TED2009
Sean Gourley: The mathematics of war
Sean Gourley 戰爭的數學模式
Filmed:
Readability: 3.6
1,030,256 views
藉由分析伊拉克戰爭和其他戰爭中的死傷數據，Sean Gourley和他的團隊宣稱，在襲擊的頻率與死傷數之間，存在有一個驚人的數學模式。
Sean Gourley - Physicist and military theorist
Sean Gourley, trained as a physicist, has turned his scientific mind to analyzing data about a messier topic: modern war and conflict. He is a TED Fellow. Full bio
Sean Gourley, trained as a physicist, has turned his scientific mind to analyzing data about a messier topic: modern war and conflict. He is a TED Fellow. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:12
We look around the media, as we see on the news from Iraq,
0
0
3000
媒體上報導有關伊拉克、
00:15
Afghanistan, Sierra Leone,
1
3000
3000
阿富汗、獅子山共和國的戰爭，
00:18
and the conflict seems incomprehensible to us.
2
6000
4000
對我們來說似乎是個難解的問題，
00:22
And that's certainly how it seemed to me when I started this project.
3
10000
4000
尤其是當我決定要開始進行這個專案的時候。
00:26
But as a physicist,
4
14000
2000
但是身為一個物理學家，
00:28
I thought, well if you give me some data,
5
16000
3000
我想只要你能提供一些資料，
00:31
I could maybe understand this. You know, give us a go.
6
19000
2000
我或許能找到解答，就讓我試一試也無妨。
00:33
So as a naive New Zealander
7
21000
2000
我這個天真的紐西蘭人就想，
00:35
I thought, well I'll go to the Pentagon.
8
23000
2000
我該去找五角大廈的人談談，
00:37
Can you get me some information?
9
25000
2000
看他們能不能給我一些資訊？
00:39
(Laughter)
10
27000
3000
(笑聲)
00:42
No. So I had to think a little harder.
11
30000
4000
當然不行。所以我得再想別的辦法。
00:46
And I was watching the news one night in Oxford.
12
34000
3000
有天晚上我在牛津看新聞的時候，
00:49
And I looked down at the chattering heads on my channel of choice.
13
37000
3000
我發現在螢幕下方有一行跑馬字，
00:52
And I saw that there was information there.
14
40000
2000
那就是我要的資訊了！
00:54
There was data within the streams of news that we consume.
15
42000
3000
我們每天在看新聞的時候，就有大量的資訊流過，
00:57
All this noise around us actually has information.
16
45000
4000
環繞在我們四週的噪音裡，其實隱藏了重要的資訊。
01:01
So what I started thinking was,
17
49000
2000
所以我開始想，
01:03
perhaps there is something like open source intelligence here.
18
51000
3000
或許有一些公開的資訊我可以取得，
01:06
If we can get enough of these streams of information together,
19
54000
3000
只要我取得足夠的資訊，
01:09
we can perhaps start to understand the war.
20
57000
3000
或許我們就可以開始瞭解戰爭。
01:12
So this is exactly what I did. We started bringing a team together,
21
60000
3000
我所做的，是組成一個團隊，
01:15
an interdisciplinary team of scientists,
22
63000
2000
由各種學者專家組成，包含科學家、
01:17
of economists, mathematicians.
23
65000
3000
經濟學家和數學家。
01:20
We brought these guys together and we started to try and solve this.
24
68000
3000
我們把這些人集合起來，開始嚐試解決這個問題。
01:23
We did it in three steps.
25
71000
2000
我們的工作分成三個步驟，
01:25
The first step we did was to collect. We did 130 different sources of information --
26
73000
4000
第一步是蒐集資料，我們的資料來源有130個，
01:29
from NGO reports to newspapers and cable news.
27
77000
3000
包含非營利組織的報告、報紙和有線電視新聞。
01:32
We brought this raw data in and we filtered it.
28
80000
3000
我們把資料蒐集起來，然後做初步的篩選，
01:35
We extracted the key bits on information to build the database.
29
83000
3000
我們把最精華的資訊輸入，以建立資料庫。
01:38
That database contained
30
86000
2000
資料庫裡包含有
01:40
the timing of attacks,
31
88000
2000
襲擊的時間、
01:42
the location, the size and the weapons used.
32
90000
2000
地點、規模及使用的武器。
01:44
It's all in the streams of information we consume daily,
33
92000
3000
這些資訊都在我們每天所吸收的新聞裡，
01:47
we just have to know how to pull it out.
34
95000
2000
問題只在於如何擷取。
01:49
And once we had this we could start doing some cool stuff.
35
97000
2000
所以當我們建立了資料庫，我們就可以開始做一些很酷的事了。
01:51
What if we were to look at the distribution of the sizes of attacks?
36
99000
3000
我們可不可以看看襲擊規模的分佈狀況？
01:54
What would that tell us?
37
102000
2000
那代表什麼意義？
01:56
So we started doing this. And you can see here
38
104000
2000
所以我們開始進行分析。
01:58
on the horizontal axis
39
106000
2000
你們可以在水平軸上
02:00
you've got the number of people killed in an attack
40
108000
2000
看到每次襲擊的死亡人數，
02:02
or the size of the attack.
