數學能證明上帝的存在嗎？：英語精讀講義

The existence of God has been fiercely debated for centuries,

幾個世紀以來，上帝是否存在一直是人們激烈爭論的話題，

but regardless of what you think or feel is true, 文法

但無論你認為或感覺什麼才是真相，

can we use math,

我們能否用數學——

the universal unbiased language,

這門全世界通用且不偏不倚的語言——

to come to a conclusion? 片語搭配

得出結論呢？

Can math prove God's existence?

數學能證明上帝存在嗎？

The most famous argument in favor of a God-made world 片語搭配

支持「世界由上帝創造」的最著名論證

using logic and reasoning is the argument by 文化背景

以邏輯和推理為基礎，被稱為

design. Simply put, 表達脈絡

「設計論證」。簡單來說，

given how complex and amazing everything around us is, 文法

鑑於我們周遭的一切都如此複雜而奇妙，

can we really believe that dumb luck put it together? 講解

我們真的能相信，這一切只是靠盲目的運氣拼湊出來的嗎？

Even from a scientist's perspective, 表達脈絡

即使從科學家的角度來看，

life is an amazing, incredibly rare,

生命也令人驚嘆，出現的機率低得難以置信，

and took a monumental amount of steps,

而且它的誕生需要經歷數量驚人的步驟、

chance happenings,

偶發事件

and time to come about. 片語動詞

和漫長的時間。

So, a religious person may argue,

因此，宗教信徒可能會問：

doesn't it seem much more plausible that there was some driving force behind it all? 講解

這一切背後存在某種推動力量，難道不是更合理的解釋嗎？

This type of argument is called reductio ad absurdum, 文化背景

這類論證叫作「歸謬法」，

which simply means it attempts to disprove a statement

簡單來說，就是試圖反駁一個命題，

by showing it inevitably leads to absurd or impractical conclusions. 文法

方法是證明它必然會導向荒謬或不切實際的結論。

In this case,

在這個例子中，

it suggests that one, 表達脈絡

它提出：第一，

if there's no God,

如果上帝不存在，

humans developing is very unlikely.

人類出現的可能性就非常低。

Two,

第二，

humans did develop. 文法

人類確實出現了。

Therefore, three,

因此，第三，

it is unlikely that there's no God.

「上帝不存在」的可能性很低。

But let's take this logic one step further 表達脈絡

不過，讓我們沿著這套邏輯再往前走一步，

and imagine the universe before anything has been created.

想像宇宙中一切都還沒被創造出來時的情況。

Here we have a Bayes box 文化背景

這裡有一個貝氏方框，

where we have our two possibilities of God existing and no God existing.

其中兩種可能分別是上帝存在和上帝不存在。

On the other side,

在另一邊，

our possibilities are that humans exist or that humans don't exist.

兩種可能則是人類存在或人類不存在。

If no God is true,

如果「上帝不存在」為真，

then most would agree that human existence

那麼大多數人都會同意，人類要出現，

takes a lot of specific factors to come about.

必須具備許多特定條件。

So, let's make up a tiny probability 片語動詞

所以，我們不妨隨便設定一個極小的機率，

and say that there's a one in 4 billion billion chance 文法

比方說，這個機率只有四乘以十的十八次方分之一，

of humanity coming into existence in a world with no God. 片語搭配

也就是人類在沒有上帝的世界裡誕生的機率。

And if God is real,

而如果上帝確實存在，

even though we don't know that God would make humans, 文法

儘管我們不知道上帝是否會創造人類，

certainly he could. 文法

但祂當然有能力這麼做。

So, let's give it a higher probability of one in 4 million.

所以，我們給它一個更高的機率：四百萬分之一。

Of course,

當然，

if we examine the evidence,

如果檢視現有證據，

we know we exist.

我們知道自己確實存在。

So, we can get rid of the other row. 片語動詞

因此，可以排除另一橫列。

And as many who have used the argument by design point out, 片語動詞

正如許多採用設計論證的人所指出的，

a human-made world with God seems much, much more likely 文法

一個既有上帝又有人類的世界，其出現的可能性似乎要高得多，

rationally and statistically.

不論從理性或統計角度來看都是如此。

And while this is true in some ways, 表達脈絡

這種說法在某些方面確實成立，

it forgets an important point,

但它忽略了一個重點：

that we have assumed there are only two major theories.

我們假定只有兩種主要理論。

But we know this isn't true.

可是我們知道，事實並非如此。

Many societies have believed in multiple gods 片語搭配

許多社會都曾信奉多位神祇，

and given that there are some aspects of this life

而且，現實生活中有些方面

that aren't nearly as beautifully complex 文法

遠沒有那麼精妙複雜，

or seemingly intentional,

也看不出有什麼明確意圖，

perhaps a variety of squabbling gods created the world.

