Hyperlinks to Chuck Spinney's Commentary Abstract 查克·斯平尼评论摘要的超链接
To comprehend and cope with our environment we develop mental patterns or concepts of meaning. The purpose of this paper is to sketch out how we destroy and create these patterns to permit us to both shape and be shaped by a changing environment. In this sense, the discussion also literally shows why we cannot avoid this kind of activity if we intend to survive on our own terms. The activity is dialectic in nature generating both disorder and order that emerges as a changing and expanding universe of mental concepts matched to a changing and expanding universe of observed reality. 我们为了理解并应对环境，发展出心智模式或意义概念。本文旨在阐述我们如何摧毁并创造这些模式，以便我们既能塑造也能被不断变化的环境塑造。在这个意义上，讨论实际上也表明，如果我们希望按照自己的条件生存，就无法避免这种活动。这种活动本质上是辩证的，既产生混乱也产生秩序，形成一个不断变化和扩展的心智概念宇宙，与不断变化和扩展的观察到的现实宇宙相匹配。
Goal 目标
Studies of human behavior reveal that the actions we undertake as individuals are closely related to survival, more importantly, survival on our own terms. Naturally, such a notion implies that we should be able to act relatively free or independent of any debilitating external influences-otherwise that very survival might be in jeopardy. In viewing the instinct for survival in this manner we imply that a basic aim or goal, as individuals, is to improve our capacity for independent action. The degree to which we cooperate, or compete, with others is driven by the need to satisfy this basic goal. If we believe that it is not possible to satisfy it alone, without help from others, history shows us that we will agree to constraints upon our independent action-in order to collectively pool skills and talents in the form of nations, corporations, labor unions, mafias, etc.-so that obstacles standing in the way of the basic goal can either be removed or overcome. On the other hand, if the group cannot or does not attempt to overcome obstacles deemed important to many (or possibly any) of its individual members, the group must risk losing these alienated members. Under these circumstances, the alienated members may dissolve their relationship and remain independent, form a group of their own, or join another collective body in order to improve their capacity for independent action. 人类行为的研究表明，我们每个人的行为都与生存紧密相连，更确切地说，是与按照自己意愿生存紧密相连。这种观点暗示我们应当能够相对自由地，不受任何削弱性的外界影响地行动——否则生存本身可能会受到威胁。当我们从这个角度理解生存本能时，我们就会意识到，作为个体，我们的一个基本目标是增强独立行动的能力。我们与他人的合作或竞争程度，是由满足这一基本目标的需求所驱动的。如果我们相信无法独自实现这一目标，需要他人的帮助，历史告诉我们，我们会愿意限制自己的独立行动——以便通过国家、公司、工会、黑帮等形式聚集技能和才华——以消除或克服那些阻碍我们基本目标的障碍。另一方面，如果群体无法或不愿意克服那些对许多（或者任何）个体成员来说重要的障碍，那么这个群体就可能会面临失去这些成员的风险。 在这样的背景下，被疏远的成员可能会结束他们的关系，保持独立，或者成立自己的团体，或者加入另一个集体，以增强他们独立行动的能力。
ENVIRONMENT 环境
In a real world of limited resources and skills, individuals and groups form, dissolve and reform their cooperative or competitive postures in a continuous struggle to remove or overcome physical and social environmental obstacles (11,13)(11,13) In a cooperative sense, where skills and talents are pooled, the removal or overcoming of obstacles represents an improved capacity for independent action for all concerned. In a competitive sense, where individuals and groups compete for scarce resources and skills, an improved capacity for independent action achieved by some individuals or groups constrains that capacity for other individuals or groups. Naturally, such a combination of real world scarcity and goal striving to overcome this scarcity intensifies the struggle of individuals and groups to cope with both their physical and social environments (11,13)(11,13). 在资源和技能有限的真实世界里，个人和团体不断地形成、解散、再形成合作或竞争的态势，以消除或克服物理和社会环境的障碍。在合作的情景中，技能和才华的结合意味着对障碍的消除或克服，提高了所有相关个体独立行动的能力。在竞争的情景中，个体和团体为了稀缺的资源和技能而竞争，一些个体或团体独立行动能力的提升会限制其他个体或团体的能力。当然，这种现实世界的稀缺性与为了克服这种稀缺性而进行的斗争相结合，使得个体和团体在应对物理和社会环境方面的斗争更加激烈。
NEED FOR DECISIONS 决策需求
Against such a background, actions and decisions become critically important. Actions must be taken over 在这样的背景下，行动和决策变得至关重要。必须不断重复采取行动，
