设万维读者为首页 万维读者网 -- 全球华人的精神家园 广告服务 联系我们 关于万维
 
首  页 新  闻 视  频 博  客 论  坛 分类广告 购  物
搜索>> 发表日志 控制面板 个人相册 给我留言
帮助 退出
     
  汤安的博客
  零星拾集 --------Understanding of the people, one gene at a time.
我的名片
汤安
注册日期: 2011-09-09
访问总量: 468,374 次
点击查看我的个人资料
Calendar
我的公告栏
歡迎 欢迎 宽赢
最新发布
· 1 公布结果 2 民运都是肮脏的hat
· 下一博写啥涅? "关于对绿帽的答
· Case closed, 民运选择了挑衅下
· 阿妞,至少在投诉时,你的偷偷删
· 下期微博预告: 民运选择了挑衅
· 实现人类民主自由理想 与 看清万
· 是民主的要义还是悖论? (微博)
友好链接
· love阳光:阳光的博客
· 笑看糊涂蛋:笑看糊涂蛋的博客
· 喀什:喀什的博客
· 月弯儿:月弯儿的博客:外卖店
· Cowboy:Cowboy的博客
· 幽久桥:幽久桥的博客
· 与爱同在:与爱同在的博客
· 华欢笑:华欢笑的博客
· 山月歌:山月歌的博客
· 方鲲鹏:方鲲鹏
· 山哥:山哥的文化广场
· 史语:史语的博客
· 瀛洲大蟹:轻扣柴扉
· 米笑:米笑的博客
· 落基山人:落基山人的博客
· 欢乐诵:欢乐诵
· 马黑:马黑的博客
· 庭榕:庭榕的博客
· 白凡:白凡的博客
· 椰子:椰风阵阵,思绪如河
· 芦鹤:芦鹤
分类目录
【小说故事】
· 汤安: 科学社会的三段论 (微博)
· 汤安: 感恩节探古,一个关于感
· 美食和情感,少了哪一样都吃不出
· 扶了一个摔倒不起的老人 搀扶老
· zt 朋友土佬的阿尔巴尼亚游记
· 天生刀鱼好时光
【文史拾遗】
· 周五影视: NHK记录片 颜色革命的
· 外国人当时拍的中国形象新闻照片
· 琉球 蒋介石 中国最大的战略错
· 关于辛亥革命的评价 ---- 毛泽东
· 勇敢的不同方式: 秋瑾与鲁迅
【法律经闻】
· 扶了一个摔倒不起的老人 搀扶老
【美食知味】
· 感恩节快乐!三个小菜
· 大羹无和味 美食无限贵
· 汤安: 你可能没见过的水果 5 鲜
· 汤安: 你可能没见过的水果 4
· 汤安: 你可能没见过的水果 3
· 汤安: 你可能没见过的水果 2
· 汤安: 你可能没见过的水果 1
· 美食和情感,少了哪一样都吃不出
· 爱吃腊汁肉的老妇人
· 世上最难学透的学问就是如何享受
【医而识生】
· zt The Sick Man of Asia 美刊稱
【影像解"昔"】
· 周五影视推荐: 历史回顾 国庆记
· 非死不可是个好东西
· 英国充满挑拨和歪曲中国的报道:
· 周五电影推荐: 《Limitless》永
· 了解国际政治的经典电影: 《Into
· 周五影视推荐: 由电影《Awake (
· 周五影视推荐: 断刀 ----- 中国
· 当指挥权放进政治钻营者手中:
· 一生需要看十遍的理想主义经典作
【时政分析】
· 1 公布结果 2 民运都是肮脏的hat
· 下一博写啥涅? "关于对绿帽的答
· Case closed, 民运选择了挑衅下
· 阿妞,至少在投诉时,你的偷偷删
· 下期微博预告: 民运选择了挑衅
· 实现人类民主自由理想 与 看清万
· 是民主的要义还是悖论? (微博)
· 洪博培 1.应如何处理美中关系 2.
· 有没有共济会针对中国的阴谋?
· [转载] 苏联末期的“南方系”---
【经典推荐】
· 【转载: 我把一个美国女人说的鸦
· 史上著名的10个思想实验及提出者
· 中美庚子赔款留美幼童被撤回后的
· 有没有共济会针对中国的阴谋?
· 汤安: 象不象近代当代中国的处境
· zt 赖帐:不单单是希腊的光荣传
· Stephen Ambrose 写的美国近代史
· 美国上流社会
· 达尔文和他改变的世界 纪念查尔
【艺术汇流】
· 从两幅奧诺雷·杜米埃的画看法国
· 禾墩, 一首经典优美的美国诗词
· 西方戏剧及名剧简介
· 汤安: 大爱梵高
· 音乐是人们挂在自己脑子里的画
【学习密码】
· 下一博写啥涅? "关于对绿帽的答
· 汤安: 科学社会的三段论 (微博)
· 2011最佳发明
· Lily's Disneyland Birthda
· 如何在网上辩论之对付谩骂者
【大风弹歌】
· 汤安: 我的太陽
· 二战德军 "军魂之歌"
· "Besame Mucho 深情的吻&qu
· 爱情美丽,可是,生活中你更难以
· 民歌《茉莉花》最早版本
· Time to Say Goodbye ---一种无
· 不衰的经典: Nights In White Sa
· In The Mood 一首值得肆意欢乐的
· The Warsawian 华沙曲 (Red Army
· 快乐童年,如今一去不复返
存档目录
12/01/2011 - 12/31/2011
11/01/2011 - 11/30/2011
10/01/2011 - 10/31/2011
09/01/2011 - 09/30/2011
发表评论
作者:
用户名: 密码: 您还不是博客/论坛用户?现在就注册!
     
