幾天沒(méi)見(jiàn)，大家有沒(méi)有想念小明呢？今天這篇文章，是我們的Leo Zhu（朱瓏）的強(qiáng)推和至愛(ài)。小明想要把它分享出來(lái)，獻(xiàn)給所有為擺脫沉悶而孜然以求的人，所有以熱戀的情態(tài)去探索和勞作的人，所有沉默寡言卻心有所向的人，所有胸中有物、眼中有光的人。
探索的動(dòng)機(jī)
Albert Einstein
在科學(xué)的神殿里有許多樓閣，住在里面的人真是各式各樣，而引導(dǎo)他們到那里去的動(dòng)機(jī)也各不相同。有許多人愛(ài)好科學(xué)是因?yàn)榭茖W(xué)給他們以超乎常人的智力上的快感，科學(xué)是他們自己的特殊娛樂(lè)，他們?cè)谶@種娛樂(lè)中尋求生動(dòng)活潑的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和對(duì)他們自己雄心壯志的滿足。在這座神殿里，另外還有許多人是為了純粹功利的目的而把他們的腦力產(chǎn)物奉獻(xiàn)到祭壇上的。如果上帝的一位天使跑來(lái)把所有屬于這兩類的人都趕出神殿，那么集結(jié)在那里的人數(shù)就會(huì)大大減少，但是，仍然會(huì)有一些人留在里面，其中有古人，也有今人，我們的普朗克就是其中之一，這也就是我們所以愛(ài)戴他的原因。
我很明白在剛才的想象中被輕易逐出的人里面也有許多卓越的人物，他們?cè)诮ㄖ茖W(xué)神殿中做出過(guò)很大的也許是主要的貢獻(xiàn)；在許多情況下，我們的天使也會(huì)覺(jué)得難以決定誰(shuí)該不該被趕走。但有一點(diǎn)我可以肯定，如果神殿里只有被驅(qū)逐的那兩類人，那么這座神殿決不會(huì)存在，正如只有蔓草就不成其為森林一樣。因?yàn)閷?duì)于這些人來(lái)說(shuō)，只要碰上機(jī)會(huì)，任何人類活動(dòng)的領(lǐng)域都是合適的：他們究竟成為工程師、官吏、商人還是科學(xué)家，完全取決于環(huán)境。現(xiàn)在讓我們?cè)賮?lái)看看那些得到天使寵愛(ài)而留下來(lái)的人吧。
他們大多數(shù)是沉默寡言的、相當(dāng)怪僻和孤獨(dú)的人，但盡管有這些共同特點(diǎn)，他們之間卻不像那些被趕走的一群那樣彼此相似。究竟是什么力量把他們引到這座神殿中來(lái)的呢?這是一個(gè)難題，不能籠統(tǒng)地用一句話來(lái)回答。首先我同意叔本華所說(shuō)的，把人們引向藝術(shù)和科學(xué)的最強(qiáng)烈的動(dòng)機(jī)之一，是要逃避日常生活中令人厭惡的粗俗和使人絕望的沉悶，是要擺脫人們自由變化不定的欲望的桎梏。一個(gè)修養(yǎng)有素的人總是渴望逃避個(gè)人生活而進(jìn)入客觀知覺(jué)和思維的世界——這種愿望好比城市里的人渴望逃避熙來(lái)攘往的環(huán)境，而到高山上享受幽寂的生活。在那里透過(guò)清凈純潔的空氣，可以自由地眺望、沉醉地欣賞那似乎是為永恒而設(shè)計(jì)的寧?kù)o景色。
除了這種消極的動(dòng)機(jī)外，還有一種積極的動(dòng)機(jī)。人們總想以最適合于他自己的方式，畫出一幅簡(jiǎn)單的和可理解的世界圖像，然后他就試圖用他的這種世界體系來(lái)代替經(jīng)驗(yàn)的世界，并征服后者。這就是畫家、詩(shī)人、思辨哲學(xué)家和自然科學(xué)家各按自己的方式去做的事。各人把世界體系及其構(gòu)成作為他的感情生活的中樞，以便由此找到他在個(gè)人經(jīng)驗(yàn)的狹小范圍內(nèi)所不能找到的寧?kù)o和安定。
在所有可能的圖像中，理論物理學(xué)家的世界圖像占有什么地位呢?在描述各種關(guān)系時(shí)，它要求嚴(yán)密的精確性達(dá)到那種只有用數(shù)學(xué)語(yǔ)言才能達(dá)到的最高的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。另一方面，物理學(xué)家必須極其嚴(yán)格地控制他的主題范圍，必須滿足于描述我們經(jīng)驗(yàn)領(lǐng)域里的最簡(jiǎn)單事件。對(duì)于一切更為復(fù)雜的事件企圖以理論物理學(xué)家所要求的精密性和邏輯上的完備性把它們重演出來(lái)，這就超出了人類理智所能及的范圍。高度的純粹性、明晰性和確定性要以完整性為代價(jià)。但是當(dāng)人們膽小謹(jǐn)慎地把一切比較復(fù)雜而難以捉摸的東西都撇開不管時(shí)，那么能吸引我們?nèi)フJ(rèn)識(shí)自然界的這一渺小部分的，究竟又是什么呢?難道這種謹(jǐn)小慎微的努力結(jié)果也夠得上宇宙理論的美名嗎?
