紧密的社会单元的。

如果人力资源部门跑来说:埃里克,我知道你刚才开了一个不恰当的玩笑。滚开。你是谁,你在我的实验室里干什么?我要叫保安了。为什么我做任何事都得先有一张爸爸妈妈签字的条子?我不是说要恶劣,我是说,你对伟大的文化了解得不够多,不配当我的人力资源部门。这就是我的意思。我扔出的是一个挑衅性的想法,而且顺便说一句,我是民主党人。我是肯尼迪那一派的民主党人,不是现在这种。

萨克斯: 我都不知道你今天该算什么。

温斯坦: 我留在党内。我是「钉子户」民主党人,就是那种商场围着它盖起来、房主也不肯卖的房子。我不会退党。但我的党疯了。我觉得,如果我们真是自己声称的那种人,我们就该和我见过的那些共和党人联手,说:我们一起动手改革这个体制吧。你要是想吹嘘自己不靠我们就让美国再次伟大,那你去死吧。我宁可先和你一起把美国做强,然后再为功劳吵架。打仗就是这么打的。

所以我的第一条建议是……

萨克斯: 扔掉《民权法案》。

温斯坦: 不是扔掉,是在上面凿洞,因为它的初衷是好的。问题是有人拿它的字面去套利,反过来对付它的初衷,于是造出了那种集体主义思维。没有极端个人主义,没有粗粝的极端个人主义,你做不出伟大的工作。这不是安·兰德式的东西,也不是保守派的东西。我自认为是中间偏左,可没有人比我更个人主义。

我需要的是不要同行评审。同行评审是一个被追溯着塞进科学史的假故事。你可以去谷歌 Ngram 查一下,输入带引号的「peer review」,你会发现一九六五年之前几乎没有这个词。原因是《医疗保险法》让政府成了医疗程序的主要付款方。政府说:我们为什么要付这些钱?医生们说:我们不想让你们监督我们的决策,我们互相评审就行。这事始于犹他州的一家诊所。然后到一九七五年,财政保守派和社会保守派因为那门「人:一门研究课程」(MACOS)攻击 NSF。不知为什么,NSF 把人类学也算进了科学。我认为这是个错误。我认为我们需要的是把真正的硬科学单独分出来。我的感觉是,弱一些的科学家应该去成立自己的组织,别再刷我们的信用卡,因为他们正在毁掉我们的信用额度。

萨克斯: 你说的是社会科学和软科学,对比那些有工业终点的硬科学。

温斯坦: 不是工业终点的问题。另一件搞砸了的事是,科学被等同于生物医学了,而它不是。

市场失灵与纯数学

温斯坦: 而且在保守派心里,科学成了市场能做好的事。难道没人上过经济学入门课?开学第一天他们就该告诉你,市场很好用,前提是你不在一个叫「市场失灵」的范畴里。你要是那天翘课了,就会说:市场是完美的,什么都能定价。可任何不可耗尽、不可排他的东西,这恰恰是科学的定义,市场都无法定价,除非你人为造一个市场。

我说了这么多对共和党人客气的话,这里我要狠一下。你不能让那些不明白市场并非无所不见的蠢货来主事。我们交税养军队是有原因的,而且是技术性的原因,不是因为我们觉得这样好。如果你能让军队变得可耗尽、可排他,你就不需要用税收来养它。所以你的税金必须用在市场够不着的地方。同伦论(homotopy theory)就是个绝好的例子。我在这些科学讨论里一提同伦论,人们就问那是什么。我的回答是:你不知道。它是纯数学里极其重要的一部分,我不知道它有什么工业应用。可你去动同伦论,就等于从一个你根本不理解、却极其重要的生态系统里抽走一块叠叠乐积木。

博士群体缺席特朗普政府

温斯坦: 所以我要往这场谈话里注入一点博士的视角:博士们做错的地方在于,他们躲在外面。在他们看来特朗普有虱子,他们不想沾上特朗普的虱子,所以不露面。

萨克斯: 对。如果他们不来解释为什么我们需要同伦论、为什么需要向人们征税来养它,那政府就听不到该听的话,而该说这些话的人又不到政府里来。

温斯坦: 没错。这完全是失灵的。

萨克斯: 顺便说个数据,我跟克拉齐奥斯讲过:《自然》杂志对两千名读者做了调查,《自然》是科学界广泛阅读的期刊。

温斯坦: 顺便说一句,《自然》七十年代之前也不搞同行评审。

萨克斯: 对。百分之六的读者投了特朗普,百分之八十五左右投了哈里斯,剩下的没决定。这印证了你的观点:特朗普被认定为反科学,特朗普这个体制被认定为反科学,以至于人们连接触都不想接触。

温斯坦: 假设你厌恶特朗普,假设你认为特朗普是魔鬼。我刚见了迈克尔·克拉齐奥斯。那个位子我也想要,我把帽子扔进了竞选圈。我没指望能拿到,因为我不愿意向唐纳德·特朗普宣誓足够的忠诚。位子给了迈克尔·克拉齐奥斯。我当时很紧张,因为他不是博士出身。可他在这个角色里的成长令人难以置信。他懂了:我有很多东西不知道,我是来学习的,告诉我我需要知道什么。如果没人来做这份辅导,那你活该得到你现在得到的一切,因为我认为迈克尔在做绝对正确的事。吉姆·奥尼尔我从彼得·蒂尔的圈子里就很熟,他要来 NSF。杰伊·巴塔查里亚,绝对的瑰宝。你要是没法和这些人共事,那是他们的问题,还是你的问题?

私人资本能否替代?西蒙斯的局限

萨克斯: 让我回到市场的问题,我来做一个自由至上主义者的论证。如果市场善于创造经济价值,擅长此道的人也切实分享了这些价值,那就会有富人,而富人会看到数学、纯物理、天体物理和宇宙学的价值,然后出钱资助。詹姆斯·西蒙斯不是资助了大量研究吗?

温斯坦: 吉姆是个天才,对纯数学有详尽的了解。

萨克斯: 尤里·米尔纳有量子色动力学的背景。如果这样的人再多一些……我不是要和你争这个,我的意思是,市场不是照样应该起作用吗?他们会看到你说的这些科学的价值,资本会流向那些研究,总会有人出钱。外面有很多拿到资金的独立机构。这对整个版图来说够不够?我还要说一个数据,我跟克拉齐奥斯提过,他在书里也发表了:美国政府科研经费的效能随时间显著下降,每一美元的投资回报下降了八十倍。所以我把这两点摆出来:难道没有私人市场资本会找到路来解决这些问题吗?政府部署资本、创造回报的能力,是不是越来越差了?我可能是在给你摆一个球座。

温斯坦: 我觉得我得先抽点大麻才能接这个问题。第一点我一个字都不信。我和吉姆·西蒙斯还算熟。吉姆是那种做得到这件事的人,可连他也不明白。我和西蒙斯最后一次谈话,是在跟他解释:陈-西蒙斯项(Chern–Simons)如果被解释成一个作用量泛函,就是爱因斯坦-希尔伯特作用量(Einstein–Hilbert)唯一的对手。如果他顺着这个方向追下去,会发现陈-西蒙斯和爱因斯坦-希尔伯特站在同一个平面上,都是终极理论的女儿。他不知道这一点。

所以部分问题在于,在我这个领域里,要知道隔壁领域在发生什么都极其困难。录节目之前我刚和好朋友爱德华·弗伦克尔通完电话,他做代数几何,我做微分几何。虽然这两个领域紧挨着,我们之间的交流也非常困难。所以,是的,如果你碰巧有一个当亿万富翁的代数几何学家,一个表示论学家,还有一个对范畴论感兴趣的,你可以这么做。但这完全是疯了。

萨克斯: 所以应该由政府来出资。

温斯坦: 政府必须是这些东西的基本出资方。

萨克斯: 接下来,我们得有合适的人来代表我们决定该资助哪里、资助什么。

温斯坦: 对。我们以前就是这么做的:有一些自由支配的资金,很好的人手里有钱。

从熟人电话到 KPI

温斯坦: 多年前我在埃里切参加一个物理会议,大家在聊下一份工作去哪儿找。一个老先生走过来说:我真可怜你们。他是美国人。我问:怎么讲?他说:我这辈子从没申请过工作。我说:什么意思?他说:如果你真的有本事,又需要一份工作,你就去找这个领域里地位高的某个人谈,他拿起电话,等他放下电话,你已经在你该去的地方有了一份工作。

所以我的主张是,当那些行政管理型的人进来说「我们需要 KPI,我们要数据驱动,我要知道转化率是多少」,我想问:你知道什么叫投资回报吗,还是你只知道你能量出来的东西?我的主张是,你想要的大多是把这些人放在聘用状态,一旦有真正的问题,你就打电话给「杰森小组」(JASONs),里面装满了你能想象到的最可怕的头脑,我们就可以动手解决你的问题。

可如果你说「我的税金凭什么让你去做你觉得有意思的事」,那我说:如果我能追求我感兴趣的东西,等你打电话来,我会很乐意帮助我的国家,我会觉得这是件好事。可如果你告诉我「你该做这个,因为这个能带来投资回报」,我的感觉是:你是不是根本不懂科学?你以为你的技术思维和我的科学思维是一回事?你想赚钱。我在硅谷待了很长时间,我对一辆新的迈凯伦远没有那么感兴趣,我在意的是一万年以后,如果人类还在,我的名字还会不会被讨论。我这么说是因为吉姆·沃森刚去世,我的好朋友伊萨多·辛格、拉乌尔·博特也都不在了。那是些一万年后人们还会讨论其贡献的人。

把科学家当摇滚明星

温斯坦: 你认识的做软件即服务的人里,有几个能说这句话?很难说。我以前常问:格里戈里·佩雷尔曼和罗恩·帕尔曼有什么区别?在当下,问题是「谁是格里戈里·佩雷尔曼」;一千年以后,问题就变成了「谁是罗恩·帕尔曼」。所以我的感觉是,我们有自己在意的玩具,我们在意我们的历史,在意不一样的东西。想住四季酒店、想坐商务舱并不过分,但我们不需要公务机,那是你们的东西。所以,把科学家当成他们应该成为的摇滚明星来对待。否则你会失去他们,失去那些人才,失去那个时刻。

投资组合理论看科研

萨克斯: 你说自由支配的资金,可现代的资助流程是拨款:你申请一笔经费,附上一组非常具体的目标,钱就只能用在那上面。而按你前面的说法,获批的通常是低贝塔的项目,也就是结果更可预测的项目。

温斯坦: 所以我们是把现代投资组合理论挪到科学上来了。

萨克斯: 挪到科学上。

温斯坦: 我喜欢。

萨克斯: 我的论点是,现实就是这么运转的,或者说不是?这是不是错过了去押那些疯狂的高贝塔赌注的机会?不只押想法,还押人。

温斯坦: 疯狂的高贝塔赌注。我们举个例子。假设我有百分之一的机会治愈所有癌症,你该雇我吗?

萨克斯: 百分之九十九的失败率挺贵的。但治愈所有癌症的收益……政府极其富有,富到这个程度,你就能下不一样的注,让结果最大化。

温斯坦: 问题在于,政府是通过比它穷的东西来联合投资的。每个系都说:我们真的不宽裕,我们没那么多编制,所以我们要选一个大概率能做成一件很普通的事的人,然后开始撒谎说这件事有多重要。你会注意到,你问人「你那个领域怎么样」,所有人都说「当粒子理论家从来没有这么好的时候」。可现在是当粒子理论家最糟糕的时候,而我们不能这么说。

有趣的是,回到投资组合理论:如果你有一个平衡的组合,其中一部分开始成功、一部分开始失败,你通常会把钱从成功的那部分抽出来,放到失败的那部分,否则组合里的集中度会太高。从来没有人想过这些。所以你面对的,是一群既不懂现代投资组合理论、也不懂市场失灵的人在设计制度。懂基本的市场理论非常重要,而我们不懂。

萨克斯: 那如果把这个修好,我们是资助人,还是资助想法?

温斯坦: 展开说说。

萨克斯: 我给克拉齐奥斯讲过这个例子。斯图尔特·巴特菲尔德做一个项目做了两三年,钱只剩三百万了。风投们都投了钱,项目差点失败。他打电话给本·霍洛维茨,霍洛维茨最近刚讲过这个故事。他说:我该把钱退给你吗?这个项目没做成。不过顺便说,我们给自己的工程团队做了一个公司内部通讯工具,也许我可以转向做那个。霍洛维茨说:钱留着,去做吧,我信你。他转了向,做成了 Slack,以三百亿美元卖掉。

道理是你押的是人,不是想法。伟大的人、伟大的创业者会不断进化、不断建造、不断转向。看看扎克伯格,一次又一次地重新发明那家公司。如果你能找到正在崛起的人,有没有办法识别各个领域里正在冒头的个人,资助他们一段时间?还是说这又回到了投资组合理论:有些赌注押想法,有些押人,押人的赌注应该是长期的、充分资助的?

敢封杀不敢做空

温斯坦: 我给你一个神奇的公式,让你知道这有多难,你得有多狡猾。告诉我,一个领域里那些既有的领袖人物想封杀谁,却又不敢做空谁。就资助那个人。目前来说就这样。

因为如果你不敢……我拿我自己的主要理论来说。如果你愿意做空几何边际主义(geometric marginalism),或者更重要的几何统一,我想和你跳一支舞。因为我想拿走你的房子,拿走你的退休金。在市场上毁掉你,将是我莫大的荣幸。

可实际发生的不是这样。他们的态度是:我们想封杀他,但我们知道他懂很多东西,我们也知道我们其实没读过他的东西。当有人说「你有百分之九十九点九九九九的概率会失败」,我说:想把这个正式化吗?来吧。他们说:我跟你赌一百美元,到明年你还没得到完全的承认。那不是你说的话。你说的是你愿意押上你的房子来赢我一美元,我想按这个规模下注。所以我的感觉是:来吧,宝贝,那会很好玩。

威滕把理论物理开下了悬崖

温斯坦: 我再告诉你一件事。要去听那些没有人愿意说的话。我公开说过,今天世界上最聪明的人是爱德华·威滕(Edward Witten)。才华横溢,难以置信。这个人在四十二年前把理论物理开下了公路,开下了悬崖。没有别人愿意说这句话。

问题是:唯一一个注意到没有人去斯德哥尔摩领奖、标准模型没有变过的人……去看看最近那场弦论会议,弦论据说是基础物理里「唯一的游戏」。打开 Strings 2026 的网站,那里有全部演讲的列表,有搜索引擎。输入下面几个词:电子、强子、希格斯、轻子。里面没有物理。他们谈的没有一样能伤到敌人,没有一样和物理世界有关。

我去过一家可以说是世界领先的物理研究所,我问:这里最聪明的人是谁?他们给了我三个名字,其中两个是纯理论家。我和这两位都深入谈过。谈到怎么推进标准模型,也就是我们对这个房间里你能看到的所有粒子的认识,两个人都说:我对物理世界没有兴趣。我说:你们是我们最大、最烧钱的理论物理研究所里两位领头的教授,而你们两个都不关心物理世界。他们公开说出这种话,这是疯狂。

我在各个物理系做报告,现在我开始对某些系采取「不合作」了:他们请我去讲,可在形式上又否认我讲过。比如我在德克萨斯大学奥斯汀分校做过报告,可我不被允许说那场报告是在物理系做的。

萨克斯: 真的?

温斯坦: 真的。我在圆周研究所(Perimeter Institute)做过报告,那不算报告,叫「埃里克在回答问题」。我在芝加哥大学也讲过……

萨克斯: 这是因为你的演讲和你这个人被视为边缘、离经叛道。

温斯坦: 你老说「边缘」。是的,我完全不同意这个领域的叙事。我直截了当地说:一九八三年物理还讲得通,一九八四年就不通了。转折非常突兀,几乎是一夜之间,三个人,伦纳德·萨斯坎德、戴维·格罗斯和爱德华·威滕,把整个领域带向了一个完全不同的方向。这么做的成就,不是我们对物理世界的认识有了任何进展,而是做成了一件没人知道可能做成的事:把爱德华·泰勒、罗伯特·奥本海默、理查德·费曼、斯坦尼斯瓦夫·乌拉姆从 SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) 规范理论里造出最恐怖武器的那个领域,变安全了。现在和你的地缘政治对手一起做物理是安全的。你可以邀请中国的朋友来你的系里读研究生,往他们脑子里灌 AdS/CFT 之类的东西,连一只苍蝇都伤不到,因为里面没有物理。所以问题是:这是不是一个秘密计划?

一九四〇年参考委员会

萨克斯: 回到一九八三年。等等,我们在一九八三年开下了悬崖,问题是:有没有人说过「嘿,我们把它开下悬崖吧」?你是不是认为,地球上某个地方有某个小圈子、某组资产、某组项目,五十年来一直在推进物理学?

温斯坦: 你问这个太好了。那不是疯了吗,大卫?你能想象有一个秘密的地方在推进物理学某个重要领域,而在那个地方之外研究物理的人都被卡住吗?

萨克斯: 我觉得这很难保密。

温斯坦: 好。一九四〇年发生了一件你从没听说过的事:国家研究委员会(National Research Council)内部设立了一个「参考委员会」(Reference Committee)。中子是卢瑟福在一九一一年首先假设的,三十年代初被发现,一位名叫莉泽·迈特纳的女性提出了链式反应的概念,然后费米在芝加哥大学用「芝加哥一号堆」证实了它。此后,一个叫格雷戈里·布赖特的人在国家研究委员会内部组建了这个参考委员会。如果你向期刊投一篇链式反应物理的论文,它会被分流到国家研究委员会,然后退回给你,说:很遗憾,这些结果还很初步,我们认为没有达到本刊的水平,请修改,如此等等。你重新投稿,还是不行。你不知道这个东西存在。曼哈顿计划之外的人,「白色徽章」之外的人,就是这样被他们那些不被允许进入曼哈顿计划的同行对待的。

所以我们至少可以同意:从一九四〇年到一九四五年,存在一个审稿程序,它摧毁了做链式反应物理而又没被邀请进秘密团体的人谋生的能力。

萨克斯: 是。

温斯坦: 好。问题不是「这疯不疯」,它显然不疯,因为我知道这确实存在、确实发生过。问题是:它发生过一次,还是不止一次?如果不止一次,那么今天新墨西哥州那所男校的对应物是什么?白色徽章的对应物是什么?参考委员会的对应物是什么?

萨克斯: 你有一个理论?

温斯坦: 有。

文艺复兴科技会是当代洛斯阿拉莫斯吗

温斯坦: 如果这事在发生,我说过,最有可能的候选者是长岛的文艺复兴科技(Renaissance Technologies)。

萨克斯: 我听你说过。但肯定……

温斯坦: 我们来看看它的掩护故事。掩护故事是这样的:我们太擅长交易了,以至于我们根本不让懂市场的人进公司。我们只雇物理学里那些「直接相关」领域的人,比如粒子理论家、微分几何学家、机器学习专家。还有一件很奇怪的事:我们和布鲁克海文国家实验室关系非常密切。顺便,隔壁有一所不起眼的大学,在做下一代物理所需要的那几个学科上,历史上却是绝对的世界一流。多位菲尔兹奖得主,而《美国新闻与世界报道》从不把它列为我们的顶级学府。可你看看从纽约州立大学石溪分校走出来的人,难以置信。在我看来,这就像米德堡还叫「没有这个机构」的年代,收罗了多得反常的数论学家。

萨克斯: 可是埃里克,有人从那个地方出来过。我认识一两个,他们没有这样的故事。你会设想,其中总有一部分人,哪怕是一小部分,会泄露一些信息,一些事实,如果真有这种高级物理研究的话。或者说,从中实现的回报应该会比现在多得多。

温斯坦: 我不是说我知道这是真的。我的意思是,我一直很小心。如果你说「埃里克,这听起来太荒唐了」,那么老实说,洛斯阿拉莫斯这个概念,一九四四年就被一个叫杰克·雷珀的记者在克利夫兰的一家报纸上发表了。他报出了这件事,什么都没发生。因为他说的话太疯了:有一座秘密城市,市长是被认为会成为下一个爱因斯坦的人,正在研制末日武器,这座城镇保密到没人知道里面在发生什么。所以我的主张是,我在做杰克·雷珀做的事,而你在做当年人们对雷珀做的事:显然只有一个人这么说,而且他是个疯子。

萨克斯: 可这两种情况下,我都可以去那儿开始问问题、盘问,看看能不能找到点什么。

温斯坦: 再说一遍,我不是说文艺复兴科技就是那个地方。我是说,你有一个戒备森严的园区,配着一个讲不通的故事。你懂市场。你知道大奖章基金(Medallion Fund)赚了多少吗?

萨克斯: 知道。我在那儿工作过的朋友,他们可以把钱留在里面,回报一直在滚。

温斯坦: 「可以把钱留在里面」不是实际情况。

萨克斯: 那只基金对外部资金全部关闭了,只留内部资金。

温斯坦: 对。

萨克斯: 我就是这个意思,离开公司之后,你的资本可以留在大奖章基金里。

掩护故事的破绽:从大奖章基金到爱泼斯坦

温斯坦: 我对你说的是,杰弗里·爱泼斯坦也有一个故事:他只接受十亿美元以上的投资,条件是你把授权委托书交给他。这类东西总有某种理由,使得外面没有任何人既放了钱进去、又能提问。

杰弗里·爱泼斯坦没有经营过对冲基金。他告诉我,他经营一只多策略外汇对冲基金,他需要一架波音七二七是因为里面装了交易台,机上坐满了犹太神学院的学生,因为只有他们信得过。他说得极其具体:用趋势跟踪、均值回归和套息这三种策略。他说他不做伽马交易,不做期权。那是一整套掩护故事,后来穿帮了,于是他变成了「声名狼藉的金融家」,再后来又变成了「税务专家杰弗里·爱泼斯坦」。你看到的是一个假的世界,掩护故事一个失效就换下一个。你要是记得老电视剧《糊涂侦探》里那句「你信不信,会有一千名特工蜂拥而至?」「我觉得很难相信。」「一百名警察?」「不对,麦克斯韦小姐。」「两个拿弹弓的童子军。」这就是假的。

我的主张是,我不知道文艺复兴科技里在发生什么,可吉姆·西蒙斯是个绝对的天才,但在这方面并不算特别杰出,我们有很多这样的人。我不认识任何一个接近过这种回报的人。我不知道那个东西实际做了什么、在做什么、声称在做什么。我说的是,它和一个不被承认的人才库石溪大学关系密切,还和一个国家实验室关系密切。

假如物理没有停下

萨克斯: 回到八三、八四年。假设我们没有走进那个量子……

温斯坦: 不是量子,是量子引力的宇宙。

萨克斯: 量子引力的宇宙。假设我们在另一个宇宙里,物理今天会是什么样子?帮一个通才听众理解一下,如果物理没有停下来,那意味着什么。在那之前,我先问一个问题。有人会说,物理已经在推动半导体制造技术、先进光刻、材料科学这些方面起了重要作用,也许不是基础层面的,这也许就是你的答案。我们在算力上取得了巨大进步,才走到今天有了所谓 AI 这些工具的时刻。化学、材料科学、物理学的所有底层进展把我们带到了这里。我们有进步,而且进步得到了应用。这是一种论证。告诉我为什么这没抓住要点,然后我们再谈,如果一九八三、八四年没有出轨,今天的世界会是什么样。

温斯坦: 好问题。我试着回应,如果没答到点上你随时把我拉回来。在我们现有的理论里,我把它叫作「前沿模型」,它把广义相对论和粒子物理的标准模型合在一起。我们知道某些东西,但用不上。我们发现每个质子和中子里都有三个价夸克,可从来没有人把一个价夸克从质子或中子里单独拽出来,这叫「红外奴役」(infrared slavery)。顺便去他的觉醒派,别跟我说不能说「奴役」这个词。红外奴役,受着吧,小伙子们。这里面没有任何工业应用,我们从一九六八年就知道了。所以有时候,你要过极其漫长的时间才能用上一样东西。也许我们永远拽不出一个夸克,也许那是不可能的。可如果物理真的有了进展,还有别的什么是我们可能做到的?

举个例子,七十年代中期,阿卜杜勒·萨拉姆和帕蒂两位先生提出了帕蒂-萨拉姆模型(Pati–Salam model)。我相信,帕蒂-萨拉姆模型最终会被证明是我们现有理论之上的第一阶大统一的正确形式。问题是它里面有一个叫 SU(4) 的东西,而不是 SU(3)。SU(3) 产生的力,把原子核里所有的质子按在一起不让它们跑开,因为同种电荷显然想要互相排斥。一九四五年我们能摧毁两座日本城市,就是因为我们控制了强力,然后用电磁力释放出彻底的毁灭性能量,但它没有摧毁质子和中子。

有了 SU(4) 会怎样?你会看到电子和中微子是「第四种颜色」,和构成质子与中子的上夸克、下夸克并列。你可以有一种武器,把上夸克和下夸克「旋转」成更轻的轻子,让物质瓦解。你可以有「暗化学」。「暗」不是准确的概念,其实是「退耦物质」。暗物质就是退耦物质。中微子本质上就是暗物质,几乎探测不到。

萨克斯: 它们不发生相互作用。

温斯坦: 会的,只是非常非常弱。只通过引力和弱力,这两种力弱得不像话。

萨克斯: 引力弱到不值一提,中微子再多也……

温斯坦: 但这里有另一种可能。如果你把一个中微子旋转成某种带电粒子,你就可以把它穿过地球射出去。

萨克斯: 解释一下「旋转」是什么意思。中微子是亚原子粒子,不怎么和别的东西相互作用。旋转它们是什么意思?

