时间重生

火箭科学家 2017-03-16 0

有些启发但不多。尤其是作者的立足点在于超脱时间的自然规律在自然中其实不存在，比如没有完美的抛物线等，但其实如果将一切干扰加入判定的话，自然规律依然成立。

closer2sky 2017-03-16 0

和戴维·多伊奇的观点背道而驰，但是又有着殊途同归的感觉，同样具有颠覆性、创造性、思想性。强烈推荐。

火箭科学家 2017-03-16 0

有些启发但不多。尤其是作者的立足点在于超脱时间的自然规律在自然中其实不存在，比如没有完美的抛物线等，但其实如果将一切干扰加入判定的话，自然规律依然成立。

closer2sky 2017-03-16 0

和戴维·多伊奇的观点背道而驰，但是又有着殊途同归的感觉，同样具有颠覆性、创造性、思想性。强烈推荐。

我想说两句

大宇宙观

freeof 2017-03-08 1赞

存在一个最基本的规律，而时间只是它的一个衍生规律，而空间只是时间的一个衍生规律，而空间中的一切自然规律只是在时间和空间基础上的众多衍生规律，并非亘古不变、创世之前已经存在。该书某种意义上颠覆了我们以往的宇宙观，为我们认知宇宙提供了一个新的方向。
而我直觉认为，这个理论是已知宇宙理论中最贴近真实答案的。我们的宇宙只是宇宙妈妈的其中一个宝宝，宇宙宝宝携带着妈妈的基因，而这基因的表达也受到后天环境（即书中的内部事物的关系）的影响。表达出来的性状就是我们科学上的自然规律。但是和其他的宇宙（或者重来一次产生的宇宙）相比，有些自然规律是共同的，比如时间；有些自然规律却是不同宇宙在演变过程中所特有的，如物质基态，温度等等。所以说自然规律也是在不断变化的。
多么人性化的理论。宇宙就像一个人一样，这与中国的天人合一理论不谋而合。而且我还认为，宇宙存在的目的就是造就一个新的宇宙宝宝，在自身陨落在时间之中之前。

读后感

Pneuma 2016-05-24 0赞

If there's an ultimate fixed law of physics - of the whole universe, then everything is already determined by the law. If the law is the only and true, then how and where's the evolution - the mistakes and accidental incidents in nature coming from?

If the ultimate physics law is describable in math language, then it's a program, an equation, a calculus, anything math has fixed output, even a random set is calculated in predictable way with explainable results. Predictability is timeless. Math is timeless. Math is the perfect model.

Yet nature is full of imperfectness and surprises. This capability of generating genuine organic randomness and mistakes must be imbedded in the fundamental level of existence - no matter it's particle or other fundamental form. --What if there's no such a thing as fundamental? What if this deductionism mind model just another math thinking? What if one travel out of earth getting shot into space and in the deep universe after passing solar system and galaxies, what he reached as the large scale univer structure is a microscopic cell?

If the true law is change itself, then what's the pattern of change? By saying pattern, it's again an attempt looking for something fixed and predictable. If the result is nothing fixed, then could the law still be describable? In another language instead of math - the fixed timeless one, as the natural history is time-bound? If taking math language as nature language, a language could describe a scent, the mechanism of smell, yet it cannot decribe the very sensation when one smelling the scent. What if the 'fundamental law' is like the sense of a scent? Talking about scent, cyanide and almond has the same smell. In fact, we smell different smell is not because different matters has different substances, but smell is just the molecule(quantum level) vibrate in different frequencies, what we call as scent is just different form of vibrations like sound and music, it has nothing to do with what kind of attoms they are...

试图将进化思想引入物理学

Zeitgeber 2014-01-14 8赞

“The only field which has not admitted any evolutionary question is physics. Here are the laws, we say, ... but how did they get that way, in time? ... So, it might turn out that they are not the same [laws] all the time and that there is a historical, evolutionary, question.” “Richard Feynman—Take the World from another Point of View,” NOVA (PBS, 1973). Transcript at http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/35/2/PointofView.htm

这段话基本概括了Smolin这本书的主题思想。正如书的副标题所说，书分两大部分，前一部分是“破”，即批判现有物理理论的局限，得出的结论是现有物理学仍然局限于牛顿物理学框架（Do physics in a box）。在这个框架下，过去现在未来没有本质区别，时间观念是一种幻觉。后一部分是“立”，试图将现有物理理论在时间实在性的框架下重构，得出的结论是只有当下（Now）的时间概念具有实在性，物理定律是随时间动态演化的。

看得出Smolin有点狂热崇拜莱布尼茨。书中充斥了各种冠名莱布尼兹的原理，比如principle of sufficient reason, principle of no unreciprocated actions, the identity of the indiscernibles principle。特别是在书的后一部分，Smolin多处用这些原理作为论证的依据，使得论证带上了浓厚的哲学化色彩，削弱了其科学性。

Smolin在书末提出了Meta-laws dilemma:即物理学定律的无穷递归问题。如果没有元定律，那现有物理定律是怎样产生的；如果有元定律，那这些元定律是否还需要更基本的元定律来解释。Smolin在他这个框架下，提出了四个有意思的解决思路。其中一个是类比图灵的通用计算理论而来的principle of the universality of meta-law。看似部分解决了这个两难问题。但仔细想想，这个类比太牵强，而且毫无必要。

