Financial Management: Free Will 财务管理：自由意志
Do we really have a choice?
我们真的有选择吗？
This is actually a big question. Because it involves a concept that is incredibly important to everyone – Free Will. Even at a philosophical level, this is still an ultimate question: does Free Will really exist?
这实际上是一个大问题。因为它涉及一个对每个人都非常重要的概念——自由意志。即使在哲学层面上，这仍然是一个终极问题：自由意志真的存在吗？
It cannot be denied that for over 99% of human history, people lived in the dark, without enough ability to clearly understand the world they were in. In those circumstances, people seemed to be resigned to fate, could only believe in destiny; people also wanted to make judgments, but ultimately felt powerless and futile.
不可否认的是，在超过99%的人类历史中，人们生活在黑暗中，没有足够的能力清楚地了解他们所处的世界。在那种情况下，人们似乎听天由命，只能相信命运;人们也想做出判断，但最终感到无能为力和徒劳。
What is changing our relationship with this world? The progress of science.
是什么在改变我们与这个世界的关系？科学的进步。
Einstein used to always smile and say, “God does not play dice with the universe…”. That’s because Einstein couldn’t accept one of the basic principles of quantum mechanics proposed by Heisenberg – the uncertainty principle [2].
爱因斯坦过去总是微笑着说：“上帝不会和宇宙玩骰子……”。那是因为爱因斯坦无法接受海森堡提出的量子力学的基本原理之一——不确定性原理[2]。
The subsequent development of quantum mechanics proved Einstein wrong. There are articles and books that curious readers might want to take a look at
量子力学的后续发展证明爱因斯坦错了。有些文章和书籍是好奇的读者可能想看一看的
You Are Wrong, Mr Einstein! by Harald Frizsch
你错了，爱因斯坦先生！作者：Harald Frizsch
Does God play Dice? by Stephen Hawking
上帝会玩骰子吗？斯蒂芬·霍金（Stephen Hawking）
The difference between “The Future is unknownable” and “The Future is uncertain/random” may seem subtle, but it is actually of great significance.
“未来是未知的”和“未来是不确定的/随机的”之间的区别看似微妙，但实际上意义重大。
“The Future is unknownable” means that we have no way of knowing the future, just as we are helpless about the past.
“未来是未知的”意味着我们无法知道未来，就像我们对过去无能为力一样。
“The Future is uncertain/random” means that we have a certain probability of successfully predicting the future.
“未来是不确定的/随机的”意味着我们有一定的概率成功预测未来。
In other words, when we toss a coin, we really don’t know which side it will land on until it does, but we do know that the probability of either side landing is 1/2 – this is a huge difference.
换句话说，当我们抛硬币时，我们真的不知道它会落在哪一边，直到它落地，但我们知道任何一方落地的概率是 1/2——这是一个巨大的差异。
People often mistakenly attribute the root of the debate on free will to religious beliefs. In my view, this is highly misleading and detrimental to social harmony and personal well-being. People are often misled into thinking that science and religion are incompatible, but in reality, many major scientific contributions have been made by religious figures throughout history, leading to a different conclusion.
人们常常错误地将自由意志辩论的根源归咎于宗教信仰。在我看来，这是非常具有误导性的，不利于社会和谐和个人福祉。人们经常被误导，以为科学和宗教是不相容的，但实际上，历史上宗教人物做出了许多重大的科学贡献，导致了不同的结论。
Gregor Johann Mendel, the discoverer of genetic principles, was a religious figure. However, his scientific conclusions did not receive widespread fierce criticism. In the same period, why did Charles Robert Darwin, who was just a little older than Mendel, continually face strong resistance to his scientific conclusions? Because certain scientific conclusions can significantly impact the worldview and values of the resistors. Therefore, fundamentally speaking, the enemy of science is not necessarily religion, but those who are unwilling to change their established worldview and values.
遗传原理的发现者格雷戈尔·约翰·孟德尔（Gregor Johann Mendel）是一位宗教人物。然而，他的科学结论并没有受到广泛的激烈批评。在同一时期，为什么比孟德尔年长一点的查尔斯·罗伯特·达尔文（Charles Robert Darwin）的科学结论不断面临强烈的阻力？因为某些科学结论会显着影响电阻器的世界观和价值观。因此，从根本上说，科学的敌人不一定是宗教，而是那些不愿意改变既定世界观和价值观的人。
It should be noted that the writer makes a personal declaration that they have no religious beliefs.
应该指出的是，作者个人声明他们没有宗教信仰。
Our knowledge of probabilities today stems from a problem that a clever man, Pascal, pondered over. This problem later became known as “The Problem of the Points”.