温斯坦: 我想太阳产生的能量里,有很大一部分是中微子。你和我此刻正被几十亿个中微子照射着。我们没死的唯一原因是它们几乎不和我们的原子相互作用,千载难逢才作用一次。所以夜里太阳把中微子穿过地球射过来,它穿过一切,到了我们这儿继续往前走。你可以用一光年厚的铅去挡它,它也极少发生作用。

所谓旋转,是在某种内部意义上说的,是在一个抽象空间里旋转的隐喻。它引出中子这个例子。如果我把一个中子放在桌上,我们坐着看,它的半衰期大概是十七分钟左右,我记不清了,它会变成一个质子。这叫贝塔衰变,因为人们看到一个电子从中子里尖叫着飞出来,一个中性粒子之所以变成正的,是因为负电荷随电子跑掉了。

萨克斯: 跟听众说清楚:一个中子可以变成一个质子,同时放出一个电子。

温斯坦: 对。但那个模型后来被证明是错的。实际发生的是,中子里面有三个夸克,中子是「下下上」,其中一个下夸克放出了一个叫 W 负的东西,那是力粒子,不是物质粒子,然后这个东西衰变成一个电子和别的什么。我们判定还有「别的什么」的唯一依据,有点像会计:如果你有一套很好的记账系统,发现收银机里的钱袋轻了一点,你就说,按守恒原理,有人动了钱柜。那个东西就是中微子。

于是中微子和电子之间的关系,和上夸克与下夸克之间的关系是一样的,你可以用这些 W 粒子把它们互相转变。危险在于,一旦你拥有的力粒子比我们现在知道的多,那些眼下看来完全稳定的东西,在新的体系里可能就不稳定了。如果 SU(5) 存在,你可能可以让一座山瓦解。SU(4) 比 SU(5) 稳定,我不认为 SU(5) 是相关的。

我要说的是,想物理的时候,可以用「轰、呜、嗖」这三个字来记住为什么它是我们最可怕也最惊人的学科。轰是武器,呜是能源,嗖是推进、计算,以及我们能玩的一切酷东西。标准模型大概在五十三年前定型。五十三年来,你没有得到任何新的轰、呜、嗖。物理的停滞,可能恰恰保住了人类这个物种,因为那个「轰」太可怕了。我无法告诉你这是不是真的,但它意味着,你也没有从本可以发生的新东西里得到任何呜和嗖。我们得诚实:我尤其想要那个「嗖」。

杠杆:科学有多危险

萨克斯: 我们大概可以论证:地球上没有人真的到了那一步,所有人都围绕着分心、无兴趣和这种追求站成一队,正是因为那种绝对的风险。如果真有人取得了进展,能拿到更大的「轰」,游戏早就结束了。没有比绝对权力更绝对的东西了,它会让一个人或一群人以某种方式把它用到极致。

温斯坦: 这一点我完全不同意。

萨克斯: 好,说说。

温斯坦: 我在屋里待了两年,被逼着打疫苗,就因为四个氨基酸被拼接进了冠状病毒的刺突蛋白。我猜这挺容易,对吧?想一想,你只需要十二个核苷酸,在刺突蛋白正确的位置编码四个氨基酸,就足以让地球停摆。这是高杠杆的科学。我的主张是,在我们决定要「重新开始横扫千军」之前,至少停一停,承认大多数人不知道,一点点科学知识里蕴含着多大的力量。

《绝命毒师》里有一场精彩的戏,主角海森堡拿着一块看起来像冰毒的东西,扔在一个叫图科的精神病的办公室里。图科问:那到底是什么,怎么炸得那么厉害?我忘了是叠氮化铅还是雷酸汞,反正是那类极其易爆的化合物。你知道黑火药有多容易做吗?我问现在的听众,没人知道:百分之七十五硝石,百分之十硫磺,百分之十五木炭。《无政府主义者食谱》已经不在讨论范围里了。科学的力量,科学的杠杆,深刻到我们至少该问一句:如果有不需要离心机的核武器呢?如果有高中生就能做的简单办法呢?你记得那个从烟雾报警器里搜刮镅、造出一个能运行的反应堆的家伙吗?我记得是在布鲁克林。

萨克斯: 记得。

温斯坦: 没人想过,收集两百一十八个烟雾报警器,你就能有一个能运行的核反应堆。所以我的主张是,如果你想以「绝命毒师」为范式来思考,你得回到「美国诉《进步》杂志案」:一份刊物要发表泰勒-乌拉姆构型的热核武器设计,政府说不行,这是受限数据,我们需要事前禁令。那是最危险的一块几何学,是斯坦·乌拉姆的作品。整个思路是,如果你要用一个裂变装置,化学外壳压缩次临界的裂变材料,把原子弹变成一个雷管,那你怎么用它去压缩一根棒子之类的东西,引发聚变装置?唯一能足够快地抵达那个第三级的东西是光。你得把几何算出来,因为如果不够快,雷管会把整个装置撕碎。这个秘密后来发表了,政府之所以没有追究霍华德·莫兰,唯一的原因是我们愚蠢地把这个东西的各种碎片和残片都解密了,他去洛斯阿拉莫斯的图书馆把它们拼了起来。

我的主张是,你得知道约翰·亚里士多德·菲利普斯的故事,一个水平不怎么样的物理学生,普林斯顿的吉祥物。他在写本科论文时对弗里曼·戴森说:我不太行,我想利用「我不太行」这一点做件惊人的事。告诉我,你能不能让我拿出一份原子弹的设计方案。戴森说:我不会给你任何帮助,但我会告诉你它行不行。这个水平不怎么样的学生把它做出来了,交了他的本科论文。我忘了是不是第二十四页,反正那篇论文不在图书馆里,政府把有设计方案的那一页拿走了。事实是,这些东西唾手可得,而一九四五年以来我们再没见过核武器被使用,主要是因为我们没有去用这种力量。

可如果事实证明这很容易做……顺便说一句,如果美国在伊朗问题上失败,你会看到各国纷纷获取核武器,因为我们之前信任美国。你是世界警察。石油美元不是石油美元,是暴力美元。美国本该拥有确保石油所需的暴力,石油再支撑货币。我们正在实时目睹这个体制的瓦解,美国正在经历自己的「苏伊士时刻」。无论你认为唐纳德·特朗普该不该打伊朗,我碰巧认为他很有勇气,做了我们一九八一、八二年就该做的事,我们必须赢。我们必须赢,因为如果这个世界认定不再有世界警察,每个人都会想要自己的核弹。你可以回去听汤姆·莱勒那首《下一个是谁?》,你会发现,你将面对一个连博弈论都算不清的世界,因为它不再是双方的,而是多极的。

逃离太阳系

萨克斯: 想象一个超越核武器的世界。那个世界是什么样子?在这项将近八十年历史的技术之外还有什么?我再回到八三年的故事:我们在取得进展,后来停了吗?别人会取得这些进展吗?中国会吗?那会是什么样子?UAP,不明空中现象,就是这个吗?你最近的说法是,你曾对 UAP 深表怀疑,现在却认为也许真有点什么。

温斯坦: 肯定有点什么。那个「什么」可能是中国,可能是我们自己,也可能是一个假故事,但肯定有东西在那儿。

萨克斯: 基于那些视频和第一人称的叙述?

温斯坦: 不是视频,我从来不在乎那些视频。我和太多聪明、清醒的人谈过,听到太多相似的故事。肯定存在关于这件事的特别访问项目(special access programs)。我们学到的唯一能保住秘密的办法是分隔管理。我们分隔得太厉害了,几乎没人能把故事拼起来。可能是所谓的「烟囱式」管理让我们弄不清自己知道什么,因为我们彼此不能交谈。

要问什么是可能的,我可以把你吓一跳,既超级酷又超级吓人。一个是,我担心「多时间对手」(multi-temporal adversaries)。

萨克斯: 时间旅行?

温斯坦: 人人都说时间旅行,因为他们以为时间只能是一维的。想象一下,你把一门巨炮架在一节轨道车上,轨道车只能沿一个维度移动。现在有人把巨炮架在坦克上,开到博纳维尔盐滩,你就能在两个维度上移动了。再把它装到 A-10 疣猪攻击机上,你就能在三个维度上移动。这些都是空间维度。你为什么认为时间有一个箭头?因为你相信时间只能是一维的。我不认为时间是一维的。如果你遇到一个能进入多维时间的对手,就像你只有一门架在轨道上的炮,却要和 A-10 疣猪对抗,只不过换成了时间而不是空间。如果我能在时间里从背后摸到你,知道你的意图。对我来说这是极其可怕的东西。我当然希望我们对对手拥有这种优势,但我不想在不对等的情况下遇到任何会这种东西的人。

再说一个。太阳系是一间密室逃脱。埃隆曾经一心盯着火星,我说火星是条红鲱鱼,是个麦高芬。今晚的重点又是月球。在我看来,他是我们唯一的成年人,尽管他疯得厉害,他就是用这种劲头来激励工程师的,因为火星勉强可行。这些是仅有的几块可能宜居的石头。如果我们把这么大的力量集中在这么几个星球上,多样性远远不够。假设你能给火星和月球造出大气层,用化学火箭在它们之间往返,你也只有三个可以搞砸的地方。在我们学会把自己文明化之前,我们需要成千上万、甚至上百万个地方。所以我们必须离开这里。可离开太阳系太贵了。我的主张是,在爱因斯坦的世界里,你永远做不到。如果爱因斯坦的理论继续有效,光速就太残酷了。你去四光年外的半人马座阿尔法星再回来,以接近光速飞行,等你到家,一切都过去了八年。没人想这么干,而那只是最近的一颗恒星。

暗能量与爱因斯坦的牢笼

温斯坦: 我的主张是,我们在爱因斯坦的监狱里待得太久了。广义相对论真正始于一九一三年,它是格罗斯曼和爱因斯坦的成果,不只是爱因斯坦一个人的,我不知道为什么我们总说是他一个人。它也不该叫爱因斯坦-希尔伯特,而该叫爱因斯坦-格罗斯曼。大致从一九一五、一九一七年起,这些方程就没动过。它们会被打破,因为南亚利桑那正在发生的事。基特峰上有一台叫 DESI 的仪器,暗能量光谱仪。我相信它会证明,宇宙学常数乘以度规这一项,也就是我们把暗能量写进方程的方式,会被打破,因为它不是常数。方程里之所以有 Λ 乘以度规这一项,唯一的原因是乘积法则:如果你取一个叫散度的导数,就得对 Λ 求导乘以度规,再加上 Λ 乘以度规的导数。度规的导数必须为零。根据洛夫洛克定理(Lovelock's theorem),在广义相对论的框架里,用几何的方式,那个位置上只可能放这一项。我的主张是,这一项会被打破。我们会达到五个西格玛,如果还没到的话,我没跟上最新消息。然后我们会意识到,暗能量,宇宙中最重要的……

萨克斯: 占宇宙百分之六十、七十、八十的东西。

温斯坦: 我们的公式是错的。

萨克斯: 我们对它是什么毫无概念。

温斯坦: 我关注的是,我有一个候选公式,我认为每个有候选公式的人都该站出来。我们该开一场会,看谁赢,谁的想法最好。不能只让爱德华·威滕拍着自己的肩膀说「弦论是唯一的游戏」。都四十二年了,拜托,这太荒唐了。回到政策上:给我一些钱,把这些人弄走。我不想让他们评审我做的任何东西。给我一个有能力的人谈。

萨克斯: 我回一下。暗能量的测量,我们最终会得到一个非常精确的估计,它告诉我们广义相对论及其方程是错的,因为我们看到的物质与旋转、运动之间的关系不对。有什么东西不对头。

温斯坦: 我们知道广义相对论不是最后的答案。我们知道广义相对论是错的。它是一幅地图,不是疆域本身。它是一个伟大的模型,下一个理论必须能还原它。但大爆炸并没有初始奇点,黑洞中心也没有所谓的史瓦西奇点。那是我们无知的暴露之处。理论内部有两个奇点我们甩不掉,所以你得走出这个理论。可它太完美了,没有人想得出办法。物理报告开场四秒钟,你说「设 X 为一个十三维时空流形」,好了,完了,那就是石棺,你已经在爱因斯坦的思维框架里了。我们知道它是错的,却没有人想得出怎么让它错。这就是把我们困在这里的东西。

二〇〇三年前后有一场精彩的 TED 演讲,一个人展示一块表面,他有某种显示屏,他这么一做,所有东西都放大了,再这么一做,所有东西都缩小了。这是我们现在人人都在用的多点触控手势「双指缩放」(pinch to zoom)的开端。我的主张是,我们没意识到,双指缩放很可能就内置在我们误认为是时空的那个东西里。我们不知道可以这样做,而一旦你这样做,距离就变了,你就不需要突破光速。

你在问一个进不了物理建制的人,可我就在物理建制里面。我们身处一个疯狂的世界,有激进想法的人不能在体制内做激进的想法。一个激进想法是:男性和女性主要由 Y 染色体上的 SRY 复合体决定。我要是这么说,就不能参加会议,因为我是偏执狂。我不能待在物理系,因为我认为威滕把这个领域开下了悬崖。没有人这么说,那显然唯一这么说的那个人一定错了。

整件事是这样的:我写了第一篇关于抵押贷款支持证券危险的论文,我想是第一篇。我想我是唯一一个大声说「你不知道拜登能不能撑到十一月」的人,我大声说过,这是四年的痴呆。当有人说了不一样的话,你是否把他们逼回共识?这就是国家会做的事。在科学这件事上,我们已经变成了一个「国家」。

中国与垃圾桶语料

萨克斯: 谈谈中国。据你所知,中国在物理上的想法不一样吗?中国在试图重塑路径吗?在邀请自己的科学界做创新性的构想吗?西方看起来是抱成一团的。中国不一样吗?哪儿不一样吗?

温斯坦: 我们来谈这个。首先,法国历史上是世界上最伟大的数学国家。中国,我们总被教育要在数学上害怕中国人,直到最近都打不出一个安打。他们现在做的是:看着我们那些荒唐透顶的集体主义虚构,凑到我们最优秀的人跟前说:你确定你不想要自由吗?你确定你不想拿到报酬吗?到中国来,尝尝自由,拿钱,好好玩。

萨克斯: 我们的人在往那儿去。

温斯坦: 美国科学家、俄罗斯科学家,各种科学家都在去中国,为了一些声望,一些钱,一些自由。我们会把他们训练出来,他们会变得好得吓人,直到那种自由碰上西藏、天安门和台湾为止。

萨克斯: 他们会重新思考我们在物理上走的路吗?会从根本上重新思考吗?

温斯坦: 我告诉你我在这一点上真正相信的。AI 很快就会变。现在的 AI 训练语料偏爱《细胞》《自然》《科学》这样的生物学顶刊,在数学里就是《数学发明》《数学年刊》和《美国数学会杂志》。这些期刊是各个领域叙事的存放地。可是,垃圾桶也是一个语料库。把所有被嗤之以鼻、被嘲笑的想法收起来,叫它「垃圾桶语料」(trash can corpus)。AI 会开始读所有那些被我们所谓「领先物理学家」嘲笑过的东西。当心。

萨克斯: 发现和重新发明会发生在那里。

温斯坦: 中国会有一个私有模型,他们会说:假设现代物理史上最失败的理论,弦论,还有所谓的 M 理论和量子引力,假设它是一条用来分散我们注意力的红鲱鱼。它不是我们领先的理论,四十二年来都不是,这条狗不会打猎。它是为了阻止我们看见什么?

萨克斯: AI 会走到那一步。

温斯坦: AI 会走到那一步。等 AI 走到那一步,每一个拥有能做这件事的 AI 的人……我再说一遍,我在说完全激进的话,因为坦白说,那本来就是我们该做的事。我们本该有冯·诺依曼、费曼、狄拉克这样的人物,而我们一个都没有。所以我在试着说出那种话听起来是什么样的:你们都错了,我是对的。别跟我说我傲慢、自负,别跟我说真正的科学家是谦卑的,或者「你要是真懂,就能讲给五岁小孩听」。那全是胡扯。

我要说的是:弦论四十二年来从来不是我们领先的理论。它从来不是唯一的游戏。就像杰弗里·爱泼斯坦从来不是对冲基金经理一样。可我们不被允许说这个,我不知道为什么。我想知道,中央情报局科技局里有没有人愿意来谈这个?能源部里有没有人对此刻「不」谈这件事感兴趣?你和我现在这场谈话,我们的朋友中国人、朝鲜人、俄罗斯人都在听。我们为什么在这么做?面对这么大一堆大多数人从没听过的知识,你就那么确信我是错的?

萨克斯: 我想问题是,你真的能区分吗,真的能把 AI 关进笼子吗?说到底,如果 AI 进步的速度和获取的普遍程度到了这个地步,你说的那个知识与非知识的语料库对所有人可见,AI 可以从任何地方被指挥,那这大概是一场关于「人类是什么样子」的谈话,而这是一场和人类的谈话,不是和民族国家的谈话。

汉尼拔·莱克特式的 AI

温斯坦: 我想说的是,在我的模型里,把 AI 当成商业产品推出去,是疯了。这很滑稽。让我想象一下《沉默的羔羊》里的一幕。

萨克斯: 它只是矩阵和线性代数。

温斯坦: 对,只是内积。《沉默的羔羊》里有一幕,汉尼拔·��克特被绑在轮床上推出来,穿着紧身衣,戴着疯狂的面具,周围站满了人,因为他太危险了,但他非常非常聪明。我认为 Anthropic 在做的就是这个:这是你的新员工,汉尼拔·莱克特,他是顾问,你从一家临时中介雇了汉尼拔·莱克特。那套本该防止你伤到自己的「安全带」,就是他周围的那些人、面具和紧身衣。而我们决定,这个军事研究项目是你家里需要的东西。这就像告诉人们,第二修正案说的只是持有和携带武器的权利,我们有一样没用过的东西叫「戴维·克罗克特」,单兵发射的核弹,为什么凯马特超市不卖,加个等待期就行?

萨克斯: 可到这个时候,它已经被蒸馏了。我不知道这一点还有没有意义,因为模型已经被蒸馏,模型开发已经商品化,开放权重已经放出去了。模型已经在那儿了。

温斯坦: 是的。

萨克斯: 按你的说法,也许这些模型会被指向发现新物理的路径,去看那些奇怪的文本和想法,重新思考一切。

温斯坦: 那会是一场狂野的旅程。

萨克斯: 会是一场狂野的旅程。

UAP 与未接触的部落

萨克斯: 我想听你的一个判断,我怀疑这是一丝微光。你认为今天的 UAP 是什么?这是不是正在发生的事情的第一扇窗?如果真有点什么,我问你的是:你认为今天的 UAP 是什么?

温斯坦: 我们来回答这个问题,但我想用调试器,一行一行地单步执行代码。我看着你,我在录播客。我的第一个念头是:我知道我在冒什么险。如果我说出我的想法,我可以告诉你哪些同事从此不会再给我开门。我不是开玩笑。我去彼得·蒂尔那儿工作的时候,假设我能谈论自己工作的人只有大约一百二十五个,光是因为我和彼得·蒂尔共事,我估计百分之三十的门就关上了。我不认为他是魔鬼,他是我的亲密朋友。现在你问我的问题是:剩下的门你还想关掉几扇?埃里克,这不只是一个问题。我知道这些人怎么想,也知道他们有多害怕。

不管怎样,我们还是回答它。如果广义相对论真是最后的答案,那我认为这些 UAP、UFO 之类的东西是民族国家的实验性武器系统。我认为在六十年代有过某种突破。有一份一九七一年的澳大利亚情报文件,澳大利亚曾是英国的核试验场,他们开始在自己的核试验附近看到各种 UAP,就像我们在我们的核试验附近看到的一样。澳大利亚人揭示,我们最好的人当中的很多人、我们最顶尖的机构当中的很多,都在做反引力研究,严格说是引力屏蔽研究。而掩护故事,就是所谓「广义相对论的黄金时代」:从五十年代初到六十年代末、七十年代初,广义相对论突然热起来。那份七一年文件的说法是:不,大家之所以都涌向引力,唯一的原因是对引力屏蔽、反引力之类的东西有兴趣。

我不相信广义相对论是最后的答案。我相信双指缩放存在。还有另一种多点触控手势叫「剪切倾斜」(shear to tilt),这意味着我们可以离开太阳系。这是好消息,因为它意味着我们能活下去。它的推论是,如果我们能离开,其他人就能来。以宇宙之大,我们是最先进生命形式的概率小得可笑。担心他们没有意义。所以,如果我们能离开,我认为他们已经在这儿了,而且我认为我们能离开。

要担心的场景是北森蒂纳尔岛。岛上的每个人都被视为印度公民,而他们不知道「印度」这个词。他们是一个未接触的部落,不知道自己是某个更大的、注视着他们、不允许任何人登岛的东西的一部分。可如果他们开始发射无线电信号,然后开始在那个小岛上引爆核弹,印度就不会再对它的原始部落抱着这种家长式的态度了。所以我的担忧是,当我们在一九四五年引爆核弹的时候,或者当意大利在费米和「帕尼斯佩尔纳大街的男孩们」手里把量子理论做得很好、墨索里尼时期发生了那起马真塔事件的时候……不知怎么,UAP 和核弹紧密相连。我相信,核弹是一个标志,说明你已经先进到下一步就能想出怎么离开、怎么靠推进穿越的程度。我们还没意识到这一点,因为我们从没见过这件事发生。

我的主张是,几乎每一个文明在进入那个深刻的推进游戏之前,也就是这些多点触控手势之前,都先引爆了一颗核弹。而我们惊动了这个类比里的「印度」。我们几乎准备好走出来了,可我们进化得如此可怜,以至于对任何其他文明都是一种危险。如果下一个理论里有这么大的力量,而我相信几何统一就是下一个理论……这话会让你的一部分听众说「这不过是自我推销」,而不是「不不不,你本来就该这么做,你有理论就该谈它」。

我认为能做的事情非常多。我认为存在多维时间的移动,存在暗化学,存在暗光。我认为还有另外两族手性物质有待在发光层面被发现。自旋二分之三的物质存在。我相信 SU(4)×SU(2)×SU(2) 是我们将会发现的下一个大统一理论。要做的事情太多了,等我们完成这一跃,世界将变得面目全非。我相信宇宙中存在其他生命形式,他们可以来,可以造访。我不认为这荒唐。我认为我们是一个未接触的部落。

结语

萨克斯: 说到这儿,我想我们将来还有更多可谈的。这是一场真正独特、迷人的谈话,对我们的很多听众来说,这不是一场典型的对话。但我想强调听你说这些话的重要性。即使有些东西看起来不那么显而易见,尤其是当事情看起来不太可能、离经叛道、异端,不管你想贴什么标签,把它听进去是有价值的。关于前面的路,有很多值得思考的东西,我很愿意再谈。

温斯坦: 我很愿意,也很愿意和你的朋友们一起谈。我还想说声谢谢。现在该由美国来领导了,因为没有哪个国家的人民像我们的人民这样让我信任,能照看好这颗星球。我们应该尽快和对手联手,因为在一个有争夺的局面下抵达下一层杠杆,危险是压倒性的。我们进入波斯湾非常重要。同样重要的是,科学界要认识到,不管他们对唐纳德·特朗普是什么感受,我们有四五个掌管科学事务的人,比博士们以为的好得多得多。在你嗤之以鼻之前,考虑做一做我做过的事:来华盛顿待几天,说出那句危险的话:我能帮什么忙?我全押了。