41
110000
2000
也可稱之為襲擊的規模，
02:04
And on the vertical axis you've got the number of attacks.
42
112000
3000
垂直軸上有襲擊的次數，
02:07
So we plot data for sample on this.
43
115000
2000
當我們把資料點畫上去後，
02:09
You see some sort of random distribution --
44
117000
2000
你會看到類似隨機分佈的圖形 --
02:11
perhaps 67 attacks, one person was killed,
45
119000
3000
像有67次襲擊裡都有一個人死亡，
02:14
or 47 attacks where seven people were killed.
46
122000
3000
或是有47次襲擊裡有七個人死亡。
02:17
We did this exact same thing for Iraq.
47
125000
2000
我們為伊拉克戰爭做了同樣的分析，
02:19
And we didn't know, for Iraq what we were going to find.
48
127000
3000
我們一開始並不知道伊拉克戰爭的分析結果會是什麼，
02:22
It turns out what we found was pretty surprising.
49
130000
4000
但結果非常令人驚訝。
02:26
You take all of the conflict,
50
134000
2000
當我們把所有衝突、
02:28
all of the chaos, all of the noise,
51
136000
2000
混亂及噪音
02:30
and out of that
52
138000
2000
都排除在外，
02:32
comes this precise mathematical distribution
53
140000
2000
我們畫出了這個精確的數學分佈圖，
02:34
of the way attacks are ordered in this conflict.
54
142000
3000
告訴我們其實戰爭的襲擊是有規則的。
02:37
This blew our mind.
55
145000
2000
這讓我們大吃一驚。
02:39
Why should a conflict like Iraq have this
56
147000
4000
為什麼像伊拉克這種戰爭
02:43
as its fundamental signature?
57
151000
2000
會產生這種圖形？
02:45
Why should there be order in war?
58
153000
2000
戰爭怎麼會有規則可循？
02:47
We didn't really understand that.
59
155000
2000
我們真的不瞭解，
02:49
We thought maybe there is something special about Iraq.
60
157000
4000
我們認為或許伊拉克戰爭有其特殊之處，
02:53
So we looked at a few more conflicts.
61
161000
2000
所以我們又研究了其他幾個戰爭，
02:55
We looked at Colombia, we looked at Afghanistan,
62
163000
2000
我們研究了哥倫比亞、阿富汗
02:57
and we looked at Senegal.
63
165000
2000
和塞內加爾的戰事。
02:59
And the same pattern emerged in each conflict.
64
167000
2000
每一個戰事都有相同的圖形，
03:01
This wasn't supposed to happen.
65
169000
2000
不應該是這樣啊...
03:03
These are different wars, with different religious factions,
66
171000
3000
不同的戰爭有不同的宗教背景、
03:06
different political factions, and different socioeconomic problems.
67
174000
3000
不同的政治背景，就連社會經濟問題也不同，
03:09
And yet the fundamental patterns underlying them
68
177000
4000
但是他們所呈現出來的圖形
03:13
are the same.
69
181000
3000
卻是一樣！
03:16
So we went a little wider.
70
184000
2000
我們將範圍再度擴大，
03:18
We looked around the world at all the data we could get our hands on.
71
186000
3000
我們研究世界上所有的戰事，利用手邊所有可取得的資料，
03:21
From Peru to Indonesia,
72
189000
3000
從祕魯到印尼，
03:24
we studied this same pattern again.
73
192000
2000
我們又看到一樣的圖形，
03:26
And we found that not only
74
194000
3000
而且他們
03:29
were the distributions these straight lines,
75
197000
2000
不只具有相同的這條分佈直線，
03:31
but the slope of these lines, they clustered around
76
199000
2000
就連這條線的斜率 α ，
03:33
this value of alpha equals 2.5.
77
201000
3000
都集中在2.5這個值上下。
03:36
And we could generate an equation
78
204000
2000
因此我們得出一條方程式，
03:38
that could predict the likelihood of an attack.
79
206000
3000
讓我們得以預測某次襲擊的可能結果。
03:41
What we're saying here
80
209000
2000
我們所說的結果是指
03:43
is the probability of an attack killing X number of people
81
211000
4000
在像伊拉克這種戰爭中，
03:47
in a country like Iraq
82
215000
2000
某次襲擊所會造成 X 人死亡的機率，
03:49
is equal to a constant, times the size of that attack,
83
217000
3000
這個值相當於某個常數乘上該次襲擊的規模
03:52
raised to the power of negative alpha.
84
220000
3000
的負 α 次方，
03:55
And negative alpha is the slope of that line I showed you before.
85
223000
6000
這個負 α 就是先前提到的斜率。
04:01
So what?
86
229000
2000
這又代表什麼？
04:03
This is data, statistics. What does it tell us about these conflicts?
87
231000
3000
這些是資料、統計數據，他們能夠為我們解釋戰爭嗎？
04:06
That was a challenge we had to face as physicists.
