Sand Talk: how the indigenous thinking can save the world 《沙语：土著思维如何拯救世界》阅读札记（1）

这本书的前面几章逐渐展开了作者的哲学思想。

我发现他的思想与中国传统的天人合一的思想有某种相似之处。与我自己长期以来逐渐形成的“宏观的悲观主义者和有限系统的乐观主义者”也有某种相通之处。

我对量子力学和现代宇宙学一直持非常谨慎的态度，它们总有一些脆弱的假设无法验证。当发现难以调和的问题时，会引入更加复杂的假设。以至于在这些假设基础上得出的结论更加不可靠。我所怀疑内容甚至包括黑洞理论，以及物理学家对时间概念的定义。

前段时间读到保罗·戴维斯的《About Time》，其中关于时间的定义，基本上就是目前物理学家普遍的认知。认为熵增的方向就是人的直觉中感觉到的时间的方向，当熵增过程逆转时，时间的方向自然就会逆转。当熵不增不减时，时间就停止了。

遗憾的是，我们普遍接受的热力学第二定律，认为在复杂系统中熵只能增加，不能减少。Sand Talk的作者只接受热力学第一定律，既能量守恒定律，并不接受热力学第二定律。中国传统的天人合一思想应该也是否定热力学第二定律的，尽管他们当时并不具备现代物理学知识。

如果把我自己的乐观悲观态度再增加一种情况的话，那就是终极的情况，既不悲观，也不乐观，即最终的大同。我强调的悲观，是指我们既已进入了混沌的状态，再回到理想状态这几乎不可能。所以才会出现了各种边界，即我认为的有限系统内的乐观主义。

土著文化的核心思想，包括对时间的认知，对宇宙的认知，与我们传统教育下的世界观截然不同。他们认为过去、现在和将来是同一个时间。从我的理解来看，他们非常排斥差异。这个世界进入混乱的状态，就是因为差异带来的所谓的优越感造成的。作者显然不仅仅着眼于自己的土著文化，他对现代经济、政治和国际秩序有着深刻的洞见。人类文明其实进入一个失衡的状态。

正如我自己多次讲到的，高楼大厦本身不是文明，只是成本收益规律挤压出来的越来越高的楼房、越来越快的交通工具。比如人们一旦进入了高铁时代，就再也回不去了。这其实是一快遮百丑。技术的发展掩盖了我们本应从底层进行解决却没有得到解决的问题。

作者对城市的存在和发展提出了独到的见解。认为一座城市依赖于从其边界之外相互连接的系统中进口资源。城市将自身置于这些系统的中心，并从中剥夺资源以满足其增长需求，从而扰乱了时间、土地、天气、水和生态系统之间的循环交换。如今的交换变成了单向的。尽管在这一过程中物质和能量仍然既不会被创造也不会被毁灭，但它们被导入静态的堆积中，而不是在系统之间循环往复。

没想到作者对哲学和各种所谓的现代文明有如此深入的研究，这更加激发了我的阅读兴趣。

（待续）

The first few chapters of this book gradually unfold the author’s philosophical ideas.

I’ve found his thinking bears some resemblance to the traditional Chinese philosophy of the unity between heaven and humanity. It also resonates in some ways with my own long-held perspective of being a “macro pessimist and micro optimist”—that is, pessimistic on a large scale, but optimistic within limited systems.

I have always maintained a cautious attitude toward quantum mechanics and modern cosmology. These fields often rely on fragile assumptions that cannot be verified. When facing irreconcilable issues, they tend to introduce increasingly complex hypotheses, leading to conclusions that become even less reliable. My skepticism even extends to the theory of black holes and physicists’ current definitions of time.

Some time ago, I read Paul Davies’s About Time. His discussion on the nature of time largely reflects the prevailing view in physics: that the direction of entropy increase aligns with our intuitive perception of time. If the process of entropy were to reverse, then the direction of time would likewise reverse. If entropy neither increases nor decreases, then time would, essentially, come to a halt.

Unfortunately, the Second Law of Thermodynamics—which claims that entropy in complex systems can only increase—is widely accepted. In contrast, the author of Sand Talk only accepts the First Law of Thermodynamics (the law of conservation of energy), and rejects the second. Traditional Chinese cosmology, particularly the “unity of heaven and humanity” concept, implicitly rejects the second law too—even though ancient thinkers didn’t possess modern physics knowledge.

If I were to add another layer to my own mix of optimism and pessimism, it would be the ultimate state—neither optimistic nor pessimistic—which I call the final state of “Great Harmony.” The pessimism I refer to stems from the belief that, once we’ve entered into chaos, it is nearly impossible to return to an ideal state. That’s why I speak of boundaries—where optimism becomes valid only within limited systems.

The core of Aboriginal culture, including their perception of time and the cosmos, is fundamentally different from the worldview shaped by modern education. They perceive the past, present, and future as existing simultaneously. From what I understand, they strongly reject differentiation. In their view, the chaos of the world stems from differences, which in turn create a sense of superiority.

The author clearly looks beyond his own Indigenous culture. He has deep insights into modern economics, politics, and the international order. Humanity, he suggests, has entered a state of imbalance.

As I’ve often said, skyscrapers are not civilization per se—they’re simply the result of cost-benefit calculations pushing buildings ever higher, and transport ever faster. Once people enter the high-speed rail era, there’s no turning back. This is merely “speed covering shame”—technological progress masking the underlying problems that remain unsolved at their roots.

The author offers unique insights into the existence and development of cities.

“a city is dependent on the importation of resources from interconnected systems beyond its borders. The city places itself at the centre of these systems and strips them to feed its growth, disrupting cycles of time and land and weather and water and ecological exchange between the systems. The exchange is now only going one way. Matter and energy are still neither created nor destroyed in this reaction; they are directed into static heaps rather than cycled back through and between systems.”

I didn’t expect the author to have such profound knowledge of philosophy and so-called modern civilization. This only deepens my interest in reading further.

(To be continued)