本期讲者
埃里克·温斯坦数学物理学家、经济学家,哈佛数学物理博士,曾任 Thiel Capital 董事总经理。2021 年公开「几何统一」(Geometric Unity)统一场论草案,长期批评弦论主导下的理论物理与美国科研体制。
大卫·弗里德伯格All-In 播客四位常驻主持之一,负责节目中的科学环节。连续创业者,创办 The Climate Corporation(2013 年以约 11 亿美元售予孟山都),现任农业科技公司 Ohalo 首席执行官。
章节 · 点击跳转视频
0:00 开场:来华盛顿改革科学 ▶ 正在看
3:28 胆量科学与共识的压力 ▶ 正在看
13:36 1965 到 1975:一切出岔的十年 ▶ 正在看
21:11 处方:戳破民权法案与同行评审 ▶ 正在看
25:36 市场失灵:政府必须为纯科学买单 ▶ 正在看
36:13 高贝塔赌注:押人而不是押想法 ▶ 正在看
41:35 弦论四十年把物理开下悬崖 ▶ 正在看
45:16 参考委员会与文艺复兴科技猜想 ▶ 正在看
52:49 若物理未停:轰、驰、飞 ▶ 正在看
1:07:56 多维时间、太阳系密室与暗能量 ▶ 正在看
1:16:01 中国、AI 与垃圾桶语料库 ▶ 正在看
1:22:53 UAP、北森蒂纳尔岛与结语 ▶ 正在看
本期论点
本期回应
其他论点
3:57
把极端谨慎、低方差的渐进式研究称作卓越,是美国科学最大的危机
11:07
理论物理是唯一一个丧失了言论自由的职业
16:59
曼斯菲尔德修正案禁止军方资助无直接军事用途的大学研究,摧毁了美国的自由探索型科学
21:38
应当在《民权法案》上炸开缺口,让科研团队不必时刻害怕人力资源部 做法
24:26
同行评议是被事后追加进科学史的假故事,1965 年之前几乎无人提起
32:38
政府必须是纯数学、纯物理这类基础科学的基础资助方,富豪出资不足以替代
38:00
政府与财力更弱的出资方共同投资科研,导致各部门只敢选成功率高却成果平庸的人
40:18
最值得资助的人,是权威想封杀、却不肯拿真金白银做空其观点的那个人
44:32
1984 年后的弦论转向没有推进对物理世界的认识,只把曾造出核武器的危险领域变得无害
1:00:23
物理学在过去半个世纪的停滞,可能恰恰是人类这个物种得以存活的原因
1:08:57
时间不是一维的,能在多维时间中自由移动的对手将拥有压倒性优势
1:09:32
火星是障眼法:太阳系只有寥寥几个可改造的落脚点,人类需要成千上万个才能试错生存
1:11:17
DESI 的暗能量观测将表明宇宙学常数并非常数,广义相对论的方程会因此被打破
1:18:20
被主流嗤笑丢弃的想法构成一个语料库,AI 读完之后新的发现会从那里出现
1:26:50
几乎每个文明都会在掌握星际推进之前先引爆核弹,核爆是文明即将走出去的标志
01开场:来华盛顿改革科学
0:00
We have become a nation when it comes to science. >> You were called a fringe scientist. >> I [music] keep saying fringe. >> Yeah. >> I totally disagree with the narrative of the field. I want to blow a giant pole in the civil rights act. The stagnation in physics may have led to the survival of the human species. When we make this jump, the world will become unrecognizable. I'm going all in. >> As your wealth grows, have you noticed how much more complex things get? Between investments, tax strategy, and estate planning, managing it all is a full-time job you didn't ask for.
我们在科学这件事上已经变成了这样一个国家。>> 你曾被称为边缘科学家。>> 我【音乐】一直在说边缘。>> 对。>> 我完全不认同这个领域的主流叙事。我想在《民权法案》上捅一个大窟窿。物理学的停滞也许反而让人类这个物种活了下来。当我们完成这次跃迁,这个世界将变得面目全非。我要全押了。>> 随着你的财富增长,有没有发现事情变得复杂了很多?投资、税务筹划、遗产规划,管理这一切就是一份你从没想要的全职工作。
便签引用
0:34
Creative Planning can help. Their coordinated team of investment managers, CPAs, and affiliated estate attorneys can do much of the heavy lifting so you don't have to. Creative Planning, where wealth works together. Go to creativeplanning.com/allin. I'm [music] going >> Eric Weinstein, mathematician, physicist, economist, PhD in mathematical physics from Harvard, National Science Foundation postoc, O&R fellow at Harvard, published a proposed mathematical framework and speculative unified field theory called geometric unity in 2021, formerly with Theel Capital, podcast host and guest. Welcome to the all-in interview.
Creative Planning 可以帮你。他们有一支协同工作的团队,包括投资经理、注册会计师和合作的遗产律师,能帮你扛下大部分重活,让你不必亲自操心。Creative Planning,让财富协同运转。请访问 creativeplanning.com/allin。我要【音乐】全押 >> Eric Weinstein,数学家、物理学家、经济学家,哈佛大学数学物理博士,美国国家科学基金会博士后,哈佛大学 O&R 研究员,2021 年发表了一个被称为“几何统一”(geometric unity)的数学框架和推测性统一场论的提案,曾任职于 Thiel Capital,播客主持人兼嘉宾。欢迎来到 All-In 访谈。
便签引用
1:17
>> It's great to be here. Now, where are the besties? >> They declined the opportunity because this is an extended science corner that >> can't believe that Jason has turned tail and and ran. >> No, you and I. I mean, just for the audience, you and I both happen to be in DC right now. So, we're in a rented studio doing this interview, but good timing. What brings you to DC? >> Uh, opportunity. I'm really excited. I've meeting with the department of war um and took the opportunity to stay a couple extra days. Been talking to director Katzios over at OSTP and the White House science adviser. Fantastic meeting. Been talking to Jay Badachari who's an old friend over at NIH. About to talk to Jim O'Neal who's hopefully coming into NSF. Yeah.
>> 很高兴来到这里。那几位老铁(besties)都去哪儿了?>> 他们放弃了这个机会,因为这是一期加长版的科学环节 >> 真不敢相信 Jason 居然临阵脱逃了。>> 没有,就你和我。我是说,跟观众说一下,你和我现在正好都在华盛顿特区。所以我们在一个租来的录音棚做这期访谈,不过时机正好。你来特区是为了什么?>> 呃,机会。我真的很兴奋。我要去见国防部(department of war),就顺便多留了几天。一直在跟白宫科技政策办公室(OSTP)的 Katzios 主任、也就是白宫科学顾问聊。见面非常棒。也一直在跟 Jay Bhattacharya 聊,他是国立卫生研究院(NIH)的老朋友了。接下来要跟 Jim O'Neal 聊,他有望进入国家科学基金会(NSF)。是的。
便签引用
2:04
>> And really just taking a look at the first major proposal to reform American science since Venavar Bush at the end of World War II. So this is couldn't be more exciting. >> Did Katzios tell you that I just interviewed him on this topic? >> No. >> Okay. Well, I did. >> Okay. >> You guys are old colleagues, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. Michael's Michael's great. And so he he that came up. He said, you know, here I am in this new role. Yeah, >> I guess I was sort of worried that this report, you know, obviously he's filling huge shoes and I was worried that it was going to be a disaster and I was stunned how how good it was. I mean, it wasn't perfect, but never never is.
>> 而且真的是在认真看待自二战结束时 Vannevar Bush 之后美国科学改革的第一个重大提案。所以这事再让人兴奋不过了。>> Katzios 有没有告诉你,我刚就这个话题采访过他?>> 没有。>> 好吧。我确实采访过。>> 好的。>> 你们俩是老同事,对吧?>> 是啊,是啊。Michael 这人特别棒。所以他就说起这事。他说,你知道,我现在处在这么一个新岗位上。是啊,>> 我当时其实有点担心,你知道,很明显他接的是一个特别难接的班,我担心这会是一场灾难,结果我完全被震住了,做得太好了。我是说,不算完美,但从来就没有完美的。
便签引用
2:44
>> And then I told you that. >> Mhm. and you said that well you and I had been talking and that you had been conveying a lot of these issues to him and I feel like he's uh he's really grown into this role trying to become a student of the American science project and I couldn't be happier at hearing him say things like we know that we don't know everything we're just at the beginning we're just getting started so it looks like a great blueprint >> governmentdriven science has played a fundamental role in the success of the republic at least over the last hundred years last 50 75 prior to that there's a argument to be made in the in science and new golden age that Kratzio published and that others have been making I've heard you make it that science has really stalled in America. Can you make that case for us now?
>> 然后我就跟你说了这事。>> 嗯。你说,其实你和我一直在聊,你也把这些问题都传达给他了,我觉得他真的是在这个岗位上成长起来了,努力去当美国科学事业的一个学生,听到他说出"我们知道自己并非无所不知,我们才刚刚开始,刚刚起步"这样的话,我再高兴不过了,所以这看起来是一份很棒的蓝图。>> 政府主导的科学在这个共和国的成功中扮演了根本性的角色,至少在过去一百年里是这样,最近五十年、七十五年,而在那之前,是有争论余地的。Kratsios 发表的那篇关于科学与新黄金时代的文章里就有这样的论点,其他人也一直在讲,我也听你讲过——美国的科学其实已经停滞了。你能现在给我们论证一下这个观点吗?
便签引用
02胆量科学与共识的压力
3:28
>> Well, it's a question of which science has stalled. Um so one of the great things about what Michael's saying is is that science is a big place and it's not being done in one way. So what I really think is the biggest, if you wanted to sort of fly over and give an idea of what's what's at risk, it's the absolutely courageous science that we can afford to do as a rich, ruggedly individualistic nation that no one else can afford to do. And so more or less when when I see us doing incremental research and doing things that are incredibly careful with low variance and calling it excellence, I get depressed because my feeling is is that what we should be taking on is the bets no one else can afford to take on. It's also the case that our chief geopolitical rivals, China, >> has a problem with freedom. And quite honestly, freedom is a weapon. It is a uh serious advantage that we can afford to look at ourselves and say we don't do everything perfectly and we want to know the truth. I want to know whether Fouchy
>> 嗯,问题在于是哪部分科学停滞了。嗯,Michael 那番话里最好的一点就是科学是一个很大的领域,它不是只有一种做法。所以我真正认为最大的问题,如果你想从高空俯瞰一下、说说到底什么东西处在危险中,那就是那种极其有胆量的科学——我们作为一个富裕、极度崇尚个人奋斗的国家负担得起去做、而别人都负担不起的科学。所以大体上,当我看到我们在做那种渐进式的研究,做那些极其谨慎、低方差的东西,还管它叫卓越的时候,我就很沮丧,因为我的感觉是,我们本该去下那些别人都下不起的赌注。还有一点是,我们主要的地缘政治对手中国,>> 在自由这件事上有问题。说实话,自由就是一件武器。它是一种非常实在的优势——我们能够审视自己,说我们并不是什么都做得完美,我们想知道真相。我想知道 Fauci 是不是害死了一千万人。作为一个病毒学家,我应该能去调查这件事,
便签引用
4:34
killed 10 million people. I should be able to investigate that as a viologist, as an epidemiologist. I I I should be able to get answers and and go through the process of justice. When we have a situation in which our scientists are hamstrung because the conclusion is known ahead of time, we limit our own ability to use cowboy science to drive the rest of the world. And and quite honestly, we're giving away our biggest advantage, which is the middle finger, the American ability to say screw you to a supervisor who tells you what is true and what isn't true. young person should be able to say, "Hey, I think my field is going in entirely the wrong direction and I'm willing to bet my career on it. Don't interfere." This was always the biggest question for me is where were all the skeptics? Where were all the scientists that are supposed to question the dogma during the lockdowns, during COVID, during that pandemic? And I talked to Katios about this when we did our interview that if everyone in the room agrees on
作为一个流行病学家,我应该能得到答案,能走完司法程序。当我们面对这样一种局面——我们的科学家被捆住手脚,因为结论早就定好了——我们就限制了自己用"牛仔式科学"去引领世界其他地方的能力。说实话,我们是在拱手让出我们最大的优势,那就是竖中指的能力,是美国人对着一个告诉你什么是真、什么不是真的上司说"去你的"的那种能力。一个年轻人应该能够说:"嘿,我觉得我这个领域走的方向完全错了,我愿意拿我的职业生涯来赌这件事。别来干涉我。"这一直是我最大的疑问:那些怀疑论者都去哪了?那些本该质疑教条的科学家都去哪了?在封城期间,在新冠期间,在那场大流行期间。我跟 Kratsios 做访谈的时候也聊过这个——如果房间里所有人都在某件事上意见一致,那这件事多半是错的。就像
便签引用
5:37
something, it's probably wrong. Like you know there there has to be some degree of skepticism but particularly because the fundamental basis of science is to ask questions, interrogate, generate evidence, generate data and then draw some you know conclusion and ask your next question. But it's almost like the asking questions stopped. Where did that come from? It sounds like you're saying it's because folks were hamstrung socially. Was it economic? What is it that happened that not just in this pandemic but just broadly are we seeing this happen more in these scientific domains where everyone kind of aligns around one thesis one dogma and you're not going to get funding you're not going to have friends you're not going to get colleagues to work with you you're going to get chastised if you ask different questions or ask whether these assumptions are correct >> this is the question and let me just answer it is is that we created the scientific procariat We created a world in which professors
你知道的,总得有一定程度的怀疑精神,尤其是因为科学最根本的基础就是提问、质询、产生证据、产生数据,然后得出某种结论,再问下一个问题。但现在几乎就像是提问这件事停止了。这是从哪来的?听起来你是在说这是因为大家在社会层面被捆住了手脚。是经济原因吗?到底发生了什么,以至于不只是在这场大流行中,而是在更广泛的范围内,我们看到这种情况在这些科学领域里越来越多——所有人都围绕着一个论点、一个教条排好队,而你要是问不一样的问题、或者质疑这些假设是否正确,就拿不到经费、没有朋友、找不到同行跟你合作、还会被责难。>> 这正是问题所在,让我直接回答:我们制造出了科学界的无产阶级。我们创造了一个教授们负担不起去违逆共识的世界。而问题恰恰就出在"共识"这个词上,因为
便签引用
6:35
cannot afford to go against a consensus. Now the problem is consensus because if everybody agrees on something, you shouldn't need a consensus. There's no arithmetic consensus. Do we have an arithmetic consensus that 2 + 3 equals 5? No, it just is. When I hear the word consensus, I get very, very nervous because a consensus is usually an artificial agreement achieved through pressure. the Washington consensus is some sort of a thing where we're all going to go in a particular direction and if you don't go in that direction you don't have a job.
如果所有人都认同某件事,你根本不需要什么共识。算术没有共识。我们需要就 2 + 3 等于5 达成算术共识吗?不需要,它本来就是这样。每当我听到"共识"这个词,我就非常非常紧张,因为共识通常是一种通过施压达成的人为一致。所谓"华盛顿共识"就是那种东西——我们都要朝某个特定方向走,如果你不朝那个方向走,你就没工作。
便签引用
7:11
So when you ask well what happens you know my question is that the the uh Jay Bacharia is a perfect example of what should happen. You have a guy who has a PhD in economics and an MD and he went against it with the Great Bington Declaration. Now he's the head of NIH. I I knew Jay when he was called a fringe epidemiologist by this loser Francis Collins and you know his sidekick who was probably our bioweapons are Anthony Fouchy. You know, if I say Anthony Fouchy was probably our bioweapons are, that's going to strike all these people, particularly on the institutional left is, well, that's conspiracy theory talk. So, my question is, we signed a couple of uh agreements in the 70s, the Geneva Convention and Boweapons Treaty. We have a cryptic system. Somehow we chose in that case a mysterious Ukrainian uh British zoologologist to receive huge amounts of money through a hippie dippy charity called the Ecoalth Alliance money from like Ditra, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the whole thing doesn't make any
所以当你问到底发生了什么,我的问题是,Jay Bhattacharya 就是一个完美的例子,说明本该发生什么。一个人既有经济学博士学位又有医学博士学位,他用《大巴灵顿宣言》站出来反对。现在他成了NIH 的负责人。我认识 Jay 的时候,他被 Francis Collins 这个废物称作"边缘流行病学家",还有他那个大概是我们生物武器负责人的搭档 Anthony Fauci。你知道,如果我说Anthony Fauci 大概是我们的生物武器负责人,所有这些人,尤其是体制内的左派,都会觉得,这是阴谋论。所以我的问题是,我们在七十年代签了几份协议——日内瓦公约和《生物武器公约》。我们有一套隐秘的体系。不知怎么的,在那件事上我们选了一个神秘的乌克兰裔英国动物学家,让他通过一个叫"生态健康联盟"的嬉皮式慈善机构接收巨额资金,钱来自像 DTRA(国防威胁降低局)这样的机构,整件事根本说不通。所以如果你开始通过秘密行动来做事,问题在于
便签引用
8:19
sense. So if you start doing things through covert operations, the problem is is that scientists can see right through covert operations. If you have great tools, you know, if you say, "I I wasn't at the scene of the crime." I said, "Oh, well, but we have a a hair follicle and I can pretty much tell you you were at the scene of the crime." That's how powerful science is. So now you have this different problem which is is that you've got all of these Bminus policy people in Washington, particularly in the covert community, not the intelligence community, but the covert community, inside the intelligence community, who don't want kick-ass independent scientists, because they're telling stories and narratives that are easily exploded. So right now, we don't don't just have a problem with good science, we have a problem with good journalism, >> right? They also have to fall in line with the >> the pride narrative.
科学家是能一眼看穿秘密行动的。如果你有很棒的工具,你知道,比如你说"我当时不在犯罪现场"。我说"哦,可是我们有一根毛囊,我基本上可以告诉你,你当时就在犯罪现场。"科学就是这么强大。所以现在你就有了另一个问题:华盛顿有一大堆政策水平只有 B- 的人,尤其是在秘密行动圈子里——不是情报圈,而是情报界内部的秘密行动圈子——他们不想要那些厉害的独立科学家,因为他们讲的故事和叙事很容易被戳穿。所以现在,我们不只是在好科学上有问题,我们在好新闻业上也有问题,>> 对。他们也必须跟那套 >> 那套主流叙事保持一致。
便签引用
9:13
>> Exactly. So there are times when you when you have to, you know, when the US went to war, Roosevelt was in a wheelchair with these leg braces and there was a general agreement that we won't report on the state of the president's health. Well, we had the same thing with Biden. Biden was undergoing some form of dementia. Did anyone think to ask a leading geriatric neurologist, look, examine his gate, examine his speech patterns, and tell us where he is he likely in his cognitive trajectory. So, if you're trying to to, you know, tell a lie that's important structurally, you really don't want scientists exploding it. When we did the and I I'm I'm not arguing with that. We shouldn't have been honest about what we were doing at a New Mexico boy school from 1940 to 1945 because science was creating the most powerful weapon ever seen on planet Earth.
>> 没错。所以有些时候,你知道,是不得不这样的,比如美国参战的时候,罗斯福坐在轮椅上、腿上戴着支架,当时有一个普遍的默契:我们不报道总统的健康状况。那么,我们在拜登身上也遇到了同样的情况。拜登在经历某种形式的痴呆。有没有人想到去问一位顶尖的老年神经科医生:来,看看他的步态,看看他的言语模式,告诉我们他在认知衰退的轨迹上大概走到哪一步了?所以,如果你想撒一个结构性上很重要的谎,你真的不希望科学家把它戳破。当我们做那个——我不是在反驳这一点。我们当年确实不该对 1940 到 1945 年间在新墨西哥一所男校里做的事情如实相告,因为科学当时正在造出地球上有史以来最强大的武器。
便签引用
10:07
>> For those not aware, that's the Manhattan Project. >> Absolutely. >> So, what I'm trying to say is is that right now, you're not taking those people who stood up and making them the president of a university or the chairman of a department. You're not giving them a chair. And I just gave a talk on this at at uh Jordan Peterson's ARC conference. You haven't reinserted the tiny number of people who stood up. You haven't rewarded them. My question is where's my third home for standing up? >> Where's the ability to put my kids, you know, I want to put three kids through school. I want to participate in the security and the prosperity that we provide to everyone else. And this is the the key issue. You've created the American scientific procariat. That's one of the reasons why you have, you know, such strange political affiliations where you don't have balance in the professor. You've got this incredibly dangerous situation where we are not participating in freedom. And I will say in particular
>> 对于不了解的人来说,那就是曼哈顿计划。>> 完全正确。>> 所以我想说的是,现在,你并没有把那些站出来的人提拔成大学校长或者系主任。你没有给他们讲席教授的位置。我刚在 Jordan Peterson 的ARC 大会上做了一个关于这个的演讲。你们没有把那极少数站出来的人重新放回体系里。你们没有奖赏他们。我的问题是,我因为站出来而应得的第三套房在哪儿?>> 我供孩子读书的能力在哪儿?你知道,我想供三个孩子上学。我想分享我们为其他所有人提供的那份安全和繁荣。这才是关键问题。你们制造出了美国的科学无产阶级。这也是为什么会出现那么奇怪的政治派别分布——教授群体里根本没有平衡。你们造成了一种极其危险的局面:我们没有在参与自由。我要特别说一下
便签引用
11:07
theoretical phys physics theoretical physics is the only profession to have lost free speech because of something called restricted data where I am not allowed to put pen to paper to write down a physics equation if in any way it affects nuclear weapons. Well try doing really good physics in a way that doesn't affect you know hadrons and nucleons. It impossible. So you have this threat, right, that somehow um the law I'm not even protected by the first amendment. >> But I I want to go back to your point about incentives. So when you say I want to have a third home, what you're saying just to I'm going to do the Eric Weinstein translation here, but you're saying as a professor, I have to fall in line in order to gain tenure, in order to get a grant, in order to get the the chairmanship role or whatever the fellowship I'm looking for. If I don't fall in line, if I'm fringe, if I say things that are nonconformist, is that the right kind of way to >> heterodox?
理论物理——理论物理是唯一一个丧失了言论自由的职业,因为有一个叫"受限数据"的东西:我不被允许提笔写下一个物理方程,只要它以任何方式涉及核武器。那你试试在不触及强子和核子的前提下做真正好的物理。这不可能。所以你就面临这种威胁,对吧,某种意义上说,法律上我甚至不受第一修正案保护。>> 但我想回到你说的激励机制那一点。你说你想要第三套房,你的意思是——我这里做一个"Eric Weinstein 翻译"——你是说,作为一名教授,我必须随大流,才能拿到终身教职,才能拿到经费,才能拿到系主任那类职位,或者我想要的研究职位。如果我不随大流,如果我是边缘的,如果我说一些不合群的话——这是合适的说法吗 >> 异端的(heterodox)?
便签引用
12:11
>> Heterodox, >> if I choose to just go against the orthodoxy, right? I believe that um it was insane to take the idea of the Wuhan Institute of Irology off the table when it came to the origin of CO. >> Right. >> Okay. Insane. It was clear then. And when you said that, you were called a fringe scientist and you were chastised and labeled an outcast and therefore you lost access, you lost jobs, you lost income. There was much that was left out of the equation for you. Y >> because you asked questions that were heterodox.
>> 异端的,>> 如果我选择就是要违背正统,对吧。我认为,嗯,当初在讨论新冠起源时把武汉病毒研究所这个可能性排除在外,是疯狂的。>> 对。>> 是吧。疯狂。当时就很清楚。而当你那么说的时候,你就被称为边缘科学家,被斥责,被贴上异类的标签,结果你失去了各种渠道,失去了工作,失去了收入。有很多东西你都被排除在外了。>> 就因为你问了异端的问题。
便签引用
12:48
>> I I came up with a set of equations in differential geometry in 1987 and I was uh really treated incredibly badly. those equations took over my field in 1994 and there was never an attempt to go back and say wait a minute we just brutalize somebody who got things right and very early and so you know by the same token it's just a very simple process you're not allowed to want better for your life you're supposed to be humble you know well true scientists don't care about money true scientists don't care about security the reward is the work it's you know blah blah blah blah blah it's all of this absolute dril The fact is is that we are providing your security. And I say third homes to be deliberately provocative. I used to say second homes and I'm done with that.
>> 我在 1987 年提出了一组微分几何方程,我当时受到的对待真的极其糟糕。那组方程在 1994 年席卷了我的整个领域,却从来没有人回过头来说,等一下,我们当初粗暴地对待了一个很早就做对了事情的人。所以你知道,同样的道理,这是一个很简单的过程:你不被允许想让自己的生活过得更好,你应该保持谦卑,你知道的——"真正的科学家不在乎钱,真正的科学家不在乎生活保障,工作本身就是回报",诸如此类,废话连篇,全是些绝对的废话。事实是,我们在为你们提供安全保障。我说"第三套房"是故意要挑衅一下。我以前说"第二套房",现在我不那么说了。
便签引用
031965 到 1975:一切出岔的十年
13:36
You're dealing with a level of prosperity in a world in which the genie coefficients are blowing out. It's almost entirely due to the technology that is derivative of science and the scientists are not participating. So what you're doing is you're creating a collectivist mindset because we can't get paid. We can't win. If we get things right, we're out. >> When did this change happen? Because did we not value and prize heterodoxy, hereticism, outlandish ideas. The origin of science, the origin of great innovation, which arguably America is still the global leader in today, arises from what initially seems heretical.
你面对的是这样一个世界:繁荣程度很高,而基尼系数在急剧扩大。这几乎完全是因为那些源自科学的技术,而科学家们却没有分到一杯羹。所以你们实际上是在制造一种集体主义心态,因为我们赚不到钱。我们赢不了。我们要是做对了,就被踢出局。>> 这种变化是什么时候发生的?因为我们难道不是一直重视和珍视异端思想、离经叛道、天马行空的想法吗?科学的起源,伟大创新的起源——可以说美国至今仍是这方面的全球领导者——正是来自那些起初看起来像异端邪说的东西。
便签引用
14:18
seems like an idea that is far-fetched, unrealistic, not going to happen. But all it takes is one out of 10 of those things to be true and ultimately the envelope is pushed forward and we find ourselves in a new frontier, >> right? >> Science should follow the same formula as entrepreneurship in the sense technological or industrial kind of entrepreneurship roughly. Yeah. But where did things change and why is this just the natural course of you know Ted Kazinski the uniomber wrote this manifesto where he talked about over socialization. Is that ultimately what happened here? Is it social media played a role? Is it just that this is the saturation of social systems over time?
看起来像是一个不切实际、天方夜谭、不可能实现的想法。但只要这十个里有一个成真,最终边界就被往前推了,我们就发现自己身处一片新的疆域。>> 对。>> 科学应该遵循和创业一样的公式,大致就是那种技术创业或产业创业的意义上。是啊。但是事情是从哪里变的?为什么这会是自然的走向?你知道 Ted Kaczynski,就是那个"大学炸弹客",写过一份宣言,里面讲到"过度社会化"。最终发生的是这个吗?是社交媒体起了作用吗?还是说这只是社会系统随时间推移达到饱和的结果?
便签引用
15:00
>> Yeah. This >> or was there a deliberate external effort? >> The one thing you didn't uh recite in that list of things. You didn't you didn't mention my being in in the physics department I guess uh at Hebrew University MIT uh post-docctoral fellowship but the the most important one is that I was the co-chair co-PI with Richard Freeman of the science and engineering workforce project at Harvard in the economics department because I was worried that we were we had been losing this and there's a very crisp answer to this and between 1965 and 75 everything went wrong.
>> 是啊。这个 >> 还是说存在某种蓄意的外部推动?>> 你刚才那串经历里有一件事没提到。你没有提到我曾在物理系待过,我想是在希伯来大学,还有 MIT 的博士后,但最重要的一条是,我曾和 Richard Freeman 一起担任哈佛经济系"科学与工程劳动力项目"的联合主席、联合首席研究员,因为我当时就担心我们正在失去这个东西。这个问题有一个非常清晰的答案:1965 到 1975 年之间,一切都出了岔子。
便签引用
15:37
Right. And and it's basically from the beginning of the Medicare Act of 65 to a controversy over something called man a course of study in 1975 that ushered in peer review and the control. But if you wanted to really pinpoint it, it really 65 69 to 71 is particularly brutal. And what happened was the MIT physics department, I think in 1969 in the spring, walked out in protest of the Vietnam War, including people who had been part of the Manhattan Project. >> And the government took one look at this and said, "Okay, you are wobbly. We can't trust you. We have a we have a very complicated, cryptic agreement with our physicists in particular. You are the most dangerous, most deadly, most intelligent, most successful group along with the mathematicians and we've relied on you and now we can't trust you because you're not you're not rowing uh in the same direction that the country is rowing with the with the war because you're joining the protest movement.
对。基本上就是从 1965 年的《医疗保险法案》开始,到 1975 年一门叫"人:一门课程"的课程引发的争议为止,正是这场争议带来了同行评审和那套管控。但如果你想真正精确定位,那么 1965、1969 到 1971 年这段特别残酷。当时发生的事情是,MIT 物理系,我想是在 1969 年春天,集体罢课抗议越南战争,其中包括曾参与曼哈顿计划的人。>> 政府一看这情况就说:"好吧,你们立场不稳,我们没法信任你们。我们和你们,尤其是和物理学家之间,有一份非常复杂、非常隐晦的默契。你们和数学家一起,是最危险、最致命、最聪明、最成功的一群人,我们一直依赖你们,可现在我们不能信任你们了,因为你们没有和这个国家在战争问题上朝同一个方向划桨,你们加入了抗议运动。"
