The Grand Design and Philosophy 大的设计与哲学
Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow open their book The Grand Design with a series of profound questions: What is the nature of reality?斯蒂芬·霍金和伦纳德Mlodinow打开他们的书大设计了一系列深刻的问题：现实的本质是什么？ Where did all this come from?在哪里这一切从何而来？ Did the universe need a Creator?宇宙是否需要一个造物主？ Then they say, “Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.然后他们说，“传统上，这些都是哲学问题，但理念是死的。 Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.哲学已跟不上现代科学的发展，特别是物理学。 Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”1科学家们已经成为承载的火炬发现我们对知识的追求。“
The professional philosopher can only roll his eyes at the effrontery and condescension of such a statement.专业哲学家只能翻白眼，居然屈尊这样的语句。 Two scientists, who have to all appearances little acquaintance with philosophy, are prepared to pronounce an entire discipline dead and to insult their own faculty colleagues in philosophy at Cal Tech and Cambridge University — many of whom, such as Michael Redhead and DH Mellor, are eminent philosophers of science — for supposedly failing to keep up.两位科学家，所有出场的小熟人与哲学的人，都准备死发音整个学科和侮辱自己在哲学教师的同事在加州理工学院和剑桥大学 - 其中许多人，如迈克尔·雷德黑德和DH梅勒，著名的科学哲学家 - 据说跟不上。
The professional philosopher will regard their verdict as not merely amazingly condescending but also as outrageously naïve.专业哲学家会认为他们的判决不仅惊人的居高临下，但也悍然天真。 The man who claims to have no need of philosophy is the one most apt to be fooled by it.该名男子声称已经没有必要哲学是一个最容易被愚弄。 One might therefore anticipate that Mlodinow and Hawking's subsequent exposition of their favored theories will be underpinned by a host of unexamined philosophical presuppositions.因此，人们可能会预期，随后Mlodinow和霍金的阐述了自己喜欢的理论支撑由主机浑浑噩噩的哲学前提。 That expectation is, in fact, borne out.这一期望，其实承担了。 They assert their claims about laws of nature, the possibility of miracles, scientific determinism, and the illusion of free will with only the thinnest of justification.他们声称他们的要求自然规律，创造奇迹的可能性，科学的确定性和免费的错觉会与最薄的理由。 Clearly Mlodinow and Hawking are up to their necks in philosophical questions.显然Mlodinow和霍金是他们的脖子哲学问题。
What one might not expect is that, after pronouncing the death of philosophy, Hawking and Mlodinow should themselves plunge immediately into a philosophical discussion of scientific realism vs. antirealism.什么人可能没有想到的是，哲学的死亡宣判后，霍金和Mlodinow应自己立即投身到科学实在论与反实在论哲学的讨论。 The first third of their book is not about current scientific theories at all but is a disquisition on the history and philosophy of science.他们的书的前三分之一是不是在所有的当前的科学理论，但历史和科学哲学是一个专题论文。 I found this section to be the most interesting and mind-boggling of the whole book.我发现这部分是整本书最有趣的和令人难以置信的。 Let me explain.让我来解释一下。
Having set aside a Monday afternoon to read Hawking and Mlodinow's book, I had spent that morning working through a scholarly article from Blackwell's Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics on a philosophical viewpoint known as ontological pluralism.预留在周一下午来读霍金和Mlodinow的书，我花了Blackwell的当代辩论形而上学哲学的观点被称为本体多元化通过学术文章，从工作的那天早上。 Ontological pluralism is a view in a subdiscipline of philosophy whose name sounds like stuttering: meta-metaphysics, or, as it is sometimes called, meta-ontology.多元本体论是哲学的一个分支学科中的视图的名字听起来像口吃：元形而上学，或者，因为它有时也被称为，元本体。 This is philosophy at its most ethereal.这是最空灵的哲学。 Ontology is the study of being, or of what exists — the nature of reality.本体之中，或者存在什么 - 是研究现实的本质。 Meta-ontology is one notch higher: It inquires whether ontological disputes are meaningful and how best to resolve them.元本体高出一个缺口：询问是否是有意义的本体纠纷，以及如何最好地解决他们。
