追寻第一性原理:一场关于斯多葛、道家与物理学的探索之旅(进行中)

四个墨线图标由虚线相连:斯多葛石柱、道家阴阳、物理原子、费曼图

英文版本: English

最近我在一次晚宴上问了一个简单的问题,结果把气氛搞得有点尴尬:你所相信的一切,有多少是你自己想通的,又有多少只是别人告诉你、你就照单全收的?

没有人给出满意的答案。我自己也没有。而这个问题,正是这个系列存在的全部理由。

事情是这样的。这段时间我一直在钻研一个奇妙的连结:一位罗马皇帝的私人日记、一首两千五百年前关于水的中国诗篇、热力学第二定律,还有一位喜欢打邦戈鼓、名叫理查德·费曼的物理学家——他这个人,不亲手把一个道理从头推导一遍,绝不轻易相信。四个截然不同的来源,横跨不同的世纪、不同的大陆、完全不同的语言体系,却不约而同地在做同一件事:抓住自己正在相信一个「舒服的故事」,而不是去核实事情本身。

迷思 vs. 第一性原理。这就是我一直在拉扯的那条线。

左侧:一个开裂的对话框,标注迷思,一个舒服的故事。右侧:一个整洁的网格,标注第一性原理,核实过、从头重建。

接下来我会追问的几个问题:

  • 为什么宇宙似乎更偏爱混乱而非秩序?当事情分崩离析时,这对你该有多苛刻地要求自己,又意味着什么?(热力学给出了一个答案,而且出乎意料地令人安慰。)
  • 斯多葛学派有一份只有两栏的清单——「我能控制的」和「我不能控制的」——简单到近乎「侮辱智商」。可为什么真正照着它生活,依然这么难?
  • 《道德经》开篇就警告:一旦你给一件事物命名,你其实就已经开始对自己撒谎了。这跟「水」又有什么关系?
  • 费曼真正的第一性原理,根本不是什么物理方程式,而是一句话:「你绝不能欺骗自己——而你恰恰是最容易被自己欺骗的人。」把这句话套用到,比如说,你每天的日常习惯上,又会是什么样子?

我并没有把这一切都想透彻。这是故意的。我写这些文字,不是因为我已经抵达了某个终点,回过头来给你一个整齐的结论——而是我人还在路上,一边走一边核对自己的假设。所以我不打算一口气丢出一篇长文,而是打算一小块一小块地搭建它,每隔几天或一周更新一次,让每个想法先透透气,再往上叠加下一个。

与其把它想象成一堂讲完的课,不如想象成看一个人在工作台上拆一台机器,一颗螺丝一颗螺丝地拆,偶尔举起一个零件愣住:「等等,这东西为什么会在这里?」

我希望它读起来是有趣的,而不是学术腔——短到可以就着一杯咖啡读完,但又足够抓人,让你一小时后还在脑子里反复咂摸。如果某一段能让你冒出一句「咦,这个我还真没质疑过」,那它就算完成任务了。

下一篇预告:为什么「秩序」可能是整个宇宙中最奇怪、最短暂的东西——以及一块正在融化的冰块,跟你的待办清单到底有什么关系。

下一篇再见。这篇文章边写,我自己也还在边核对。

Chasing First Principles: A Journey Through Stoicism, Daoism, and Physics (In Progress)

Four ink-line icons connected by a dotted thread: a Stoic column, a yin-yang, an atom, and a Feynman diagram

Also available in: 中文

I ruined a dinner party recently by asking a simple question: how much of what you believe did you actually work out yourself, and how much did you just inherit?

Nobody had a good answer. Neither did I. That question is the whole reason this series exists.

Here’s the setup. Over the past while I’ve been falling down a rabbit hole that connects a Roman emperor’s private journal, a 2,500-year-old Chinese poem about water, the second law of thermodynamics, and a bongo-playing physicist named Richard Feynman who refused to believe anything until he’d rebuilt it himself from scratch. Four wildly different sources — different centuries, different continents, different vocabularies entirely — and somehow they keep circling the same trick: catching yourself believing a comfortable story instead of checking the actual thing.

Myth versus first principles. That’s the thread I’m pulling on.

Left: a cracked speech bubble labeled MYTH, a comfortable story. Right: a clean grid labeled FIRST PRINCIPLE, checked and rebuilt from scratch.

A few of the questions I’ll be chasing:

  • Why does the universe seem to prefer mess over order — and what does that actually mean for how hard you should be on yourself when things fall apart? (Thermodynamics has an answer, and it’s oddly comforting.)
  • The Stoics had a two-item list — “up to me” and “not up to me” — that’s almost insultingly simple. Why is it still so hard to actually live by?
  • The Tao Te Ching opens by warning that naming a thing means you’ve already started lying to yourself about it. What does water have to do with that?
  • Feynman’s real first principle wasn’t a physics equation. It was “you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.” What does that look like applied to, say, your actual daily habits?

I don’t have this fully worked out. That’s on purpose. I’m not writing this as someone who’s arrived somewhere and is now reporting back with a tidy conclusion — I’m writing it while I’m still in it, still checking my own assumptions as I go. So instead of one long essay dropped all at once, I’m going to build this out piece by piece, a few days or a week apart, letting each idea breathe before stacking the next one on top.

Think of it less like a finished lecture and more like watching someone take a machine apart on a workbench, one bolt at a time, occasionally holding up a part and going “wait, why is this here?”

My hope is that it stays fun rather than academic — short enough to read with your coffee, but with enough of a hook that you’re still turning it over in your head an hour later. If a section makes you go “huh, I’ve never actually questioned that,” it did its job.

Next up: why order might be the strangest, most temporary thing in the entire universe — and what a melting ice cube has to do with your to-do list.

See you in the next one. Still checking my own math as I write it.