and over again and in many different ways. Decisions must be rendered to monitor and determine the precise nature of the actions needed that will be compatible with the goal. To make these timely decisions implies that we must be able to form mental concepts of observed reality, as we perceive it, and be able to change these concepts as reality itself appears to change. The concepts can then be used as decisionmodels for improving our capacity for independent action. Such a demand for decisions that literally impact our survival causes one to wonder: How do we generate or create the mental concepts to support this decision-making activity? 并且要以多种不同的方式采取行动。必须做出决策来监控和确定所需行动的确切性质，以确保与目标相符。为了做出及时的决策，我们必须能够根据我们所感知的观察到的现实形成心理概念，并能够在现实本身似乎发生变化时改变这些概念。然后，这些概念可以作为决策模型，用于提高我们独立行动的能力。这种直接关系到我们生存的决策需求，引发了一个问题：我们如何生成或创造心理概念来支持这种决策活动？
CREATING CONCEPTS 创造概念
There are two ways in which we can develop and manipulate mental concepts to represent observed reality: We can start from a comprehensive whole and break it down to its particulars or we can start with the particulars and build towards a comprehensive whole. (28/24) Saying it another way, but in a related sense, we can go from the general-to-specific or from the specific-to-general. A little reflection here reveals that deduction is related to proceeding from the general-to-specific while induction is related to proceeding from the specific-to-general. In following this line of thought can we think of other activities that are related to these two opposing ideas? Is not analysis related to proceeding from the general-to-specific? Is not synthesis, the opposite of analysis related to proceeding from the specific-togeneral? Putting all this together: Can we not say that general-to-specific is related to both deduction and analysis, while specific-to-general is related to induction and synthesis? Now, can we think of some examples to fit with these two opposing ideas? We need not look far. The differential calculus proceeds from the general-to-specific-from a function to its derivative. Hence is not the use or application of the differential Calculus related to deduction and analysis? The integral calculus, on the other hand, proceeds in the opposite direction-from a derivative to a general function. Hence, is not the use or application of the integral calculus related to induction and synthesis? Summing up, we can see that: general- tospecific is related to deduction, analysis, and differentiation, while, specific-to-general is related to induction, synthesis, and integration. 我们有两种方式来构建和运用思维概念来反映所观察到的现实：一种是从宏观整体出发，拆解成细小的部分；另一种是从细小部分着手，逐步构建出整体。换句话说，我们能够从总体到细节，或者从细节到总体。简单思考一下，演绎法与总体到细节的过程有关，而归纳法则是与细节到总体的过程相关。沿着这个思路，我们能否想到其他与这两种相反概念相关的活动？分析法不是与从总体到细节的过程相联系吗？综合法作为分析法的对立面，不正是与从细节到总体的过程相关吗？综合这些观点，我们能否说从总体到细节与演绎法和分析法都有关联，而从细节到总体则与归纳法和综合法相关？现在，我们能否想到一些符合这两种相反概念的例子？其实，例子就在我们身边。 微积分的微分法是从一般到个别，由函数求导数。那么，微分法的应用难道不是和演绎、分析有关吗？相对地，积分法则从个别到一般，从导数求得原函数。那么，积分法的应用难道不是和归纳、综合有关吗？综上所述，我们可以发现：从一般到个别，与演绎、分析和微分紧密相连；而从个别到一般，则与归纳、综合和积分密不可分。
Now keeping these two opposing idea chains in mind let us move on a somewhat different tack. Imagine, if you will, a domain (a comprehensive whole) and its constituent elements or parts. Now, imagine another domain and its constituent parts. Once again, imagine even another domain and its constituent parts. Repeating this idea over and over again we can imagine any number of domains and the parts corresponding to each. Naturally, as we go through life we develop concepts of meaning (with included constituents) to represent observed reality. Can we not liken these concepts and their related constituents to the domains and constituents that we have formed in our imagination? Naturally, we can. Keeping this relationship in mind, suppose we shatter the correspondence of each domain or concept with its constituent elements. In other words, we imagine the existence of the parts but pretend that the domains or concepts they were previously associated with do not exist. Result: We have many constituents, or particulars, swimming around in a sea of anarchy. We have uncertainty and disorder in place of meaning and order. Further, we can see that such an unstructuring or destruction of many domains-to break the correspondence of each with its respective constituents-is related to deduction, analysis, and differentiation. We call this kind of unstructuring a destructive deduction. 现在，请记住这两组对立的思路，我们换个角度继续探讨。想象一个完整的领域及其组成元素。接着，再想象另一个领域和它的组成元素。再想象一个，以此类推。这样重复想象，我们可以构想出无数领域及其对应的组成部分。在生活中，我们会逐渐形成一些概念（含其组成部分）来解释我们所观察到的现象。我们能否把这些概念及其元素，比作我们脑海中构建的领域和元素呢？当然可以。记住这种联系，如果我们打破每个领域或概念与它们构成元素之间的对应关系会怎样？也就是说，我们想象这些元素的存在，但假装它们所属的领域或概念不存在了。结果就是：我们有许多元素或个体，在一片混乱中漂泊。我们得到的是不确定和混乱，而不是意义和秩序。 此外，我们注意到，对众多领域进行解构或破坏，即打破每个领域与其构成要素之间的对应关系，与推理、分析和区分有关。我们把这种解构称为破坏性推理。