Ontological pluralism holds that there really is no right answer to many ontological questions, such as: Do composite objects exist?多元本体论认为确实是有许多本体论的问题，如没有正确的答案：不要存在复合对象？ According to the ontological pluralist, there are just different ways of describing reality, and none of these is more correct or accurate than another.根据本体论的多元，只是不同的方式描述现实，这些都不是比另一种更正确或准确的。 There literally is no fact of the matter at all in answer to these questions.此外，从字面上是没有事实的问题，所有这些问题的答案。 So if you were to ask, “Is there such a thing as the Moon?” the ontological pluralist would say that the question has no objective answer.所以，如果你要问，“有这样的事，作为月球吗？”本体论的多元会说，这个问题有没有客观的答案。 It is not true that the Moon exists, and it is not true that the Moon does not exist.月球的存在，这是不正确，这是不正确的，月球不存在。 There just is no fact of the matter about whether there is such a thing as the Moon.只是没有事实的事项是否有这样的事，作为月球。 Ontological pluralism is thus a radical view that is defended by a handful of philosophers.本体论的多元化是一个激进的观点，是由少数哲学家辩护。
Imagine my astonishment, therefore, to find Hawking and Mlodinow espousing ontological pluralism (without being aware of the name) as their philosophy of science.想象一下，我惊讶的是，因此，找到霍金Mlodinow的拥护他们的科学哲学本体论的多元化（不知道的名字）。 They call their view “model-dependent realism.” They explain that models are just different ways of interpreting our sense perceptions.他们称他们认为“依赖模型的现实主义。”他们解释说，模型是不同的方式解释我们的感觉。 In their view there is no objective reality to which our models of the world more or less accurately correspond (page 7).在他们看来，有没有客观的现实，我们的模型世界或多或少准确地对应（第7页）。
Mlodinow and Hawking are thus extreme antirealists. Mlodinow和霍金从而极端antirealists的。 For example, contrasting young earth creationism and the big bang theory, Hawking and Mlodinow claim that while the big bang theory is “more useful,” nevertheless, “neither model can be said to be more real than the other” (page 51).例如，对比年轻地球创世大爆炸理论，霍金和Mlodinow的声称，大爆炸理论“更为有用”，不过，“既不模型可以说是比其他更真实的”（第51页）。
One cannot help but wonder what sort of argument would justify adopting so radical a view.不能帮助，但不知道什么样的说法足以采取如此激进的观点。 All that Mlodinow and Hawking have to offer is the fact if we were, say, inhabitants of a virtual reality controlled by alien beings, then there would be no way for us to tell that we were in the simulated world and so would have no reason to doubt its reality (page 42).所有这一切Mlodinow和霍金所提供的是事实，如果我们说，外星人控制的一个虚拟现实的居民，那么就没有办法，我们告诉大家，我们在模拟世界，所以就没有理由怀疑其现实（第42页）。 The trouble with this sort of argument is that it does not exclude the possibility that we have in this case two competing models of the world — one the aliens' and one ours, and one of the models is true and one false, even if we cannot tell which is which.麻烦这一类的说法是，它不排除这种可能性，在这种情况下，我们有两个竞争车型的世界 - 一个外星人和我们的的车型之一是真实的，一个虚假的，即使我们无法分辨哪个是哪个。
Moreover, the fact our observations are model-dependent does not imply that we cannot have knowledge of the way the world is (much less that there is no way the world is).此外，我们的观察模型依赖的事实，并不意味着我们不能有知识世界的方式是（更不用说世界是没有办法）。 For example, a layman entering a scientific laboratory might see a piece of machinery on the lab table, but he would not see it as an interferometer, since he lacks the theoretical knowledge to recognize it as such.例如，可能会看到一个门外汉进入科学实验室在实验室的桌子上一台机器，但他不会看到它作为干涉，因为他缺乏理论知识，认识到这样。 A caveman entering the laboratory would not even see there is a piece of machinery on the table, since he lacks the concept of a machine.进入实验室穴居人甚至不会看到桌子上有一台机器，因为他缺乏一机多用的概念。 But that does nothing to undermine the objective truth of the lab technician's observation that there is an interferometer on the table.但是，这并没有什么破坏的客观真理实验室技术人员的观察，有一个桌子上的干涉。