我認(rèn)為，夠得上的。因?yàn)椋鳛槔碚撐锢韺W(xué)結(jié)構(gòu)基礎(chǔ)的普遍定律，應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)任何自然現(xiàn)象都有效。有了它們，就有可能借助于單純的演繹得出一切自然過(guò)程（包括生命過(guò)程）的描述，也就是它們的理論，只要這種演繹過(guò)程并不超出人類理智能力太多。因此，物理學(xué)家放棄他的世界體系的完整性，倒不是一個(gè)什么根本原則問(wèn)題。
物理學(xué)家的最高使命是得到那些普遍的基本定律，由此世界體系就能用單純的演繹法建立起來(lái)。要通向這些定律，沒(méi)有邏輯推理的途徑，只有通過(guò)建立在經(jīng)驗(yàn)的同感的理解之上的那種直覺(jué)。由于這種方法論上的不確定性，人們將認(rèn)為這樣就會(huì)有多種可能同樣適用的理論物理學(xué)體系，這個(gè)看法在理論上無(wú)疑是正確的。但是物理學(xué)的發(fā)展表明，在某一時(shí)期里，在所有可想到的解釋中，總有一個(gè)比其他的一些都高明得多。凡是真正深入研究過(guò)這一問(wèn)題的人，都不會(huì)否認(rèn)唯一決定理論體系的實(shí)際上是現(xiàn)象世界，盡管在現(xiàn)象和他們的理論原理之間并沒(méi)有邏輯的橋梁；這就是萊布尼茨非常中肯地表述過(guò)的“先天的和諧”。物理學(xué)家往往責(zé)備研究認(rèn)識(shí)論的人沒(méi)有足夠注意這個(gè)事實(shí)。我認(rèn)為，幾年前馬赫和普朗克的論戰(zhàn)，根源就在這里。
渴望看到這種先天的和諧，是無(wú)窮的毅力和耐心的源泉。我們看到，普朗克就是因此而專心致志于這門科學(xué)中的最普遍的問(wèn)題，而不是使自己分心于比較愉快的和容易達(dá)到的目標(biāo)上去的人。我常常聽說(shuō)，同事們?cè)噲D把他的這種態(tài)度歸因于非凡的意志和修養(yǎng)，但我認(rèn)為這是錯(cuò)誤的。促使人們?nèi)プ鲞@種工作的精神狀態(tài)，是同宗教信奉者或談戀愛(ài)的人的精神狀態(tài)相類似的，他們每日的努力并非來(lái)自深思熟慮的意向或計(jì)劃，而是直接來(lái)自激情。我們敬愛(ài)的普朗克今天就坐在這里，內(nèi)心在笑我像孩子一樣提著第歐根尼的風(fēng)燈鬧著玩。我們對(duì)他的愛(ài)戴不需要作老生常談的說(shuō)明，我們但愿他對(duì)科學(xué)的熱愛(ài)將繼續(xù)照亮他未來(lái)的道路，并引導(dǎo)他去解決今天理論物理學(xué)的最重要的問(wèn)題。這問(wèn)題是他自己提出來(lái)的，并且為了解決這問(wèn)題他已經(jīng)做了很多工作。祝他成功地把量子論同電動(dòng)力學(xué)、力學(xué)統(tǒng)一于一個(gè)單一的邏輯體系里。
（以上是愛(ài)因斯坦在柏林物理學(xué)會(huì)舉辦的紀(jì)念Max Planck的60歲生日演講會(huì)上的演講。）
Principles of Research
by Albert Einstein
[The following piece was a speech written by Albert Einstein for Max Planck's 60th birthday.]