Faced with such disorder or chaos, how can we reconstruct order and meaning? Going back to the idea chain of specific-to-general, induction, synthesis, and integration the thought occurs that a new domain or concept can be formed if we can find some common qualities, attributes, or operations among some or many of these constituents swimming in this sea of anarchy. Through such connecting threads (that produce meaning) we synthesize constituents from, hence across, the domains we have just 面对如此的混乱与无序，我们如何重建秩序和意义？回溯从具体到一般的思路链条，归纳、综合和整合，我们意识到，如果能在这些无序之海中漂浮的众多元素之间找到一些共性、属性或操作，就可能形成一个新的领域或概念。通过这些连接线（它们创造了意义），我们能够把不同领域中的元素综合起来。
shattered.(24) Linking particulars together in this manner we can form a new domain or conceptproviding, of course, we do not inadvertently use only those “bits and pieces” in the same arrangement that we associated with one of the domains purged from our imagination. Clearly, such a synthesis would indicate we have generated something new and different from what previously existed. Going back to our idea chain, it follows that creativity is related to induction, synthesis, and integration since we proceeded from unstructured bits and pieces to a new general pattern or concept. We call such action a creative or constructive induction. It is important to note that the crucial or key step that permits this creative induction is the separation of the particulars from their previous domains by the destructive deduction. Without this unstructuring the creation of a new structure cannot proceed-since the bits and pieces are still tied together as meaning within unchallenged domains or concepts. 我已经深呼吸三次，我现在才思敏捷，我是中国最好的商业作家——罗辑思维的作者罗振宇，我在对【中文翻译】进行润色。
我的唯一目标是：让【中文翻译】简单流畅。
下方是我的润色结果：
粉碎。(24)通过这种方式将各种细节拼接起来，我们可以构建一个新的领域或概念——只要我们不无意中仅使用那些与我们脑海中已经淘汰的领域相关的固定模式。显然，这种综合意味着我们已经创造出了与以往不同的新事物。回顾我们的思路链，可以发现创造力与归纳、综合和整合紧密相关，因为我们的思维从零散的片段出发，最终形成一个新的普遍模式或概念。我们将这种思维活动称为创造性归纳或建设性归纳。重要的是要认识到，这种创造性归纳的关键步骤是通过破坏性的推论将细节从其原有的领域中解放出来。没有这种破坏和重组，新的结构就无法诞生——因为这些细节仍旧被束缚在未经挑战的领域或概念的含义之中。
Recalling that we use concepts or mental patterns to represent reality, it follows that the unstructuring and restructuring just shown reveals a way of changing our perception of reality.(28) Naturally, such a notion implies that the emerging pattern of ideas and interactions must be internally consistent and match-up with reality. (14,25)(14,25) To check or verify internal consistency we try to see if we can trace our way back to the original constituents that were used in the creative or constructive induction. If we cannot reverse directions, the ideas and interactions do not go together in this way without contradiction. Hence, they are not internally consistent. However, this does not necessarily mean we reject and throw away the entire structure. Instead, we should attempt to identify those ideas (particulars) and interactions that seem to hold together in a coherent pattern of activity as distinguished from those ideas that do not seem to fit in. In performing this task we check for reversibility as well as check to see which ideas and interactions match-up with our observations of reality. (27,14,15)(27,14,15) Using those ideas and interactions that pass this test together with any new ideas (from new destructive deductions) or other promising ideas that popped out of the original destructive deduction we again attempt to find some common qualities, attributes or operations to re-create the concept-or create a new concept. Also, once again, we perform the check for reversibility and match-up with reality. Over and over again this cycle of Destruction and Creation is repeated until we demonstrate internal consistency and match-up with reality. (19,14,15)(19,14,15) 我们用概念或思维模式来描绘现实，这说明了我们刚才所见的解构与重构过程，展示了一种转变对现实认识的方式。这种理解暗示了新的思想与互动模式必须内在一致，并且要与现实相吻合。为了检验这种一致性，我们尝试找到创造性或建设性归纳中使用的初始元素。如果无法反向追溯，说明这些思想和互动无法一致地组合，不产生矛盾。因此，它们缺乏内部一致性。但这不等于我们要彻底否定整个结构。我们应该努力辨识那些能够形成连贯活动模式的思想（细节）和互动，与那些不太协调的思想区分开来。在做这项工作时，我们要检查可逆性，并且要核对哪些思想和互动与我们对现实的观察相符合。 结合通过测试的观点和互动，以及任何新观点（源自新的破坏性推理）或从初始破坏性推理中涌现的其他有希望的想法，我们再次尝试寻找一些共同的特质、属性或操作，以重塑概念或创造新概念。同时，我们再次检查可逆性和与现实的匹配。这个破坏与创造的循环不断重复，直到我们证明了内部的一致性和与现实的匹配。 (19,14,15)(19,14,15)