或許世界是由一群爭吵不休的神創造的。

Mathematician Jordan Ellenberg uses the probability of one in 400,000

數學家 Jordan Ellenberg 採用了四十萬分之一這個機率，

that a universe with multiple gods would create humans.

來表示一個有多位神祇的宇宙會創造人類的可能性。

But it's important to remember that the exact numbers don't actually matter. 講解

不過要記得，確切數字其實並不重要。

What does matter is that we can agree,

真正重要的是，我們可以認同，

rationally,

從理性上來說，

that a universe with more gods has a higher chance of creating humans 文法

神越多的宇宙，創造人類的可能性就越高，

than one with a single God or none at all.

高於只有一位上帝或完全沒有神的宇宙。

It's also important to remember that we're not comparing 表達脈絡

還要記得，我們並不是在比較

the probability of gods or no gods

神存在或不存在的

existing. We're asking ourselves if the God option is true,

機率。我們要問的是：如果「上帝存在」這個選項為真，

what is the likelihood of him making humans? 文法

祂創造人類的可能性有多高？

And then we're asking separately,

然後，我們再另外問：

if the multiple gods option is true,

如果「多位神祇存在」這個選項為真，

what is the likelihood that they would make humans?

祂們創造人類的可能性有多高？

Now, let's take this even further

現在，讓我們把這個思路推得更遠，

to theories of us simply living in a simulation like that of the Sims, 文化背景

看看這樣一類理論：我們只是生活在類似《模擬市民》的模擬世界中，

which individuals like Elon Musk and Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom believe.

Elon Musk 和牛津大學哲學家 Nick Bostrom 等人就相信這種理論。

As technology advances, 文法

隨著科技進步，

it's almost a certainty that future humans will make extremely realistic human simulations 片語搭配

未來的人類幾乎必然會創造出極其逼真的人類模擬，

based on the world that we live in,

以我們生活的這個世界為藍本，

to study these humans like we study mice. 表達脈絡

像我們研究實驗鼠一樣，研究其中的人類。

Scientists already use simulations to understand nature and human behavior,

科學家已經在利用模擬來理解自然與人類行為，

but in the future it's possible

但未來有可能出現這樣的情況：

that the human test subjects will be conscious and think they're real. 用詞

這些人類受試者擁有意識，並以為自己是真實的。

So, we can give this scenario a fairly high probability.

因此，我們可以給這種情況一個相當高的機率。

Again,

同樣地，

the exact number doesn't matter,

確切數字並不重要，

just that we can agree it's very likely

只要我們認同一件事就夠了：很有可能

that advanced humans would create these kinds of simulations

高度發達的人類會創造這類模擬世界，

compared to the probability of a God or gods randomly deciding to make humans

而上帝或眾神隨意決定創造人類的可能性相對更低，

when they don't need to or could make millions of other animals 文法

畢竟祂們既不需要這麼做，也可以創造數百萬種其他動物，

or other aspects of the universe.

或宇宙中的其他事物。

After all, 表達脈絡

畢竟，

humanity is obsessed with humans. 片語搭配

人類對自身癡迷不已。

So, as you can see, 表達脈絡

所以，如你所見，

while math can in fact show that the existence of life is evidence that God exists 表達脈絡

雖然數學確實能說明，生命的存在是支持上帝存在的證據，

compared to no God,

至少與「上帝不存在」相比是如此，

the same math shows more compelling evidence

但同樣的數學也給出了更有說服力的證據：

that we're a simulation by much smarter people.

我們其實是由聰明得多的人創造的模擬世界。

Special thanks to Audible for supporting this episode

特別感謝 Audible 對本集節目的支持，

to give you a free 30-day trial at audible.com/asap.

你可以前往 audible.com/asap，免費試用 30 天。

This week,

本週，

we wanted to recommend the book How Not to Be Wrong, 語氣意圖

我們想推薦《How Not to Be Wrong》這本書，

The Power of Mathematical Thinking by Jordan Ellenberg,

副標題是「The Power of Mathematical Thinking」，作者為 Jordan Ellenberg，

which was the main source for this episode

它是本集節目的主要資料來源，

and an incredible read on the hidden beauty and logic of our world 用詞

也是一本精彩之作，展現了這個世界隱藏的美感與邏輯，

through the lens of math, 慣用語

而這一切都透過數學的視角來解讀，

but in a way that's accessible to everyone.

同時又讓每個人都能輕鬆看懂。

You can get a free 30-day trial at audible.com/asap

前往 audible.com/asap，即可免費試用 30 天，

and choose from a massive selection.

並從龐大的內容庫中任意挑選。

We love them as they're great when you're on the go. 慣用語

我們很喜歡 Audible，因為出門在外時使用起來特別方便。

and subscribe for more weekly science videos.

也請訂閱，收看我們每週更新的更多科學影片。