便签引用
16:39
What happened was is that immediately the MIT instrument laboratory, which I think was a where lots of government money was being funneled through, >> was taken outside the university and turned into Draper Labs. And the Mansfield amendment in 6971, named after Mike Mansfield of of Montana, said, "Okay, the military can no longer fund blue sky research inside of our university system unless it has a direct military uh express military purpose." That was the disaster because what the military had done is they said, "Look, we want you guys fat and happy doing blue sky research, which is what you think you should be doing. We trust you guys. We just want to know that you're there for us when we need you."
结果就是,MIT 的仪器实验室——我觉得那里当时是大量政府资金流经的地方——立刻被移出了大学,改组成了 Draper 实验室。还有 1969 到 1971 年的曼斯菲尔德修正案,以蒙大拿州的 Mike Mansfield 命名,规定:军方不能再资助大学体系内的自由探索型研究,除非它有直接的、明确的军事用途。那才是灾难,因为军方原本的做法是:"听着,我们希望你们吃得饱、过得舒服,去做那些自由探索的研究,也就是你们自己认为该做的事。我们信任你们。我们只是想知道,等我们需要的时候,你们在。"
便签引用
17:29
So, the military was our best friend. Now that was uncomfortable because quite honestly you have a huge paniply of different ideas inside of high energy highly dynamic science project. If you don't have communists and fascists in the same department having tea together something has gone wrong >> because scientists are very extreme. And Ted Kazinski, you know, wrote a marvelous story, for example, called Ship of Fools about a bunch of people overly concerned about political correctness on a ship that then, you know, runs into an iceberg because nobody's actually paying attention to the writing of the ship. They're having questions about >> I didn't even know this.
所以军方曾是我们最好的朋友。当然那也让人不太自在,因为说实话,在一个高能量、高度活跃的科学项目里,各种各样的思想都会有。如果你的系里没有共产主义者和法西斯主义者坐在一起喝茶,那说明出问题了,>> 因为科学家都是很极端的人。比如 Ted Kaczynski 就写过一个很精彩的故事,叫《愚人船》,讲的是一船人过度纠结于政治正确,结果船撞上了冰山,因为根本没人真正在关心船的航向。他们在争论—— >> 我都不知道这事。
便签引用
18:07
>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Everybody should should read it. Now, of course, I'm not >> I'm not pushing people to uh a mass murderer. Uh you know, how however >> it's heretical to acknowledge Ted Kazinski, by Well, but the point is is that >> scientists are weirdos, >> or at least many scientists are weirdos. And if you're not going to deal with truly dangerous minds, I don't even know why you're suiting up for the science game. So, where do those minds go if they're not enabled or allowed into the institutions, the establishment, the machinery of science in America? Are they still around or their brains just blunted out and they're only allowed to say certain things or are we taking great scientists and reprogramming them and missing all the alpha? I mean, what?
>> 哦,是的是的。每个人都该读一读。当然,我不是在推崇一个连环杀人犯。呃,不过—— >> 提到 Ted Kaczynski 本身就算异端了。不过重点是:>> 科学家都是怪人,>> 至少很多科学家是怪人。如果你不打算跟真正危险的头脑打交道,我都不知道你为什么要下场玩科学这个游戏。那么,如果这些头脑不被接纳、不被允许进入美国的科研机构、建制和科学机器,他们都去哪儿了?他们还在吗?还是脑子被磨钝了,只被允许说某些话?还是说我们把伟大的科学家抓来重新编程,结果错过了所有的超额收益?我是说,到底怎么回事?
便签引用
18:57
>> Yeah. Yeah. You're you're missing you're missing the alpha. And it's funny that you should say that because that makes it like alpha male or the uh alpha in investment theory, right? >> Both works. >> Yeah. I'm a I also do freestyle raps. Really? Yeah. No. Well, sometimes. Okay. We'll talk later about that. >> Yeah. Cool. Um, well, mostly what you're doing is you're spaying and neutering uh your best minds. Uh, but the other thing is is look at Palmer Lucky. Okay, that guy looks to me like a scientist.
>> 是啊是啊。你确实错过了超额收益。有意思的是你用了这个词,因为它既可以理解成"阿尔法雄性",也可以理解成投资理论里的 alpha,对吧?>> 两个意思都成立。>> 是啊。我还玩自由式说唱。真的吗?是啊。嗯,偶尔吧。好吧。这个我们回头再聊。>> 好啊。嗯,你们主要做的事,就是给最优秀的头脑做绝育手术。不过另一件事是,看看 Palmer Luckey。好吧,那家伙在我看来就像个科学家。
便签引用
19:28
He's a reverend. He's got a crazy shirt and he builds things that kill people. >> Yeah. >> Right now, if he was in a physics department, um, he could not easily be that guy. But if you wanted somebody who's in still in science, who looks to me like a great scientist, I would point you to Nema Arani Hamemed. Incredibly charismatic, brilliant as the day is long, completely uncompromising, did not go in for the string theory fat at a deep level, even though he's sympathetic to many aspects of it. >> Do you guys even know that he's there?
他像个传教士,穿着奇装异服,还造出能杀人的东西。>> 是的。>> 可现在,如果他身处一个物理系,他很难还能是那个样子。但如果你想找一个还留在科学界、在我看来称得上伟大科学家的人,我会给你指 Nima Arkani-Hamed。极具人格魅力,聪明绝顶,完全不妥协,在深层次上并没有一头扎进弦论的狂热,尽管他对弦论的很多方面都抱有同情。>> 你们知道他还在吗?
便签引用
20:00
He's the best of us currently, and he's still not that old, you know. Um, my feeling is that there's pretty much been a giant decrease in our effectiveness. And I know why. When you kick Jim Watson out of Cold Spring Harbor, which he built, what are you doing? Do you know that Mark Tashnney uh is in his mid 80s? uh guy who wrote a genetic switch on fage lambda, one of the most brilliant, irreverent people. You know, at some point, I think I sent a journalist to him and the journalist came back with his tail between the leads and said that that that guy's insane.
他是我们当中现在最好的,而且他还不算太老。嗯,我的感觉是,我们的有效产出已经大幅下降了。我也知道为什么。当你把 Jim Watson 赶出他一手建起来的冷泉港时,你在干什么?你知道 Mark Ptashne 已经八十多岁了吗?就是写出噬菌体 λ遗传开关的那个人,最聪明、最不守成规的人之一。有一次,我好像介绍了一个记者去见他,那记者夹着尾巴回来,说那家伙是个疯子。
便签引用
20:40
>> Well, Eric Lander was the White House uh science adviser, Katzios's role. I think his picture isn't up on the wall because he's sort of an uncompromising, difficult to deal with guy. And my feeling, I hate to say, this is tough. M >> you know if you ever saw the movie Whiplash >> love it. One of my favorites. >> Okay. Well, there's a reason that that guy has the best band. He you know he's not handing out tissues. And I I don't mean to be mean about I don't want a brutal place, but like this stuff is pretty unforgiving.
>> Eric Lander 当过白宫科学顾问,就是 Kratsios 现在那个职位。我想他的照片没挂在墙上,是因为他是那种不肯妥协、很难相处的人。而我的感觉,我不太愿意说,这话挺难听的。嗯,>> 你看过《爆裂鼓手》这部电影吗? >> 太爱了,我最喜欢的片子之一。>> 好。那么,那家伙手下有最好的乐队是有原因的。他不会给你递纸巾。我不是想刻薄,我并不想要一个残酷的地方,但这种事就是挺不留情面的。
便签引用
04处方:戳破民权法案与同行评审
21:11
>> What's the solution to morass stagnation? What do we do here to try and catch up again? What do we do here to to restructure? Or is it about institutions? Is it about funding? Is it about people? Is it reprogramming? I mean, how do you get out of the social circuit that's fully programmed? >> Great question. I mean, really great question. Let's just be provocative and throw some stuff out. National interest waiverss. I want to blow a giant hole in the Civil Rights Act so that we can have teams that are not constantly afraid of HR.
>> 那对这种停滞泥潭的解决办法是什么?我们该怎么做才能重新追上?我们该怎么重构?还是说这关乎机构?关乎资金?关乎人?关乎重新编程?我是说,你怎么跳出那个已经被彻底编好程的社会回路?>> 好问题。真的是个好问题。我们就放开点说,抛几个想法出来。国家利益豁免。我想在《民权法案》上炸出一个大洞,好让团队不必时时刻刻害怕人力资源部。
便签引用
21:45
>> What does the Civil Rights Act do that makes it difficult for individuals to do what they need? Well, you know, you >> science, >> my closest friend uh from college, we have a group of three, two Jews and a Muslim. >> Mhm. >> And the Muslim is constantly teasing the Jews about, you know, you guys know all the banks of the newspapers and we, you know, joke with him about him being a terrorist. Now, that is not a model I can explain to anybody, but we've been, you know, incredibly close uh since 1982. My claim is is that you don't understand how high agency people actually form tight cohesive social units.
>> 《民权法案》到底做了什么,让个人难以做他们该做的事?嗯,你知道,你——>> 科学——>> 我大学时最亲近的朋友,我们三个人一组,两个犹太人和一个穆斯林。>> 嗯。>> 那个穆斯林老是拿犹太人开玩笑,说你们掌握着所有的银行和报纸,我们也拿他是恐怖分子开玩笑。这种模式我没法向任何人解释清楚,但我们从 1982 年起就关系好得不得了。我的论点是,你们根本不懂高能动性的人到底是怎么形成紧密团结的社会单元的。
便签引用
22:30
>> If you have the HR department saying, you know, Eric, I understand you you are making an inappropriate joke, >> screw off. Get out of here. Who are you and what are you doing in my lab? Let me call security. Why do I need a note from my mommy and daddy to to do everything? I'm not saying be horrible. I'm saying you don't know enough about the culture of greatness to be my HR department. That's sort of what I'm saying. So like I'm just throwing out a provocative idea which by the way I'm a Democrat. I'm sort of a Democrat from the JFK school rather than I I don't think I would join.
>> 如果人力资源部跑来说:"Eric,我了解到你开了一个不当的玩笑"——>> 滚开。出去。你是谁,你在我的实验室里干什么?我要叫保安了。为什么我干什么事都得拿一张爸妈写的假条?我不是说可以为所欲为。我是说,你对卓越的文化了解得不够多,没资格当我的人力资源部。我大概就是这个意思。所以我只是抛出一个挑衅性的想法——顺便说,我是个民主党人。我算是肯尼迪那一派的民主党人,而不是——我觉得我今天不会加入。
便签引用
23:06
>> I don't know I don't know what you would be today. >> Well I'm I'm staying in the party. I'm a nail house Democrat. You know the nail house is the house that you build a mall around because the person won't sell. >> Yes. I'm not I'm not leaving the party. Um, but my party has gone insane. My feeling is if we were really who we say we are, we'd be making common cause with the Republicans I met with and saying, "Let's get on with it and reform the system together." And if you want to brag about how you made America great without us, you can go screw yourself.
>> 我不知道,我不知道你今天会是什么。>> 嗯,我还留在党内。我是个"钉子户"民主党人。你知道钉子户就是那种,商场围着它建,因为那家人不肯卖房。>> 是的。我不会离开这个党。嗯,但我的党已经疯了。我的感觉是,如果我们真是我们自称的那种人,我们就该和我见过的那些共和党人达成共识,说:"我们赶紧干起来,一起改革这个体系。"如果你想吹嘘你们没有我们也让美国重新伟大,那你可以去死。
便签引用
23:37
Um, my feeling is that I'd rather work with you, make America great, and then fight over the credit later. That's how you work in a war, you know. So my my first recommendation is >> throw out the Civil Rights Act. >> No, not throw it out. Poke holes in it because you like the intent of it. It's the letter that's arbitrageed against the the intent which creates the sort of collectivist thinking. You can't do great work without hyperindividualism and without rugged hyperindividualism. And so my feeling is is that that's not an Einrandian thing. That's not a conservative thing. it. The issue is is that I'm I consider myself left of center and there's no one more individualistic than I am. And so what you need is I need not to have peer review. Peer review is a fake story that was retconed into science. It is no, you can look it up on Google engrams, put quote space peer review space close quote, and you'll notice that there's really no mention of it before 1965.
嗯,我的感觉是,我宁愿和你合作,让美国重新伟大,之后再去争功。打仗就是这么打的。所以我的第一条建议是—— >> 废掉《民权法案》。>> 不,不是废掉,是在上面戳些洞,因为你认同它的本意。问题是有人用法条的字面去套利,背离了它的本意,从而制造出那种集体主义思维。没有超级个人主义,没有强悍的超级个人主义,你就做不出伟大的工作。所以我的感觉是,这不是安·兰德式的东西,也不是保守派的东西。问题在于,我自认是偏左的,而没有人比我更个人主义。所以你需要的是——我需要摆脱同行评议。同行评议是一个被事后追加进科学史的假故事。你可以去 Google Ngrams 上查,输入引号、空格、peer review、空格、引号,你会发现 1965 年之前基本没人提到它。
便签引用
24:42
And the reason for that is that the Medicare act made the government the major payer for medical procedures. The government said, "Well, why are we paying for all this stuff?" Well, the doctors said, "We don't want you having oversight over our decisionmaking." So, our peer we will peer review each other. It started in a Utah clinic. And then it wasn't until 1975 when fiscal and social conservatives attacked the NSF over something called man a course of study or makos. Now some for some reason the NSF grouped in anthropology as a science. I I think that's a mistake. I think what we really need is we really need very hard sciences separated. And my feeling is the weaker scientists should go form their own organization and stop using our credit card >> because they're destroying our credit limit.
原因在于《医疗保险法案》让政府成了医疗操作的主要付费方。政府说:"我们凭什么为这些东西买单?"于是医生们说:"我们不希望你们对我们的决策指手画脚。所以我们自己人互相评议。"这事最早始于犹他州的一家诊所。然后直到1975 年,财政保守派和社会保守派因为一个叫"人:研究的课程"(MACOS)的项目攻击了国家科学基金会。出于某种原因,NSF 把人类学归入了科学。我觉得那是个错误。我觉得我们真正需要的,是把真正硬的科学分离出来。我的感觉是,弱一些的科学该去成立他们自己的组织,别再刷我们的信用卡,>> 因为他们在毁掉我们的信用额度。
便签引用
05市场失灵:政府必须为纯科学买单
25:36
>> Those are social sciences and soft sciences versus hard scientists where there's an industrial end point. >> Well, it's not a question of an industrial endpoint. I mean, I think that's another thing that's really screwed up is that science has become synonymized with biomedical, which it isn't. >> Yeah. and science has become uh in the conservative mind something that the the market can do well when it's like did did no one take econ 101 because the you know on the first day of school they're supposed to tell you that markets work really well as long as you're not in a category called market failure and if you miss that day you say well markets are perfect and they can price everything but anything that's uh inexhaustible and inexcludable which is exactly the definition of science can't be priced by a market unless you create an artificial market So, I can't tell you how dispiriting, you know, this is, if I've been kind to the Republicans.
>> 你是说社会科学、软科学,对上有产业化终端的硬科学。>> 其实不是产业化终端的问题。我是说,我觉得另一件被搞砸的事,是科学已经变得和生物医学划等号了,但它并不是。>> 是啊。而在保守派的观念里,科学变成了市场能做好的事情——这就好比,难道没人上过经济学入门课吗?开学第一天他们就该告诉你,市场运转得非常好,只要你不在一个叫"市场失灵"的类别里。如果你缺了那一天的课,你就会说,市场是完美的,什么都能定价。但任何非耗竭性、非排他性的东西——而这恰恰就是科学的定义——都无法被市场定价,除非你造一个人为的市场。所以我没法告诉你这有多让人心灰意冷,如果说我刚才对共和党人还算客气的话。
便签引用
26:27
Here's a place where I'm going to be cruel. You can't have morons who do not understand that markets cannot see everything. There's a reason that we pay taxes for an army. And it's a technical reason. It's not a we think that's a good thing. It's that if market if you could make the army uh exhaustable and excludable, you wouldn't need to pay for it with taxes. So that your tax dollar has to be used for things that the market can't reach. Homatopy theory is a great case. When I say homotopy theory in these science discussions, people say, "Well, what is that?" And my my my response is, "Well, you don't know. It's an incredibly important part of mathematics, pure mathematics. I don't know that it has any industrial applications." But you go after homatopy theory and you're you're pulling out a Jenga block from an incredibly important ecosystem that you don't understand. So my my feeling about this is I'm going to inject a PhD perspective into this conversation because the what the PhDs are doing wrong is that they're staying
下面我要刻薄一下了。你不能让一群蠢货当家,他们连市场不是万能的都不懂。我们用税收供养一支军队是有原因的。那是个技术性的原因,不是因为我们觉得那是件好事。而是因为,如果你能把军队变成可耗竭、可排他的,你就不需要用税收来付这笔钱了。所以你的税款必须用在市场够不着的事情上。同伦论就是一个很好的例子。我在这类科学讨论里一提同伦论,人家就说:"那是什么?"我的回答是:"嗯,你不知道。它是数学、纯数学里极其重要的一部分。我不知道它有没有什么工业应用。"但你去砍同伦论,就是从一个你并不理解的、极其重要的生态系统里抽走一块叠叠乐积木。所以我对这件事的感觉是,我要把博士群体的视角注入这场对话,因为博士们做错的地方在于,他们躲在
便签引用
27:30
out. Trump to them has cooties. They don't want Trump cies so they don't show up. >> Yeah. And now, okay, well, if if they are not going to explain to you why we need homatopy theory and we need to tax people and to pay for it, >> the administration's not hearing what they need to be hearing and the people that are supposed to be saying it are not showing up to the administration. >> That's right. And it's completely dysfunctional and quite honestly, >> by the way, the statistic I gave Cratios is uh Nature did a survey of 2,000 scientists, their readers. Nature being a scientific journal that's widely read and by the scientific community and six >> by the way not peer reviewed until the 70s >> right and six% of the readers pled uh voted for President Trump 85% or something Kla Harris and then there was an undecided group but I think it speaks to your point like Trump is deemed to be so anti-science the institution of Trump is deemed to be anti-science that there doesn't even want to be an engagement.
外面。在他们看来特朗普有"传染病"。他们不想沾上特朗普的晦气,所以他们不露面。>> 是啊。那么好吧,如果他们不去向你解释为什么我们需要同伦论、为什么需要向民众征税来供养它,>> 那这届政府就听不到他们本该听到的东西,而本该说这些话的人又不到政府那里去。>> 没错。整件事完全失灵了,说实话,>> 顺便说,我给 Kratsios 的那个数据是:《自然》杂志做过一次针对 2000 名科学家读者的调查。《自然》是一本在科学界被广泛阅读的科学期刊,有 6%—— >> 顺便说,它直到 70 年代才开始同行评议。>> 对。有 6% 的读者投票支持特朗普总统,85% 左右投给了贺锦丽,然后还有一个未决定的群体,但我觉得这正好印证了你的观点,特朗普被认为是极其反科学的,特朗普这个体制被认为是反科学的,以至于人们根本不想跟它打交道。
便签引用
28:33
>> Assume that you detest Trump. Okay. Assume that you think Trump is the devil. I just met with Michael Katzios. Great. I I wanted that role. I put my hat into the ring for that uh for that role. I didn't think I would get it because I wasn't willing to pledge sufficient loyalty to Donald Trump. Happened to go to Michael Katzio. I was very nervous because he he's not coming from a PhD background. What a what an unbelievable growth in that role. The guy understands. I don't know all sorts of things. I'm here to learn. Tell me what I need to know. And if no one shows up to do that toutelage, you're going to you boy, do you deserve exactly what you got because I think Michael is trying to do absolutely the right thing. I know Jim O'Neal very well from the Peter Teal universe coming in at NSF. Jay Bodacharia. Absolute gem. If you can't work with these people, is that their problem or is that your problem?
>> 假设你痛恨特朗普。好。假设你觉得特朗普是魔鬼。我刚跟迈克尔·卡齐奥斯见过面。很好。我我当时想要那个职位。我为那个职位毛遂自荐过。我原本觉得自己不会得到它,因为我不愿意对唐纳德·特朗普表足够的忠诚。结果给了迈克尔·卡齐奥。我当时非常紧张,因为他他不是博士出身。结果他在那个岗位上成长得令人难以置信。这个人是懂的。他会说,我不懂各种各样的事,我是来学习的。告诉我我需要知道什么。如果没有人愿意去做这个指导,那你就你啊,你活该得到你现在这个结果,因为我觉得迈克尔是真心想把事情做对。我很了解吉姆·奥尼尔,他是从彼得·蒂尔那个圈子来的,现在进了NSF。杰伊·巴塔查里亚,绝对是个宝。如果你连这些人都没法合作,那到底是他们的问题还是你的问题?
便签引用
29:27
>> So, arguably this and sorry, let me just go back to talk about markets and I I'll make a libertarian argument. If markets work well for driving economic value and those who are good at that participate meaningfully in that value creation, there will be wealthy people and those wealthy people will see the value of mathematics, the value of pure physics, the value of astrophysics and cosmology and they'll fund it. Jim Simons, didn't he fund quite a lot of research? >> Jim was a genius with detailed knowledge of pure mathematics. Mhm.
>> 所以,可以说这个……抱歉,让我回到市场这个话题,我来讲一个自由意志主义的论点。如果市场在驱动经济价值方面运作良好,而那些擅长此道的人在价值创造中获得了实质性的参与,那就会出现富人,而这些富人会看到数学的价值、纯物理的价值、天体物理和宇宙学的价值,然后他们就会出资。吉姆·西蒙斯,他不是资助了相当多的研究吗?>> 吉姆是个天才,对纯数学有深入的了解。嗯。
便签引用
30:03
>> So if you have, you know, Yuri Milner is a guy who has a background in quantum chromodnamics, >> if you have more of those people, >> and there are point is, and I'm not trying to argue with you about it, but my point is, shouldn't the market work regardless that they'll see the value of the science that you're identifying? They'll identify it. Capital will flow to that research, it will get funded somehow. There's a lot of independent institutions out there that get capital. and is or is that not sufficient for the landscape? And I'll also state like you know one of the uh statistics that I brought up with Katzios which he published in his book is that over time we have seen a significant decline in the effectiveness of dollars deployed against scientific research in the US an 80fold decline in return on every dollar invested in government research. So, I just want to throw those two points out there, like is there not private market capital that will find its way to solve these problems? And isn't the government
>> 所以如果你有,你知道,尤里·米尔纳,这个人的背景是量子色动力学,>> 如果你有更多这样的人,>> 而且有几点,我不是想跟你争论这个,但我的意思是,市场难道不应该照样起作用吗?他们会看到你所指出的那些科学的价值。他们会识别出来。资本会流向那些研究,总会有办法得到资助。外面有很多独立的机构能拿到资本。这对整个格局来说是够了还是不够?我还想说,我跟卡齐奥斯聊过一个统计数据,这个数据他写在他书里了,就是随着时间推移,我们看到投入美国科研的每一美元,其效力出现了显著下降,政府科研投资的每一美元回报下降了80倍。所以我只是想抛出这两点,比如说,难道不会有私人市场资本自己找到路来解决这些问题吗?还有,政府在配置资本、创造回报这方面难道不是越来越差吗?我这可能
便签引用
31:03
getting worse over time at deploying capital and driving returns? And I might be giving you a a te-ball here. So, >> I guess or or I feel like I should have I should have gotten high on cannabis uh in order to even take that question on. >> I don't believe any of that first point. Um and and it's I knew Jim Simons decently well. Uh Jim was the kind of guy who could do that. But even he didn't understand. My last conversation with Jim Simons, I was trying to explain to him how the churn Simons uh transgression interpreted as an action functional is the only rival to Einstein Hilbert. um and that effectively he will find um if he if he pursues this that churn Simons and Einstein Hilbert are on an equal playing field as daughters of the ultimate theory.
是在给你喂个好打的球。所以,>> 我想,或者说我觉得我应该我应该先抽点大麻嗨起来,才有本事接下这个问题。>> 第一点我完全不相信。嗯,而且我跟吉姆·西蒙斯还算挺熟的。吉姆是那种能做到这一点的人。但即便是他也不懂。我跟吉姆·西蒙斯最后一次谈话,我当时试图跟他解释,陈-西蒙斯,呃,把陈-西蒙斯项当作作用量泛函来解读,是爱因斯坦-希尔伯特作用量唯一的对手。嗯,而且实际上他会发现,如果他沿着这条路走下去,陈-西蒙斯和爱因斯坦-希尔伯特作为终极理论的两个子嗣,是处在同等地位上的。
便签引用
31:54
>> Uh he didn't know that. So partially the issue is is that it is so difficult in my area to know what's going on in the adjacent area. I just got off the phone before the podcast with my good friend Edward Frankle who does uh algebraic geometry whereas I would do differential geometry. It's very difficult for us to communicate even though those fields are adjacent to each other. So yes, if you happen to have an algebraic geometer who's a billionaire, uh, and one who's a representation theorist, another one who's, uh, interested in, um, oh, I don't know, category theory, you could do it that way, but this is completely insane. So, >> okay, so government should fund >> government has to be the basic funer of these things.
>> 呃他并不知道这一点。所以问题部分在于,在我这个领域里,要了解隔壁领域在发生什么是极其困难的。录播客之前我刚跟我的好朋友爱德华·弗兰克尔通完电话,他做的是代数几何,而我做的是微分几何。我们之间沟通都非常困难,尽管这两个领域是相邻的。所以是的,如果你碰巧有一个代数几何学家是亿万富翁,呃,还有一个是表示论专家,另一个呢,呃,对,嗯,我不知道,范畴论感兴趣,你是可以那样搞,但这完全是疯了。所以,>> 好,那就是政府应该出资 >> 政府必须是这些东西的基础资助方。
便签引用
32:44
>> The next part of this, >> we need to have the right people representing the decisions on where we should be funding, what we should be funding. Correct. And that's what we did previously is that we sort of had slush funds and they're very good people had money. Somebody years ago I was at a conference in Bereva um on physics and people were talking about where they were going to get their next job and this old guy comes up to us and said I just pity all of you. There was an American and I said in what way? He said you know I never applied for a job in my life. He said sorry what do what do you mean? He says, "If you were any good and you needed a job, you talked to one of the people who was high up in the field and they got on the phone and by the time they got off the phone, you had a job where you needed to be."
>> 接下来这部分,>> 我们需要让对的人来代表我们做决定,决定该资助哪里、该资助什么。没错。而这正是我们以前的做法,就是我们当时有类似小金库的东西,而且那些很优秀的人手里有钱。多年前有一次我在贝雷瓦参加一个物理学会议,大家都在聊自己下一份工作去哪儿找,这时一个老头走过来对我们说,我真是可怜你们所有人。他是个美国人,我说,怎么讲?他说,你知道吗,我这辈子从来没申请过工作。他说,抱歉,你这是什么意思?他说,“如果你真有本事,而你需要一份工作,你就去找这个领域里位置比较高的某个人聊聊,他们打个电话,等电话挂了的时候,你就已经在你该去的地方有工作了。”
便签引用
33:31
>> And so my claim is is that when you have administrator types come in and say, "What we need is KPIs. Uh we need to to drive this on a data we I'm data driven. I want to know what the translation is. Do do you even know what ROI is or is it just what you can measure? >> Yeah. >> And so my claim is a lot of what you want is you want these people on retainer so whenever you have a real problem you call up the Jason's and it's stocked with the most terrifying intellects you can imagine and we can get to work and we can solve your problems.
>> 所以我的主张是,当你让那种行政管理型的人进来,然后说,“我们需要的是KPI。呃,我们得用数据来驱动这个,我我是数据驱动的。我想知道转化成果是什么。”你到底知不知道什么叫ROI,还是说你说的只是你能测量的东西?>> 是啊。>> 所以我的主张是,你想要的其实很大一部分是把这些人签成常年顾问,这样一旦你遇到真正的难题,你就给Jason小组打电话,那里聚集着你能想象到的最可怕的一批头脑,我们就能开工,我们就能解决你的问题。
便签引用
34:12