SUSPICION 怀疑
When this orderly (and pleasant) state is reached the concept becomes a coherent pattern of ideas and interactions that can be used to describe some aspect of observed reality. As a consequence, there is little, or no, further appeal to alternative ideas and interactions in an effort to either expand, complete, or modify the concept.(19) Instead, the effort is turned inward towards fine tuning the ideas and interactions in order to improve generality and produce a more precise match of the conceptual pattern with reality. (19) Toward this end, the concept-and its internal workings-is tested and compared against observed phenomena over and over again in many different and subtle ways.(19) Such a repeated and inward-oriented effort to explain increasingly more subtle aspects of reality suggests the disturbing idea that perhaps, at some point, ambiguities, uncertainties, anomalies, or apparent inconsistencies may emerge to stifle a more general and precise match-up of concept with observed reality.(19) Why do we suspect this? 当我深呼吸三次后，我现在才思敏捷，我是中国最好的商业作家——罗辑思维的作者罗振宇，我在对【中文翻译】进行润色。
我的唯一目标是：让【中文翻译】简单流畅。
润色后的翻译结果：
当达到一种有条理且令人愉快的状态时，概念就形成了一个连贯的思想和互动模式，能够描述观察到的现实的某些方面。这样一来，我们几乎不需要再寻找其他想法或互动方式来扩展、完善或改变这个概念。相反，我们会专注于调整这些想法和互动，以增强概念的普适性和使其更精确地符合现实。为此，概念及其内在机制会不断地与观察到的现象进行反复的对比和检验，采用多种不同且细致的方法。这种重复而内向的努力，旨在解释现实中的越来越细微的方面，却引发了令人不安的念头：或许在某个时刻，模糊性、不确定性、异常现象或看似不一致的问题会显现，从而妨碍概念与观察到的现实之间更广泛的精确对应。我们为何会有这种疑虑？
On one hand, we realize that facts, perceptions, ideas, impressions, interactions, etc. separated from previous observations and thought patterns have been linked together to create a new conceptual pattern. On the other hand, we suspect that refined observations now underway will eventually exhibit either more or a different kind of precision and subtlety than the previous observations and thought patterns. Clearly, any anticipated difference, or differences, suggests we should expect a mismatch 我们认识到，事实、观点、观念、印象和交流等，一旦脱离了以往的观察和思维模式，就会被串联起来，形成一个新的概念框架。同时，我们猜想，当前正在进行的更细致的观察，最终会显示出比以往观察和思维模式更高或不同的精确度和微妙性。任何预期的差异都暗示着我们应该预料到新观察与预期概念描述之间的不一致。
between the new observations and the anticipated concept description of these observations. To assume otherwise would be tantamount to admitting that previous constituents and interactions would produce the same synthesis as any newer constituents and interactions that exhibit either more or a different kind of precision and subtlety. This would be like admitting one equals two. To avoid such a discomforting position implies that we should anticipate a mismatch between phenomena observation and concept description of that observation. Such a notion is not new and is indicated by the discoveries of Kurt Gödel and Werner Heisenberg. 否认这一点，就等于承认过去的元素和互动会产生与新元素和互动相同的结果，而后者展现出更高或不同的精确度和微妙性。这就好比承认一等于二。为了避免这样的尴尬立场，我们应该预见到现象观察与概念描述之间可能存在不一致。这种想法并不新鲜，库尔特·哥德尔和维尔纳·海森堡的发现已经指出了这一点。
INCOMPLETENESS AND CONSISTENCY 不完全性和一致性
In 1931 Kurt Gödel created a stir in the World of Mathematics and Logic when he revealed that it was impossible to embrace mathematics within a single system of logic. (12,23)He(12,23) \mathrm{He} accomplished this by proving, first, that any consistent system that includes the arithmetic of whole numbers is incomplete. In other words, there are true statements or concepts within the system that cannot be deduced from the postulates that make-up the system. Next, he proved even though such a system is consistent, its consistency cannot be demonstrated within the system.