Mlodinow and Hawking, not content with ontological pluralism, really go off the deep end when they assert, “There is no model-independent test of reality. Mlodinow和霍金，不是本体多元化的内容，真的去深水的一端时，他们断言，“有没有独立模型的现实考验的。 It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own” (page 172).因此，构建良好的模型创建它自己的现实“（第172页）。 This is an assertion of ontological relativity, the view that reality itself is different for persons having different models.这是一个本体论的相对论，认为现实本身就是不同的人有不同型号的断言。
If you are Fred Hoyle, the universe really has existed eternally in a steady state; but if you are Stephen Hawking, the universe really began with a big bang.如果你有弗雷德·霍伊尔，宇宙真的存在永远处于稳定状态，但如果你是斯蒂芬·霍金，大爆炸宇宙真正开始。 If you are the ancient physician Galen, blood really does not circulate through the human body; but if you are William Harvey, who discovered circulation, it does.如果你是古代医学家盖伦，血真的不通过人体循环，但如果你是威廉·哈维，谁发现循环，但它确实。 Such a view seems crazy and is made only more so by Mlodinow and Hawking's claim that the model itself is responsible for creating its respective reality.这种观点看似疯狂，只由Mlodinow和霍金的说法，该模型本身是负责建立其各自的现实。 It hardly needs to be said that no such conclusion follows from there being no model-independent test of the way the world is.它几乎可以说是没有这样的结论，从世界的方式是有没有独立模型试验。
All this is, however, beside the main point.所有这一切，然而，旁边的要点。 The main point is that despite their claim to speak as scientific torchbearers of knowledge, what Hawking and Mlodinow are engaged in is philosophy.主要的一点是，尽管他们的要求发言的，因为科学知识火炬手，什么霍金和Mlodinow的所从事的是哲学。 The most important conclusions drawn in their book are philosophical, not scientific.在他们的书中得出的最重要的结论是哲学，而不是科学。 Why, then, do they pronounce philosophy dead and claim as scientists to be bearing the torch of discovery?那么，为什么他们发音哲学死了，并声称科学家轴承的火炬发现？ Simply because that enables them to cloak their amateurish philosophizing with the mantle of scientific authority and so avoid the hard work of actually arguing for, rather than merely asserting, their philosophical viewpoints.很简单，因为，使他们能够掩盖他们的业余哲思与地幔科学权威，从而避免实际上争论的辛勤工作，而不是仅仅声称，他们的哲学观点。
Why Does the Universe Exist? 为什么宇宙会存在？
In their book, Hawking and Mlodinow seek to answer three questions that they set themselves in chapter 1:在他们的著作中，霍金和Mlodinow寻求回答三个问题，他们为自己在第1章：
1. 1。 Why is there something rather than nothing?为什么会出现什么东西，而不是？
2. 2。 Why do we exist?我们为什么存在？
3. 3。 Why this particular set of laws and not some other?为什么这组特定的法律，而不是其他？
Curiously, their answers to each of these questions turn out to be very brief.奇怪的是，这些问题的答案可以很简短。 In fact, (2) gets folded into (1) and so does not even receive a separate answer.事实上，（2）被折叠成（1），所以甚至没有收到一个单独的答案。
Hawking and Mlodinow's answer to questions (1) and (2) is an appeal to the “no boundary” model of the origin of the universe, popularized by Hawking in his book, A Brief History of Time.霍金和Mlodinow的回答问题（1）和（2）上诉的宇宙起源的“无边界”的模式，推广霍金在他的书，时间简史。 Our authors simply expound the model without adducing any evidence for it or mentioning any of the alternative models to it.我们的作者根本没有援引任何证据或提及任何替代车型，阐述了模型。 Nor do they respond to the criticism that the so-called “imaginary time” featured in the model is physically unintelligible and therefore merely a mathematical “trick” useful for avoiding the cosmological singularity which appears in classical theories of the beginning of the universe.他们也不回应的批评，所谓“虚时间”模型中的特色是身体不知所云，因此仅仅是一个数学“绝招”可避免奇异点出现在经典理论中的宇宙起源。