评论:
史上著名的10个思想实验及提出者
   
史上著名的10个思想实验


from: Top 10 Most Famous Thought Experiments



FEED YOUR BRAIN...

Thought experiments are mental concepts or hypotheses, often resembling riddles, which are used by philosophers and scientists as simple ways of illuminating what are usually very dense ideas. Most often, they’re used in more abstract fields like philosophy and theoretical physics, where physical experiments aren’t possible. They serve as some hearty food for thought, but given their complex subject matter, it’s not unusual for even the thought experiment itself to be nearly incomprehensible. With this in mind, here are ten of the most famous thought experiments, along with explanations of the philosophical, scientific, and ethical ideas they work to explain:

The Trolley Problem
The Cow in the Field
The Ticking Time Bomb
Einstein's Light Beam
The Ship of Theseus
Galileo's Gravity Experiment
Monkeys and Typewriters
The Chinese Room
Schroedinger's Cat and last but not least...
Brain in a Vat

 

 

Y2网上的那个哈佛大学教授讲课大堂实况录像大家估计都看过了。里面举出的阻止车祸难题(为救5个在电车前方路上的人而从桥上推下来一个大胖子去阻挡电车,或者把车道改到只压死一个人的路线上,你会做不?) 是来自于下文中英国Virtue Eethics/伦理哲学家Philippa Foot的著名"电车难题"


不过,她的难题仅仅位列10大 Thought Experiments 中的第10。


位列第一的是电影《黑客帝国》里面引用的用来阻截笛卡尔“我思故我在”哲学论断的"大脑与模拟环境"。


 

 

 

 


思想实验是一种精神上的观念或假想,通常和谜语相似,是哲学家和科学家用以了解什么是大众思想的一种简单方法。他们的运用在如哲学和理论物理(理论物理无需做实验)等抽象领域是最为广泛的。他们像是为思想准备的一份大餐,最终给出复杂的答案。即使思想实验本身也会有无法理解的时候,这并不奇怪。


下面是10个著名的思想实验,还有他们所要表达的哲学、科学和伦理意义。

 

 

  10.电车难题


 

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVhF5QK3FDPYzLiDDkX7Y_okvLhCkwYw3lfW709Q9S5kVT6v2LZg

  它是伦理学领域最为知名的思想实验之一,内容大致是:一个疯子把五个无辜的人绑在电车轨道上,一辆失控的电车朝他们驶来,且马上就要辗过他们。幸运的是,你可以拉一个拉杆,让电车开到另一条轨道上。但是还有一个问题,那个疯子在那另一条轨道上也绑了一个人。想想这个情况,你应该拉拉杆吗?

  意义:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/10/09/us/OBIT-FOOT/OBIT-FOOT-articleInline.jpg

Philippa Foot


  电车难题最早由哲学家Philippa Foot提出,是用来批判伦理哲学主要理论的,特别是对功利主义的批判。功利主义认为,大部分道德决策都是根据“为最多的人提供最大的利益”的原则做出的。从一个功利主义者的观点来看,明显应去拉拉杆,只杀死一个人来拯救五个人。但是功利主义的批判者反驳说,一旦拉了拉杆,你就变得不道德——你要为另一条轨道上那一个人的死负担部分的责任。然而,其他人认为,这种状况下要求你要有所作为,什么都不做也是不道德。总之,不存在完全的道德行为,这也就是重点所在。许多哲学家都用电车难题作为例子来表现现实生活中经常强迫一个人违背自己道德准则的状况,并且有的时候根本没有完全道德的做法。