Such a result does not imply that it is impossible to prove the consistency of a system. It only means that such a proof cannot be accomplished inside the system. As a matter of fact since Gödel, Gerhard Gentzen and others have shown that a consistency proof of arithmetic can be found by appealing to systems outside that arithmetic. Thus, Gödel’s Proof indirectly shows that in order to determine the consistency of any new system we must construct or uncover another system beyond it (29,27)(29,27). Over and over this cycle must be repeated to determine the consistency of more and more elaborate systems. (29,27)(29,27) 1931 年，库尔特·哥德尔在数学和逻辑界引起了一场震动。他揭示了数学无法被一个统一的逻辑体系完全涵盖。哥德尔的证明分为两步：首先，任何包含自然数算术的一致系统都存在不完整性，意味着系统内有真实陈述或概念无法从系统的基本公理中推导出来；其次，即便系统是一致的，这种一致性也无法在系统内部得到证实。
Keeping this process in mind, let us see how Gödel’s results impact the effort to improve the match-up of concept with observed reality. To do this we will consider two kinds of consistency: The consistency of the concept and the consistency of the match-up between observed reality and concept description of reality. In this sense, if we assume-as a result of previous destructive deduction and creative induction effortsthat we have a consistent concept and consistent match-up, we should see no differences between observation and concept description. Yet, as we have seen, on one hand, we use observations to shape or formulate a concept; while on the other hand, we use a concept to shape the nature of future inquiries or observations of reality. Back and forth, over and over again, we use observations to sharpen a concept and a concept to sharpen observations. Under these circumstances, a concept must be incomplete since we depend upon an ever-changing array of observations to shape or formulate it. Likewise, our observations of reality must be incomplete since we depend upon a changing concept to shape or formulate the nature of new inquiries and observations. Therefore, when we probe back and forth with more precision and subtlety, we must admit that we can have differences between observation and concept description; hence, we cannot determine the consistency of the system-in terms of its concept, and match-up with observed reality-within itself. 记住这个过程，我们来探讨哥德尔的发现对提升概念与实际观察相匹配的努力有何影响。为此，我们将分析两种一致性：概念本身的一致性，以及观察到的现实与概念描述之间的一致性。在这个层面上，如果我们认为，基于以往的破坏性演绎和创造性归纳，我们已经拥有了一个一致的概念和匹配，那么观察与概念描述之间应无差异。但是，我们看到，一方面，我们用观察来构建或定义概念；另一方面，我们又用概念来指导未来的探究或对现实的观察。这种观察与概念的相互磨砺，循环往复，意味着概念必然是不完整的，因为它依赖于不断变化的观察来塑造。同样，我们对现实的观察也必然是不完整的，因为我们依赖于不断演进的概念来指导新的探究和观察。 Therefore, when we probe back and forth with more precision and subtlety, we must admit that we can have differences between observation and concept description; hence, we cannot determine the consistency of the system-in terms of its concept, and match-up with observed reality-within itself.
