Beauty---Scott Rusll Sanders（附翻译）
Beauty (excerpt)
Scott Rusll Sanders
Judging from the scientists I know, including Eva and Ruth, and tho whom I've read about, you can't pursue the laws of nature very long without bumping into beauty. "I don't know if it's the same beauty you e in the sunt," a friend tells me, "but it feels the same." This friend is a physicist, who has spent a long career deciphering what must be happening in the interior of stars. He recalls for me this thrill on grasping for the first time Dirac's equations describing quantum mechanics, or tho of Einstein describing relativity. "They're so beautiful," he says, "you can e immediately they have to be true. Or at least on the way toward truth." I ask him what makes a theory beautiful, and he replies, "Simplicity, symmetry, elegance, and power."
Why nature should conform to theories we find beautiful is far from obvious. The most incomprehensible thing about the univer, as Einstein said, is that it's comprehensible. How unlikely, that a short-lived biped on a two-bit planet should be able to gauge the speed of light, lay bare the structure of an atom, or calculate the gravitational tug of a black hole. We're a long way from understan
ding everything, but we do understand a great deal about how nature behaves. Generation after generation, we puzzle out formulas, test them, and find, to an astonishing degree, that nature agrees. An architect draws designs on flimsy paper, and her buildings stand up through earthquakes. We launch a satellite into orbit and u it to bounce messages from continent to continent. The machine on which I write the words embodies hundreds of insights into the workings of the material world, insights that are confirmed by every burst of letters on the screen, and I stare at that screen through lens that obey the laws of optics first worked out in detail by Isaac Newton.
By discerning patterns in the univer, Newton believed, he was tracing the hand of God. Scientists in our day have largely abandoned the notion of a Creator as an unnecessary hypothesis, or at least an untestable one. While they share Newton's faith that the univer is ruled everywhere by a coherent t of rules, they cannot say, as scientists, how the particular rules came to govern things. You can do science without believing in a divine Legislator, but not without believing in laws.
I spent my teenage years scrambling up the mountain of mathematics. Midway up the slope, however, I staggered to a halt, gasping in the rarefied air, well before I reached the heights where the equations of Einstein and Dirac would have made n. Nowadays I add, subtract, multiply, and do long division when no calculator is handy, and I can do algebra and geometry and even trigonom
etry in a pinch, but that is about all that I've kept from the language of numbers. Still, I remember glimpsing patterns in mathematics that emed as bold and beautiful as a skyful of stars.
I'm never more aware of the limitations of language than when I try to describe beauty. Language can create its own loveliness, of cour, but it cannot deliver to us the radiance we apprehend in the world, any more than a photograph can capture the stunning swiftness of a hawk or the withering power of a supernova. Eva's wedding album holds only a faint glimmer of the wedding itlf. All that pictures or words can do is gesture beyond themlves toward the fleeting glory that stirs our hearts. So I keep gesturing.
"All nature is meant to make us think of paradi," Thomas Merton obrved. Becau the Creation puts on a nonstop show, beauty is free and inexhaustible, but we need training in order to perceive more than the most obvious kinds. Even fifteen billion years or so after the Big Bang, echoes of that event still linger in the form of background radiation, only a few degrees above absolute zero. Just so, I believe, the experience of beauty is an echo of the order and power that permeate the univer. To measure background radiation, we need subtle instruments; to measure beauty, we need alert intelligence and our five keen ns.
Anyone with eyes can take delight in a face or a flower. You need training, however, to perceive the beauty in mathematics or physics or chess, in the architecture of a tree, the design of a bird's wing, or the shiver of breath through a flute. For most of human history, the training has come from elders who taught the young how to pay attention. By paying attention, we learn to savor all sorts of patterns, from quantum mechanics to patchwork quilts. This predilection brings with it a clear evolutionary advantage, for the ability to recognize patterns helped our ancestors to lect mates, find food, avoid predators. But the same advantage would apply to all species, and yet we alone compo symphonies and crossword puzzles, carve stone into statues, map time and space.