  9.空地上的奶牛

  认知领域中一个重要的思想实验就是“空地上的奶牛”。实验是这样的,一个农民担心自己获奖的奶牛走丢了。一个送奶工来到农场后,他让农民不要担心,因为他看到那头奶牛就在附近。虽然农民很愿意相信送奶工,但他还是自己去看了下,他看到了熟悉的黑白相间条纹,为自己的奶牛在那里感到很满意。过了一会,送奶工到那里再次进行了确认。那头奶牛确实在那里,但它躲在了树林里,而且有一大张黑白相间的纸缠绕在了一棵树上,显然,农民把这张纸错当成自己的奶牛了。问题于是来了,就算奶牛一直在那里,但农民说自己知道那头奶牛在那里时是否正确?

  意义:

 

http://e-ducation.net/philosophers/putnam.jpg

Edmund Gettier


  空地上的奶牛最初被Edmund Gettier用来批判主流对知识定义的 JTB(justified true belief)理论,即当人们相信一件事时,它就成为了知识;这件事事实上是真的,且可以被充分验证。实验中,农民之所以相信奶牛在那里,是送奶工证词和他自己所见黑白相间物所共同构成的结果。而之后送奶工的确认,这件事也碰巧是真实的。尽管如此,农民并非真正知道奶牛在那里,因为他认为奶牛在那里的结论是建立在错误的前提上的。Gettier利用这个实验和其他一些例子,说明了将知识定义为JTB的理论需要修正。

  8.定时炸弹


 

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/41783_171045205021_5177_n.jpghttp://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/atomic-explosion-4.jpg?w=600&h=479

  如果你关注近几年的政治时事,或看过动作电影,那么你对“定时炸弹”实验肯定很熟悉。它要求你想象有一个炸弹或其他大规模杀伤性武器藏在你的城市中,并且倒计时马上将归零。城市里有一个知情者,他知道炸弹的埋藏点。你会使用酷刑来让他吐出情报吗?

  意义:

 

Jean Lartéguy


  与电车难题类似,定时炸弹实验也是强迫一个人从两个不道德行为中选择其一的伦理问题。它一般用来反驳那些说在任何情况下都不能使用酷刑的言论。它也被用作在极端形势下法律可以被放在第二位的情况,如美国严禁虐囚的法律。归功于《24小时》之类的电视节目,还有一些政治辩论,定时炸弹已成为最常被提起的思想实验之一。今年早些时候,一份英国报纸提出了更为极端的看法。这份报纸说,如果这个恐怖分子对酷刑毫无反应,那么当局者是否愿意拷打他的妻子和儿女来逼他吐出情报。

  7.爱因斯坦的光线

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F_jczMghd_Y/Thcjp3R-6nI/AAAAAAAACwU/ePSFT_nUo_0/s1600/lightBeam3-450.png

  很少有人知道爱因斯坦著名的狭义相对论是受到他16 岁时一个思想实验的启发。在他的著作《自述注记》中,爱因斯坦回忆道他当时幻想在宇宙中追逐一道光线。他说如果他能够以光速在光线旁边运动,那么他应该能够看到光线在空间内呈现为“不断振荡但停滞着的电磁场”。对于爱因斯坦,这个思想实验证明了对于他作为一个富有想象力的观察者,”在有相同定律和一个相对于地球静止观察者的情况下,任何事都有可能发生。”

  意义:

http://www.pagefarm.net/wiki/images/8/88/Albert-einstein.jpg

Albert Einstein


  事实上,没人真正知道这意味着什么。科学家一直都在争论一个如此简单的思想实验是如何帮助爱因斯坦完成到狭义相对论这个巨大飞跃的。在当时,这个实验中的想法与现在已被抛弃的“以太”理论相违背。“以太”理论即存在一个隐性的空间供光线穿越。他经过了好多年才证明了自己是正确,但从某种程度上这个实验对于狭义相对论是“有害的”,他自己这么说,后者第一次让他站上了理论物理学的顶点。

  6.忒修斯之船

 

 

  史上最为古老的思想实验之一便是被称为忒修斯之船的悖论。这个实验最早出自普鲁塔克的记载。它描述了一艘可以在海上航行几百年的船,这归功于不断的维修和部件的替换。只要一块木板腐烂了,它就会被替换掉,以此类推,直到所有的部件都不再是最初的那些。问题是,最终产生的这艘船还是原来的忒修斯之船,还是一艘完全不同的新船?如果不是原来的船了,那么从什么时候开始它不再是原来的船了?哲学家Thomas Hobbes后来对此进行了更深刻的探讨:如果有人用忒修斯之船上取下来的老部件来重新建造一艘新的船,那么两艘船中哪艘才是真正的忒修斯之船?