In the temple of science are many mansions, and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them thither. Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present and past times, left inside. Our Planck is one of them, and that is why we love him.
I am quite aware that we have just now light-heartedly expelled in imagination many excellent men who are largely, perhaps chiefly, responsible for the building of the temple of science; and in many cases our angel would find it a pretty ticklish job to decide. But of one thing I feel sure: if the types we have just expelled were the only types there were, the temple would never have come to be, any more than a forest can grow which consists of nothing but creepers. For these people any sphere of human activity will do, if it comes to a point; whether they become engineers, officers, tradesmen, or scientists depends on circumstances. Now let us have another look at those who have found favor with the angel.
Most of them are somewhat odd, uncommunicative, solitary fellows, really less like each other, in spite of these common characteristics, than the hosts of the rejected. What has brought them to the temple? That is a difficult question and no single answer will cover it. To begin with, I believe with Schopenhauer that one of the strongest motives that leads men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own ever shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from personal life into the world of objective perception and thought; this desire may be compared with the townsman's irresistible longing to escape from his noisy, cramped surroundings into the silence of high mountains, where the eye ranges freely through the still, pure air and fondly traces out the restful contours apparently built for eternity.
With this negative motive there goes a positive one. Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world; he then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it. This is what the painter, the poet, the speculative philosopher, and the natural scientist do, each in his own fashion. Each makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life, in order to find in this way the peace and security which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience.
What place does the theoretical physicist's picture of the world occupy among all these possible pictures? It demands the highest possible standard of rigorous precision in the description of relations, such as only the use of mathematical language can give. In regard to his subject matter, on the other hand, the physicist has to limit himself very severely: he must content himself with describing the most simple events which can be brought within the domain of our experience; all events of a more complex order are beyond the power of the human intellect to reconstruct with the subtle accuracy and logical perfection which the theoretical physicist demands. Supreme purity, clarity, and certainty at the cost of completeness. But what can be the attraction of getting to know such a tiny section of nature thoroughly, while one leaves everything subtler and more complex shyly and timidly alone? Does the product of such a modest effort deserve to be called by the proud name of a theory of the universe?
In my belief the name is justified; for the general laws on which the structure of theoretical physics is based claim to be valid for any natural phenomenon whatsoever. With them, it ought to be possible to arrive at the description, that is to say, the theory, of every natural process, including life, by means of pure deduction, if that process of deduction were not far beyond the capacity of the human intellect. The physicist's renunciation of completeness for his cosmos is therefore not a matter of fundamental principle.
The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them. In this methodological uncertainty, one might suppose that there were any number of possible systems of theoretical physics all equally well justified; and this opinion is no doubt correct, theoretically. But the development of physics has shown that at any given moment, out of all conceivable constructions, a single one has always proved itself decidedly superior to all the rest. Nobody who has really gone deeply into the matter will deny that in practice the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system, in spite of the fact that there is no logical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles; this is what Leibnitz described so happily as a "pre-established harmony." Physicists often accuse epistemologists of not paying sufficient attention to this fact. Here, it seems to me, lie the roots of the controversy carried on some years ago between Mach and Planck.
The longing to behold this pre-established harmony is the source of the inexhaustible patience and perseverance with which Planck has devoted himself, as we see, to the most general problems of our science, refusing to let himself be diverted to more grateful and more easily attained ends. I have often heard colleagues try to attribute this attitude of his to extra-ordinary will-power and discipline -wrongly, in my opinion. The state of mind which enables a man to do work of this kind is akin to that of the religious worshiper or the lover; the daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart. There he sits, our beloved Planck, and smiles inside himself at my childish playing-about with the lantern of Diogenes. Our affection for him needs no threadbare explanation. May the love of science continue to illumine his path in the future and lead him to the solution of the most important problem in present-day physics, which he has himself posed and done so much to solve. May he succeed in uniting quantum theory with electrodynamics and mechanics in a single logical system.
You can copy the link to share to others: http://www.jisvip.com/node/667