Chapter 12 Chapter Eleven: Language, Confusion, and Jamming

A very interesting piece of work I mentioned in Chapter 4 is the recent work on the phenomenon of language by Dr. R. Mandelbrot of the University of Paris and Professor Jacobson of Harvard University, Especially the discussion about the most appropriate distribution of word lengths.In this chapter, I do not want to discuss this work in detail, but only draw some conclusions from some philosophical assumptions put forward by these two authors. Communication, they see, is a game, a game in which speaker and hearer unite against the forces of chaos, the usual difficulties of communication and the hypothetical people who try to block it.To be precise, this situation is von Neumann's game theory, which is about one group of people trying to transmit a message, while another group of people adopts some strategy to block the transmission of the message.In the strict sense of von Neumann's game theory, this means that the speaker and the listener cooperate strategically, starting from the assumption that the people jamming the communication adopt an optimal strategy to disrupt them, and assuming that Speakers and listeners are always using optimal strategies to prevent jamming, and so on.

In more common terms, both the caller and the power blocking the call can use deception to mess with each other at will, and, generally speaking, this method is used to prevent the other party from being able to rely on our methods. reliable knowledge to act on.So both sides are cheating, the power that jams communication adapts itself to the new communication technology developed by the communication power, and the communication power outsmarts any strategy devised by the power that jams communication.In this communication, the dictum of Einstein on the scientific method that I quoted earlier is of great significance: "God is shrewd, but not malicious" (Der Herr Gott ist raffiniert, aber boshaftist Er nicht ).

Far from being a cliché, this famous quote is a very profound statement about the problems scientists face.Vigorous and delicate means are needed to discover the secrets of nature, but in the case of inanimate nature we can at least expect one thing, that when we are able to take a step forward, we will not be distracted by nature's intentions and We messed up, we sabotaged, we changed its tactics, and we were blocked by it.Indeed, when we are dealing with living nature, this statement is not exempt from some limitations, since hysteria is often manifested in the presence of an audience, often unconsciously, with the intention (often unconsciously) of confusing that audience.On the other hand, just when we seem to have conquered an infectious disease, the germ can mutate, displaying properties in such a way that it appears at least consciously to bring us back to where we started from.

However troublesome these unruly natures may be to researchers in the life sciences, they are fortunately not among the difficulties considered by physicists.Nature is aboveboard, and if a physicist, after climbing a mountain, sees another mountain appearing in front of him on the horizon, it is not deliberately erected there to destroy his achievements. On the face of it, it might be thought that, even if nature does not consciously and purposefully interfere with us, the scientific worker should act prudently, that he should act in such a way that, even if nature does consciously and purposefully deceive us, so as not to prevent him from obtaining and transmitting information in the most advantageous manner.This view is unjust.Communication (in general) and scientific research (in particular) are labor-intensive endeavors, even fruitful ones, including wasted energy battling alien demons and ghosts, and This power should have been conserved.We cannot live a life of communication and science like boxing with ghosts.Experience has convinced every accomplished physicist that nature is not only difficult to explain, but that it actively resists explanation, and that, so far as he has done, any conception of nature has not yet been definitively proven, so to be an accomplished scientist he must be simple, even consciously simple, assuming he is dealing with an honest God, so he has to behave like an honest man. to pose their own questions to the world.

Therefore, although the simplicity of a scientist is a characteristic formed in accordance with the profession, it is not a shortcoming in the profession.One who approaches science from the point of view of a police detective spends a great deal of time unraveling conspiracies out of thin air, interrogating suspects who answer willingly to straightforward questions, and, in a word, playing the game of police and police. Robbery is a popular game, as it is now in the spheres of official and military science.I have no doubt that the present detective mania among the chief executives of science is one of the chief reasons why scientific work is so hindered.

From this it follows almost in a syllogism to the conclusion that there are other occupations besides the detective profession which do not and do not make a man fit for the most effective scientific work, since such occupations make him suspicious of the natural world. His honesty leads him to adopt a dishonest attitude toward the natural world and about its problems.The soldier is trained to see life as a struggle among men, but he does not necessarily cling to this view as much as a member of a military religious order—the Crusaders or the Scythe and Hammer.Here, the existence of an underlying propaganda point of view is far more important than the specific nature of the propaganda.Whether the military organization to which a person solemnly swears is a Nadus Loyonian or a Leninist military organization is not the point, the point is that he thinks his beliefs are more just than he should defend his own. Freedom and even professional simplicity are more important.No matter what his allegiance is, as long as this allegiance is absolute, he is not fit to fly in the high sky of science.It is not difficult to understand how science has come under attack when almost every ruling force today—left or right—demands the scientist's consistency of thought rather than his confession. What depreciation and what frustration awaits its fork in the future.