Still, their exposition is not without interest with regard to the beginning of the universe.尽管如此，他们的论述是关于宇宙起源的（不计利息）。 For example, they write: “The realization that time can behave like another direction of space means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world.例如，他们写道：“实现时间可以像另一个方向的空间意味着可以摆脱的问题，有一个开始的时间，以类似的方式，在我们摆脱世界边缘的。 Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the earth, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time.假设宇宙之初就像地球的南极，北纬度播放时间的作用。 As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand.作为一个向北移动，圆圈不断纬度，代表宇宙的大小，将扩大。 The universe would start as a point at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point.宇宙将开始在南极点，但南极就像任何其他点。 To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole.要问的宇宙的开端之前发生了什么会成为一个毫无意义的问题，因为没有什么南极南部。 In this picture space-time has no boundary — the same laws of nature hold at the South Pole as in other places” (page 134-5).在这幅画中时间和空间有没有边界 - 在其他地方“（第134-5页）相同的法律性质在南极举行。
This passage is fascinating because if we take the analogy seriously, it posits a beginning point to both time and the universe.这段话是迷人的，因为如果我们把这个比喻严重的是，它假定一个时间和宇宙的起点。 Despite the fact that imaginary time behaves like another spatial dimension, Hawking allows the circles of latitude to play the role of time, which has a beginning point at the South Pole.尽管霍金虚时间的行为的事实，像另一个空间维度，让纬度圈的发挥作用的时候，其中有一个在南极点开始。 When Hawking speaks of “the problem of time having a beginning,” what he means is “the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning” (page 135) an objection which his model removes.当霍金说，“问题的时间有一个开端，”他的意思是“古老的反对宇宙有一个开端”（第135页）他的模型中删除的异议。 That age-old objection is the question, “What happened before the beginning of the universe?” Hawking is right that this question is meaningless on his model.岁这一年龄异议的问题是，“发生了什么事开始前的宇宙呢？”霍金在他的模型中，这个问题是没有意义的，是正确的。 But what he fails to mention is that the question is equally meaningless on the standard big bang model, since there is nothing prior to the initial cosmological singularity.但他没有提到的是，这个问题同样意义上的标准大爆炸模型，因为没有什么奇异点之前。 Or either model the universe has an absolute temporal beginning.或任一型号的宇宙有一个绝对的时间开始。
So the question is, Why did the universe begin to exist?所以现在的问题是，为什么宇宙开始存在？ Why is there something rather than nothing?为什么会出现什么东西，而不是？ Hawking and Mlodinow advocate what they call a “top-down” approach to this question.霍金和Mlodinow主张他们所谓的“自上而下”的方法这个问题。 The idea here is to begin with our presently observed universe characterized by the standard model of particle physics and then calculate, given the no boundary condition, the probability of the various histories allowed by quantum physics to reach our present state.这里的想法是我们目前观察到的宇宙粒子物理学的标准模型特点，然后开始计算，没有边界条件，允许量子物理学的各种历史的概率达到我们目前的状态。 The most probable history represents the history of our observable universe.最有可能的历史代表我们观察到的宇宙的历史。 Hawking and Mlodinow claim that, “In this view, the universe appeared spontaneously from nothing” (page 136). ，霍金和Mlodinow声称，“这种观点认为，宇宙出现自发地从一无所有”（第136页）。 By “spontaneously” they seem to mean, without a cause.他们似乎由“自发”的意思是，没有事业。