  意义:

 

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQs9lMxYIFb3mL4wwfFv3gTuA39S5hAUwYPtw7eb76P4C2trV2AEw

Thomas Hobbes


  对于哲学家来说,忒修斯之船被用来研究身份的本质,特别是讨论一个物体是否仅仅就是其部件之和。一个更现代的例子是假设有一个乐队,到某一阶段乐队成员中不再有任何一个原始成员。这个问题还可以应用于其他如商业等领域。商业领域中,在不断并购和更换股东后仍然保留企业原来的名字;对于人体,人体不断地进行着新陈代谢和自我修复。这个实验的核心思想在于强迫人们去反问身份是否仅仅局限在实际物体和现象中这一普遍知识。

  5.伽利略的重力实验

  史上最早的思想实验之一,由物理和天文学家伽利略进行实验。为了反驳亚里士多德的自由落体速度取决于物体质量的理论,伽利略设计了一个简单的思想实验:根据亚里士多德的逻辑,如果一个较轻的物体和一个较重的物体绑在一起后从塔上扔下去,那么教重的物体会下落的比较快,且两个物体间的绳子会被拉紧。这时较轻的物体会对较重的物体产生一个拽力,使得重物的下落速度变慢。但是,伽利略认为两个物体绑在一起后的重量应比其中任意一个物体都大,那么一起下落的速度应该是最快的。于是他用这个矛盾证明了亚里士多德理论是错误的。

  意义:

 

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Galileo_Galilei.jpg

Galileo Galilei

  关于伽利略有一个著名的故事:有一次他从比萨斜塔扔下两个铁球,想要证明较重的物体并不较轻的物体下落速度快。现实中这个故事可能只是作为一种传奇,但这个思想实验证明了一个关于重力很重要的理论:无论物体的质量,所有物体自由落体的速率都是一样的。

  4.猴子和打字机

  另一个在流行文化中获得广泛关注的思想实验是“无限猴子定理”,也叫做“猴子和打字机”实验。该定理认为,如果有无数多的猴子在无限久的时间里,在无数多的打字机上随机打字,那么在某个时间点,它们“几乎必然”会打出莎士比亚的全部著作。猴子和打字机的设想在20世纪早期由法国数学家Emile Borel推广,但其基本思想,即无数多的人员和无数多的时间能产生任何/所有东西的理论,可以追溯至亚里士多德。

  意义:

http://www.gap-system.org/~history/BigPictures/Borel_3.jpeg

Emile Borel


  简单来说,“猴子和打字机”定理是用来描述无限本质最好的方法之一。人的大脑很难想象无限的空间和无限的时间,无限猴子定理可以帮助理解这些概念。猴子碰巧能写出《哈姆雷特》,听上去是天方夜谭,但当一个人考虑到所有的可能性后,这个说法在数学上是可以被证明的。这个定理本身在现实生活中不可重现,但这并没有阻止一些人的尝试:2003年,英国修读科学的学生在一家英国动物园“试验”了无限猴子定理,他们把一台电脑和一个键盘放进了灵长类园区。可惜的是,猴子们没有打出任何十四行诗。根据研究,它们只打出了5页几乎完全是字母“s”的纸。

  3.中文房间

 

  “中文房间”最早由美国杰出哲学家 John Searle于20世纪80年代初提出。这个实验要求你想象一位只会说英语的人身处一个几乎完全密闭的房间中,房间门上有一个小窗口。他有一台具有英汉翻译功能的电脑,房间里还有足够的纸、铅笔和文件柜。随后写着中文的纸片通过小窗口将被送入房间中。根据Searle的理论,房间中的人可以翻译这些文字并用中文写上他的回复。虽然他完全不会中文,但Searle认为通过这个过程,房间里的人可以让任何房间外的人以为他会说流利的中文。

  意义:

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IDI5PUS_AuE/R-vdh6WdytI/AAAAAAAABNc/18jFjg9WrVc/s320/searle.jpg

John Searle

 

  Searle 创造了“中文房间”思想实验来反驳电脑和其他人工智能都能够真正思考的观点。房间里的人不会说中文;他无法用中文思考。但就因为他拥有某些工具,他甚至可以让以中文为母语的人以为他能说流利的中文。Searle还说,电脑就是这样工作的。它们无法真正理解他们所给出的信息,但它们可以运行一个程序、处理信息、然后给出一个具有人工智能的印象。