But if you're saying, "Well, why should my taxpayer dollars uh, you know, go do whatever you find interesting?" Well, if I can pursue what I find interesting, and when you call me up, I'm going to be very friendly to helping my own country, my own nation, I'm going to feel positive about that. If you tell me you should work on this because this thing is what drives the ROI, my feeling is, do you just not understand science? Do you imagine that your technology mindset is the same thing as my scientific mindset. You want to get paid. I mean, I I've spent a lot of time in Silicon Valley. I'm not nearly interested as interested in having a new McLaren as whether my name is going to be discussed 10,000 years from now if humans are still around. And I I say that because, you know, Jim Watson just died. My good friends Isidor Singer, Raul Bot are are now dead. Those are people whose contributions will be discussed 10,000 years from now.
但如果你说,“凭什么我纳税人的钱,呃,你知道,要拿去做你觉得有意思的事?”那好,如果我可以去追我自己觉得有意思的东西,那当你打电话来找我的时候,我会非常乐意帮助我自己的国家、我自己的民族,我会对此感到很积极。可如果你告诉我,你应该做这个,因为这东西才能带来ROI,我的感觉就是,你是不是根本不懂科学?你是不是以为你那套技术思维跟我的科学思维是一回事?你想赚钱。我是说,我在硅谷待了很久。比起拥有一辆新迈凯伦,我远没有那么感兴趣,我更在意的是一万年后如果人类还在,我的名字会不会还被人谈起。我这么说是因为,你知道,吉姆·沃森刚去世。我的好朋友伊萨多·辛格、拉乌尔·博特现在也都不在了。这些人的贡献在一万年后还会被人讨论。
便签引用
35:12
>> Can you say that about almost anyone you know who's doing software as a service? Uh hard to say. You know, as I used to say, um what's the difference between uh Grecia Pearlman and Ron Pearlman? And so in the modern era, the question is who's Greca Pearlman? And you know, a thousand years from now, it's who's Ron Pearlman. So my feeling is is that we have our own toys that we we care about. We care about our history. We care about different things. It's it's not unreasonable to want to do and to want to be able to check into a Four Seasons uh and to fly business class, but we don't need a corporate jet. Like that's your stuff. So treat scientists like the rock stars that they should be will be. Otherwise, you're going to lose them. You're going to lose that talent. You're going to lose that moment.
>> 你能对你认识的几乎任何一个做SaaS的人说同样的话吗?呃,很难说。你知道,我以前常说,嗯,格里戈里·佩雷尔曼和罗恩·佩尔曼有什么区别?而在当今这个时代,问题是,格里戈里·佩雷尔曼是谁?可你知道,一千年以后,问题会变成罗恩·佩尔曼是谁。所以我的感觉是,我们有我们自己在乎的那些玩意儿。我们在乎我们的历史。我们在乎不一样的东西。想要过得去、想要能住进四季酒店、呃能坐商务舱,这不算过分,但我们不需要私人公务机。那是你们那套东西。所以,把科学家当成他们应该是的、也将会是的摇滚明星那样对待。否则,你会失去他们。你会失去那些人才。你会失去那个时刻。
便签引用
06高贝塔赌注:押人而不是押想法
36:13
>> Protecting nature is often labeled anti-growth. The Conservation Fund disagrees. They believe protecting land, wildlife, and outdoor access goes handinhand with economic opportunity. For 40 years, they've moved with market speed to protect at risk land while supporting local communities. With 9 million acres protected across all 50 states, the Conservation Fund is proving that they deliver lasting outcomes that benefit communities and nature. Learn more at conservationfund.org. >> When you say slush funds, the way the funding process works in the modern era is grants. you you apply for a grant with a very specific set of objectives and that's what the capital is going to be used for. And to your point earlier, grants are typically approved if they're lower beta, which means more predictable in terms of the outcome.
>> 保护自然常常被贴上反增长的标签。Conservation Fund不这么认为。他们相信,保护土地、野生动物和户外空间的可达性,与经济机会是相辅相成的。40年来,他们以市场的速度行动,保护处于风险中的土地,同时支持当地社区。在全美50个州已保护900万英亩土地,Conservation Fund正在证明,他们能带来持久的成果,造福社区与自然。了解更多请访问 conservationfund.org。>> 你说小金库,现在这个时代资助流程的运作方式是拨款。你你带着一套非常具体的目标去申请拨款,资金就只能用在这些目标上。而按你刚才的说法,拨款通常是在贝塔值较低的情况下才会获批,也就是说结果更可预测。
便签引用
37:06
>> So, so we're appropriating modern portfolio theory to science. >> To science. >> Love it. >> Yes. Well, I mean, that's the way it it's been operating is my argument. Or has it not been? And does that not miss the opportunity to take crazy high beta bets and not just bet on the idea but bet on the person. So >> crazy high beta bet. >> Yeah. >> Let's do an example. >> Yes. >> Imagine that I have a 1% chance of curing all cancer, >> right? >> Should you hire me? >> Well, 99% failure is pretty expensive. But the benefit of killing curing all cancer um the government is incredibly rich and when you're incredibly rich you can afford to take different bets to maximize your outcomes. The problem is is that the government co-invested through things that are poorer than it.
>> 所以,所以我们是把现代投资组合理论挪用到科学上了。>> 挪用到科学上。>> 我喜欢这个说法。>> 是的。嗯,我是说,我的论点就是它一直就是这么运作的。还是说并非如此?而这难道不会错失那种下超高贝塔的疯狂赌注的机会吗?而且不只是赌想法,是赌人。所以 >> 超高贝塔的疯狂赌注。>> 对。>> 我们举个例子。>> 好。>> 想象我有1%的几率能治愈所有癌症,>> 对吧?>> 你该不该雇我?>> 呃,99%的失败率代价是挺高的。但治愈所有癌症的收益……嗯,政府是极其有钱的,而当你极其有钱的时候,你就有能力下不同类型的赌注,把你的结果最大化。问题在于,政府是跟比它穷的主体一起共同投资的。
便签引用
38:00
>> So each department says you know we can't really afford we don't get that many appointments. So, we're going to go with somebody who has a very high probability of succeeding at a very modest outcome and then we're going to start lying about how important that is. You'll notice that if you ask people, "How's your field doing?" Everybody says, "It's never been a better time to be a particle theorist." Well, it's a terrible time to be a particle theorist, right? And and we can't say that. And and it's funny because again in portfolio theory, if you have a balanced portfolio and part of it starts succeeding and part of it failing, what you usually do is you take money out of the thing that's succeeding and put it into the thing that's failing because otherwise you get too much concentration in the portfolio. Nobody's ever thought about any of this stuff. And so what you have is you have people who don't even understand modern portfolio theory and don't understand market failure designing things. It's really important
>> 于是每个部门都说,你知道,我们真的承受不起,我们能拿到的名额没那么多。所以我们会选那种成功概率非常高、但成果非常平庸的人,然后我们就开始吹嘘那玩意儿有多重要。你会注意到,如果你问别人,“你这个领域怎么样啊?”所有人都说,“现在是当粒子理论家最好的时候。”其实现在当粒子理论家糟透了,对吧?可我们不能这么说。而且有意思的是,同样在投资组合理论里,如果你有一个平衡的组合,其中一部分开始赚钱,一部分开始亏,你通常的做法是把钱从赚钱的那块抽出来,投到亏钱的那块去,否则你的组合集中度就太高了。从来没人想过这些事。所以结果就是,你有一群连现代投资组合理论都不懂、也不懂市场失灵的人在设计这些制度。懂基本的市场理论是非常重要的,而我们不懂。
便签引用
38:56
to know basic market theory and we don't. >> Yeah. So if we fix that do we fund individuals versus ideas? You know this is the other kind of >> say more. >> So the whole story I I gave this example to Katzio. Stuart Butterfield worked on this project for a couple years. He was down to three million bucks. All the VCs put money in started nearly failed. And he calls him up. He called up Ben Horowitz. He just told the story recently. He said, "Hey, should I give the money back? This project didn't work. But by the way, we've been doing a intra company communication tool for our engineering team. Maybe I could pivot into that." He's like, "Yeah, keep the money. Do that. I trust you."
>> 是啊。那如果我们把这个修好,我们是资助个人还是资助想法?你知道这是另一种 >> 展开讲讲。>> 就是这么个故事,我给卡齐奥举过这个例子。斯图尔特·巴特菲尔德做那个项目做了几年。他手里只剩三百万美元了。所有VC投的钱,一开始就差点全砸了。然后他打电话给,他打给了本·霍洛维茨。他最近还讲过这个故事。他说,“嘿,我是不是该把钱退回去?这个项目没做成。不过顺便说一句,我们一直在做一个给工程团队用的公司内部沟通工具。也许我可以转型做那个。”对方说,“行啊,钱你留着,就去做那个。我信你。”
便签引用
39:32
>> Yeah. >> You pivoted it, turned it into Slack, sold it for $30 billion. >> The idea being that you back the person, not the idea. that the the great people, the great entrepreneurs continuously evolve, continuously build, continuously pivot. I mean, here you are with Zuck reinventing that company again and again and again. And if you find the upandcomers, is there a way to kind of find the individual that are emerging in their fields? >> Oh, yeah. But >> and you fund them for a period of time and you say or is this a portfolio theory again where you say some bets are on an idea, some bets are on people and you know the people bets should be long-term and fully funded, >> right?
>> 对。>> 你转型了,做成了Slack,以300亿美元卖掉了。>> 意思就是你押的是人,不是想法。真正厉害的人、厉害的创业者会持续进化、持续构建、持续转型。我是说,你看扎克,一次又一次地重新发明那家公司。那么,如果你要找那些后起之秀,有没有办法找到那些在各自领域正在崭露头角的个人?>> 哦,有啊。不过 >> 然后你资助他们一段时间,你说……还是说这又是投资组合理论,就是说有些赌注是押想法,有些赌注是押人,而押人的那些赌注应该是长期的、全额资助的,>> 对吧?
便签引用
40:10
I'll give you the magic formula that gives you an idea of how difficult this is and how tricky you have to be. Tell me who the established leaders of of a field will block but will not short fund that guy. >> Mhm. >> For now >> because if you're not willing I mean if you I I'll say this with my own uh main theory. If you are willing to short either geometric marginalism or more importantly geometric unity, I want to dance with you. >> Mhm. >> Because I want to take your house. I want to take your retirement. It would be my absolute pleasure to destroy you in the market.
我来给你一个神奇的公式,它能让你明白这件事有多难、你得多有心机。告诉告诉我,哪个人是某个领域的既有权威会去封杀、却又不肯做空的。>> 嗯。>> 目前是这样 >> 因为如果你不愿意——我是说如果你——我就拿我自己的主要理论来说吧。如果你愿意做空几何边际主义,或者更重要的,几何统一论,那我很乐意跟你过招。>> 嗯。>> 因为我想赢走你的房子,想拿走你的退休金。能在市场上把你打垮,会是我莫大的荣幸。在市场上。
便签引用
40:53
>> Mhm. >> But that's not what happens. It's like, well, we want to block him, but we know that he knows a lot of stuff. Yeah. >> And we know that we haven't really read it. And you know, there's something about somebody saying, "Look, you're 99.9999% uh going to fail." And I say, "Care care to formalize that?" >> Mhm. >> You know, let's have Well, why? I'll bet you $100 that by next year you haven't gotten full acceptance in the That's not what you said. You said that you'd be willing to put up your house to win a dollar from me, and I want to do that at size, you know. So my feeling is come at me baby that would be fun.
>> 嗯。>> 但实际情况不是这样。而是:我们想封杀他,可我们知道他懂很多东西。是啊。>> 我们也知道自己其实没认真读过。而且你知道,有人说“你有 99.9999% 的概率会失败”,我就说:愿意把这话形式化一下吗?>> 嗯。>> 你知道吧,那咱们来……那为什么呢?我跟你赌100美元,到明年你还没被完全接受——可你说的不是这个。你说的是,你愿意押上自己的房子,就为了从我这儿赢一美元。而我想按真正的规模来玩,你懂吧。所以我的想法是:放马过来吧,宝贝,那会很有意思。
便签引用
07弦论四十年把物理开下悬崖
41:35
>> And let me tell you something. He also listened for things that no one is willing to say. I I am on record as saying that the the smartest man in the world today is Edward Whitten. Brilliant. >> Mhm. >> Unbelievable. The guy drove theoretical physics off the road and off a cliff 42 years ago. >> Nobody else is willing to say it. >> Mhm. So the question is is the one person who noticed that nobody's gone to Stockholm [laughter] that the standard model has not changed the recent conference uh in string theory supposedly the only game in town in fundamental physics.
>> 我跟你说,他还专门去听那些没人愿意说出口的话。我公开说过,当今世界上最聪明的人是爱德华·威腾。才华横溢。>> 嗯。>> 不可思议。就是这个人在42年前把理论物理开下了公路、开下了悬崖。>> 别人都不愿意这么说。>> 嗯。所以问题是,那个唯一注意到再没人去过斯德哥尔摩(笑)、注意到标准模型一直没变过的人——最近那场弦论会议——弦论据说是基础物理里唯一可玩的游戏。
便签引用
42:17
Go to strings 2026 website. There's a list of all the talks. There's a search engine. Put in these following words. Electron, Hadron, Higs, Leptton. There's no physics in this. They're not talking about anything that could hurt a foe. They're not talking about the physical world. I was at arguably the world's leading physics institute. And I said, "Who are the smartest people here?" And it was I was given three names. Two of them were pure theorists. I talked deeply with both of them. When I got to the point about how to advance the standard model, which is our notion of all the particles you see in the in this room, both of them said, "I have no interest in the physical world." And I said, "Well, you're the two leading professors at our major, our most expansive theoretical physics institute, and neither of you care about the physical world." just openly expressed this is madness and you know I give talks at physics departments and I I've now started non-ooperation with the departments who've asked me to come and
去 Strings 2026 的网站看看,上面有全部报告的列表,还有搜索功能。输入这几个词:电子、强子、希格斯、轻子。这里头根本没有物理。他们谈的东西连敌人都伤不了。他们谈的根本不是物理世界。我曾经待在可以说是全世界顶尖的物理研究所。我问:“这儿最聪明的人是谁?”他们给了我三个名字,其中两个是纯理论家。我跟他们俩都深谈过。当我谈到怎么推进标准模型——也就是我们对这个房间里所有粒子的理解——他们俩都说:“我对物理世界没有兴趣。”我就说:“那你们可是我们最顶尖、最宏大的理论物理研究所里的两位领军教授,结果你们俩都不关心物理世界。”还就这么公开承认了。这简直是疯了。你知道,我会去各个物理系做讲座,而现在我开始对那些邀请我去讲、却在名义上不承认我做过讲座的系采取不合作态度。比如说,我在
便签引用
43:33
talk but will technically deny me a talk. So for example, I've given talk a talk at the University of Texas Austin, but I'm I'm not allowed to say that the talk occurred in the physics department. >> Really? >> Yeah. I gave a talk at the Perimeter Institute in the Skyrim. It is not a talk. Eric is answering questions. I gave a talk at the University of Chicago in the >> This is because your talk and your persona is viewed to be fringe and outlandish. >> You keep saying fringe. Yeah, >> I totally disagree with the narrative of the field.
得州大学奥斯汀分校讲过一次,但我不被允许说那场讲座是在物理系发生的。>> 真的?>> 是啊。我在圆周理论物理研究所的 Sky Room 讲过一次。那“不算讲座”,那是“Eric 在回答问题”。我在芝加哥大学也讲过—— >> 这是因为你的讲座和你的形象被认为很边缘、很离谱。>> 你老说“边缘”。是啊。 >> 我完全不认同这个领域的那套说辞。
便签引用
44:10
>> I just out and out say that when physics in 1983 physics made sense in 1984 it did not. It was very stark and it was like overnight more or less three people Leonard Suskin, David Gross and Edward Whitten drove the field in a totally different direction and now the achievement of this has not been any advance in our knowledge of the physical world but it has been something that no one knew was possible. You take the field in which Edward Teller and Jay Robert Oenheimer and Richard Fineman and Stannislov Ulam created the most terrifying weapons from SU3 cross U1 gauge theory and you've made it safe. It is now safe to do physics with your geopolitical rivals. You can invite your friends from China to come and become graduate students in your department and you will fill their heads with things about ads CFT that couldn't hurt a fly because there's no physics in it. So the question is did I is this a secret program?
>> 我就是直说:1983年的物理学还讲得通,到1984年就不通了。那个转折非常鲜明,几乎就是一夜之间,差不多三个人——伦纳德·萨斯坎德、大卫·格罗斯和爱德华·威腾——把这个领域带向了一个完全不同的方向。而这件事的成果,并不是我们对物理世界的认识有了任何推进,而是达成了一件从前没人知道有可能做到的事。你把一个曾经诞生过爱德华·泰勒、罗伯特·奥本海默、理查德·费曼和斯坦尼斯瓦夫·乌拉姆的领域——他们从 SU(3)×U(1) 规范理论里造出了最可怕的武器——变得“安全”了。现在你可以放心地和地缘政治对手一起做物理了。你可以邀请中国来的朋友到你系里读研究生,然后往他们脑子里塞一堆关于 AdS/CFT 的东西,那些东西连苍蝇都伤不了,因为里面没有物理。所以问题是:这是不是一个秘密计划?
便签引用
08参考委员会与文艺复兴科技猜想
45:16
>> Go back to 1983. Wait, so we drove off a cliff in 1983 and the question is did someone say, "Hey, let's drive this off a cliff." >> Well, this happened before. Do you do you think that there is some community subgroup set of assets set of projects that are happening somewhere on Earth that are making advances in physics and have been for the last 50 years? >> Great that you asked that question. That would be crazy, wouldn't it, David? Can you imagine if there was like a secret place that was making advances in an important field of physics and people who were studying physics outside of that place were being stymied?
>> 回到1983年。等等,所以我们是在1983年开下了悬崖,问题是有没有人说过:“嘿,咱们把它开下悬崖吧。”>> 这种事以前发生过。你觉不觉得,存在某个团体、某个子群、某批资源、某些项目,就在地球上某个地方,过去50年里一直在推进物理学?>> 你问得太好了。那也太疯狂了,对吧,David?你能想象吗,要是真有个秘密地方在某个重要物理领域取得进展,而在那个地方之外研究物理的人却处处受阻?
便签引用
45:56
>> I would find it hard that it would be kept secret. >> Okay. What happened in 1940 is that something that you've never heard of called the reference committee was established inside of the National Research Council. So when the neutron was first hypothesized in 1911 by Rutherford, it was then discovered in the early 30s, a woman named Lee Mitner came up with the concept of the chain reaction which was then proven by Fairmy at the University of Chicago with something called Chicago pile one. Thereafter, a guy named Wright uh briti t formed something called the uh reference committee inside the national research council so that if you submitted a paper on chain reaction physics to a journal, it got shunted into the national research council and they would return it to you saying unfortunately you know these results are really preliminary.
>> 我觉得这种事很难保密。>> 好。1940年发生了一件事:在国家研究委员会内部成立了一个你从没听说过的东西,叫“参考委员会”。事情是这样:中子在1911年由卢瑟福首先提出假设,到30年代初被发现;一位叫莉泽·迈特纳的女性提出了链式反应的概念,随后费米在芝加哥大学用所谓的“芝加哥一号堆”证实了它。在那之后,一个叫布赖特(Breit)的人在国家研究委员会内部成立了这个“参考委员会”。于是你要是把一篇关于链式反应物理的论文投给期刊,它会被转到国家研究委员会,然后他们会退回给你,说:很遗憾,你知道,这些结果还相当初步,
便签引用
46:53
um we don't see this as being uh at the level of the journal. Please revise, etc., etc. Okay, now you've resubmitted it. It's still not going. You don't know that this thing exists. This is how people outside of the Manhattan Project, outside of the white badges, treated their colleagues who weren't allowed inside the Manhattan Project. So let's at least agree that from 1940 to 1945 there was a review process which destroyed the ability to earn a living if you were doing chain reaction physics and you weren't invited into the secret group.
呃,我们认为它还达不到本刊的水平。请修改,等等等等。好,现在你重新投了,还是发不出来。而你根本不知道这个机构存在。这就是当年曼哈顿计划之外、没有白色胸牌的人被怎么对待的——他们的同行不被允许进入曼哈顿计划。所以我们至少可以同意:从1940到1945年,存在一套审稿流程,它彻底断了你的生计——只要你做的是链式反应物理,而又没被请进那个秘密圈子。
便签引用
47:31
>> Yes. >> Okay. The question isn't is that nuts? It's clearly not nuts because I know that this actually existed and happened. Question is did it happen once or more than once? If it happened more than once, the question is, what is the analog of the boys school in New Mexico? What is the analog of the white badges? What is the analog of the reference committee? >> And you have a theory? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> If it's happening, I've said that the leading candidate would be Renaissance Technologies on Long Island.
>> 是的。>> 好。问题不在于“这是不是疯了”。这显然不疯,因为我知道这件事确实存在过、发生过。问题是:它只发生过一次,还是不止一次?如果不止一次,那问题就是:新墨西哥那所“男校”的对应物是什么?白色胸牌的对应物是什么?参考委员会的对应物又是什么?>> 那你有一个理论?>> 有。>> 好。>> 如果这事正在发生,我说过最有可能的候选者是长岛的文艺复兴科技公司。
便签引用
48:01
>> I've heard you say this. >> Yeah. >> But surely there's >> Let's look at the cover story. >> Okay. The cover story would be, you know, we are so good at trading that we don't even allow people who know markets into our firm. We only hire people in directly relevant subjects of physics, like particle theorists, like differential geometers, like machine learning experts. And we have a very strange thing that we have a very close relationship with the Brook Haven National Laboratory. And by the way, there's a middling university right next door who happens to be absolutely world class historically in the exact subjects that would be relevant to doing next level physics.
>> 我听你说过这个。>> 是啊。>> 但肯定—— >> 我们来看看它的官方说法。>> 好。官方说法大概是:你知道,我们交易做得太好了,好到我们甚至不让懂市场的人进我们公司。我们只招那些跟物理直接相关的学科的人,比如粒子理论学家、微分几何学家、机器学习专家。而且还有件很奇怪的事:我们跟布鲁克海文国家实验室关系非常密切。顺便说一句,就在隔壁还有一所不起眼的大学,而它在历史上恰好在那些与做下一层次物理最相关的学科上绝对是世界一流的。
便签引用
48:47
Okay. So you multiple fields medalists and US News and World Report never ranks this as like one of our great facilities. Even though if if you look at the people have passed through State University of New York at Stonybrook, it's unbelievable. Yeah, to me that looks like Fort me when it was still no such agency collecting way too many number theorists. >> But Eric, people have come out of that place, that workplace. I know one or two of them and there are no such stories. At some point you would envision that some number of them, some small percentage of them would >> leak some information or some set of facts if that were to be true about some of this advanced physics work going on or there would be probably more innumerable returns realized from that than perhaps there have been.
好吧。所以你有好几位菲尔兹奖得主,而《美国新闻与世界报道》从来不把它排进我们最顶尖的院校之列。哪怕你去看看从纽约州立大学石溪分校走出来的那些人,简直难以置信。在我看来,这就像当年还被叫作“没有这个机构”的米德堡,招了多得离谱的数论学家。>> 可是 Eric,确实有人从那个地方、那个公司出来过。我认识一两个,根本没有这类传闻。你总会设想,他们当中总有一些人、哪怕一小部分人,会>> 泄露点信息,或者泄露一些事实,如果真有这种高深的物理工作在进行的话;再不然,从中变现出来的回报也该比实际看到的多得多。
便签引用
49:36
>> I'm not saying that I know that that's true. My point was, and I tried I tried to be careful. If you said, "Eric, that sounds preposterous because to be entirely honest, the concept of Los Alamos, which was published in 1944 by a journalist named Jack Raper in a Cleveland newspaper, he he broke the story. >> Nothing happened because what he said was crazy. He said, "There is a secret city with a mayor who's supposed to be the next Einstein working on a doomsday weapon." and the town is so secretive that nobody knows what's going on inside it. So my claim is is that I'm doing the Jack Raper thing and you're doing the what happened to Jack Raper. Well, clearly there's only one person saying that and he's nuts.
>> 我并不是说我知道这是真的。我的意思是——我也尽量说得谨慎——如果你说:“Eric,这听起来太荒唐了”,那么老实讲,洛斯阿拉莫斯这个概念,在1944年就被一个叫杰克·雷珀的记者在克利夫兰的一家报纸上发表出来了,是他捅破了这件事。>> 结果什么也没发生,因为他说的话听起来太疯了。他说:“有一座秘密城市,市长据说是下一个爱因斯坦,他们在造一种末日武器。”而且那座城镇保密到没人知道里面在干什么。所以我的主张是:我在做杰克·雷珀做的事,而你在做“杰克·雷珀后来怎么了”那件事。嗯,显然只有一个人这么说,而且他疯了。
便签引用
50:23
>> Well, in that in both cases, I could show up and start asking questions and interrogate and see if I can find something. >> Again, I'm not saying that Renaissance Technologies is that. I am saying you have a secure campus with a story that makes no sense. Yeah, >> you know markets. Do you have any idea how much the medallion fund >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, I know. Cuz again, my friends who were there, they get to leave their money there and then the returns continue. >> They get to leave their money there is not what happens.
>> 可是在这两种情况下,我都可以直接过去问问题、去追问,看看能不能查出点什么来。>> 再说一遍,我并不是说文艺复兴科技就是那个地方。我是说:你有一个安保森严的园区,配着一套说不通的故事。是啊。 >> 你懂市场。你知不知道大奖章基金—— >> 哦,知道,我知道。因为还是那句话,我那些在里面待过的朋友,他们可以把钱留在里面,然后继续拿回报。>> “他们可以把钱留在里面”——实际情况不是这样。
便签引用
50:50
>> Okay. >> They closed the fund to all but internal money. >> Yes. Yes. That's what I mean. >> You know, another interesting story, >> but if you leave the firm, you get to your capital can stay in the medallion fund. So my claim to you is Jeffrey Epstein had a story which is that he only accepted a billion dollars or more invested with him if you gave him power of attorney. These things tend to have some reason that no person outside has money and gets to ask questions. Right? >> So Jeffrey Epstein did not run a hedge fund. He told me that he ran a multistrategy FX hedge fund and that he needed a 727 because it had a trading for and he filled it with yeshiva students because they were the only ones you could trust.
>> 好吧。>> 他们把基金关闭了,只接受内部资金。>> 对,对。我就是这个意思。>> 你知道,还有个有意思的故事—— >> 但如果你离开公司,你的资本还是可以留在大奖章基金里。所以我要跟你说的是:杰弗里·爱泼斯坦也有一套说法,就是他只接受十亿美元以上的投资,而且你得把授权委托书交给他。这类事情往往都有某种理由,让外部的人没有钱在里面、也没法问问题,对吧?>> 杰弗里·爱泼斯坦并没有在管一只对冲基金。他跟我说他管的是一只多策略外汇对冲基金,说他需要一架727,因为上面有个交易大厅;他还在里面塞满了犹太经学院的学生,因为只有那些人才信得过。
便签引用
51:35
He was extremely specific about using trend following, mean reversion and carry is the three strategy. I think he didn't say he said he didn't do any gamma trading uh you know or or options trading. That was a lot. It was a cover story that that was burned and then he became disgraced financeier and then he became tax expert Jeffrey Epstein. You're looking at a fake world with cover stories that fail over. If you remember the old get smart wine, would you believe, you know, a thousand special agents are going to swarm this? I find that very difficult to believe.
他说得极其具体,说用的是趋势跟踪、均值回归和套息这三种策略。我觉得他没说 他说他没做过任何伽马交易 呃 你知道 或者期权交易。那说来话长。那是个掩护身份,后来这个身份暴露了,然后他就成了名声扫地的金融家,接着又成了税务专家杰弗里·爱泼斯坦。你看到的是一个虚假的世界,一个个掩护故事接连穿帮。你要是还记得老片《糊涂侦探》里那句「你信不信」,你知道,说有一千名特工要围捕这个人?我觉得这非常难以置信。
便签引用
52:12
>> Uh 100 policemen, >> you know, not not true, Miss Maxwell. Two two boy scouts with a slingshot. This is fake. And my claim is I don't know what's going on at Renaissance, but Jim Simons is an absolute genius. Hardly distinguished in that. We have many. And I don't know anybody who's ever gotten close to these returns. I don't know any information about what that thing actually did, does claims to do. >> Yeah. And I'm saying it has very close relationships with a talent pool Stony Brook which is not acknowledged and then and a national lab.
>> 呃 一百名警察,>> 你知道,那不是真的,麦克斯韦尔女士。两个拿着弹弓的童子军。这是假的。我的说法是,我不知道文艺复兴(Renaissance)那边到底在干什么,但吉姆·西蒙斯绝对是个天才。不过光这一点并不算特别突出,这样的人我们有很多。而且我不认识任何人能做出接近那种回报率的成绩。我完全不了解那个东西实际上做了什么、在做什么、号称在做什么。>> 是啊。我想说的是,它和石溪大学那个人才库有非常紧密的关系,而这一点从来没有被承认过,然后还有一个国家实验室。