But how does that follow from the model?但是，如何从模型中遵循？ The top-down approach calculates the probability of our observable universe given the no boundary condition .自上而下的方法计算的概率，我们观察到的宇宙没有边界条件 。 The top-down approach does not calculate the probability that the no boundary condition should exist but takes it for granted.自上而下的方法不计算没有边界条件应该存在的可能性，但理所当然。 Such a condition is not metaphysically or physically necessary.这样的条件是不是形而上学或身体必要。 If the universe came into being uncaused from nothing, it could have had any sort of conceivable spatiotemporal configuration.如果宇宙是成为无因之从无到有，它可以有任何形式，可以想象的时空配置。 For nothingness, or nonbeing, has no properties or constraints and is governed by no physical laws.虚无，或者非存在，没有属性或约束和受没有物理定律。 Physics only begins at the “South Pole” in the no boundary model.物理才开始在“南极”在无边界模型。 There is not anything in the model that implies that that point came to be without a cause.有没有什么模型中，这意味着，这一点是没有原因的。 Indeed, the idea that being could arise without a cause from nonbeing seems metaphysically absurd.事实上，这个想法是从非存在的原因可能会出现不形而上学似乎荒谬。
Hawking and Mlodinow seem to realize they have not yet answered the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” They return to this question in their concluding chapter and give a quite different answer.霍金和Mlodinow的似乎意识到他们还没有回答这个问题，“为什么有东西，而不是什么？”他们返回到这个问题，在他们的最后一章，并给予一个完全不同的答案。 There they explain there is a constant vacuum energy contained in empty space, and if the universe's positive energy associated with matter is evenly balanced by the negative energy associated with gravitation, then the universe can spontaneously come into being as a fluctuation of the energy in the vacuum (which, by a clever sleight of hand, they say “we may as well call … zero”).在那里他们解释有一个恒定的真空能量空中，和如果宇宙的正面能量与物质相关的是均匀的负能量与引力平衡，那么宇宙就自发来到成是一个波动的能量在真空（其中，一个聪明的花招，他们说：“我们可能也打电话给我......零”）。
This seems to be a very different account of the universe's origin, for it presupposes the reality of space and the energy in it.这似乎是一个非常不同的帐户宇宙起源，它的前提是现实空间中的能量。 So it is puzzling when Mlodinow and Hawking conclude, “Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6” (page 180).令人费解的是，当Mlodinow和霍金的结论，“因为有一个像重力定律，宇宙将创建自己从没有在第6章中所述的方式”（第180页）。 Here it is said that the nothingness spoken of in Chapter 6 is not really nothingness after all but is space filled with vacuum energy.在这里，它说，在第6章中所说的虚无是不是真的虚无毕竟是充满真空能量的空间。 This goes to reinforce the conviction that the no boundary approach only describes the evolution of our universe from its origin at its “South Pole” to its present state but is silent as to why the universe came to exist in the first place.这正好加强信念，没有边界的方法描述我们的宇宙演化，从它的起源在“南极”目前的状态，但为什么宇宙是存在摆在首位的是沉默。
What this implies is that Hawking and Mlodinow have not even begun to address the philosophical question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” For “nothing” in their vocabulary does not have the traditional meaning “nonbeing” but rather means “the quantum vacuum.” They are not even answering the same question.这意味着什么，甚至还没有开始霍金和Mlodinow的解决哲学问题，“为什么有东西，而不是什么？”对于“一无所有”在他们的词汇，没有传统意义上的“非存在”，而是意味着“量子真空“。他们甚至没有回答同样的问题。 Like the philosophy student who, to the question, “What is Time?” on his final exam, answered, “a weekly news magazine,” so Hawking and Mlodinow have avoided the tough question by equivocation.喜欢的哲学系学生的问题，“什么是时间？”他的期末考试，回答说，“新闻周刊”，，所以霍金和Mlodinow避免棘手的问题含糊其辞。
Why Is the Universe Fine-tuned for Life? 为什么宇宙生命的微调？