  2.薛定谔的猫*
 

Schrodinger's Cat



  "薛定锷的猫" 最早由物理学家薛定锷提出,是量子力学领域中的一个悖论。内容是:一只猫被封闭在一个盒子里一个小时,和它一起的还有一些放射性元素和一瓶毒气。在一小时内,放射性元素的衰变几率为50%。如果发生了衰变,那么会触发一个连接在盖革计数器上的锤子,打碎瓶子,释放毒气,杀死猫。因为这件事是否发生的概率相等,薛定锷认为在盒子被打开前,盒子中的猫可以同时被认为是既死又活的。

  意义:


http://www.nndb.com/people/308/000072092/schrod1-sized.jpg

Erwin Schrodinger


  简而言之,这个实验的核心思想是因为事件发生时不存在观察者,盒子里的猫可能同时存在所有的状态(实验中既死又活)。

  薛定锷最早是在回复一篇讨论量子态叠加本质的文章时提出这个实验的。薛定锷的猫同时也说 明了量子力学的理论是多么奇怪。这个思想实验因其复杂性而"臭名昭著",同时也产生了各种各样的解释。其中最古怪的是“多重世界”假说,这个假说表示有一 只既死又活的猫,那么两只猫是存在于不同的宇宙间,且永远不会有交集。[这个观念同一个古老的谜题相似,谜题内容为,如果一棵树倒在了树木中,且没有人听到声音,那么它有没有发出声响? (注: 本文转发之后,内行的网友指出这部分的解释有误。事实上,树的例子跟量子力学领域中的"薛定锷的猫" 悖论/“佯谬”没有联系。比较接近的解释见后。)]

  

________________

*:

 

       量子力学的奠基人之一埃尔温•薛定锷1935年发表了一个奇特的理想实验,用来描述他对量子叠加态的思索,因为这是一个量子世界里的实验,事实上既无法操作(因为过于微观,没有任何仪器可以办到)又无法展示出来(人的感 觉器官只能接受宏观的景观,不可能看见量子世界),于是薛定锷只好用一个常人可以把握的东西——一只猫来做这个实验,而这个实验又无法真做,所以只能用语 言来描述。
       薛定锷的实验是这样的:一只猫关在一个密封的钢盒里,盒内有下述极残忍的装置(这个装置必须保证不受猫的直接干扰):在盖革计数器中有一小块辐射物质,它 非常小,或许在1小时内只有一个原子衰变,如果衰变,计数管便放电并通过继电器释放一锤,击碎一个小的氢氰酸瓶。放射性衰变本身是一种量子过程,这个装置 在1个小时内,如果没有原子衰变,这只猫就是活的,而若发生第一次衰变,则必然会杀死这只猫。

       这个实验要问:如果你打开这个钢盒,会发现什么情景?人们当然知道,这只猫非死即活,但是,按照量子力学的观点,这只猫既是死的,又是活的,它有两种状态 同时存在于这只封闭的钢盒内,虽然我们无法同时看到它的两种状态,但正如我们不可能同时看到量子的两种状态一样。薛定锷的实验认为,盒内系统处于两种态的 叠加之中,一态中有活猫,一态中有死猫。因此就包含着这两种可能的、但相互排斥的观测结果的组合。所以这猫在同一个时刻是既活又死。如果我们这位老好人薛 定锷教授不去打开箱盖看这猫,他著名的薛定锷方程就表示,这猫的时间演化在数学上,可以用这两种状态的组合——系统的波函数来描写,而这种组合在物理上 (以及在生理学上)是说不通的。

       正像在测量做出之前光子既不是波也不是粒子一样,这猫在教授最终决定去窥视 它以前,既不是活着也不是死了猫的这两种态。直到一个人打开盒子看个究意时,才会变为一种状态:非死即活。

参考资料:http://www.chinaqikan.com/showTip.asp?tipid=101991

 

这个问题被广泛称之为“佯谬”,我也不明白。好在从网上看来类似的不解下面把别人的问题和其他人的答案列出来(为了清楚,我加了蓝色部分几个字):
________________
"困惑我的问题":

如果在钢盒内部有一个观察者(一个穿着防护衣的人或者摄像机之类),那么猫的死活就不取决于打开盒子的观察者而是取决于盒子内的观察者?
 

cn_zy0612回答:


首先猫的死活不取决于观察者在哪里,而取决于是否发生了衰变。根据测不准原理(也叫不确定原理, 量子力学的基本原理)人们无法准确的预测量子过程(即原子是否产生衰败),只能给出一个可能(或不可能)产生衰败概率,这个概率在你打开盒子之前不可能知道,在打开的那一瞬间无效,在你打开盒子之后无意义

也就是说无论之前得出的概率是多少,哪怕你算出这只猫有99.999%的可能性是活的,在你打开盒子那一瞬间仍有 0.001%的可能性是死的,所有概率在这一点上无效。而在这之后猫的死活已成定局,之前的那个概率毫无意义。