I have already pointed out that the genie scientists fight is chaos, not purposeful conspiracy.The view that nature has an entropic tendency is Augustine's, not Manichaeism's.The fact that nature has not taken an offensive strategy to consciously defeat scientists means that nature's evils are due to the weakness of scientists themselves, not that nature has a special counterbalance to the orderly principles of the universe or overcome their evil power.The principle of order in the universe, though partial and temporary, is perhaps not so different from what religious people refer to as God.According to Augustinianism, everything black in the world is passive black simply because it lacks white; however, according to Manichaeism, white and black are two opposing armies, lined up face to face. on one line.In all crusades, in all Muslim apologetic wars and in all communism's wars against the evils of capitalism, there is a subtle, emotive Manichean overtone.

It was always difficult to stay in Augustine's place.A little turmoil, and it's about to transform into a covert Manichaeism.The emotional connotation of Augustinism is manifested in the two-sided theory in Milton (Paradise Lost): If the demon is only God's creation, and if the demon is only in the world dominated by God Moving around, its function is only to point out some dark corners of life, then, a bad fight between demons and God forces is almost as interesting as a professional wrestling match.If Milton's poems were to be worth more than any of these wrestling shows, it would certainly give the Goblin a chance, at least in the Goblin's own reckoning, even if it was only A false chance.In the book, the words spoken by the demon himself show that he realized that God is omnipotent, and there is no hope of winning against him. However, the actions of the demon show that, at least in terms of emotions, he regards this struggle as a struggle. A hopeless, though not entirely useless, assertion of the rights of both his master and himself.But even an Augustinian monster had to be very careful, or it would be transformed into a Manichaean.

Any religious organization established in the manner of an army is subject to the same temptations as the descent into Manichean heresy.It compares the forces with which it struggles to a doomed lone army, but which is capable (or at least conceivably capable) of winning and making itself the ruling power.For this reason, such an order or organization is totally incompatible with our encouragement of scientists to adopt an Augustinian attitude; moreover, by its own moral measure, such an organization is not as critical to honesty in the spiritual realm. No high estimate.Military subterfuge is permissible against an insidious and cunning enemy.Consequently, the military organization of religion almost has to place a heavy emphasis on obedience, self-belief, and all those constraints that are detrimental to scientists.

It is true that no one but the church itself can judge the church; but it is equally true that people outside the church can and should have their own attitudes towards this church organization and community.It is also true that, as a spiritual force, communism is basically what the communists talk about, but their statements have a limitation on us as a way of defining an ideal, not our own. A description that can be acted upon within a particular organization or movement. Marx's own view, it seems, is Augustinian; and evil, according to him, is not so much a remarkable spontaneous force fighting against good as a lack of perfection.But even so, Communism has grown in struggle, and its general tendency seems to be to push into the future Hegel's final synthesis, to which the Augustinian attitude to evil corresponds, And this future, if not infinite, is at least very distant from what is happening now.

Therefore, in actual practice at present, whether it is the communist camp or many members of the church camp, they all adopt a firm Manichean stance.I once vaguely said that Manichaeism is a very bad environment for science.This is not surprising at all, because it is also a very bad environment for faith.When we do not understand whether a particular phenomenon we observe is the work of God or Satan, the foundations of our faith are shaken.Only under such conditions would it be possible to make a grand and arbitrary choice between God and Satan, a choice that could lead to magic or (to put it another way) witchcraft.Furthermore, witch hunts flourished as an important activity only in an atmosphere where witchcraft was a real possibility.So it is no accident that Russia has its Berias and we have our McCarthys. I have already said that science cannot be without faith.I do not say this to imply that the belief on which science rests is essentially a religious belief, or that it accepts any dogma of religious belief in general; There cannot be any science.It cannot be proved that nature obeys laws.Because we all know that the next moment the world may become like the croquet game in "Alice in Wonderland", in which a live hedgehog is used as the ball, and the goal is to go to other parts of the field. soldiers, and the rules of the game are formulated according to the orders of the Queen at all times.It is a world like this that scientists must adapt to in totalitarian countries, be they on the right or on the left.The queen of Marxism is indeed self-willed, and the queen of fascism is her good opponent. What I have said about the need for faith in science is as true for a world ruled by pure causality as it is for a world ruled by chance.No degree of purely objective and discrete observation is sufficient to prove that probability is a valid idea.In other words, logical induction cannot be established inductively.Inductive logic (Bacon's logic) is not so much something that can be demonstrated as something that can be acted on; our actions in accordance with this logic are the highest expressions of faith.Because of this, I must say that Einstein's dictum about God's confession is itself a statement about faith.Science is a way of life, and it can only flourish when people have freedom of belief.Faith which is compelled to obey orders from without is no faith, and a society based on such a false belief is bound to perish through paralysis, because in such a society science has no basis for healthy growth.