If they have failed to answer questions (1) and (2), what about (3): Why is there this particular set of laws rather than some other?如果他们未能回答的问题（1）和（2），（3）：为什么会出现这组特定的法律而不是其他？ The issue here is explaining the apparently miraculous fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.这里的问题是解释微调显然神奇的宇宙智慧生命。 Hawking and Mlodinow express this idea by observing that “in recent years physicists began asking themselves what the universe would have been like if the laws of nature were different” (page 159).霍金和Mlodinow的表达这个想法，通过观察，“在最近几年的物理学家开始问自己什么样的宇宙会一直喜欢，如果大自然的规律是不同的”（第159页）。 Unfortunately, this statement is very misleading.不幸的是，这种说法是非常误导的。 Scientists grappling with fine-tuning are not asking what the universe would have been like if it were governed by different laws of nature.微调拼杀的科学家并不是问，宇宙会一直一样，如果它受不同法律性质。 Rather they are asking what the universe would have been like if it were governed by the same laws of nature but with different values for the physical constants appearing in them and with different quantities for the initial conditions on which the laws operate.相反，他们都在问什么，宇宙会一直一样，如果它受同样的法律性质，但不同的值出现在他们和不同数量的物理常数，初始条件法律。
Nobody knows what a universe governed by different laws would be like.没有人知道宇宙受不同的法律会是这样。 But because we are talking about universes governed by the same laws, but with different numbers plugged in for the constants and quantities, we can calculate what kind of universe the laws would predict (just as Hawking and Mlodinow illustrate on page 159-62).但是，因为我们正在谈论宇宙受同样的法律，但用不同的数字插入的常量和数量，我们可以计算出什么样的宇宙规律所预测的（就像，霍金和Mlodinow说明第159-62页）。 So question (3) is malformed as stated.因此，问题（3）畸形表示。 The real question is: Why this particular set of constants and quantities rather than some other?真正的问题是：为什么这个特定的一组常数和数量，而不是其他的呢？
Now there are three possible answers to that question: physical necessity, chance, or design.现在有三种可能的回答这个问题：物理必然性，偶然性，或设计。 Hawking and Mlodinow reject the hypothesis of physical necessity: “It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle” (page 143).霍金和Mlodinow拒绝假设物理的必要性：“看来，逻辑或物理原理”（第143页）的基本数字，甚至是形式，没有需求的表观自然规律。 Since Mlodinow and Hawking want nothing to do with a Cosmic Designer, they opt for the hypothesis of chance.由于Mlodinow和霍金想做一个宇宙设计无关，他们选择的假说的机会。 Since the odds of our universe's being fine-tuned for intelligent life are so incomprehensibly remote, Hawking and Mlodinow appeal to the Many Worlds Hypothesis to augment one's probabilistic resources to the extent that it becomes inevitable that a finely-tuned universe will appear by chance somewhere in the World Ensemble or multiverse.由于我们的宇宙是微调智慧生命的几率是如此不可思议的遥控器，霍金和Mlodinow号召力许多世界假说，以增强人的概率资源的程度它成为必然，一个微调的宇宙会出现偶然的某处在世界乐团或多重宇宙。 If there are an infinite number of randomly ordered universes in the Ensemble, then a finely-tuned universe will appear somewhere in the Ensemble by chance alone.如果是随机排列的宇宙无限多的乐团，那么一个微调的宇宙将出现在乐团的某处单靠机会。
If the Many Worlds Hypothesis is to be serious science rather than metaphysical speculation, some sort of mechanism needs to be provided to generate the World Ensemble.如果许多世界假说是严肃的科学，而不是形而上学的猜测，需要提供某种机制产生世界乐团。 The mechanism to which Hawking and Mlodinow appeal is Richard Feynman's “sum-over-histories” approach to quantum theory.该机制霍金和Mlodinow号召力是理查德·费曼的“历史和”量子理论方法。 This is the approach Hawking uses in the no boundary model to calculate the most probable history of the universe, given the no boundary condition, to our present observed state.这是霍金使用在无边界模型计算出的宇宙最可能的历史，没有边界条件，我们目前观察到的状态的方法。 Hawking and Mlodinow take these alternative histories that the universe might have pursued to be actual, parallel universes that are just as real as our universe. ·霍金和Mlodinow可以采取这些替代的历史，宇宙可能有追求实际，平行宇宙，我们的宇宙一样真实。