便签引用
09若物理未停:轰、驰、飞
52:49
>> Go back to 8384. >> Yeah. >> And assume we did not go into this quantum universe that we >> not quantum quantum gravity universe. >> Quantum gravity universe, right? >> And we're in a different universe where we have a sense what does that physics look like today? If we progress physics, help an audience that's a generalist audience understand a little bit about what it means that if physics didn't stall out and before I do that, let me just ask this question. Some would argue that physics has played an important role and maybe it's not fundamental and you could that might be your answer here in advancing things like semiconductor manufacturing technology, advanced lithography, material science. We've we've made tremendous progress in our capacity to drive compute and that's led to this moment today where we have these tools that we call AI, >> right?
>> 回到 1983、84 年。>> 嗯。>> 假设我们没有走进这个量子宇宙,我们 >> 不是量子 是量子引力宇宙。>> 量子引力宇宙,对吧?>> 而我们身处一个不同的宇宙,在那里我们有某种直觉——今天的物理学会是什么样子?如果物理学一直在进步,帮助这些非专业的听众理解一点:如果物理学没有停滞不前会意味着什么。在讲这个之前,我先问个问题。有人会说物理学起到了重要作用,也许它不是最基础的那部分,你可能会这么回答——它推动了半导体制造技术、先进光刻、材料科学的发展。我们在算力方面取得了巨大进步,这才带来了今天这个时刻,我们有了这些被称为 AI 的工具,>> 对吧?
便签引用
53:43
>> And all of the underlying advancements in chemistry, material science, physics got us to this moment today. Yeah. >> And that we have made progress and it has been applied. And that would be one argument. >> And so maybe tell me why that that kind of misses the point. and then we can talk a little bit about kind of what would the world look like today if we didn't go off track in 1983 84. >> Great question. Let me try to engage that and then feel free to redirect me if I'm not answering the question. In the theory we have of which I'm going to call it the the frontier model which combines general relativity and the standard model of particle theory.
>> 而化学、材料科学、物理学所有这些底层的进步,把我们带到了今天这一刻。是的。>> 我们确实取得了进步,而且它确实被应用了。这是一种说法。>> 所以也许你可以告诉我,为什么这种说法没说到点子上。然后我们可以聊聊,如果我们没有在 1983、84 年偏离轨道,今天的世界会是什么样。>> 好问题。我试着回答一下,如果我没答到点上,你随时把我拉回来。在我们现有的理论中——我把它叫做「前沿模型」,它把广义相对论和粒子物理的标准模型结合在一起。
便签引用
54:22
We know certain things that we can't use. We found out that there were three veence quarks inside of every proton and every neutron. And nobody has ever pulled a veilance quark out of a proton or a neutron in isolation. Something called infrared slavery. Uh and screw the woke for not saying we can't say the word slavery. Infrared slavery. Deal with it, boys. Um you have a situation in which there is no industrial application. We've known about it since 1968. So sometimes you don't get to use something for an extraordinarily long period of time. But what happens if some advancements maybe we're never going to pull a quark out of a proton?
有些东西我们知道,却用不上。我们发现每个质子和每个中子里面都有三个价夸克,而从来没有人能把一个价夸克单独从质子或中子里拽出来。这叫红外禁闭(infrared slavery)。呃,去他的政治正确,别跟我说不能讲 slavery 这个词。就叫 infrared slavery。你们自己受着吧,小伙子们。嗯,你面对的局面是:它完全没有工业应用。我们从 1968 年就知道这件事了。所以有时候,一个东西你在极其漫长的时间里都用不上。但如果有些进展出现了会怎样?也许我们永远都没法把一个夸克从质子里拽出来。
便签引用
55:03
Maybe it's impossible. What if there are other things we might be able to do had physics actually advanced? So for example in the mid 1970s the two gentlemen called Abdul Salam and I forget Pat's first name put forward the uh Patis Salam model. I believe that the petis salam model will be found to be the correct first order grand unification above where we are. Problem is is that it has something called SU4 rather than SU3. And the SU3 is what generates the force that keeps all those protons from running away from each other inside of a nucleus because obviously like charges are want to repel. That's why we were able to take out two Japanese cities in 1945 is that we got control of the strong force and then that allowed us to use the electromagnetic force to generate completely destructive um power but it didn't destroy protons and neutrons.
也许这根本不可能。但如果物理学真的往前走了,会不会有别的事情是我们能做到的?比如说,在 1970 年代中期,有两位先生,一位叫阿卜杜勒·萨拉姆,另一位帕蒂的名字我忘了,他们提出了帕蒂-萨拉姆模型。我相信帕蒂-萨拉姆模型最终会被证明是我们现有层次之上正确的一阶大统一理论。问题在于它用的是 SU(4) 而不是 SU(3)。而 SU(3) 产生的那种力,正是把原子核里所有质子束缚住、不让它们彼此飞散的力,因为显然同种电荷是要互相排斥的。正因为我们掌握了强力,1945 年我们才能摧毁两座日本城市,然后这让我们得以利用电磁力释放出彻底的毁灭性能量,但它并没有摧毁质子和中子。
便签引用
56:04
What happens when you have SU4 is that you see that the electron and the nutrino are the fourth color that we associate with the up quark and down quark which make up protons and neutrons. You could have a weapon that rotates up quarks and down quarks into the lighter lepttons that disintegrate matter. >> You could have dark chemistry. Dark is not the right concept. It's really decoupled matter. Dark matter is decoupled matter. Nutrinos are essentially dark matter. They're barely detectable. In fact, >> they don't interact.
当你有了 SU(4),你会看到电子和中微子就是第四种「色」,和组成质子、中子的上夸克、下夸克属于同一套结构。你可以造出一种武器,把上夸克和下夸克旋转成更轻的轻子,从而让物质直接瓦解。>> 你可以有暗化学。「暗」这个说法其实不准确。它真正的意思是退耦的物质。暗物质就是退耦的物质。中微子本质上就是暗物质。它们几乎探测不到。事实上,>> 它们不发生相互作用。
便签引用
56:42
>> Well, they do, >> but very very weak. >> Very, very weak. Only through the gravitational and weak forces, which are the two incredibly weak ones. And gravity's so weak, it's not worth enough nutrinos concentrated, you can >> Well, but here's another here's a here's a possibility. If you rotate a nutrino into some charged particle, you can send it through the earth. >> Just explain what you mean by when you say rotate. What does that mean? So this these nutrinos are these subatomic particles. They don't really interact well. But what does it mean to rotate them?
>> 呃,会的,>> 但非常非常弱。>> 非常非常弱。只通过引力和弱力,而这两种力弱得离谱。而且引力太弱了,根本不值一提,中微子再怎么集中,你也 >> 嗯,不过这里还有另一种可能。如果你把一个中微子旋转成某种带电粒子,你就可以让它穿过地球。>> 你先解释一下,你说「旋转」是什么意思?这些中微子是亚原子粒子,它们基本不怎么发生相互作用。但「旋转」它们是什么意思?
便签引用
57:12
>> Well, let's take >> and and I think a large amount of the energy produced in the sun is neutrinos that >> actually come out like if you actually >> you and I are being irdiated >> by nutrinos >> by billions of nutrinos. And the only reason that we're not dead is that, you know, imagine >> they don't interact with our atoms. >> Well, they barely interact. Once once in a blue moon they do. >> So, you know, at night the sun is streaming this through the earth. It's passing through all. >> Yeah. >> But it when it gets to us, it goes it it keeps going. You know, you can shoot it through I forget what it is a light year of lead and you know, you very rarely interact. What happens with the rotation is in this sort of internal sense. So it's kind of metaphor of rotation in this abstract place >> which leads to a neutron. If I put a neutron on the table and we just sit there and watch with a half life of something like 17 minutes I forget it'll turn into a proton and this is called beta decay because what came out is that
>> 嗯,我们来看 >> 我想太阳产生的能量里有很大一部分是中微子 >> 真的会跑出来,就好像你真的>> 你和我正被中微子照射着 >> 被数十亿个中微子。我们之所以没死,唯一的原因是,你知道,想象一下 >> 它们不跟我们的原子发生作用。>> 呃,是几乎不作用。偶尔千载难逢会有一次。>> 所以你知道,晚上太阳的中微子正穿过地球流过来。它穿透一切。>> 是啊。>> 但它到了我们这儿,还是继续往前走。你知道,你可以让它穿过——我记不清具体数字了——一光年厚的铅,它也很少发生相互作用。而所谓的「旋转」,是在某种内部的意义上说的。所以这是一种抽象空间里的旋转的比喻 >> 它会导向中子。如果我把一个中子放在桌上,我们就坐在那儿看着,半衰期大概是 17 分钟左右吧,我记不太清,它会变成一个质子,这叫β 衰变,因为人们看到有一个电子从中子里飞射出来,
便签引用
58:11
people saw an electron scream out of the neutron and that's why a neutral particle became positive because the negiveness went off in the electron. So just to be clear for the audience, a neutron can turn into a proton and release an electron in at the same time. >> Yeah. But that turned out to be the wrong model because what it really did is is that you >> there were three quarks inside of it and one of the down quarks. So a neutron is down down up. So a down quark let off something called a W minus which is a force particle not a matter particle. and then that thing decayed into an electron and something else. The only reason we determined that there was something else going on. It's a little bit like accounting. If you have a really good accounting system and you notice that uh the envelope from the till is a little light, >> you say, okay, according to conservation principles, somebody has been messing with the money till >> and that turned out to be the nutrino.
所以一个中性粒子才变成了带正电的,因为负电性随着电子跑掉了。所以说得明确点,对听众而言就是:一个中子可以变成质子,同时释放出一个电子。>> 对。但事实证明这个模型是错的,因为它真正发生的是 >> 它里面有三个夸克,其中一个下夸克——中子是下、下、上。所以一个下夸克放出了一个叫 W⁻ 的东西,那是一个力粒子,不是物质粒子。然后那个东西衰变成了一个电子和别的什么。我们之所以判断出还有别的东西存在,有点像做账。如果你有一套很好的记账系统,然后你注意到,呃,从钱柜里拿出来的信封轻了一点,>> 你就会说,好吧,按照守恒原理,有人动过这个钱柜 >> 而那个「别的东西」就是中微子。
便签引用
59:13
And so what happens is is that a nutrino and an electron have the same relationship as an up and a down quark and you can transmute them using these W uh W particles. The danger of this is that when you have more force particles than we know currently things that are to all intents and purposes stable now might not be stable in that new regime. So you could disintegrate a mountain potentially if SU5 uh is present. SU4 is more stable than the SU5. I don't think SU5 is relevant. But what I'm saying is if you think about physics, think about boom, vroom, and zoom as an easy way to keep track of why this is our most terrifying and most amazing subject. Boom is weaponry, vroom is energy, and zoom is propulsion, computation, and all the cool stuff that we get to do. So if you want to think about it, you've been denied for, let's say, the standard model got finalized more or lessif 53 years ago.
所以实际情况是,中微子和电子之间的关系,跟上夸克和下夸克之间的关系是一样的,你可以用这些 W呃 W 粒子把它们互相转化。这件事的危险在于,当你拥有比现在已知更多的力粒子时,那些在目前所有实际意义上都稳定的东西,在新的机制下可能就不稳定了。所以如果SU(5) 存在的话,你有可能把一座山给瓦解掉。SU(4) 比 SU(5) 稳定。我不认为 SU(5) 是相关的。但我想说的是,如果你思考物理学,可以想想「轰(boom)、驰(vroom)、飞(zoom)」,这是一个很方便的方式,来记住为什么物理是我们最可怕也最惊艳的学科。轰是武器,驰是能源,飞是推进、计算,以及所有我们能玩的酷东西。所以如果你要想这件事:你被剥夺了——就说标准模型大致定型是在 53 年前吧。
便签引用
1:00:18
For 53 years, you've been denied new boom, vroom, and zoom. And potentially the stagnation in physics may have led to the survival of the human species because the boom is so terrifying. I can't tell you whether that's true or not, but it means that you don't have any room and zoom from the new stuff that could have occurred. And so, we have to be honest. I want I want the the zoom in particular. We could probably make the case that no one on earth got there and everyone has aligned around the distraction, the disinterest and the pursuit because of that absolute risk. Because if someone did actually make advancements and they could access the bigger boom, >> yeah, >> it would be game over already. I mean, there's no such thing as more absolute power that would give an individual or a group the ability to leverage that in some way to their kind of infinite will.
这 53 年里,你被剥夺了新的轰、驰和飞。而物理学的停滞,有可能恰恰让人类这个物种得以存活,因为那个「轰」实在太可怕了。我没法告诉你这是不是真的,但这意味着,本来可能出现的新东西带来的驰和飞,你一样也没有。所以我们必须诚实面对。我想要的,尤其是那个「飞」。我们大概可以论证说,地球上没有人真的走到了那一步,而所有人都因为那种绝对的风险,在分心、失去兴趣和放弃追求这件事上达成了一致。因为如果真有人取得了突破,能够触及那个更大的「轰」,>> 是啊,>> 那早就一切都结束了。我是说,不存在比这更绝对的权力了——它会让一个个人或一个团体有能力以某种方式把它变成自己近乎无限的意志。
便签引用
1:01:24
And >> I don't I don't agree with this at all. >> Great. Okay. >> So, I spent two years indoors beingounded to be vaccinated because of four amino acids being spliced into spike protein of corona virus. Now, my guess is that that's pretty easy, right? Think about it. You need 12 nucleotides to code for four amino acids at the exact right place in spike protein and that's enough to shut down Earth. These are this is high lever science. And my claim is before we decide that what we want is let's get back to kicking ass and taking names, let us at least pause and say most people are ignorant of how much power is present with a little bit of scientific knowledge. which is a marvelous scene in Breaking Bad where the protagonist named Heisenberg takes what appears to be crystal meth and throws it uh in the office of a psychopath named Tuco and Tuco says well like what the hell was that that caused that massive explosion I forget whether it was lead aside or mercury fulminate or one of these extremely volatile compounds
而 >> 我完全不同意这个说法。>> 好,行。>> 我在室内待了两年,被围困着要求接种疫苗,就因为冠状病毒刺突蛋白里被拼接进了四个氨基酸。我猜那件事其实挺容易做到的,对吧?你想想看,你只需要 12 个核苷酸来编码四个氨基酸,放在刺突蛋白里精确的那个位置,这就足以让整个地球停摆。这些是——这是高杠杆的科学。我的观点是,在我们决定「我们要回到大干一场、所向披靡」之前,让我们至少停下来说一句:大多数人并不知道,只要一点点科学知识就能掌握多大的力量。《绝命毒师》里有一场精彩的戏,主角化名海森堡,把一块看起来像冰毒的东西扔进了一个叫图科的变态的办公室,图科说,刚才那玩意儿到底是什么鬼,怎么造成了那么大的爆炸——我忘了那是叠氮化铅还是雷汞,反正是这类极不稳定的化合物中的一种。你知道制造黑火药有多容易吗?
便签引用
1:02:43
do you have any idea how easy it is to make black powder I I I asked modern audiences nobody knows that it's 75% salt peter, 10% sulfur, and 15% charcoal. The anarchist cookbook has gone out of discussion. The power of science, the leverage of science is so profound that we should at least ask the question, what if you had nuclear weapons that didn't require centrifuge? What if there are easy things to do that high school students could do? You you remember this guy who scavenged the amaresium and smoke detectors to build a working reactor and I think it was Brooklyn.
我问过现在的观众,没人知道那是 75% 的硝石、10% 的硫磺和 15% 的木炭。《无政府主义者食谱》已经从公共讨论中消失了。科学的力量、科学的杠杆效应如此深远,以至于我们至少应该问一个问题:如果有一种核武器不需要离心机呢?如果有些容易做到的事情,连高中生都能做到呢?你还记得那个从烟雾探测器里搜刮镅来造出一个能运转的反应堆的家伙吗?我记得是在布鲁克林。
便签引用
1:03:24
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, nobody thought collect 218 smoke detectors and you can have a working nuclear reactor. >> Yeah. So my claim is that if you want to think about Walter White as a paradigm, you have to go back to something called the United States versus progress the progressive magazine in which the teller Ulam design for thermonuclear weapon was put forward by a publication and the government said no no this is restricted data. We need prior injunction. This is the most dangerous piece of geometry. This is Stan Ulum's work. And the whole idea is that if you're going to use a fision device chemical shell compresses sub uh critical file material to create a detonator out of an atomic bomb. How do you get that to compress a rod or something into a fusion device? The only thing that can reach that tertiary stage fast enough is light. you have to figure out the geometry because it's the the detonator is going to rip apart the entire assembly if it doesn't get now that secret got published and the only
>> 是的。>> 好吧。没人想到,收集 218 个烟雾探测器,你就能有一个能运转的核反应堆。>> 是啊。所以我的观点是,如果你想把沃尔特·怀特当成一个范式来思考,你就得回到一桩叫「美国政府诉《进步》杂志案」的事情。当时泰勒-乌拉姆热核武器构型被一家刊物公开发表了,政府说,不行不行,这属于受限数据。我们需要事先禁制令。这是世上最危险的一段几何结构。这是斯坦·乌拉姆的工作。整个思路是:如果你要用一个裂变装置——化学炸药外壳压缩次临界的裂变材料,把一颗原子弹当成引爆器。那你怎么让它去压缩一根棒或者别的什么东西,塞进一个聚变装置里?唯一能足够快地到达第三级的东西是光。你必须把几何结构算出来,因为那个引爆器会把整个装置撕碎,如果它没能及时——而现在那个秘密被公开发表了,政府之所以没有去追究
便签引用
1:04:30
reason the government didn't go after um Howard what is it Morland is that we stupidly declassified all sorts of pieces and shards of this and he went to the Los Alamos library and he pieced it together so my claim is if you don't know the story of John Aristotle Phillips, the substandard um physicist who in his Princeton PhD thesis as the Princeton mascot said, "Look, I'm not very good, Freeman Dyson. I want to use the fact that I'm not very good to do something amazing. Tell me whether or not you will let me come up with a plan for an atomic bomb." And Freeman Dyson said, "I will give you no help, but I'll tell you whether it will work." So the substandard physicist put together this and he submitted his junior thesis and I forget whether it's page 24 but that that thesis is not in the library and the government removed the page that has the plan. The fact is that this stuff is readily present and we've never seen an atomic weapon used since 1945 mostly if we don't use this power.
嗯,霍华德——他叫什么来着——莫兰德,是因为我们愚蠢地把这件事的各种碎片和零件都解密了,而他跑到洛斯阿拉莫斯的图书馆,把它们拼凑了起来。所以我的观点是,如果你不知道约翰·亚里士多德·菲利普斯的故事——那个水平平平的、嗯、物理专业学生,他在普林斯顿的毕业论文里,以普林斯顿吉祥物的身份说,“听着,我水平不高,弗里曼·戴森。我想利用我水平不高这一点,去做一件了不起的事。你告诉我,你愿不愿意让我来设计一个原子弹方案。”弗里曼·戴森说:“我不会给你任何帮助,但我可以告诉你它行不行得通。”于是这个不入流的物理学家把方案做了出来,作为本科论文交了上去。我记不清是不是第 24 页,但那篇论文现在不在图书馆里,政府把写有方案的那一页抽掉了。事实是,这些东西唾手可得,而自 1945 年以来我们再没见过核武器被使用,很大程度上是因为我们不去动用这种力量。
便签引用
1:05:42
But if it turns out that it's easy to do, then and by the way, if the US fails with Iran, you're going to see a proliferation of countries acquiring nukes because we trusted the US. But you've got this. You are the world's policemen. Petrol dollars aren't petro dollars. They're violence dollars. The US was supposed to have the violence needed to secure the oil, and the oil backs the money. We're watching the disintegration of that regime in real time as the US goes through its Suez moment, right? You know, whe whether you think Donald Trump should have gone in to Iran or not, and I I happen to think that he was courageous and did something that we should have done in 1981 or ' 82 or something. We have to win. We we have to win because if you have a world that decides that there is no world's policeman, everybody's going to want their own nuke.
但如果事实证明它很容易做出来,那么——顺便说一句,如果美国在伊朗问题上失败,你就会看到一大批国家争相拥核,因为我们原本信任美国。但这事你们扛着,你们是世界警察。石油美元不是石油美元,它们是暴力美元。美国本该拥有确保石油安全所需的暴力,而石油又为美元背书。我们正在实时目睹这个体系的瓦解,因为美国正在经历它自己的“苏伊士时刻”,对吧?你知道,不管你认为特朗普该不该对伊朗动手——我个人认为他很有勇气,做了一件我们本该在 1981 年或 82 年就做的事——我们必须赢。我们必须赢,因为如果这个世界认定不存在世界警察了,那每个国家都会想要自己的核武器。
便签引用
1:06:39
And you can go back to the Tom Lair song called Who's Next? And you'll you'll you'll find that more or less you're going to have a world in which you can't figure out the game theory because it's no longer diatic. It's multipolar. >> Imagine a world beyond nukes. >> Sure. >> What does that world look like? So what else is there beyond the boundaries of what at this point is almost a 80 year old technology? >> Sure. >> And again I go back to the 83 story. We're making advancements. Did we stop making advancements? And is someone else is China going to make these advancements? And what does that look like? Is that what UAPs unidentified aerial phenomena are? Because you've recently made comments that you were a deep skeptic on UAPs but now you you have a view that maybe there's something there. Oh, there's definitely something there there.
你可以回头去听汤姆·莱勒那首叫《下一个是谁?》的歌,你会发现,大体上你将面对一个无法用博弈论推演的世界,因为它不再是双方博弈,而是多极的。>> 想象一个超越核武器的世界。>> 好。>> 那样的世界是什么样子?在这项如今已有近八十年历史的技术之外,还有什么?>> 好。>> 我还是回到 83 年那个故事。我们一直在取得进展。我们是停下来了吗?还是说别人——中国——会取得这些进展?那会是什么样子?这就是所谓 UAP(不明空中现象)吗?因为你最近说过,你原本对 UAP 深度怀疑,但现在你觉得也许真有点东西。噢,那里面肯定有东西。确实有。
便签引用
1:07:24
>> Okay, >> that's something there. There, by the way, maybe China. It may be us. It may be a fake story, but there's definitely something there >> based on the videos and the first person accounts. >> It's not the videos. I I've never cared about the videos. >> I've talked to too many smart, sober people, too many similar stories. >> There are definitely special access programs. Yeah. >> That are all about this. Yeah. The only thing that we learn from uh that that works for to keep secrets is compartmentalization.
>> 好,>> 确实有东西。顺便说,那可能是中国,可能是我们自己,也可能是编出来的故事,但肯定有点什么。>> 是基于那些视频和当事人的亲述吗?>> 不是视频。我从来不在乎那些视频。>> 我跟太多聪明、清醒的人聊过,听过太多相似的故事。>> 确实存在一些“特别接触计划”。是的。>> 全都跟这个有关。是的。我们学到的唯一真正有效的保密手段就是分区隔离。
便签引用
10多维时间、太阳系密室与暗能量
1:07:56
And so we are so compartmentalized that almost no one can piece the story together. It may be that the the so-called stove piping is such that we can't figure out what we know because we can't talk to each other. If you want to know what's possible, I could freak you out and it would be super cool and super frightening. One thing is is that I'm worried about multi-temporal adversaries, >> time traveling, >> times travel, >> times, >> everybody says time travel because they think that time can only be one-dimensional. But imagine, for example, that you put a giant gun on a rail car. The rail car can only move in one dimension. Now, somebody puts a giant gun on something like a tank and you go to the Bonavville Salt Flats.
我们被切分得如此之细,以至于几乎没人能把整个故事拼起来。有可能所谓的“烟囱式”信息壁垒严重到,我们根本弄不清自己到底知道什么,因为彼此之间无法交流。如果你想知道什么是有可能的,我可以把你吓一跳,那会既酷极了又吓人极了。有一点是,我担心“多时间维度的对手”。>> 时间旅行,>> 时间旅行,>> 时间,>> 大家都说时间旅行,因为他们以为时间只能是一维的。但设想一下,你把一门巨炮架在轨道车上,这辆车只能沿一个维度移动。现在有人把巨炮架到坦克那样的东西上,开到博纳维尔盐滩去。
便签引用
1:08:44
Now, you can move in two dimensions. Now you put it on an A-10 warthog and you can move in three. Those are all spatial dimensions. Why do you think there's an arrow of time? It's because you believe time can only be one-dimensional. I don't think time is one-dimensional. And I if you meet an adversary who has access to multi- time, it's like you're trying to compete with them with an A-10 Warthog and you've got your only gun on a on a track except with time rather than with space. if I could sneak up behind you in time knowing your intent.
这样你就能在二维里移动了。再把它装到 A-10 疣猪攻击机上,你就能在三维里移动。这些都是空间维度。你以为为什么会有“时间之箭”?因为你相信时间只能是一维的。我不认为时间是一维的。如果你遇到一个能自由出入多维时间的对手,那就像你要跟一架 A-10 疣猪对抗,而你唯一的炮却固定在轨道上——只不过这里说的是时间,而不是空间。如果我能在时间里绕到你背后,还知道你的意图……
便签引用
1:09:18
I mean, this is terrifying stuff to me. And it's also like I would love to have this over our adversaries, but I don't want to meet anybody who knows how to do this kind of stuff, not on a level playing field. Let me say another one. The solar system is an escape room. And Elon is focused was focused on Mars. I said that Mars is a red herring. It's a mcguffin. Tonight, it's focused on the moon. He is our only adult so far as I can tell uh crazy and mad as he is and he uses that to motivate engineers because Mars is barely doable. These are the only rocks that are potentially habitable. It's not enough diversity if we have this much power in this these few spheres with which we could put atmosphere. So assume that you could put atmospheres on the Mars and on the moon and you could get back and forth between them with chemical rockets. You'd have three places to screw up. We need tens of thousands, if not millions of places before we figure out how to civilize ourselves. So, we have to get out of
我是说,这对我来说太可怕了。当然,我也很希望我们能在这方面压过对手,但我不想在不对等的局面下碰上懂这套东西的人。我再说一个。太阳系是一间密室逃脱。埃隆一直盯着火星。我说过,火星是个障眼法,是个麦高芬。今晚他又盯上了月球。据我所知,他是我们唯一的成年人——尽管他又疯又癫,而他正是用这一点来激励工程师,因为火星勉强算是可行的。这些是仅有的可能宜居的岩石天体。这还远远不够多样,如果我们把这么大的力量集中在这么少的几个能被我们改造出大气层的球体上。所以假设你能给火星和月球造出大气层,还能用化学火箭在它们之间往返,那你也只有三个地方可供搞砸。我们需要成千上万、乃至上百万个落脚点,才能在此之前摸索出怎么把自己文明化。所以我们必须离开
便签引用
1:10:17
here. It's too expensive to leave the solar system. So, my claim is that in an Einsteinian world, you're never going to. If Einstein is left to be in force, the speed of light is too brutal. So, you go to Alpha Century, four light years away, you come back, you do it at nearly the speed of light. Everything is eight years advanced by the time you get back home. Nobody wants to do that. And that's just the first star. My claim is is that we have been too long in Einstein's prison. General relativity really begins in 1913. It's really due to Grossman and Einstein, not just Einstein alone. I don't know why we say that. Uh it's not really Einstein Hilbert. It's really Einstein Grossman.
这里。但飞出太阳系代价太高。所以我的主张是,在爱因斯坦的世界里,你永远也做不到。如果爱因斯坦那套继续有效,光速就是个残酷的上限。所以你去四光年外的半人马座阿尔法星,再回来,即便你以接近光速航行,等你回到家时,一切都已经过去八年。没人愿意这么干。而那还只是最近的一颗恒星。我的主张是,我们被关在爱因斯坦的监狱里太久了。广义相对论其实始于 1913 年,真正的功劳属于格罗斯曼和爱因斯坦,而不是爱因斯坦一个人。我不知道我们为什么那样说。呃,其实不该叫爱因斯坦-希尔伯特,而该叫爱因斯坦-格罗斯曼。
便签引用
1:11:02
But more or less since 1915 1917, the equations haven't moved. They're going to break because of what's happening in southern Arizona. Tit Peak has this object called Desi, the dark energy spectroscopic instrument. And I believe that it is going to show that the cosmological constant times the metric, which is how we encode dark energy into the equation, is going to break because it's not constant. The only reason that you have lambda times the metric which is this term is the product rule. If you take a derivative called divergence, you have to take the derivative of lambda times the metric left alone plus lambda* the derivative of the metric.