第二不确定原理定义:一个微观粒子的某些物理量(如位置和动量,或方位角与动量矩,还有时间和能量等),不可能同时具有确定的数值,其中一个量越确定,另 一个量的不确定程度就越大。测量一对共轭量的误差的乘积必然大于常数 h/2π (h是普朗克常数)是海森伯在1927年首先提出的,它反映了微观粒子运动的基本规律,是物理学中又一条重要原理。 (由此也产生了爱因斯坦的著名论断,“上帝不赌博。”)  

第三个人认为产生不确定性原理的原因是人类自身的生理结构的极限(比如说人从看到物体到形成记忆的时间与粒子运动的速度相比太慢,)导致观测量子运动过程 的不连续性,也就是说由于受到自身生理结构的限制,没有观测到粒子运动的全部所有并存在一个即死有活的状态。


  1.缸中的大脑

 





  没有比所谓“缸中的大脑”更有影响力的思想实验了,这个思想实验涵盖了从认知学到哲学到流行文化等各个领域。这个实验要求你想象有一个疯狂科学家把你的大脑从你体内取出,放在一个装有维持生命液体的缸中。大脑是连着电极,电极还连到一台能产生图像和感官信号的电脑上。因为你获取的所有关于世界的信息都是经由大脑过滤,这台电脑就有能力模拟你日常的体验。如果这确实可能的话,你要如何来证明你周围的世界是真实的,而不是由一台电脑所产生的模拟环境?

  意义:

 

http://www.gap-system.org/~history/BigPictures/Descartes.jpeg

René Descartes

 

  如果你觉得这一切听起来很像《黑客帝国》,你说对了。这部电影以及其他一些科幻小说和电影,都受到了这个实验很大的影响。这个实验的核心思想是让人们质疑经历的本质,并思考作为一个人的真正意义是什么。这个实验的原型可以追溯至笛卡尔,由希拉里·普特南推广。在笛卡尔的《第一哲学沉思录》一书中,笛卡尔提出了是否证明能他所有的感官体验都是他自己的,而不是由某个“邪恶魔鬼”所产生的幻想。笛卡尔用他的经典名言“我思故我在”回答了这个问题。不幸的是,“缸中的大脑”将问题复杂化了,因为连着电极的大脑仍然可以思考。这个实验被哲学家广泛讨论,也有许多针对实验前提的反驳,但仍没有人能有力的回应其核心问题:你到底怎么才能知道什么是真实?

 

________

http://mattovermatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Hubble-jump_jpg_600x345_crop-smart_upscale_q85.jpg


Top 10 Most Famous Thought Experiments


with videos

Thought experiments are mental concepts or hypotheses, often resembling riddles, which are used by philosophers and scientists as simple ways of illuminating what are usually very dense ideas. Most often, they’re used in more abstract fields like philosophy and theoretical physics, where physical experiments aren’t possible. They serve as some hearty food for thought, but given their complex subject matter, it’s not unusual for even the thought experiment itself to be nearly incomprehensible. With this in mind, here are ten of the most famous thought experiments, along with explanations of the philosophical, scientific, and ethical ideas they work to explain:

10. The Trolley Problem


One of the most well known thought experiments in the field of ethics is the “Trolley Problem,” which goes something like this: a madman has tied five innocent people to a trolley track. An out of control trolley car is careening toward them, and is moments away from running them over. Luckily, you can pull a lever and divert the trolley to another track. The only problem is that the madman has also tied a single person to that track. Considering the circumstances, should you pull the lever?

What it Means:

The trolley problem was first proposed by the philosopher Philippa Foot as a means of critiquing the major theories in ethical philosophy, in particular utilitarianism, the system which proposes that the most moral decision is always the one that provides “the greatest good for the greatest number.” From a utilitarian point of view, the obvious choice is to pull the lever, saving five and only killing one. But critics of this theory would state that in pulling the lever you become complicit in what is clearly an immoral act—you are now partially responsible for the death of the lone person on the other track. Others, meanwhile, argue that your mere presence in the situation demands that you act, and that to do nothing would be equally immoral. In short, there is no wholly moral action, and this is the point. Many philosophers have used the trolley problem as an example of the ways that real world situations often force individuals to compromise their own moral codes, and that there are times when there is no totally moral course of action.