Unfortunately, this is not science but a gratuitous piece of metaphysics.不幸的是，这是不是科学，而是形而上学无偿一块。 Feynman's sum-over-histories method is just a mathematical tool for calculating the probability of a subatomic particle's arriving at one point from another.费曼的和历史的方法就是亚原子粒子在一个点到达另一个计算概率的数学工具。 One imagines all the possible paths the particle could have taken and then on that basis calculates the probability of its reaching the observed destination.人们想象所有可能的路径可以采取粒子，然后在此基础上计算出的概率达到所观察到的目的地。 There's no basis for interpreting this mathematical “trick” to imply the ontological reality of concrete, spatio-temporal universes.有没有解释这个数学“绝招”，意味着混凝土，时空的宇宙本体论的现实基础。
Hawking and Mlodinow also appeal to M-Theory or superstring theory to generate the World Ensemble of universes exhibiting various values for the constants of nature.霍金和Mlodinow也呼吁的M-理论或者超弦理论生成表现出不同的值的自然常数的宇宙世界乐团。 Such a speculation is problematic in a number of ways that they do not discuss.这种猜测是有问题的，他们不讨论的方法中的数量。 First, the “cosmic landscape” of 10 500 different possible universes consistent with nature's laws that M-Theory allows are just that: possibilities.首先，“宇宙风景”M-理论允许10 500种不同的可能的宇宙与自然的规律相一致，只是可能性。 They are not real worlds, anymore than are Feynman's histories.他们都不是真正的世界，不再是费曼的历史。
Second, it's not clear that 10 500 possibilities are sufficient to guarantee the existence of finely-tuned universes in the landscape.其次，目前尚不清楚，足以保证在风景精细调谐宇宙的存在的可能性是10 500。 What if the probability of fine-tuning is less than 1:10 500 ?如果微调的概率是小于1:10 500？ This may be especially problematic concerning the arbitrary initial conditions.关于任意的初始条件下，这可能是特别成问题的。
Finally, does the multiverse itself described by M-Theory exhibit fine-tuning?最后，多元宇宙本身的描述由M理论展览微调？ If it does, then the problem has only been pushed back a notch.如果确实如此，那么问题只被向后推了一个档次。 It seems that it does, for as Hawking and Mlodinow explain, M-Theory requires precisely eleven dimensions if it is to be viable.它似乎确实如此，M-理论作为霍金和Mlodinow的解释，正是需要11个维度，如果它是可行的。 Yet the theory cannot account for why just that number of dimensions should exist.但理论不能解释为什么只是维数应该存在。
Moreover, Mlodinow and Hawking do not even mention, much less respond to, Roger Penrose's trenchant criticism of the Many Worlds Hypothesis for explaining fine-tuning in his The Road to Reality.此外，Mlodinow霍金不就更不在话下，更别说应对，罗杰·彭罗斯的犀利批评，许多世界假说解释微调在他的现实之路。 Namely, he argues that if we were just a random member of a World Ensemble, then it is incomprehensibly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than what we do, which strongly disconfirms the Many Worlds Hypothesis.也就是说，他认为，如果我们只是一个随机的世界乐团的成员，那么它更可能是不可思议的，我们应该观察一个非常不同的宇宙比我们做什么，强烈disconfirms了许多世界假说。 There is no excuse for Hawking's failure to respond to his erstwhile collaborator's criticisms of Hawking's view.有霍金的故障响应他昔日的合作者的批评霍金的观点是没有任何借口。
Conclusion 结论
In summary, despite Hawking and Mlodinow's vaunted assertions and constant sniping at religious belief throughout this book, there is actually genuine profit in it for religious believers, especially for those interested in natural theology.综上所述，尽管霍金和Mlodinow的吹嘘的断言和信仰贯穿本书的不断狙击，实际上是它真正利润的宗教信徒，特别是对于那些有兴趣在自然神学。 For the authors affirm and argue for the facts of an absolute beginning of time and the universe and of the apparently miraculous fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.对于作者的肯定和争论的一个绝对的时间和对宇宙和宇宙智慧生命显然神奇微调开始的事实。 Given the desperation and/or irrelevancy of their proffered answers to the questions that motivated their inquiry, their book turns out to be quite supportive of the existence of a transcendent Creator and Designer of the cosmos.鉴于他们递上答案的问题，出于他们的询问，他们的书原来是相当支持的超然存在的宇宙的创造者和设计师的绝望和/或不相干。