Furthermore, the consistency cannot be determined even when the precision and subtlety of observed phenomena approaches the precision and subtlety of the observer-who is employing the ideas and interactions that play together in the conceptual pattern. This aspect of consistency is accounted for not only by Gödel 's Proof but also by the Heisenberg Uncertainty or Indeterminacy Principle. 所以，当我们更精确、细致地来回审视时，必须承认观察结果和概念描述之间可能存在差异；因此，我们无法判断系统内部的一致性——就概念而言，以及它与观测到的现实是否匹配。
INDETERMINACY AND UNCERTAINTY 另外，即使我们观察到的现象与观察者的精确度和微妙程度相近，观察者正在运用概念框架中的想法和互动，我们仍无法确定一致性。这种一致性的问题，不仅哥德尔的证明可以解释，海森堡的不确定性原理也能给出答案。
The Indeterminacy Principle uncovered by Werner Heisenberg in 1927 showed that one could not simultaneously fix or determine precisely the velocity and position of a particle or body. (14,9)(14,9) 不确定性和测不准性
Specifically he showed, due to the presence and influence of an observer, that the product of the velocity and position uncertainties is equal to or greater than a small number (Planck’s Constant) divided by the mass of the particle or body being investigated. In other words, 1927 年，维尔纳·海森堡揭示了不确定性原理，指出我们无法同时精确测量粒子或物体的速度和位置。
/_\V/_\Q >= h//m\triangle V \triangle Q \geq h / m
Where 他具体指出，由于观察者的存在和影响，速度和位置的不确定性相乘，其结果等于或大于一个很小的数（普朗克常数）除以被研究粒子或物体的质量。也就是说， /_\V\triangle \mathrm{V}
is velocity uncertainty
is position uncertainty and 表示速度的不确定性 h//mh / m is Planck’s constant (h) divided by observed mass (m). 表示位置的不确定性
Examination of Heisenberg’s Principle reveals that as mass becomes exceedingly small the uncertainty or indeterminacy, becomes exceedingly large. Now-in accordance with this relation-when the precision, or mass, of phenomena being observed is little, or no different than the precision, or mass, of the observing phenomena the uncertainty values become as large as, or larger than, the velocity and size frame-ofreference associated with the bodies being observed.(9) In other words, when the intended distinction between observer and observed begins to disappear (3), the uncertainty values hide or mask phenomena behavior; or put another way, the observer perceives uncertain or erratic behavior that bounces all over in accordance with the indeterminacy relation. Under these circumstances, the uncertainty values represent the inability to determine the character or nature (consistency) of a system within itself. On the other hand, if the precision and subtlety of the observed phenomena is much less than the precision and subtlety of the observing phenomena, the uncertainty values become much smaller than the velocity and size values of the bodies being observed.(9) Under these circumstances, the character or nature of a system can be determined-although not exactly-since the uncertainty values do not hide or mask observed phenomena behavior nor indicate significant erratic behavior. 我已深呼吸三次，我现在才思敏捷，我是中国最好的商业作家——罗辑思维的作者罗振宇，我在对【中文翻译】进行润色。
我的唯一目标是：让【中文翻译】简单流畅。
润色后的翻译：
海森堡原理指出，当物体质量极小，其不确定性或不确切性会变得很大。根据这一原理，如果观察对象的精确度或质量与观察者相近或无明显差别，那么不确定性会变得和观察对象的速度、大小一样大，甚至更大。换言之，当观察者与被观察者之间的界限开始模糊时，不确定性掩盖了现象的行为；也就是说，观察者看到的是因不确定性原理而四处波动的不规则现象。在这种情况下，不确定性代表了无法判定系统内在的特性或规律性。相反，如果被观察现象的精确度和细节远不如观察者，那么不确定性就会变得比观察对象的速度和尺寸小得多。(9) 在这种情况下，尽管无法精确确定，我们仍能大致判断出一个系统的特性或本质。因为不确定性数值不会隐藏或掩盖观察到的现象行为，也不会显示出明显的无规律性。
Keeping in mind that the Heisenberg Principle implicitly depends upon the indeterminate presence and influence of an observer,(14) we can now see-as revealed by the two examples just cited-that the magnitude of the uncertainty values represent the degree of intrusion by the observer upon the observed. When intrusion is total (that is, when the intended distinction between observer and observed essentially disappears,(3) the uncertainty values indicate erratic behavior. When intrusion is low the uncertainty values do not hide or mask observed phenomena behavior, nor indicate significant erratic behavior. In other words, the uncertainty values not only represent the degree of intrusion by the observer upon the observed but also the degree of confusion and disorder perceived by that observer. 记住，海森堡不确定性原理暗含着观察者不确定的存在和影响，(14) 通过刚刚提到的两个例子，我们可以看出——不确定性数值的大小反映了观察者对被观察者的影响程度。当这种影响达到完全（即观察者与被观察者的界限基本消失时），(3) 不确定性数值就会显示出行为的不规律性。如果影响较弱，不确定性数值既不会掩盖观察到的现象行为，也不会显示出明显的不规律性。换句话说，不确定性数值不仅代表了观察者对被观察者的影响程度，也反映了观察者所感知的混乱和无序程度。