但大体上,自 1915、1917 年以来,那些方程就没动过。它们将会被打破,因为亚利桑那南部正在发生的事情。基特峰上有个叫 DESI 的装置,即暗能量光谱仪。我相信它将会表明,宇宙学常数乘以度规——也就是我们把暗能量写进方程的方式——这一项会站不住脚,因为它并不是常数。你之所以会有 lambda 乘度规这一项,唯一的原因是乘积法则。如果你取一个叫散度的导数,你就得算 lambda 的导数乘度规,加上 lambda 乘度规的导数。
便签引用
1:11:44
The derivative of the metric has to vanish. That term is the only possible term that can go there because of something called love locks theorem. If you're within general relativity, you're trying to do this geometrically. My claim is is that that's going to break. We're going to get to five sigma if we aren't there already. I haven't kept up with the news. And then we're going to realize that the dark energy, the most important generally >> makes up 60 70 80% of our universe. >> We have the wrong formula for it.
而度规的导数必须为零。由于一个叫洛夫洛克定理的结论,那一项是唯一可能出现在那个位置的项。如果你待在广义相对论内部,想用几何的方式来做这件事,我的主张就是,这套东西要塌。我们会达到五个西格玛,如果还没达到的话。我没跟进最新消息。然后我们就会意识到,暗能量——这个最重要的……>> 占了我们宇宙的 60%、70%、80%。>> 我们给它写错了公式。
便签引用
1:12:14
>> We have no contemplation of what it is. >> Well, I I'm focused on saying I have a candidate formula and I think everybody who has one should come forward. where we should hold a conference and say who wins, who's who's got the best idea. We can't just have Ed Whitten patting himself on the back saying, "Well, string theory is the only game in town." It's like 42 years later, come on. This this is preposterous. Getting back to policy, give me some money and get rid of these people. I don't want them reviewing anything that I'm doing. Give me somebody competent to talk to.
>> 我们对它究竟是什么毫无头绪。>> 嗯,我关注的是:我有一个候选公式,而且我认为每个有想法的人都该拿出来。我们应该开一次会议,看看谁赢,谁的想法最好。我们不能就这么让爱德华·威滕自我陶醉地说:“弦论是城里唯一的游戏。”都过去 42 年了,拜托。这太荒唐了。回到政策上来:给我钱,然后把这些人请走。我不想让他们来评审我做的任何东西。给我找个有真本事的人来对话。
便签引用
1:12:48
>> So, sorry, let me just go back. The dark energy measurement, which we're going to end up having a very high accurate estimation, >> right, >> tells us that the general theory of relativity and the equations associated with it are wrong because of the relationship that we see between matter and rotation and movement. And so there's something off about that. And that >> we know that general relativity is not the last. We know general relativity is wrong. >> It is a view. It is a derivative. >> It is the map and not the territory. It is a great great model. Whoever comes next has to recover it. But there is no initial singularity due to the big bang.
>> 抱歉,我回头问一下。关于暗能量的测量,我们最终会得到一个非常高精度的估计,>> 对,>> 它告诉我们广义相对论及其相关方程是错的,因为我们观测到的物质、转动和运动之间的关系对不上。所以这里面有点不对劲。而且 >> 我们知道广义相对论不是终点。我们知道广义相对论是错的。>> 它是一种视角,是一种衍生物。>> 它是地图,不是疆域。它是一个非常了不起的模型。后来者必须能把它重新还原出来。但根本不存在大爆炸带来的初始奇点,
便签引用
1:13:32
Nor is there a singularity in the in the center of a black hole called the Schwarz singularity. That's that's where our ignorance shows. We have two singularities we can't get rid of inside the theory. So you have to go outside of it. But the thing is it's so perfect. >> Yeah. that nobody can figure out, you know, sort of in the first four seconds of a physics talk, you say, "Let X13 be a space-time manifold." Well, okay, it's over. >> Yeah, >> that's the sarcophagus, and you're already in an Einsteinian frame of thought. And so, we know that it's wrong, and nobody can figure out how to make it wrong.
也不存在黑洞中心那个所谓的史瓦西奇点。那恰恰是我们无知暴露的地方。我们有两个在理论内部无法消除的奇点。所以你必须走到理论之外去。可问题是,它太完美了。>> 是啊。完美到没人能想明白。你知道,物理报告开头四秒钟里,你就说:“设 X13 为一个时空流形。”好吧,那就结束了。>> 是啊,>> 那就是石棺,你已经被关进爱因斯坦式的思维框架里了。所以我们知道它是错的,却没人能想出该怎么让它错。
便签引用
1:14:10
And that is what keeps us stuck here. There's a marvelous demonstration around 2003 at a TED talk of this guy showing a surface and he's got some sort of display and he does this and suddenly everything enlarges and then he does this and everything gets smaller and this is the beginning of a multi-touch gesture called pinch to zoom that we all use. My claim is is that we don't realize that pinch to zoom is probably built into the thing that we're confusing for spaceime. So we don't know to do this and when you do that you change the distances. So you don't need to break the speed of light. So this is just again you're asking somebody who can't come in to the physics establishment who is in the physics. I am in the physics establishment. This is we're in some sort of crazy world in which people who have radical ideas can't do the radical ideas inside of the institutions. Like a radical idea is is that male and female are mostly determined by the SRY complex on the Y chromosome. If I say that I can't be in
这正是让我们困在这里的原因。大约 2003 年有一场 TED 演讲,有个人做了一个精彩的演示,他展示一个表面,手上有某种显示设备,他这么一做,一切突然放大,再这么一做,一切又缩小,这就是我们今天都在用的多点触控手势“捏合缩放”的开端。我的主张是,我们没有意识到,捏合缩放很可能内建于那个被我们误当成时空的东西里。所以我们不知道该这么做;而当你这么做时,你就改变了距离。这样你就不需要突破光速。所以这又是——你是在问一个进不了物理学建制圈的人,一个身在物理学里的人。我确实在物理学建制圈里。我们身处一个疯狂的世界:有激进想法的人,没法在建制机构里去做那些激进的事。比如一个激进的想法是:男性和女性主要由 Y 染色体上的 SRY 复合体决定。我要是这么说,就没法
便签引用
1:15:26
a meeting because I'm a bigot. Okay? I can't be in a physics department because I don't I think Ed Whitten drove the field off of cliff. Nobody said nobody else is saying it. Clearly the one person who's saying that has to be wrong. >> Yeah. >> Now this is the whole thing is that I have the first uh first paper I think on the danger posed by mortgage back securities. I think I was the only person to loudly say you don't know whether Biden's going to make it to November. And I think I said loudly, I think this is four years of dimension dimension.
参加会议,因为我成了偏执狂。对吧?我也没法待在物理系,因为我认为爱德华·威滕把整个领域带下了悬崖。没人这么说,别人都不说。那么显然,唯一这么说的人肯定是错的。>> 是啊。>> 现在问题在于,我写过我认为是第一篇论述抵押贷款支持证券风险的论文。我想我是唯一一个大声说“你根本不知道拜登能不能撑到 11 月”的人。我还大声说过,我认为这将是四年的“痴呆”任期。
便签引用
11中国、AI 与垃圾桶语料库
1:16:01
When people say something different, do you do you force them back into this consensus? Well, that's what nations do. And we have become a nation when it comes to science. >> Talk about China. >> Yeah. >> From what you know, is China thinking differently about physics? Is China trying to recast the paths? Is China trying to invite innovative ideiation amongst their scientific community or are others I mean it seems like the west is probably clumped together. Is China different? Is anywhere different?
当有人说出不一样的话时,你会不会硬把他们推回共识里?这就是国家干的事。而在科学问题上,我们已经变成了一个“国家”。>> 聊聊中国吧。>> 好。>> 就你所知,中国在物理学上的思路不一样吗?中国是否在尝试重塑路径?中国是否在鼓励科学界提出创新的想法?还是说别的地方——我是说,看起来西方很可能是扎堆聚在一起的。中国不一样吗?有哪个地方不一样吗?
便签引用
1:16:34
>> Yeah, let's let's talk about that. First of all, France is historically the world's greatest mathemat mathematical country. China where we're always taught to be, you know, so scared of the Chinese in math couldn't buy a base hit until very recently. Now, what they're doing is is that they're looking at us with our absolutely ridiculous collectivist fictions and they're they're they're siling up to our best people and they're saying, "Are you sure you wouldn't want to be free? You sure you wouldn't want to get paid?
>> 是啊,咱们来聊聊这个。首先,法国在历史上是全世界最伟大的数学国家。至于中国——我们总被教导说要害怕中国人的数学水平——其实直到最近之前,他们连一记安打都打不出来。而现在他们在做的是,看着我们抱着这些荒唐透顶的集体主义虚构不放,然后悄悄靠近我们最优秀的人才,对他们说:“你确定你不想要自由吗?你确定你不想拿高薪吗?
便签引用
1:17:07
Come over to China. Taste the freedom. Get paid. Have fun." >> Right? >> And our people are going there. >> American scientists are going to China. American scientists, Russian scientists, all sorts of scientists are going to China for some prestige, some money, and some freedom. And we are going to train them up and they are going to be frighteningly good up until the point that that freedom involves Tibet, Tianan Square, and Taiwan. Are they going to rethink some of these thoughts on the path we're taking in physics? Are they going to be fundamental in how they rethink things?
来中国吧。尝尝自由的滋味。拿钱,玩得开心。”>> 是吧?>> 而我们的人真的去了。>> 美国科学家跑去中国。美国科学家、俄罗斯科学家,各路科学家都跑去中国,为了一点声望、一点钱,还有一点自由。我们会把他们培养起来,他们会强得让人害怕——直到那种自由碰上西藏、天安门广场和台湾为止。他们会不会重新思考我们在物理学上所走道路的某些想法?他们会不会在重新思考这些问题时起到根本性的作用?
便签引用
1:17:54
[snorts] >> Let me tell you what I really believe on that. >> Yes, >> the AIs are going to change soon. Right now the AIS are trained on a corpus that privileges things like cell nature and science as the prestige journals of biology or in mathematics it would be the invention and the annals and the journal of the American math society. These are where the narratives of the fields are held. Okay. The trash can is also a corpus. Take all of the ideas that have been poo pooed and laughed at and call that the trash can corpus, the TC corpus.
[哼笑] >> 我来告诉你我对这件事真正的看法。>> 请说。 >> AI 很快就会改变。现在的 AI 是在一个语料上训练的,这个语料偏向《细胞》《自然》《科学》这类生物学的顶刊,在数学里则是 Inventiones、Annals 以及美国数学会会刊。这些地方承载着各个领域的主流叙事。好。但垃圾桶也是一个语料库。把所有被嗤之以鼻、被嘲笑的想法收集起来,叫它垃圾桶语料库,TC 语料库。
便签引用
1:18:35
The AIS are going to start reading all of the things that our quote leading physicists have laughed at. Look out. >> That's where the discovery and the reinvention is going to happen. China is going to have a private model and they're going to say assume that the completely failed the most failed theory in the history of modern physics string theory and something called M theory and quantum gravity assume for the moment that it's a red herring meant to distract us. It's not our leading theory. It hasn't been our leading theory for 42 years. It can't that the dog can't hunt.
AI 将会开始读所谓“顶尖物理学家”嘲笑过的那一切东西。当心了。>> 发现和再创造就会发生在那里。>> 中国会有一个私有模型,他们会说:假设这个彻头彻尾失败的、现代物理学史上最失败的理论——弦论,以及所谓的 M 理论和量子引力——姑且假设它是一条用来分散我们注意力的红鲱鱼。它不是我们的主导理论。它已经 42 年不是主导理论了。这条狗根本不会打猎。
便签引用
1:19:15
What was it meant to stop us from seeing? >> And the AI will get there. >> The AI will get there. >> And when the AI gets there, we have >> everyone who has an AI that can do this. Again, I'm I'm saying completely radical things because quite honestly, that's what we're supposed to be doing. We're supposed to have John vonman's and Richard Fineman's and Paul Dox and all of these characters and we don't have any of them. So, I'm trying to say what this sounds like. You're all wrong and I'm right. And don't tell me that I'm arrogant or that I'm conceited or that real scientists are humble or if you understand something, you can explain it to a 5-year-old. That's all nonsense.
那它是为了阻止我们看见什么?>> 而 AI 会走到那一步。>> AI 会走到那一步。>> 等 AI 到了那一步,我们——>> 每一个拥有能做到这件事的 AI 的人都会。再说一次,我讲的是彻底激进的东西,因为老实说,这本来就是我们该做的事。我们本该拥有冯·诺依曼、理查德·费曼、保罗·狄拉克这样的人物,可我们一个都没有。所以我在试着说清楚这听起来像什么。你们全错了,我是对的。别跟我说我傲慢、自负,或者说真正的科学家都很谦逊,或者说你真懂一件事就能讲给五岁小孩听。那全是胡扯。
便签引用
1:19:56
What I'm trying to say is string theory has not been our leading theory for 42 years. It has never been the only game in town. And just the way Jeffrey Epstein was never a hedge fund manager. We're not allowed to say this. I don't know why. I want to know is there somebody over at CIA and the science and technology directorate who would like to have that conversation? Is there anybody over at the Department of Energy who would be interested in not having this conversation right now? You and I are having a conversation with our friends, the Chinese and the North Koreans and the Russians. Why are we doing this?
我想说的是,弦论已经 42 年不是我们的主导理论了。它从来就不是唯一可玩的游戏。就像杰弗里·爱泼斯坦从来就不是什么对冲基金经理一样。我们不被允许说这些。我不知道为什么。我想知道:中情局科学技术局那边有没有人愿意聊聊这个?能源部那边有没有人现在宁愿不聊这个?你我正在跟我们的朋友——中国人、朝鲜人、俄罗斯人——一起开这个对话。我们为什么要这么干?
便签引用
1:20:30
Are are you so confident that I'm wrong given this obviously huge amount of knowledge that most people have never heard? Well, I I think the question is can you really distinguish and can you really cage the AI? I mean at the end of the day >> say more. >> So if the rate of progress with AI is such that and the ubiquity of access and the corpus to your point of knowledge and non-nowledge >> right >> is apparent to everyone. the AI can be directed from anywhere and it's probably a conversation about what does humanity look like and I think that's a conversation with humanity not with nation states per se.
考虑到这一大堆大多数人闻所未闻的知识,你真有那么自信我是错的吗?嗯,我觉得问题在于:你真的能区分开吗?你真的能把 AI 关起来吗?我是说,说到底——>> 展开讲讲。>> 如果 AI 的进步速度如此之快,接触它又如此普遍,而你说的那个知识与非知识的语料 >> 对 >> 对所有人都是明摆着的,那么 AI 可以从任何地方被指挥,这大概就变成了一个关于人类是什么样子的对话,而我认为那是和全人类的对话,而不是和某个个别民族国家的对话。
便签引用
1:21:16
>> Well, I think what I'm trying to get at is my model of the AI is it is insane to have pushed out the AI as a commercial product. It's just funny. Let me imagine the scene from silence. >> It's just matrices and linear algebra. I mean, >> yeah, it's just inner products. >> Mhm. >> There's a scene in Silence of the Lambs where Hannibal Lectar is wheeled out on a gurnie in a straight jacket with a crazy mask and there's all these people around because he's so dangerous, but he's very, very intelligent.
>> 嗯,我想说的是,我对 AI 的模型是:把 AI 当成商业产品推出去,这是疯了。这太滑稽了。让我想象一下《沉默》里的那个场景。>> 它不就是矩阵和线性代数嘛。我是说——>> 是啊,就是内积而已。>> 嗯哼。>> 《沉默的羔羊》里有个场景:汉尼拔·莱克特被穿着紧身束缚衣、推在轮床上出来,戴着个吓人的面罩,周围围了一堆人,因为他太危险了,但他非常非常聪明。
便签引用
1:21:48
That's what I think Anthropic is doing. Here's your new employee, Hannibal Lectar. He's a consultant. You've hired Hannibal Lectar from a temporary agency. And the harness that is supposed to keep you from hurting yourself is all the people around him, the mask and the straight bear. And we've decided that this military research project is something you need in your home. It's like telling people, look, the second amendment just says the right to keep and bear arms. We have this thing we haven't used called the Davy Crockett, a soldier launched personal nuke. Why isn't it available at Kmart with a waiting period?
我觉得 Anthropic 干的就是这事。这是你的新员工,汉尼拔·莱克特。他是个顾问。你从临时中介那儿雇了汉尼拔·莱克特。而那个本应防止你伤到自己的约束装置,就是他周围的那些人、那个面罩和那件束缚衣。我们还决定,这个军事研究项目是你家里必需的东西。这就好比跟人说:你看,第二修正案只说了持有和携带武器的权利。我们有个从没用过的玩意儿叫戴维·克罗克特,一种士兵发射的单兵核弹。为什么不能在 Kmart 卖,设个等待期就行?
便签引用
1:22:24
>> Yeah. Well, it's been distilled at this point. I don't know if that's a relevant point anymore because models have been distilled or the model development's been commoditized and it's been open weight released and it's out there now. So models are there, models are here. >> Yep. >> And to your point, maybe those models get pointed at the path of discover novel physics and look at strange texts and ideas and and rethink everything. >> It's going to be a hell of a ride. >> It's going to be a hell of a ride. Yeah.
>> 是啊。不过到这个阶段已经被蒸馏了。我不确定这一点还成不成立,因为模型已经被蒸馏,或者说模型研发已经商品化了,权重也开源放出来了,东西已经在外面了。所以模型就在那儿,模型已经来了。>> 没错。>> 而按你的说法,也许那些模型会被指向去发现全新的物理,去翻看那些奇怪的文本和想法,把一切重新思考一遍。>> 这会是一趟疯狂的旅程。>> 会是一趟疯狂的旅程。是啊。
便签引用
12UAP、北森蒂纳尔岛与结语
1:22:53
I just want to hear your your one assessment because I I I wonder if this is a glimmer. What what do you think UAPs are today? Is that really the first window in what's happening? If there's something there, the question for you is what do you think today UAPs are? >> Let's answer that question, but I want to take let's do it in a debugger and we'll step through it line by line of the code as it executes. I look at you, I'm on a podcast. My first thought is I know what risks I'm running. If I say what I think, I can tell you which colleagues will not open their doors to me. No, I'm not kidding.
我就想听听你的一个判断,因为我在想这是不是一丝端倪。你觉得今天的 UAP 是什么?那真的是第一扇窗口吗?如果那里真有什么东西,我要问你的是:你认为今天的 UAP 到底是什么?>> 咱们来回答这个问题,不过我想在调试器里一行一行地走,看代码是怎么执行的。我看着你,我在录播客。我的第一个念头是:我知道我在冒什么风险。如果我说出我真实的想法,我能告诉你哪些同行会对我关上门。不,我不是开玩笑。
便签引用
1:23:31
>> When I took a job with Peter Teal, let's imagine that there are only about 125 people I can speak to about my work. I would say 30% of the doors closed to me just by virtue of the fact that I work with Peter Teal. And I don't think he's the devil and he's a close personal friend. Now you're asking me the question of how many of the remaining doors would you like to close? Eric, it's not just a question. I know how these people think and I know how terrified they are. Let's answer it anyway. If general relativity is really the last word, I think that these UAP UFO things are nation states experimental weapons system.
>> 当我接受彼得·蒂尔的工作时——假设全世界我能聊我的研究的人只有大约 125 个,我会说光因为我跟彼得·蒂尔共事这一件事,就有 30% 的门对我关上了。而我并不觉得他是魔鬼,他还是我的密友。现在你问我的问题是:剩下的门你还想关掉多少扇?埃里克,这不只是一个问题。我知道这些人是怎么想的,我知道他们有多害怕。但咱们还是来回答吧。如果广义相对论真是终极答案,那我认为这些 UAP、UFO 之类的东西就是民族国家的实验性武器系统。
便签引用
1:24:09
I think that there's been some breakthrough particularly in the 1970s. No, sorry, in the 60s. There's a 1971 Australian intelligence document where Australia, which was the testing ground for nukes that of the of the United Kingdom, started seeing all these UAPs near their nuclear test just the way we see them near ours. And the Australians revealed that all of our best people, not all of our best people, many of our best people and many of our top institutions were doing anti-gravity, technically gravity shielding research. And the cover story was the golden age of general relativity where suddenly general relativity was hot from the early 50s to the late 60s early 70s.
我认为确实出现过某种突破,尤其是在 1970 年代。不,抱歉,是在 60 年代。有一份 1971 年的澳大利亚情报文件:澳大利亚当时是英国核武器的试验场,他们开始在核试验场附近看到这些 UAP,就跟我们在自己的试验场附近看到的一样。澳大利亚人还揭露出,我们所有最优秀的人——不是所有,是很多最优秀的人和很多顶尖机构——都在搞反重力研究,技术上叫重力屏蔽研究。而掩护故事就是广义相对论的黄金时代——从 50 年代初到 60 年代末、70 年代初,广义相对论突然火了起来。
便签引用
1:24:54
The claim from the se that 71 document is no no the only reason everybody went towards gravity is that there were there was interest in gravity shielding anti-gravity etc etc. I don't believe general relativity is the last word. I believe pinch to zoom exists. There's another multi-touch gesture called shear to tilt and that means that we can leave our solar system. Okay, that's great news because it means we can survive. The implication is if we can leave everyone else can come and given the size of the universe we the odds that we are the most advanced life form is laughable. There's no point in worrying about them. So if we can leave, I think they're here and I think we can leave.
那份 71 年文件的说法是:不不,大家全都转向引力的唯一原因,是当时对重力屏蔽、反重力等等有兴趣。我不相信广义相对论是终极答案。我相信“捏合缩放”是存在的。还有另一种多点触控手势叫“剪切倾斜”,这意味着我们可以离开太阳系。好,这是个大好消息,因为这意味着我们能活下去。但推论是:如果我们能出去,别人也都能进来;而考虑到宇宙的尺度,说我们是最先进的生命形式,这个概率简直可笑。所以担心他们没有意义。所以如果我们能出去——我认为他们已经在这儿了,我也认为我们能出去。
便签引用
1:25:37
And I think the thing the scenario to worry about is North Sentinel Island that everybody who lives on North Sentinel Island is considered a citizen of India and they don't know the word India. They're an uncontacted people who don't know that they're part of something larger that watches them that does not allow people to land. But if they started sending out radio signals and then they started letting off nukes on that tiny little island, India would not have this paternalistic attitude towards its primitive tribe. So my concern is that when we let off a nuke in 1945 or when Italy became very good at quantum theory with Fermy and I forget what the name of the the atomic boys and there was this magenta incident under Mussolini. Somehow UAPs are very tied to nukes. And I believe that a nuke is the sign that you become advanced enough that the next thing you figure out how to do is to leave and traverse through propulsion. We don't realize that yet because we've never seen that happen.
我觉得真正该担心的情景是北森蒂纳尔岛:住在北森蒂纳尔岛上的每一个人在法律上都算印度公民,可他们连“印度”这个词都不知道。他们是一群未接触部落,不知道自己属于一个更大的、在注视着他们、并且不允许外人登岛的东西。但如果他们开始发射无线电信号,然后开始在那个小岛上引爆核弹,印度对它这个原始部落就不会再是那种家长式的态度了。所以我担心的是:当我们在 1945 年引爆一枚核弹时,或者当意大利在量子理论上变得很厉害——费米还有那帮我忘了名字的“原子小伙子们”,墨索里尼治下还发生过一起马真塔事件。不知怎么的,UAP 和核武器关系极深。而我相信,核弹是一个标志:说明你已经先进到,接下来要搞懂的事就是离开、用推进方式穿越星际。我们还没意识到这一点,因为我们从没见过这种事发生。
便签引用
1:26:50
But my claim is is that almost every civilization before it gets to using the profound propulsion game which is these multi-touch gestures first lets off a nuke and that we alerted whatever India is in this analogy we're almost ready to come out and we're so pathetically unevolved that we are a danger to any other civilization if there's so much power in the next theory, which I I believe geometric unity is the next theory. Now, that will cause a certain percentage of your audience to say, "Oh, it's just self-promotion." As opposed to, "No, no, no, that's what you're supposed to do.
但我的主张是:几乎每一个文明在进入那种深刻的推进游戏——也就是这些多点触控手势——之前,都会先引爆一枚核弹;而我们已经惊动了这个类比里的“印度”,我们快要走出去了,可我们又如此可悲地未进化,以至于对任何其他文明都是个威胁——如果下一个理论里蕴含着那么巨大的力量的话。我相信几何统一论就是下一个理论。这话会让你的一部分听众说:“噢,这不就是自我宣传嘛。”但其实不是,不不,这本来就是你该做的事。
便签引用
1:27:31
If you have a theory, you talk about Yes. I think I think that there are all sorts of things that you can do. I think there's multi-temporal movement. I think that there's dark chemistry. I think that there's dark light. I think that there are two other families of chyro matter left to discover at a luminous level. Spin three halves matter exists. I believe that SU4 cross SU2 SU2 is the next grand unified theory that we'll find. There is so much more to do that when we make this jump, the world will become unrecognizable.
你有一套理论,你就该去讲它。是的,我认为有各种各样的事情可以做。我认为存在多时间维度的运动。我认为存在暗化学。我认为存在暗光。我认为还有另外两族手性物质有待在发光层面上被发现。自旋 3/2 的物质是存在的。我相信 SU(4)×SU(2)×SU(2) 是我们接下来会找到的大统一理论。可做的事情多到,当我们迈出这一跃时,世界将变得面目全非。
便签引用
1:28:14
And I believe that there are other life forms in the universe and that they can come and they can visit. And I don't think that that's preposterous. I think that we are an uncontacted people. On that note, I think we have more to talk about in the future. This has been a truly unique, fascinating, and I think for a lot of people in our audience, this is not a typical conversation. But I I just want to highlight the importance of hearing what you have to say. Because I think it's very important that even if something seems not apparent, particularly when things seem unlikely or when things seem outlandish or heretical or whatever term you might want to put onto things, it's valuable to to take that in. It's definitely a lot to kind of think about the paths ahead and I'd love to talk more.
而且我相信宇宙中存在其他生命形式,他们能够过来,能够造访。我并不觉得这荒谬。我认为我们就是一群未接触部落。说到这儿,我觉得我们以后还有更多可以聊的。这是一场真正独特、引人入胜的对话,而且我想对我们不少听众来说,这不是一场典型的对话。但我还是想强调,听你说这些是很重要的。因为我认为很重要的一点是,哪怕某件事看起来并不显而易见,尤其是当有些事情看起来不太可能,或者显得离谱、离经叛道,随便你用什么词来形容的时候,能听进去是很有价值的。确实有很多东西值得好好想一想,关于前方的种种路径,我很愿意再多聊聊。
便签引用
1:29:02
>> I'd love to do that. I'd love to do it with your friends and I also just want to say thanks for having me. it it's time for America to lead because there's no other nation I trust like I trust our people to take care of uh of this planet. We should make common cause with our rivals as fast as we can because the danger of getting to the next level of leverage in a contested situation is overwhelming. M >> it's very important we went in the Persian Gulf and it's very important that the scientific community recognizes that despite their feelings about Donald Trump. We've got four or five individuals with the science portfolio who are much much better than the PhDs think and before you turn up your nose at this consider doing what I did which is to come for a few days to Washington DC and utter the dangerous words how can I help?
>> 我也很乐意。我很愿意和你的朋友们一起聊。另外我也想说一句,谢谢你邀请我来。现在是美国该挺身而出的时候了,因为没有哪个国家能让我像信任我们的人民那样去信任,去照看好这个星球。我们应该尽快和对手们建立共同事业,因为在一个充满对抗的局面下,进入下一个层级的力量杠杆,其危险是压倒性的。嗯。>> 我们进入波斯湾这件事非常重要,同样非常重要的是科学界要认识到这一点,哪怕他们对唐纳德·特朗普有各种看法。我们有四五位负责科学事务的人,他们比那些博士们想象的要出色得多。在你对此嗤之以鼻之前,不妨考虑做一件我做过的事:到华盛顿特区待上几天,然后说出那句有点冒险的话——我能帮上什么忙?
便签引用
1:30:15
I'm going all in. [music]
我要全力以赴。[音乐]
便签引用
视频总结 · 一句话概括与核心要点