9. The Cow in the Field

One of the major thought experiments in epistemology (the field of philosophy that deals with knowledge) is what is known as “The Cow in the Field.” It concerns a farmer who is worried his prize cow has wandered off. When the milkman comes to the farm, he tells the farmer not to worry, because he’s seen that the cow is in a nearby field. Though he’s nearly sure the man is right, the farmer takes a look for himself, sees the familiar black and white shape of his cow, and is satisfied that he knows the cow is there. Later on, the milkman drops by the field to double-check. The cow is indeed there, but it’s hidden in a grove of trees. There is also a large sheet of black and white paper caught in a tree, and it is obvious that the farmer mistook it for his cow. The question, then: even though the cow was in the field, was the farmer correct when he said he knew it was there?

What it Means:

The Cow in the Field was first used by Edmund Gettier as a criticism of the popular definition of knowledge as “justified true belief”—that is, that something becomes knowledge when a person believes it; it is factually true; and they have a verifiable justification for their belief. In the experiment, the farmer’s belief that the cow was there was justified by the testimony of the milkman and his own verification of a black and white object sitting in the field. It also happened to be true, as the milkman later confirmed. But despite all this, the farmer did not truly know the cow was there, because his reasoning for believing it turned out to be based on false premises. Gettier used this experiment, along with a few other examples, as proof of his argument that the definition of knowledge as justified true belief needed to be amended.

8. The Ticking Time Bomb


If you’ve paid any attention to political discourse over the past few years—or ever seen an action movie, for that matter—then you are no doubt familiar with the “ticking time bomb” thought experiment. It asks you to imagine that a bomb or other weapon of mass destruction is hidden in your city, and the timer on it will soon strike zero. You have in your custody a man with knowledge of where the device is planted. Do you resort to torture in order to get him to give up the information?

What it Means:


The concept was first introduced during the 1960s in the novel Les Centurions by Jean Lartéguy which is set during the First Indochina War. According to Darius Rejali, a professor of political science at Reed College, the possibility of sudden, massive destruction of innocent life provided French liberals with a more acceptable justification for committing torture.


Like the trolley problem, the ticking time bomb scenario is an ethical problem that forces one to choose between two morally questionable acts. It is most often employed as a counter argument to those who say the use of torture is inexcusable under any circumstances. It’s also used as an example of the way laws—like those the U.S. has against torturing prisoners—will always be set aside given extreme circumstances. Thanks to its fictionalized use in television shows like 24, along with its constant position in political debates, the ticking time bomb scenario has become one of the most frequently repeated thought experiments. An even more extreme take on the problem was presented in a British news article earlier this year. That version proposes that the terrorist in question won’t respond to torture, and asks if one would be willing to resort to torturing the man’s wife and children as a means of extracting the information from him.

7. Einstein’s Light Beam


It’s a little known fact that Albert Einstein’s famous work on special relativity was spurred by a thought experiment he conducted when he was only 16 years old. In his book Autobiographical Notes, Einstein recalls how he once daydreamed about chasing a beam of light as it traveled through space. He reasoned that if he were able to move next to it at the speed of light, he should be able to observe the light frozen in space as “an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating.” For Einstein, this thought experiment proved that for his imaginary observer “everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the Earth, was at rest.”

What it Means:

In truth, no one really knows for sure. Scientists have long debated how this deceivingly simple thought experiment helped Einstein make the massive theoretical leap required to arrive at special relativity theory. At the time, the ideas in the experiment contradicted the now-debunked belief in the “aether,” an invisible field through which light was believed to travel. It would be years before he could prove he was right, but this thought experiment was somehow the “germ,” as he called it, for Einstein’s theory of special relativity, one of the ideas that first established him as a towering figure in theoretical physics.

6. The Ship of Theseus


One of the oldest of all thought experiments is the paradox known as the Ship of Theseus, which originated in the writings of Plutarch. It describes a ship that remained seaworthy for hundreds of years thanks to constant repairs and replacement parts. As soon as one plank became old and rotted, it would be replaced, and so on until every working part of the ship was no longer original to it. The question is whether this end product is still the same Ship of Theseus, or something completely new and different. If it’s not, at what point did it stop being the same ship? The Philosopher Thomas Hobbes would later take the problem even further: if one were to take all the old parts removed from the Ship of Theseus and build a new ship from them, then which of the two vessels is the real Ship of Theseus?

What it Means:

For philosophers, the story of the Ship of Theseus is used as a means of exploring the nature of identity, specifically the question of whether objects are more than just the sum of their parts. A more modern example would be a band that had evolved over the years to the point that few or no original members remained in the lineup. This notion is also applicable to everything from businesses, which might retain the same name despite mergers and changes in leadership, to the human body, which is constantly regenerating and rebuilding itself. At its heart, the experiment forces one to question the commonly held idea that identity is solely contained in physical objects and phenomena.