我们今天对概率的了解源于一个聪明人帕斯卡思考的问题。这个问题后来被称为“点问题”。
Two people, A and B, started playing a fair, 1/2 probability gambling game with an equal total amount of chips. Today, we might toss a coin, but at that time, the game was called “Balla Game”. The two people agreed that the game would end when one of them won for the 6th time. However, when A won 5 times and B won 3 times, the game had to end. The question then arises: according to the previous agreement, how should the chips be divided between the two people in a fair and reasonable manner?
两个人，A和B，开始玩一个公平的、1/2概率的赌博游戏，筹码总量相等。今天，我们可能会抛硬币，但当时，该游戏被称为“巴拉游戏”。两人约定，当其中一人第6次获胜时，游戏将结束。然而，当 A 赢了 5 次，B 赢了 3 次时，游戏不得不结束。那么问题来了：按照之前的协议，筹码应该如何公平合理地在两个人之间分配？
The person who pondered this matter was Pasquali, a mathematics teacher of Leonardo da Vinci. He invented the method of multiple accounting, translated “Elements of Geometry”, and a peculiar book called “The Power of Numbers” (De Viribus Quantitatis), with an English translation appearing only in 2007.
思考这个问题的人是达芬奇的数学老师帕斯夸利。他发明了多重会计方法，翻译了《几何元素》，并出版了一本名为《数字的力量》（De Viribus Quantitatis）的奇特著作，英文译本直到2007年才出现。
More than 100 years later, two people combined forces and found the answer – Pascal and Fermat, the same Fermat who came up with Fermat’s Last Theorem, which was a problem that took others more than 350 years to solve.
100 多年后，两个人联手找到了答案——帕斯卡和费马，同一个费马提出了费马大定理，这是一个花了 350 多年才解决的问题。
This is the first time in human history that the concept of Expectation Values has been possessed and correctly used. It is the starting point of probability theory, the fundamental tool of risk control. In my view, a calculation made 450 years ago settled the debate on free will. It enables us to anticipate the future through the mathematical tool of probability theory, even calculating what the expected value might be – is that not enough? It appears not, as more than 400 years later, quantum mechanics has once again demonstrated this is still not enough. Why? Why? Why?! Because most people truly do not see the great relationship between science and their lives.
这是人类历史上第一次拥有并正确使用期望值的概念。它是概率论的起点，是风险控制的基本工具。在我看来，450年前的一次计算解决了关于自由意志的争论。它使我们能够通过概率论的数学工具预测未来，甚至计算期望值可能是什么——这还不够吗？400多年后，量子力学再次证明这还不够。为什么？为什么？为什么？！因为大多数人真的没有看到科学和他们的生活之间的巨大关系。
Fortunately, the scientific conclusion is important to at least some individuals. Consider this – if the future is ‘not unknowable,’ and even though it is ‘uncertain,’ it is to some extent quantifiable, what does this fact mean for some of us? The answer is hope.
幸运的是，科学结论至少对某些人很重要。考虑一下——如果未来“不是不可知的”，即使它是“不确定的”，它在某种程度上是可以量化的，那么这个事实对我们中的一些人来说意味着什么？答案是希望。
The meaning of “grit” is “perseverance.” What gives people perseverance? Many people would say “faith.” I personally do not like this ambiguous term. I believe another word is better, more accurate, more instructive: knowledge gives people perseverance.
“毅力”的意思是“毅力”。是什么给了人们毅力？许多人会说“信仰”。我个人不喜欢这个模棱两可的术语。我相信另一个词更好，更准确，更有启发性：知识给人毅力。
University students who have seriously studied probability statistics are unlikely to purchase lottery tickets – it is psychologically implausible, as it insults their intelligence. People who graduate in finance typically try to buy houses and cars outright, not just because they may earn more, but also because their understanding of interest rates and finance prevents them from making installment purchases. However, does this mean that people who do not buy lottery tickets are certainly intelligent and persevering in other areas? People who refrain from installment purchases for homes and cars are definitely intelligent and persevering in other areas? The answer is obviously – no. Why? Because each person’s knowledge in different areas and their level of perseverance also varies.
认真学习过概率统计的大学生不太可能购买彩票——这在心理上是不可信的，因为它侮辱了他们的智力。金融专业毕业的人通常会尝试直接购买房屋和汽车，不仅因为他们可能赚得更多，还因为他们对利率和金融的理解使他们无法分期付款。然而，这是否意味着不买彩票的人在其他方面肯定是聪明的和有毅力的？不分期付款购买房屋和汽车的人在其他领域绝对是聪明和坚持不懈的吗？答案显然是否定的。为什么？因为每个人在不同领域的知识和毅力水平也各不相同。
In today’s era, seeking knowledge means seeking wealth. As realizing knowledge gains not only becomes easier but also happens more quickly, more frequently. In 1642, Pascal designed a calculator – yes, you read it correctly, a calculator, although mechanical. Without such a calculator, he would not have achieved so much, as his work required too many repetitive, tedious calculations. However, even with Pascal’s brilliance, and effort throughout his life in his era, he could not successfully commercialize this sophisticated invention, possibly due to high costs, unattainable mass production, and other reasons. Although the important idea in Pascal’s design has influenced many people in the future: repetitive, tedious work ought to be automated.