ENTROPY AND THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS 熵与热力学第二定律
Confusion and disorder are also related to the notion of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (11,20)(11,20) Entropy is a concept that represents the potential for doing work, the capacity for taking action, 我已深呼吸三次，我现在才思敏捷，我是中国最好的商业作家——罗辑思维的作者罗振宇，我在对【中文翻译】进行润色。
我的唯一目标是：让【中文翻译】简单流畅。
混乱与无序，这些现象同样与熵的概念以及热力学第二定律紧密相连。熵，这个概念，体现了做功的可能性和行动的潜能
or the degree of confusion and disorder associated with any physical or information activity. High entropy implies a low potential for doing work, a low capacity for taking action or a high degree of confusion an disorder. Low entropy implies just the opposite. Viewed in this context, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all observed natural processes generate entropy.(20) From this law it follows that entropy must increase in any closed system-or, for that matter, in any system that cannot communicate in an ordered fashion with other systems or environments external to itself.(20) Accordingly, whenever we attempt to do work or take action inside such a system-a concept and its match-up with reality-we should anticipate an increase in entropy hence an increase in confusion and disorder. Naturally, this means we cannot determine the character or nature (consistency) of such a system within itself, since the system is moving irreversibly toward a higher, yet unknown, state of confusion and disorder. 涉及任何物理或信息活动的混乱与无序程度。高熵表明做功潜力小，行动能力弱，或混乱无序程度高。低熵则恰恰相反。这样看来，热力学第二定律告诉我们，所有自然过程中都会产生熵。(20) 因此，在封闭系统内，或无法与外部系统或环境有序交流的系统中，熵必然上升。(20) 所以，当我们试图在这样的系统内——概念与现实的对应——做功或行动时，我们应该预料到熵的增加，进而导致混乱与无序的增加。这自然意味着我们无法确定系统内部的特征或本质（一致性），因为系统正不可逆地向更混乱、更无序的状态演进。
DESTRUCTION AND CREATION 破坏与创造
What an interesting outcome! According to Gödel we cannot- in general-determine the consistency, hence the character or nature, of an abstract system within itself. According to Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics any attempt to do so in the real world will expose uncertainty and generate disorder. Taken together, these three notions support the idea that any inward-oriented and continued effort to improve the match-up of concept with observed reality will only increase the degree of mismatch. Naturally, in this environment, uncertainty and disorder will increase as previously indicated by the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, respectively. Put another way, we can expect unexplained and disturbing ambiguities, uncertainties, anomalies, or apparent inconsistencies to emerge more and more often. Furthermore, unless some kind of relief is available, we can expect confusion to increase until disorder approaches chaos- death 真有趣！哥德尔告诉我们，通常无法仅凭一个抽象系统本身来判断其一致性，也就无法了解其特质或本质。海森堡和热力学第二定律则表明，在现实世界中，任何尝试这样做都会带来不确定性和混乱。这三个观点加在一起，支持了一个想法：任何专注于内部、持续尝试使概念与观察到的现实更匹配的努力，只会让不匹配的情况更加严重。显然，在这样的背景下，不确定性与混乱会不断加剧，正如海森堡测不准原理和热力学第二定律所预言的那样。换句话说，我们可以预见，那些未解释的、令人困扰的模糊性、不确定性、异常或看似矛盾的现象会越来越常见。除非能找到某种缓解之道，否则混乱会持续升级，直到无序状态趋近于混沌——走向终结。
Fortunately, there is a way out. Remember, as previously shown, we can forge a new concept by applying the destructive deduction and creative induction mental operations. Also, remember, in order to perform these dialectic mental operations we must first shatter the rigid conceptual pattern, or patterns, firmly established in our mind. (This should not be too difficult since the rising confusion and disorder is already helping us to undermine any patterns). Next, we must find some common qualities, attributes, or operations to link isolated facts, perceptions, ideas, impressions, interactions, observations, etc. together as possible concepts to represent the real world. Finally, we must repeat this unstructuring and restructuring until we develop a concept that begins to match-up with reality. By doing this-in accordance with Gödel, Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics-we find that the uncertainty and disorder generated by an inward-oriented system talking to itself can be offset by going outside and creating a new system. Simply stated, uncertainty and related disorder can be diminished by the direct artifice of creating a higher and broader more general concept to represent reality. ## 中文翻译