通观全书，有非常多的闪光思想令人拍案叫绝。Smolin对物理学的热爱和他对相关问题长时间深刻的思考让人钦佩。书中提到了John Archibald Wheeler的一句话，““There is no law except the law that there is no law”。我想，如果Smolin了解中国文化，他八成会把这句话翻译成 “道可道，非常道”。

试图将进化思想引入物理学

Zeitgeber 2014-01-14 8

“The only field which has not admitted any evolutionary question is physics. Here are the laws, we say, ... but how did they get that way, in time? ... So, it might turn out that they are not the same [laws] all the time and that there is a historical, evolutionary, question.” “Richard Feynman—Take the World from another Point of View,” NOVA (PBS, 1973). Transcript at http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/35/2/PointofView.htm

这段话基本概括了Smolin这本书的主题思想。正如书的副标题所说，书分两大部分，前一部分是“破”，即批判现有物理理论的局限，得出的结论是现有物理学仍然局限于牛顿物理学框架（Do physics in a box）。在这个框架下，过去现在未来没有本质区别，时间观念是一种幻觉。后一部分是“立”，试图将现有物理理论在时间实在性的框架下重构，得出的结论是只有当下（Now）的时间概念具有实在性，物理定律是随时间动态演化的。

看得出Smolin有点狂热崇拜莱布尼茨。书中充斥了各种冠名莱布尼兹的原理，比如principle of sufficient reason, principle of no unreciprocated actions, the identity of the indiscernibles principle。特别是在书的后一部分，Smolin多处用这些原理作为论证的依据，使得论证带上了浓厚的哲学化色彩，削弱了其科学性。

Smolin在书末提出了Meta-laws dilemma:即物理学定律的无穷递归问题。如果没有元定律，那现有物理定律是怎样产生的；如果有元定律，那这些元定律是否还需要更基本的元定律来解释。Smolin在他这个框架下，提出了四个有意思的解决思路。其中一个是类比图灵的通用计算理论而来的principle of the universality of meta-law。看似部分解决了这个两难问题。但仔细想想，这个类比太牵强，而且毫无必要。

通观全书，有非常多的闪光思想令人拍案叫绝。Smolin对物理学的热爱和他对相关问题长时间深刻的思考让人钦佩。书中提到了John Archibald Wheeler的一句话，““There is no law except the law that there is no law”。我想，如果Smolin了解中国文化，他八成会把这句话翻译成 “道可道，非常道”。

大宇宙观

freeof 2017-03-08 1

存在一个最基本的规律，而时间只是它的一个衍生规律，而空间只是时间的一个衍生规律，而空间中的一切自然规律只是在时间和空间基础上的众多衍生规律，并非亘古不变、创世之前已经存在。该书某种意义上颠覆了我们以往的宇宙观，为我们认知宇宙提供了一个新的方向。
而我直觉认为，这个理论是已知宇宙理论中最贴近真实答案的。我们的宇宙只是宇宙妈妈的其中一个宝宝，宇宙宝宝携带着妈妈的基因，而这基因的表达也受到后天环境（即书中的内部事物的关系）的影响。表达出来的性状就是我们科学上的自然规律。但是和其他的宇宙（或者重来一次产生的宇宙）相比，有些自然规律是共同的，比如时间；有些自然规律却是不同宇宙在演变过程中所特有的，如物质基态，温度等等。所以说自然规律也是在不断变化的。
多么人性化的理论。宇宙就像一个人一样，这与中国的天人合一理论不谋而合。而且我还认为，宇宙存在的目的就是造就一个新的宇宙宝宝，在自身陨落在时间之中之前。

读后感

Pneuma 2016-05-24 0

If there's an ultimate fixed law of physics - of the whole universe, then everything is already determined by the law. If the law is the only and true, then how and where's the evolution - the mistakes and accidental incidents in nature coming from?

If the ultimate physics law is describable in math language, then it's a program, an equation, a calculus, anything math has fixed output, even a random set is calculated in predictable way with explainable results. Predictability is timeless. Math is timeless. Math is the perfect model.

Yet nature is full of imperfectness and surprises. This capability of generating genuine organic randomness and mistakes must be imbedded in the fundamental level of existence - no matter it's particle or other fundamental form. --What if there's no such a thing as fundamental? What if this deductionism mind model just another math thinking? What if one travel out of earth getting shot into space and in the deep universe after passing solar system and galaxies, what he reached as the large scale univer structure is a microscopic cell?

If the true law is change itself, then what's the pattern of change? By saying pattern, it's again an attempt looking for something fixed and predictable. If the result is nothing fixed, then could the law still be describable? In another language instead of math - the fixed timeless one, as the natural history is time-bound? If taking math language as nature language, a language could describe a scent, the mechanism of smell, yet it cannot decribe the very sensation when one smelling the scent. What if the 'fundamental law' is like the sense of a scent? Talking about scent, cyanide and almond has the same smell. In fact, we smell different smell is not because different matters has different substances, but smell is just the molecule(quantum level) vibrate in different frequencies, what we call as scent is just different form of vibrations like sound and music, it has nothing to do with what kind of attoms they are...

我要写长评

想读在读读过

标签(多个标签以“，”分开):

保存

时间重生

推荐文章

猜你喜欢

附近的人在看

推荐阅读

拓展阅读