在当今时代，求知就是求财。随着知识的实现不仅变得更容易，而且发生得更快、更频繁。1642 年，帕斯卡设计了一个计算器——是的，你没看错，一个计算器，虽然是机械的。如果没有这样的计算器，他就不会取得如此大的成就，因为他的工作需要太多重复、乏味的计算。然而，即使帕斯卡在他那个时代的才华横溢，以及他一生的努力，他也无法成功地将这项复杂的发明商业化，可能是由于成本高昂、无法实现的大规模生产和其他原因。尽管帕斯卡设计中的重要思想影响了未来的许多人：重复、乏味的工作应该自动化。
In less than 400 years, the world has changed significantly. Among these changes is that more and more people have made increasing amounts of money by commercializing their small inventions. This is the difference in this era. Stories of “underdogs’ rise” only began to occur in large numbers in modern times, because intellectual gains, knowledge gains have become possible and easier. However, a plethora of evidence has not reduced the general understanding of people. Thus, the widely circulated wisdom among the public is mostly counter-intellectual. People enjoy stories that exemplify such reasoning – cleverness is often mistaken for stupidity.
在不到400年的时间里，世界发生了翻天覆地的变化。这些变化之一是，越来越多的人通过将他们的小发明商业化来赚到越来越多的钱。这就是这个时代的不同之处。“弱者崛起”的故事直到现代才开始大量出现，因为智力上的收获，知识上的收获已经变得可能和容易。然而，大量的证据并没有降低人们对人们的普遍理解。因此，在公众中广泛流传的智慧大多是反智的。人们喜欢体现这种推理的故事——聪明经常被误认为是愚蠢。
Let me tell you about two more individuals’ stories.
让我再给你们讲两个人的故事。
One person is called Cardano. Nowadays, all smart devices have gyroscopes, which have an important component called a universal joint – this component is extremely widespread in application, being vital in every car we see. Cardano was the first person in the world to propose this joint idea, back in 1545. He was also the first person to solve ratio problems using gears of different sizes. Without this great predecessor, Pascal would not have been able to design a calculator.
有一个人叫卡尔达诺。如今，所有智能设备都有陀螺仪，陀螺仪有一个称为万向节的重要组件——该组件的应用非常广泛，在我们看到的每辆汽车中都至关重要。早在1545年，卡尔达诺就是世界上第一个提出这一联合想法的人。他也是第一个使用不同尺寸的齿轮解决传动比问题的人。如果没有这位伟大的前辈，帕斯卡就无法设计出计算器。
Like many famous scientists in history, Cardano was obsessed with gambling games. Playing every day and gambling every day didn’t prevent him from publishing 131 books (not including more than 170 that he burned himself), leaving behind 111 copies after death. Today’s prolific writers, such as Stephen King, in comparison to Cardano, appear rather ‘weak.’ It looks like my daily practice of writing small articles for amusement is simply not worth mentioning.
像历史上许多著名的科学家一样，卡尔达诺痴迷于赌博游戏。每天玩，每天赌博，并没有阻止他出版了131本书（不包括他自己烧掉的170多本书），死后留下了111本。与卡尔达诺相比，今天多产的作家，如斯蒂芬·金，显得相当“软弱”。看来我每天写小文章消遣的做法根本不值得一提。
Cardano was the first person to notice the probability distribution of the sum of two dice. The probability of rolling a “7” is 1/6, while the probability of rolling a “2” or “12” is not 1/12, but 1/36. Cardano gambled every day, but in the end, he didn’t win much or lose much. For him, gambling was a natural laboratory. It satisfied his curiosity and love for play.
卡尔达诺是第一个注意到两个骰子之和的概率分布的人。掷出“7”的概率是1/6，而掷出“2”或“12”的概率不是1/12，而是1/36。卡尔达诺每天都在赌博，但最终，他并没有赢多少，也没有输多少。对他来说，赌博是一个天然的实验室。它满足了他对游戏的好奇心和热爱。
Another person, Damien, was also a big gambler. He was smart, but not as mathematically inclined as Cardano. He liked Cardano’s book, especially the probability distribution of two dice. Damien was the kind of person who would apply conclusions without understanding the principles—a kind of cleverness, at least, an average kind. Many people become gradually foolish because they don’t understand the principles and are afraid to apply the conclusions.