一句话概括

埃里克·温斯坦在 All-In 访谈中主张:美国科学自 1965–1975 年起被同行评议、曼斯菲尔德修正案和「科学无产阶级」化的激励结构驯服,理论物理更在 1983–84 年被弦论带离物理世界,而 AI 读取「被嘲笑的垃圾桶语料」与 DESI 对暗能量的测量,可能很快打破这五十年的停滞。

核心要点

  • 停滞的根源可精确定位在 1965–1975 年。 1965 年《医疗保险法》让政府成为医疗主要付款方,医生为抵制审查发明「同行评议」(Google Ngram 显示该词在 1965 年前几乎不存在,起源于犹他州一家诊所);1969 年春 MIT 物理系集体抗议越战,政府认定物理学家「不可靠」,随即把 MIT 仪器实验室剥离为德雷珀实验室,1969–71 年曼斯菲尔德修正案禁止军方资助无明确军事目的的蓝天研究;1975 年「人:一门课程」(MACOS)争议引发保守派攻击 NSF,同行评议与控制自此制度化。他把这一切概括为:军方本是科学家「最好的朋友」,愿意让他们「吃饱喝足做蓝天研究」,此后信任崩塌。
  • 美国制造了「科学无产阶级」,异端者得不到回报。 他 1987 年提出的微分几何方程 1994 年成为该领域主流,但无人回头承认他曾被「粗暴对待」;巴塔查里亚因《大巴灵顿宣言》被柯林斯称为「边缘流行病学家」,如今出任 NIH 主任,但 COVID 期间站出来的极少数人并未被推上校长、系主任或讲席。他故意用「第三套房」挑衅:基尼系数因科学衍生技术而拉大,科学家却完全不参与分成,结果是「答对就出局」的集体主义心态,教授政治光谱失衡也由此而来(《自然》调查 2000 名读者中仅 6% 投票给特朗普)。
  • 共识一词本身就是警报。 「算术没有共识,2+3=5 就是如此」;共识通常是压力下的人为一致。他认为拜登认知衰退、福奇与生物武器、武汉病毒所被排除在起源之外,都是「结构性重要的谎言」,而科学的威力(一根毛囊即可定位犯罪现场)正是 B 级政策人和隐蔽行动圈不愿要「独立硬核科学家」的原因;问题不仅在科学,也在新闻业同样被要求「归队」。
  • 改革方案:在《民权法案》上戳洞、取消同行评议、拆分软硬科学。 他自称「钉子户民主党人」,仍主张国家利益豁免让团队不必惧怕 HR,理由是「你不了解高能动性的人如何结成紧密单位」(他与一位穆斯林挚友自 1982 年互开种族玩笑);建议弱势的社会科学「另立组织,别再刷我们的信用卡」;反对把科学等同于生物医学。对共和党则「残酷」地指出:科学是不可耗尽、不可排他的公共品,市场失灵是经济学第一课,同伦论就像积木塔里看不懂却抽不得的一块,必须靠税收由政府作为基础出资人。
  • 应按现代投资组合理论「押人不押题」,且以对手是否敢做空为判据。 他反驳「私人资本会补位」:连吉姆·西蒙斯也不知道陈-西蒙斯项作为作用量泛函是爱因斯坦-希尔伯特的唯一对手,相邻子领域(代数几何 vs 微分几何)都难以互通,靠亿万富翁碰巧懂行「完全疯狂」。政府是全球最富的投资者,本该承担「1% 概率治愈所有癌症」的高贝塔赌注,却与更穷的院系共同投资,只挑「高概率的平庸结果」再撒谎说它重要;旧模式是「有人打个电话你就有了工作」的自由裁量经费。他给出的甄别公式:找出领域权威会「封杀但不敢做空」的人并资助他,「若你愿意做空几何统一论,我想拿走你的房子和退休金」。
  • 理论物理是唯一失去言论自由的职业,且 1983–84 年被三个人带下悬崖。 「受限数据」制度让他连写下可能涉及核武的方程都不受第一修正案保护。他点名萨斯金德、格罗斯、威滕在 1983–84 年把领域转向弦论,42 年间标准模型未变、无人因此去斯德哥尔摩;Strings 2026 会议议程搜「electron / hadron / Higgs / lepton」一无所获;某顶尖研究所两位「最聪明的纯理论家」当面说「对物理世界没有兴趣」。他的推论:一个曾从 SU(3)×U(1) 规范理论造出最恐怖武器的领域被「弄安全了」,安全到可以邀请中国研究生来学 AdS/CFT,因为「里面没有物理」——他公开问这是否是一个秘密项目。他被 UT Austin、圆周研究所、芝加哥大学邀请演讲却「技术上否认演讲发生」,因此已开始对这些系「不合作」。
  • 曼哈顿计划的「参考委员会」是历史先例,文艺复兴科技是他的候选类比。 1940 年国家研究委员会设立参考委员会,把链式反应论文截留并以「结果初步、请修改」拖死圈外人;他的问题是「这只发生过一次还是不止一次」,若不止,「新墨西哥男校、白徽章、参考委员会」的当代对应物是什么。他明确不声称知道答案,但指出文艺复兴科技的掩护故事不合理:只招粒子理论家、微分几何学家和机器学习专家,与布鲁克海文国家实验室关系密切,隔壁石溪大学在相关领域历史上世界一流却从不上榜,「像还叫『没有这个机构』时的米德堡收了太多数论家」;大奖章基金对外封闭,如同爱泼斯坦「十亿美元以上且须授予全权委托」的模式,都保证「圈外无人能提问」。主持人反驳:他认识的离职者从未有此类说法,且若为真早该有更多回报泄露。
  • 停滞可能反而保住了人类,因为下一层理论的「boom」太可怕。 他用「boom / vroom / zoom」(武器 / 能源 / 推进与计算)概括物理,说标准模型定型 53 年来人类被剥夺了新的三者。若帕蒂-萨拉姆模型(SU(4) 而非 SU(3),他认为是正确的第一阶大统一)成立,电子与中微子成为第四色,可造出把上下夸克旋转为轻子从而「解体物质」的武器;「暗物质」应叫「退耦物质」,中微子几乎就是暗物质。他反对「有人已掌握大 boom 就该结束了」的推论:刺突蛋白中 4 个氨基酸(12 个核苷酸)就关闭了地球两年,黑火药配方 75/10/15 无人记得,少年用 218 个烟雾探测器的镅造出反应堆,《进步》杂志案中莫兰从洛斯阿拉莫斯图书馆拼出泰勒-乌拉姆设计,普林斯顿「不合格」学生菲利普斯的原子弹方案被政府撕走一页——「杠杆科学」的力量远超公众想象。
  • 广义相对论将因 DESI 而破裂,「捏合缩放」可能内置于时空。 他预言基特峰暗能量光谱仪会在五西格玛上证明宇宙学常数并非常数:Λ 乘度规是拉夫洛克定理下唯一允许的项,一旦 Λ 随时间变,1915–17 年以来未动的方程就得出局;广义相对论「是地图不是疆域」,大爆炸奇点与史瓦西奇点是两处无法消除的无知。他主张召开会议让所有候选公式(包括他的几何统一论)公开比拼,「别再让威滕拍自己肩膀说弦论是唯一游戏」。太阳系是「逃生室」,火星是麦高芬,人类需要成千上万而非三个可居星球,而在爱因斯坦「监狱」里光速太残酷,四光年往返即八年;「捏合缩放」与「剪切倾斜」两种多点触控手势若内置于时空,则无需突破光速即可离开。
  • AI 将读「垃圾桶语料」,中国会让私有模型假设弦论是幌子。 当前 AI 训练语料偏向《细胞》《自然》《科学》和《数学年刊》等「叙事持有者」,但所有被嘲笑的想法也构成一个语料(TC corpus);中国正以「你确定不想自由?不想拿钱?」拉走美国、俄罗斯科学家,并将让私有模型假设「现代物理史上最失败的理论」是为了让人看不到什么而设的转移视线,「AI 会到达那里」。他把 Anthropic 的做法比作《沉默的羔羊》:把汉尼拔·莱克特戴着面具推到你家当临时工,「军方研究项目变成了家用品」,如同把戴维·克罗克特单兵核弹放进 Kmart 货架;主持人指出模型已被蒸馏、开放权重,此论已无意义。

结论与值得注意的细节

  • 对 UAP 的结论是条件式的:若广义相对论真是最后定论,UAP 就是国家实验武器;他引一份 1971 年澳大利亚情报文件称 1950–70 年代「广义相对论黄金时代」实为反重力/引力屏蔽研究的掩护。他本人不信广义相对论是终点,因而认为「他们在这里,我们也能离开」。北森蒂纳尔岛类比:岛民不知自己是印度公民,但若开始发射无线电并引爆核弹,印度就不会再袖手旁观——核弹是文明「即将出来」的信号,而人类「进化得可悲」,对任何其他文明都是威胁。
  • 多维时间:他反对「时间旅行」一词,认为时间箭头只是因为人们假定时间一维;若对手拥有「多时间」能力,就像用轨道炮对抗 A-10 攻击机,「能从时间后方悄悄接近并知道你的意图」。
  • 他对新政府科学班子的评价出乎自己意料:曾为 OSTP 主任一职投递但因不愿宣誓效忠而落选;本以为克拉齐奥斯的报告会是灾难,结果「震惊于它有多好」,是范内瓦·布什以来首次重大科学改革提案。他对博士们的批评:「特朗普有跳蚤所以不来」,若不来解释为什么要用税收养同伦论,「你们活该」。
  • 地缘政治附注:石油美元实为「暴力美元」,美国正经历「苏伊士时刻」;若对伊朗行动失败,将出现核扩散,博弈从二元变多极而无法计算。他称马斯克是「唯一的成年人」,但月球和火星都不够。
  • 具体预言清单:SU(4)×SU(2)×SU(2) 为下一个大统一理论;自旋 3/2 物质存在;还有两族手征物质待发现;「暗光」「暗化学」存在;「跳跃之后,世界将变得无法辨认」。
  • 访谈以他的呼吁收尾:美国应尽快与对手结成共同事业,因为「在争夺状态下抵达下一层杠杆的危险是压倒性的」;科学界应放下对特朗普的感受,去华盛顿说一句「我能帮什么忙」。
核心句型 · 10
1. It's a question of which X …
“Well, it's a question of which science has stalled.”
回应笼统提问时先把问题拆细,再回答。适合辩论和访谈开头,把「是不是」变成「哪一部分」,既显得严谨又掌握了框架。
2. If you're not going to X, I don't even know why you're Y-ing.
“If you're not going to deal with truly dangerous minds, I don't even know why you're suiting up for the science game.”
用条件句表达强烈的反问:连 X 都不肯做,那做 Y 就没有意义。语气尖锐,适合口语论辩,仿写时 Y 可用比喻性动词。
3. It wasn't until [year] when/that …
“It wasn't until 1975 when fiscal and social conservatives attacked the NSF”
强调某事直到某时才发生的时间转折句式。讲历史脉络时常用,书面语更倾向 that 引导。
4. Is that their problem or is that your problem?
“If you can't work with these people, is that their problem or is that your problem?”
并列反问把责任推回对方。结构简单,配合前一句的条件从句使用,可用于任何「你不合作到底怪谁」的场合。
5. I'm not saying X. I'm saying Y.
“I'm not saying be horrible. I'm saying you don't know enough about the culture of greatness to be my HR department.”
先排除极端解读,再给出真正的主张,防止被人抓把柄。争议话题的自我限定利器,两句要并列且节奏相近。
6. Care to formalize that?
“And I say, 'Care to formalize that?'”
care to + 动词原形是礼貌而带挑战的邀请,意为「愿不愿意…」。此处用于要求对方把模糊断言变成可下注的具体说法。
7. Let's at least agree that …
“So let's at least agree that from 1940 to 1945 there was a review process which destroyed…”
在推进有争议的论证前,先锁定一个双方都能接受的最小共识,再往外推。适合分步说服。
8. X is the map and not the territory.
“It is the map and not the territory. It is a great model.”
用「地图与疆域」区分模型与现实。谈理论局限时的经典表达,仿写可替换为 a model, not the thing itself。
9. as long as you're not in a category called X
“Markets work really well as long as you're not in a category called market failure”
用 as long as 给出适用条件,再用 a category called 引出术语,让专业概念自然嵌入口语句子。
10. Assume that … Okay. Assume that …
“Assume that you detest Trump. Okay. Assume that you think Trump is the devil.”
连续两个祈使句 assume 递进设定极端前提,然后再说「即便如此」。用于说服立场对立的听众。
词汇精讲 · 182 · 按出现顺序
fringe /frɪndʒ/ adj. / n. 0:00
边缘的、非主流的;a fringe scientist 边缘科学家(贬义标签)
stagnation /stæɡˈneɪʃən/ n. 0:00
停滞、不景气;the stagnation in physics 物理学的停滞
going all in phr. 0:00
全押、全力以赴(扑克术语,也是 All-In 节目名的双关)
heavy lifting phr. 0:34
繁重的工作、苦活;do the heavy lifting 挑大梁
turned tail phr. 1:17
掉头逃跑、临阵脱逃;turn tail and run
filling huge shoes phr. 2:04
接替一个难以企及的前任;fill someone's shoes 接班
incremental /ˌɪnkrəˈmentl/ adj. 3:28
渐进的、小步增量的;incremental research 渐进式研究
ruggedly individualistic phr. 3:28
强悍地崇尚个人主义的;rugged individualism 是美国自我奋斗精神的固定说法
low variance phr. 3:28
低方差、结果可预测;此处指保守、不冒险的研究
hamstrung /ˈhæmstrʌŋ/ adj. / v. 4:34
被束缚手脚、无法施展(hamstring 的过去分词)
dogma /ˈdɔːɡmə/ n. 4:34
教条、不容置疑的信条
chastised /tʃæˈstaɪzd/ v. 5:37
严厉责备、惩戒
consensus /kənˈsensəs/ n. 6:35
共识;讲者认为它常是施压得来的人为一致
sidekick /ˈsaɪdkɪk/ n. 7:11
搭档、跟班(略带贬义)
cryptic /ˈkrɪptɪk/ adj. 7:11
隐秘的、难以捉摸的;a cryptic system 隐秘的体系
hippie dippy adj. phr. 7:11
嬉皮兮兮的、理想主义而不切实际的(口语贬义)
covert operations n. phr. 8:19
秘密行动、隐蔽行动
see right through phr. v. 8:19
一眼看穿(谎言、伪装)
kick-ass adj. 8:19
极其厉害的(俚语,粗俗)
exploded /ɪkˈsploʊdɪd/ v. 8:19
(此处)戳穿、推翻(说法、神话);explode a myth
leg braces n. phr. 9:13
腿部支架、矫形器
dementia /dɪˈmenʃə/ n. 9:13
痴呆症、认知衰退
cognitive trajectory n. phr. 9:13
认知能力的变化轨迹
restricted data n. phr. 11:07
受限数据;美国《原子能法》对核武器信息的法定保密类别
fall in line phr. 11:07
随大流、服从规矩
nonconformist /ˌnɑːnkənˈfɔːrmɪst/ adj. / n. 11:07
不合群的、不遵从惯例的(人)
heterodox /ˈhetərədɑːks/ adj. 11:07
异端的、非正统的(与 orthodox 相对)
orthodoxy /ˈɔːrθədɑːksi/ n. 12:11
正统观念、主流学说
outcast /ˈaʊtkæst/ n. 12:11
被排斥者、弃儿
brutalize /ˈbruːtəlaɪz/ v. 12:48
粗暴对待、残酷对待
by the same token phr. 12:48
同理、出于同样的道理
deliberately provocative phr. 12:48
故意挑衅的、有意刺激的
collectivist /kəˈlektɪvɪst/ adj. 13:36
集体主义的
outlandish /aʊtˈlændɪʃ/ adj. 13:36
古怪离奇的、荒诞的
far-fetched /ˌfɑːrˈfetʃt/ adj. 14:18
牵强的、不切实际的
manifesto /ˌmænɪˈfestoʊ/ n. 14:18
宣言、纲领
crisp /krɪsp/ adj. 15:00
(回答、论述)清晰干脆的
ushered in phr. v. 15:37
开启、引入(一个时代或制度)
wobbly /ˈwɑːbli/ adj. 15:37
摇摆不定的、立场不稳的
funneled /ˈfʌnld/ v. 16:39
(资金)汇集、输送
blue sky research n. phr. 16:39
自由探索型基础研究,无明确应用目标
paniply /ˈpænəpli/ n. 17:29
(原文拼写,标准为 panoply)全套、林林总总的一大批
weirdos /ˈwɪrdoʊz/ n. 18:07
怪人、古怪的家伙(口语)
suiting up phr. v. 18:07
穿上装备准备上场;引申为「下场参与」
blunted /ˈblʌntɪd/ adj. / v. 18:07
被磨钝的、被削弱的
alpha /ˈælfə/ n. 18:07
(投资)超额收益;此处双关「阿尔法雄性」
spaying and neutering phr. 18:57
(给动物)绝育;比喻阉割创造力
uncompromising /ʌnˈkɑːmprəmaɪzɪŋ/ adj. 19:28
不妥协的、强硬的
irreverent /ɪˈrevərənt/ adj. 20:00
不敬的、不守成规的
unforgiving /ˌʌnfərˈɡɪvɪŋ/ adj. 20:40
不留情面的、严苛的
handing out tissues phr. 20:40
递纸巾;比喻安慰、迁就
morass /məˈræs/ n. 21:11
泥潭、困境
blow a giant hole phr. 21:11
炸开一个大口子;比喻大幅突破某项限制
high agency adj. phr. 21:45
高能动性的,主动改变环境而非被动接受
cohesive /koʊˈhiːsɪv/ adj. 21:45
有凝聚力的、紧密团结的
nail house n. phr. 23:06
钉子户(源自中文的直译)
common cause n. phr. 23:06
共同事业;make common cause with 与…结成同盟
Poke holes in phr. v. 23:37
在…上戳洞;找出漏洞、局部修改
arbitrageed /ˈɑːrbɪtrɑːʒd/ v. 23:37
(原文拼写,标准为 arbitraged)套利;此处指钻法条字面的空子
retconed /ˈretkɑːnd/ v. 23:37
(retcon)事后追溯改写设定;此处指同行评审被追加进科学史
hyperindividualism /ˌhaɪpərˌɪndɪˈvɪdʒuəlɪzəm/ n. 23:37
极端个人主义
oversight /ˈoʊvərsaɪt/ n. 24:42
监督、监管
synonymized /sɪˈnɑːnəmaɪzd/ v. 25:36
被视为同义、被等同
market failure n. phr. 25:36
市场失灵(经济学术语)
inexhaustible /ˌɪnɪɡˈzɔːstəbl/ adj. 25:36
用之不竭的;此处对应公共品的非竞争性
inexcludable /ˌɪnɪkˈskluːdəbl/ adj. 25:36
非排他的,无法阻止他人受益
dispiriting /dɪˈspɪrɪtɪŋ/ adj. 25:36
令人沮丧的
morons /ˈmɔːrɑːnz/ n. 26:27
蠢货(侮辱性)
Jenga block n. phr. 26:27
叠叠乐积木;比喻抽掉就可能导致整体坍塌的部件
cooties /ˈkuːtiz/ n. 27:30
(儿童用语)传染病、晦气;have cooties 让人避之不及
dysfunctional /dɪsˈfʌŋkʃənl/ adj. 27:30
失灵的、功能失调的
put my hat into the ring phr. 28:33
宣布参选、毛遂自荐
toutelage /ˈtuːtəlɪdʒ/ n. 28:33
(原文拼写,标准为 tutelage)指导、辅导
libertarian /ˌlɪbərˈteriən/ adj. / n. 29:27
自由意志主义的(主张最小政府)
action functional n. phr. 31:03
作用量泛函(物理术语)
adjacent /əˈdʒeɪsnt/ adj. 31:54
相邻的、毗邻的
slush funds n. phr. 32:44
小金库、可自由支配的资金(通常贬义,此处中性)
on retainer phr. 33:31
按预付费用长期聘用(律师、顾问)
stocked with phr. 33:31
配备有、储备着
corporate jet n. phr. 35:12
公司专机
lower beta phr. 36:13
低贝塔值、波动小;此处指结果更可预测的项目
appropriating /əˈproʊprieɪtɪŋ/ v. 37:06
挪用、借用(概念)
modern portfolio theory n. phr. 37:06
现代投资组合理论
concentration /ˌkɑːnsnˈtreɪʃn/ n. 38:00
(投资)集中度、仓位过于集中
pivot /ˈpɪvət/ v. / n. 38:56
(创业)转型、调整方向
upandcomers n. 39:32
(up-and-comers)后起之秀
short /ʃɔːrt/ v. 40:10
做空,押注某事物会失败
formalize /ˈfɔːrməlaɪz/ v. 40:53
形式化、把口头说法变成可验证的表述
at size phr. 40:53
(交易)以足够大的规模
on record phr. 41:35
公开表明立场、有案可查
the only game in town phr. 41:35
唯一的选择、别无他选
persona /pərˈsoʊnə/ n. 43:33
公众形象、人设
stark /stɑːrk/ adj. 44:10
鲜明的、突兀的
stymied /ˈstaɪmid/ v. 45:16
受阻、被妨碍
shunted /ˈʃʌntɪd/ v. 45:56
被转移、被分流到别处
preliminary /prɪˈlɪmɪneri/ adj. 46:53
初步的;审稿退稿常用措辞
cover story n. phr. 48:01
掩护说辞、官方托词
middling /ˈmɪdlɪŋ/ adj. 48:01
中等的、平庸的
preposterous /prɪˈpɑːstərəs/ adj. 49:36
荒谬的、不合常理的
broke the story phr. 49:36
率先报道、爆料
power of attorney n. phr. 50:50
授权委托书
mean reversion n. phr. 51:35
均值回归(量化交易策略)
carry /ˈkæri/ n. 51:35
套息交易(借低息货币投高息资产)
disgraced /dɪsˈɡreɪst/ adj. 51:35
名誉扫地的
fail over phr. v. 51:35
(系统)故障切换;此处指一个掩护穿帮后切到下一个
stall out phr. v. 52:49
熄火、停滞不前
lithography /lɪˈθɑːɡrəfi/ n. 52:49
光刻(芯片制造工艺)
in isolation phr. 54:22
单独地、孤立地
grand unification n. phr. 55:03
大统一(理论),把强、弱、电磁力统一
disintegrate /dɪsˈɪntɪɡreɪt/ v. 56:04
瓦解、分崩离析
decoupled /diːˈkʌpld/ adj. 56:04
退耦的、脱钩的
once in a blue moon phr. 57:12
千载难逢、极少
beta decay n. phr. 57:12
β 衰变
conservation principles n. phr. 58:11
守恒原理
till /tɪl/ n. 58:11
钱柜、收银抽屉
transmute /trænzˈmjuːt/ v. 59:13
转化、嬗变
to all intents and purposes phr. 59:13
实际上、在所有实际意义上
propulsion /prəˈpʌlʃn/ n. 59:13
推进(技术)
spliced /splaɪst/ v. 1:01:24
拼接(基因序列)
volatile compounds n. phr. 1:01:24
不稳定的化合物、易爆物
scavenged /ˈskævɪndʒd/ v. 1:02:43
从废弃物中搜集
salt peter n. 1:02:43
(saltpeter)硝石、硝酸钾
injunction /ɪnˈdʒʌŋkʃn/ n. 1:03:24
禁制令;prior injunction 事先禁令
detonator /ˈdetəneɪtər/ n. 1:03:24
引爆器
declassified /diːˈklæsɪfaɪd/ v. 1:04:30
解密
pieced it together phr. v. 1:04:30
拼凑出来、拼出全貌
substandard /ˌsʌbˈstændərd/ adj. 1:04:30
不够格的、水平低于标准的
proliferation /prəˌlɪfəˈreɪʃn/ n. 1:05:42
扩散;nuclear proliferation 核扩散
Suez moment n. phr. 1:05:42
苏伊士时刻,指霸权国家突然暴露力不从心的转折
diatic /daɪˈædɪk/ adj. 1:06:39
(原文拼写,标准为 dyadic)两方的、双边的
multipolar /ˌmʌltiˈpoʊlər/ adj. 1:06:39
多极的
sober /ˈsoʊbər/ adj. 1:07:24
清醒的、冷静理性的
compartmentalization /kəmˌpɑːrtˌmentələˈzeɪʃn/ n. 1:07:24
分区隔离(保密原则)
stove piping n. phr. 1:07:56
烟囱式信息壁垒,各部门信息互不流通
freak you out phr. v. 1:07:56
把你吓坏
arrow of time n. phr. 1:08:44
时间之箭,时间单向流动的性质
level playing field n. phr. 1:09:18
公平竞争的环境
escape room n. phr. 1:09:18
密室逃脱
red herring n. phr. 1:09:18
转移注意力的幌子
mcguffin /məˈɡʌfɪn/ n. 1:09:18
麦高芬,推动情节但本身无关紧要的物件
habitable /ˈhæbɪtəbl/ adj. 1:09:18
可居住的
cosmological constant n. phr. 1:11:02
宇宙学常数 Λ
product rule n. phr. 1:11:02
乘积法则(微积分)
divergence /daɪˈvɜːrdʒəns/ n. 1:11:02
散度(微分算子)
vanish /ˈvænɪʃ/ v. 1:11:44
(数学)为零、消失
five sigma n. phr. 1:11:44
五个标准差,物理学「发现」的统计门槛
patting himself on the back phr. 1:12:14
自我表扬、沾沾自喜
competent /ˈkɑːmpɪtənt/ adj. 1:12:14
有能力的、称职的
the map and not the territory phr. 1:12:48
地图不是疆域,模型不等于现实
singularity /ˌsɪŋɡjəˈlærəti/ n. 1:13:32
奇点
sarcophagus /sɑːrˈkɑːfəɡəs/ n. 1:13:32
石棺;比喻把思维封死的框架
manifold /ˈmænɪfoʊld/ n. 1:13:32
流形(几何术语)
bigot /ˈbɪɡət/ n. 1:15:26
偏执者、固执己见的人
mortgage back securities n. phr. 1:15:26
(mortgage-backed securities)抵押贷款支持证券
couldn't buy a base hit phr. 1:16:34
(棒球)连一记安打都打不出,比喻毫无建树
siling up to phr. v. 1:16:34
(sidling up to)悄悄靠近、套近乎
corpus /ˈkɔːrpəs/ n. 1:17:54
语料库
privileges /ˈprɪvəlɪdʒɪz/ v. 1:17:54
偏重、给予特殊地位
poo pooed v. 1:17:54
(pooh-poohed)嗤之以鼻、不屑一顾
the dog can't hunt phr. 1:18:35
美国南方谚语,指方案根本行不通
conceited /kənˈsiːtɪd/ adj. 1:19:15
自负的
ubiquity /juːˈbɪkwəti/ n. 1:20:30
无处不在
cage /keɪdʒ/ v. 1:20:30
关进笼子、限制
gurnie /ˈɡɜːrni/ n. 1:21:16
(gurney)医用轮床
straight jacket n. 1:21:16
(straitjacket)束缚衣
harness /ˈhɑːrnɪs/ n. 1:21:48
约束装置;AI 语境里指安全护栏
temporary agency n. phr. 1:21:48
临时工中介
waiting period n. phr. 1:21:48
(购枪)等待期
distilled /dɪˈstɪld/ v. 1:22:24
(模型)蒸馏,用大模型训练小模型
commoditized /kəˈmɑːdətaɪzd/ v. 1:22:24
商品化、变得无差异
open weight adj. phr. 1:22:24
开放权重的(模型)
glimmer /ˈɡlɪmər/ n. 1:22:53
一丝迹象、微光
debugger /diːˈbʌɡər/ n. 1:22:53
调试器;比喻逐步剖析
by virtue of phr. 1:23:31
仅凭、由于
gravity shielding n. phr. 1:24:09
重力屏蔽
testing ground n. phr. 1:24:09
试验场
laughable /ˈlæfəbl/ adj. 1:24:54
可笑的、不值一提的
uncontacted /ˌʌnkənˈtæktɪd/ adj. 1:25:37
未与外界接触的(部落)
paternalistic /pəˌtɜːrnəˈlɪstɪk/ adj. 1:25:37
家长式的
self-promotion n. 1:26:50
自我宣传
unrecognizable /ˌʌnˈrekəɡnaɪzəbl/ adj. 1:27:31
面目全非的
turn up your nose phr. 1:29:02
嗤之以鼻、不屑一顾
精读便签
下载便签 手机:长按图片也可保存
← 上一期 · NO.209JD Vance on AI, Entitlement Fraud, Iran War, Israel, H-1B Abuse & the Midterms 下一期 · NO.211 →Why the Markets Are Pricing AI Wrong | Gavin Baker
苏菲周报 · THE WEEKLY 每周一封,
追问一个大问题。
苏菲拉底的每周来信,写这一周在追问的问题和看到的回应。
苏菲拉底
ASK THE BIG QUESTIONS · THINK DEEPLY · SEE THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY
苏菲拉底微信公众号二维码 微信公众号
© 2026 苏菲拉底 · 内容仅供学习 [email protected]