Have we merely carried our animal need for shrewd perceptions to an absurd extreme? Or have we stumbled onto a deep congruence between the structure of our minds and the structure of the univer?
I am persuaded the latter is true. I am convinced there's more to beauty than biology, more than cultural convention. It flows around and through us in such abundance, and in such myriad forms, as to exceed by a wide margin any mere evolutionary need. Which is not to say that beauty has nothing to do with survival: I think it has everything to do with survival. Beauty feeds us from the same source that created us. It reminds us of the shaping power that reaches through the flower stem and
through
our own hands. It restores our faith in the generosity of nature. By giving us a taste of the kinship between our own small minds and the great Mind of the Cosmos, beauty reassures us that we are exactly and wonderfully made for life on this glorious planet, in this magnificent univer. I find in that affinity a profound source of meaning and hope. A univer so prodigal of beauty may actually need us to notice and respond, may need our sharp eyes and brimming hearts and teeming minds, in order to clo the circuit of Creation.
诺基亚6681经典翻译（转载）：
塞内加尔国家队
论美（节选）
遗传素质>家庭养生保健司各特·罗素·桑德斯
西数硬盘查询真伪我认识的（包括伊娃和鲁思认识的）和书中读到的科学家们都认为，只要去探寻⾃然法则，不⽤多久，必有与美邂逅的⼀天。“那种美，” ⽤我⼀位朋友的话来说，“不知能否与⼣阳晚照媲美，但感受绝对是⼀样的。”我的这位物理学家朋友，为破解星体内部之谜耗去了⼤半辈⼦的光阴。回想初次顿悟量⼦⼒学狄拉克⽅程式或爱因斯坦相对论所带给他的那份狂喜，他会说：“真是太美了！⼀看就知道那必是真理，或⾄少接近真理。”当问及何谓理论之美，答⽈：“简洁、对称、典雅、⼒量。”