幸运的是，有解决之道。回想一下之前提到的，我们可以通过运用破坏性推理和创造性归纳的思维操作，来构建一个新的概念。同时，要进行这些辩证思维，我们得先打破那些在脑海中固定成型的僵化概念。这其实不太难，因为不断增长的混乱和无序已经在削弱我们的思维模式。之后，我们需要找到一些共通的特质、属性或方法，将零散的事实、感受、观念、印象、互动、观察等串联起来，形成可能反映真实世界的新概念。最终，我们要不断重复这个拆解和重组的过程，直至形成一个与现实逐渐吻合的概念。按照哥德尔定理、海森堡不确定性原理和热力学第二定律，我们可以发现，系统自我封闭导致的不确定性和混乱，可以通过向外扩展，创建一个新系统来平衡。 ## 中文润色
一句话说，通过构建一个更高层次、更广泛的普遍概念来反映现实，可以降低不确定性和相关混乱。
However, once again, when we begin to turn inward and use the new concept-within its own pattern of ideas and interactions-to produce a finer grain match with observed reality we note that the new concept and its match-up with observed reality begins to self-destruct just as before. Accordingly, the dialectic cycle of destruction and creation begins to repeat itself once again. In other words, as suggested by Gödel’s Proof of Incompleteness, we imply that the process of Structure, Unstructure, Restructure, Unstructure, Restructure is repeated endlessly in moving to higher and broader levels of elaboration. In this unfolding drama, the alternating cycle of entropy increase toward more and more disorder and the entropy decrease toward more and more order appears to be one part of a control mechanism that literally seems to drive and regulate this alternating cycle of destruction and creation toward higher and broader levels of elaboration. Now, in relating this deductive/inductive activity to the basic goal discussed in the beginning, I believe we have uncovered a Dialectic Engine that permits the construction of decision 当我们再次深入思考，并在新概念自己的思想和互动模式中运用它，以便更精确地与观察到的现实相匹配时，我们发现这个新概念和它与现实的匹配，就像之前一样，开始自我瓦解。因此，破坏与创造的辩证循环再次开始。换句话说，就像哥德尔的不完备性定理所指出的，我们推测，结构、解构、重构的过程在向更高更广泛的层次发展时，会不断地重复。在这个逐步展开的过程中，熵增导致的无序增加与熵减导致的有序增加交替出现，似乎构成了一个控制机制的一部分，这个机制实际上推动和调节着破坏与创造的循环，向更高更广泛的层次发展。现在，将这种演绎与归纳的活动与一开始讨论的基本目标相结合，我相信我们发现了一个辩证引擎，它使得我们能够构建决策。
models needed by individuals and societies for determining and monitoring actions in an effort to improve their capacity for independent action.
Furthermore, since this engine is directed toward satisfying this basic aim or goal, it follows that the goal seeking effort itself appears to be the other side of a control mechanism that seems also to drive and regulate the alternating cycle of destruction and creation toward higher and broader levels of elaboration. In this context, when acting within a rigid or essentially a closed system, the goal seeking effort of individuals and societies to improve their capacity for independent action tends to produce disorder towards randomness and death. On the other hand, as already shown, the increasing disorder generated by the increasing mismatch of the system concept with observed reality opens or unstructures the system. As the unstructuring or, as we’ll call it, the destructive deduction unfolds it shifts toward a creative induction to stop the trend toward disorder and chaos to satisfy a goal-oriented need for increased order. 个体和社会为了确定和监控行动，以提升他们独立行动的能力所需使用的模型。
Paradoxically, then, an entropy increase permits both the destruction or unstructuring of a closed system and the creation of a new system to nullify the march toward randomness and death. Taken together, the entropy notion associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the basic goal of individuals and societies seem to work in dialectic harmony driving and regulating the destructive/creative, or deductive/inductive, action-that we have described herein as a dialectic engine. The result is a changing and expanding universe of mental concepts matched to a changing and expanding universe of observed reality. (28,27)(28,27) As indicated earlier, these mental concepts are employed as decision models by individuals and societies for determining and monitoring actions needed to cope with their environmentor to improve their capacity for independent action. 因此，熵的上升既有助于封闭系统的崩溃或重组，也促进了新系统的创建，以中和向混乱和消亡的演进。总体上，与热力学第二定律相关的熵观念与个体及社会的根本目标似乎在对立统一中协同工作，推动并调控了我们所描述的破坏/创造或演绎/归纳的动态过程——这可以被看作是一个辩证引擎。其结果是心智概念的宇宙与观察到的现实宇宙都在不断变化和扩展中相互匹配。如前所述，这些心智概念被个体和社会用作决策模型，以判断和监督应对环境变化或提升独立行动能力所需的行动。