5. Galileo’s Gravity Experiment


One of the earliest thought experiments originated with the physicist and astronomer Galileo. In order to refute Aristotle’s claim that the speed of a falling object is dictated by its mass, Galileo devised a simple mental example: According to Aristotelian logic, if a light object and a heavy object were tied together and dropped off a tower, then the heavier object would fall faster, and the rope between the two would become taut. This would allow the lighter object to create drag and slow the heavy one down. But Galileo reasoned that once this occurs, the weight of the two objects together should be heavier than the weight of either one by itself, therefore making the system as a whole fall faster. That this is a contradiction proved that Aristotle’s hypothesis was wrong.

What it Means:

One of the most famous stories about Galileo is that he once dropped two metal balls off the Leaning Tower of Pisa to prove that heavier objects do not fall faster than lighter ones. In actuality, this story is probably just a legend; instead, it was this elegant thought experiment that helped prove a very important theory about gravity: no matter their mass, all objects fall at the same rate of speed.

4. Monkeys and Typewriters


Another thought experiment that gets a lot of play in popular culture is what is known as the “infinite monkey theorem.” Also known as the “monkeys and typewriters” experiment, the theorem states that if an infinite number of monkeys were allowed to randomly hit keys on an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite amount of time, then at some point they would “almost surely” produce the complete works of Shakespeare. The monkeys and typewriters idea was popularized in the early 20th century by the French mathematician Emile Borel, but its basic idea—that infinite agents and infinite time will randomly produce anything and everything—dates back to Aristotle.

What it Means:

Simply put, the “monkeys and typewriters” theorem is one of the best ways to illustrate the nature of infinity. The human mind has a difficult time imagining a universe with no end or time that will never cease, and the infinite monkeys help to illustrate the sheer breadth of possibilities these concepts create. The idea that a monkey could write Hamlet by accident seems counterintuitive, but in fact it is mathematically provable when one considers the probabilities. The theorem itself is impossible to recreate in the real world, but that hasn’t stopped some from trying: In 2003, science students at a zoo in the U.K. “tested” the infinite monkey theorem when they put a computer and a keyboard in a primate enclosure. Unfortunately, the monkeys never got around to composing any sonnets. According to researchers, all they managed to produce was five pages consisting almost entirely of the letter “s.”

3. The Chinese Room


The Chinese Room is a famous thought experiment first proposed in the early 1980s by John Searle, a prominent American philosopher. The experiment asks you to imagine that an English speaking man has been placed in a room that is entirely sealed, save for a small mail slot in the chamber door. He has with him a hard copy in English of a computer program that translates the Chinese language. He also has plenty of spare scratch paper, pencils, and file cabinets. Pieces of paper containing Chinese characters are then slipped through the slot in the door. According to Searle, the man should be able to use his book to translate them and then send back his own response in Chinese. Although he doesn’t speak a word of the language, Searle argues that through this process the man in the room could convince anyone on the outside that he was a fluent speaker of Chinese.

What it Means:

Searle conceived the Chinese Room thought experiment in order to refute the argument that computers and other artificial intelligences could actually think and understand. The man in the room does not speak Chinese; he can’t think in the language. But because he has certain tools at his disposal, he would be able convince even a native speaker that he was fluent in it. According to Searle, computers do the same thing. They don’t ever truly understand the information they’re given, but they can run a program, access information, and give a clear impression of human intelligence.

2. Schrodinger’s Cat


Schrödinger’s Cat is a paradox relating to quantum mechanics that was first proposed by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger. It concerns a cat that is sealed inside a box for one hour along with a radioactive element and a vial of deadly poison. There is a 50/50 chance that the radioactive element will decay over the course of the hour. If it does, then a hammer connected to a Geiger counter will trigger, break the vial, release the poison, and kill the cat. Since there is an equal chance that this will or will not happen, Schrödinger argued that before the box is opened the cat is simultaneously both alive and dead.

What it Means:

In short, the point of the experiment is that because there is no one around to witness what had occurred, the cat existed in all of its possible states (in this case either alive or dead) simultaneously. This notion is similar to the old “if a tree falls in the woods and there’s no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?” riddle. Schrödinger originally conceived of his theoretical cat in response to an article that discussed the nature of quantum superpositions, a theory that defines all the possible states in which an object can exist. Schrödinger’s Cat also helped to illustrate just how weird the rules of quantum mechanics really were. The thought experiment is notorious for its complexity, which has encouraged a wide variety of interpretations. One of the most bizarre is the “many worlds” hypothesis, which states that the cat is both alive and dead, and that both cats exist in different universes that will never overlap with one another.

 
关于本站 | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站导航 | 隐私保护
Copyright (C) 1998-2024. Creaders.NET. All Rights Reserved.