⼤⾃然为何与我们所见之“美的理论”这般吻合？个中道理尚不得⽽知。然⽽，如爱因斯坦所⾔，宇宙之妙就在于其最不可知者其实可知。试想，在⼀颗丁点⼉⼤的星球上，⼀群⽣命不长的两⾜动物竟能测定光速、解构原⼦、计算⿊洞引⼒，是何等的不可思议！诚然，知晓世间万物尚远⾮⼈⼒所能及，但⾃然界的活动规律，的确被⼈类弄清了许多。⼀代⼜⼀代，⼈类推导出的各种公式定理，⼏经验证，竟发现与⾃然界惊⼈的⼀致；建筑师在薄纸上绘制出的建筑蓝图，建成后竟能经地震⽽屹⽴不倒；⼈类将卫星送⼊空间轨道，便可在地球各⼤洲传递信息；我⽤来打字的这台电脑，同样是⼈类千百次探索与认知物质世界的结晶，眼前跳现于荧屏上的⼀个个字母就是最好的例证；⽽我的双眼透过镜⽚凝视荧屏，这镜⽚⼜是遵循艾萨克·⽜顿当年阐释的光学原理研制⽽成。
⽜顿认为，认知宇宙结构模式，乃探索上帝造物之谜。⽽当今之科学家们，早已将造物主⼀说抛⾄脑后，视其为虚妄假说，或⾄少认为它⽆从验证。他们虽认同⽜顿的观点，认为宇宙万物⽆处不由⼀套连贯严整的法则来主宰，但作为科学家，却⼜讲不出这些特定法则是如何统领天地万物的。从事科学研究可不信上帝⽴法之说，但绝不可不信其法则的存在。
青少年时，我曾攀登过数学之峰。然⽽，⾏⾄半⼭，距爱因斯坦和狄拉克理论之巅尚遥不可及之地，便已步履蹒跚，胸闷⽓短，⽓喘吁吁⽽颓然⽌步了。如今，⼿头虽⽆计算器，我也能加、减、乘、除（甚⾄做多位数长除法），必要时还会做代数、⼏何和三⾓⼀类的运算。但就数字符号⽽⾔，就已穷尽我毕⽣所学了。⾄今我仍记得，⼀瞥之下，那些数学图式恰如漫天繁星闪烁，曾是那般美丽⽽耀眼。
闺蜜游戏名
直到⽤语⾔描绘美，我才深感语⾔的贫乏与⽆奈。语⾔固然能创⾃⾝之美，却⽆法⾔传⼈们在世间感悟的那番美的意境，这恰如照⽚不能捕捉飞鹰掠天的惊⼈迅疾与超新星爆耀的慑⼈⼈威⼒⼀样，伊娃的新婚像册，也不过是整个婚礼淡淡的⼀瞥。照⽚也好，⽂字也罢，要表达那种动⼈⼼魄、稍纵即逝的辉煌之美，充其量不过是“⽐划”⼀下⽽⼰！因⽽，我只好在这⼉跟着“⽐画”下去了。
托马斯·默顿曾感⾔：“天地万物欲使我们想到天堂。”上天造物，⽣⽣不息，犹如连番上演的舞台剧，美亦展⽰得⽆拘⽆束、⽆穷⽆尽。若要从最显见的物类中获得更多美的感悟，则须经专门训练。即使在宇宙⼤爆炸的⼀百五⼗亿年后，其反射仍以背景辐射的形式，略略徘徊于绝对零度之上。正因为此，⼈们对美的体验，实则是对宇宙间⽆处不在的秩序与⼒量的回应。测量背景辐射，要有精巧的仪器；体验美，则需机敏的智能与敏锐的五官了。
地球的知识
凡眼见于俏脸、鲜花，⽆⼈不觉赏⼼悦⽬。然⽽，要参透数学、物理或棋弈之美，欣赏树之有形、鸟之翼趣，乃⾄对长笛奏出的悠悠颤⾳⼼领神会，则必经专门训练⽅可体味。在⼈类⼤部历史上，这种训练就是学会如何观察，历来由长者教之于幼者。通过观察，⼈类学会鉴赏天地万化之模式，从量⼦⼒学到百纳被⽆所不包。此痴情所⾄，亦使⼈类在进化过程中占尽先机，能辨万化之象，有助于先⼈们择偶、觅⾷，逃避猛兽。按理，同⼀进化优势本应造福世间⼀切物种，然惟独⼈类能谱出交响曲、制作填字游戏、创造⽯雕艺术、标⽰时空天体。魏树人
那么，是⼈类为获敏锐的感知⽽⼀味将其动物的本能需求推向了乖戾之极致，还是⼈脑构造与宇宙天体碰巧契合呢？
后⼀说法令我信服。我相信，美之契合甚于⽣物进化，更甚于⽂化习俗，它流经我们⾝边，贯通我们⼼灵，其内涵之丰富、形态之多样，⼤⼤超越了⼈类起码的进化需求。当然，这并⾮说美与⽣存⽆关，恰恰相反，它们之间可谓息息相通。美⽤⼈类⽣命之源滋养⼈类，使我们想起了经由花茎与⼈的双⼿产⽣的创造⼒。美恢复了⼈类对⼤⾃然慷慨富有的信念，唤起了渺⼩⼈类与浩瀚宇宙⼼灵间的亲缘感应。美使我们深信，如此妙绝天成的⼈类，原本就是为这煌煌星球、泱泱宇宙应运⽽⽣的。从这⼀天缘巧合中，我悟出那种深长的蕴意与博⼤的希望。⼀个流芳溢美的⼤千世界，兴许真要我们对它处处留意并做出回应，需要我们⽤敏锐的双眼、充沛的情感、博⼤的⼼怀，去勾通⼈类与⼤⾃然的交流和循环，使之周⽽复始、⽣⽣不息。