另一个人，戴缅恩，也是一个大赌徒。他很聪明，但不像卡尔达诺那样有数学倾向。他喜欢卡尔达诺的书，尤其是两个骰子的概率分布。戴缅恩是那种在不理解原则的情况下就下结论的人——至少是一种普通的聪明。许多人逐渐变得愚蠢，因为他们不理解这些原则，害怕应用结论。
Damien also had an important skill—organizing salons. He believed that open discussions were the only way to solve problems and that integrity was one of the most fundamental means to improve discussion efficiency. In one salon, he brought up a puzzle from over 100 years ago—The Problem of the Points. Pascal and Fermat accepted the challenge and ultimately laid the foundation of modern probability theory in their correspondence.
戴缅恩还有一项重要的技能——组织沙龙。他认为，公开讨论是解决问题的唯一途径，诚信是提高讨论效率的最根本手段之一。在一次沙龙里，他提出了一个100多年前的谜题——点的问题。帕斯卡和费马接受了这一挑战，并最终在他们的通信中奠定了现代概率论的基础。
Damien was quite clever. He intuitively judged that the probability of rolling at least one “6” in four consecutive rolls of the dice might be slightly higher than 50%. He made a lot of money using this method. Coming from a grassroots background, he gave himself the title “Chevalier” (Knight) because of this. Later, he became conceited and ended up disastrously, intuitively judging that the probability of rolling at least one “12” (“double 6”) in 24 consecutive rolls of the dice might also be slightly higher than 50%. But, thanks to Pascal, he realized how he was losing.
戴缅恩很聪明。他凭直觉判断，连续四次掷骰子至少掷出一个“6”的概率可能略高于50%。他用这种方法赚了很多钱。他出身于草根阶层，因此给自己起了个“骑士”的称号。后来，他变得自负，结果惨遭失败，凭直觉判断，连续24次掷骰子至少掷出一个“12”（“双6”）的概率也可能略高于50%。但是，多亏了帕斯卡，他才意识到自己输了。
Pascal helped him calculate that the probability of rolling at least one “6” in four consecutive rolls of the dice was indeed higher than 50%. However, the probability of rolling at least one “12” in 24 consecutive rolls of the dice was very unlikely! Pascal reluctantly computed that in order to win, he would need to roll the dice at least 25 times, not 24! Damien couldn’t use this result to win money because it was discussed in the salon and everyone knew about it.
帕斯卡帮他计算出，连续四次掷骰子至少掷出一个“6”的概率确实高于50%。然而，在连续掷骰子的24次中至少掷出一个“12”的概率是非常不可能的！帕斯卡不情愿地计算了一下，为了获胜，他至少需要掷骰子 25 次，而不是 24 次！戴缅恩不能用这个结果来赢钱，因为这是在沙龙里讨论的，每个人都知道了。
In this story, we see no signs of “smart being misled.” Not being smart is truly misleading, isn’t it? A more important fact needs to be reconsidered: Yes, we come from humble origins, but do we really need to beat someone to succeed? In today’s world, we may not need to beat someone to do better, at least to do well enough. Upon reflection, many people are actually defeated by themselves. Their general characteristic is the same: in situations where they can choose, albeit difficult, they mistakenly believe they have no choice and end up in a dead end. Giving up the choice is being defeated.
在这个故事中，我们没有看到“聪明被误导”的迹象。不聪明确实具有误导性，不是吗？一个更重要的事实需要重新考虑：是的，我们出身卑微，但我们真的需要打败别人才能成功吗？在当今世界，我们可能不需要打败某人就能做得更好，至少要做得足够好。仔细想想，很多人其实是被自己打败了。他们的一般特征是相同的：在他们可以选择的情况下，尽管很困难，但他们错误地认为他们别无选择，最终陷入死胡同。放弃选择正在被打败。
In a world that generally believes people actually have no choice:
在一个普遍认为人们实际上别无选择的世界里：
Having unwavering faith supported by knowledge that choices exist and are achievable has a significant relative advantage—just like this.
拥有坚定不移的信念，并得到选择存在和可实现的知识的支持，具有显着的相对优势——就像这样。
Knowing that income can be divided into two types, active income and passive income, and then emphasizing passive income is also a choice, an important one, and one that can change the future, isn’t it?
知道收入可以分为主动收入和被动收入两种类型，然后强调被动收入也是一种选择，一种重要的选择，一种可以改变未来的选择，不是吗？
Originally posted 2024-04-06 10:27:17.