88
234000
3000
這是身為物理學家所要面對的挑戰，
04:09
How do we explain this?
89
237000
3000
我們該怎麼解讀這些數據？
04:12
And what we really found was that alpha,
90
240000
2000
我們最後瞭解到，
04:14
if we think about it, is the organizational
91
242000
2000
α 就代表了
04:16
structure of the insurgency.
92
244000
3000
叛軍的組織結構。
04:19
Alpha is the distribution of the sizes of attacks,
93
247000
3000
雖然 α 所代表的是襲擊規模的分佈狀況，
04:22
which is really the distribution
94
250000
2000
但實際上卻代表
04:24
of the group strength carrying out the attacks.
95
252000
2000
發動襲擊一方的組織力量。
04:26
So we look at a process of group dynamics:
96
254000
2000
所以我們來看看組織的生態 --
04:28
coalescence and fragmentation,
97
256000
3000
集中或分散。
04:31
groups coming together, groups breaking apart.
98
259000
2000
這些組織合久必分，分久必合。
04:33
And we start running the numbers on this. Can we simulate it?
99
261000
3000
所以我們開始分析這些數據。我們是否能夠進行模擬？
04:36
Can we create the kind of patterns that we're seeing
100
264000
3000
我們是否能複製出類似
04:39
in places like Iraq?
101
267000
3000
伊拉克戰爭的圖形？
04:42
Turns out we kind of do a reasonable job.
102
270000
2000
漸漸地我們看到了一些眉目，
04:44
We can run these simulations.
103
272000
2000
我們可以進行模擬了，
04:46
We can recreate this using a process of group dynamics
104
274000
3000
我們可以依據組織生態來解釋
04:49
to explain the patterns that we see
105
277000
2000
世界各地的戰爭
04:51
all around the conflicts around the world.
106
279000
5000
所呈現出的圖形了。
04:56
So what's going on?
107
284000
2000
接下來呢？
04:58
Why should these different -- seemingly different conflicts
108
286000
3000
為什麼這些看似不同的戰事，
05:01
have the same patterns?
109
289000
2000
卻會呈現相同的圖形？
05:03
Now what I believe is going on is that
110
291000
3000
我相信這是因為
05:06
the insurgent forces, they evolve over time. They adapt.
111
294000
4000
叛軍的組織，會隨時間不斷地改變，
05:10
And it turns out there is only one solution
112
298000
2000
這是面對一個強而有力的敵人
05:12
to fight a much stronger enemy.
113
300000
2000
所必須採取的策略。
05:14
And if you don't find that solution as an insurgent force,
114
302000
3000
若身為一個叛軍組織而不瞭解這一點，
05:17
you don't exist.
115
305000
2000
這個叛軍組織就不會存活。
05:19
So every insurgent force that is ongoing,
116
307000
2000
所以只要叛軍還存在，
05:21
every conflict that is ongoing,
117
309000
2000
只要戰爭還在打，
05:23
it's going to look something like this.
118
311000
2000
就會出現這個圖形，
05:25
And that is what we think is happening.
119
313000
3000
這是我們的想法。
05:28
Taking it forward, how do we change it?
120
316000
2000
更進一步來說，我們該怎麼改變這個戰爭？
05:30
How do we end a war like Iraq?
121
318000
2000
我們該怎麼終止像伊拉克這種戰爭？
05:32
What does it look like?
122
320000
2000
這種戰爭裡的 α 值是多少？
05:34
Alpha is the structure. It's got a stable state at 2.5.
123
322000
3000
α 就是叛軍的組織結構，當戰事持續的時候，
05:37
This is what wars look like when they continue.
124
325000
4000
它趨向一個穩定值2.5。
05:41
We've got to change that.
125
329000
2000
我們得改變這個值，
05:43
We can push it up:
126
331000
2000
我們可以把它往上推升，
05:45
the forces become more fragmented;
127
333000
2000
叛軍的組織就會分裂，
05:47
there is more of them, but they are weaker.
128
335000
4000
叛軍組織變多了，但每一個都很弱；
05:51
Or we push it down:
129
339000
2000
或是我們可以把它往下降，
05:53
they're more robust; there is less groups;
130
341000
2000
叛軍就會變強，但是組織數目會減少，
05:55
but perhaps you can sit and talk to them.
131
343000
4000
你可能可以和他們坐下來進行談判。
05:59
So this graph here, I'm going to show you now.
132
347000
2000
所以，我要給你們看一張圖，
06:01
No one has seen this before. This is literally
133
349000
3000
以前還未曾發表過，
06:04
stuff that we've come through last week.
134
352000
2000
這是我們上星期才畫出來的圖。
06:06
And we see the evolution of Alpha through time.
135
354000
4000
我們可以在圖上看到 α 值的演變，
06:10
We see it start. And we see it grow up to the stable state
136
358000
3000
從開始逐漸增長到穩定值，
06:13
the wars around the world look like.
137
361000
2000
就像所有的戰爭一樣，
06:15
And it stays there through the invasion of Fallujah
138
363000
3000
就算在Falusia入侵時期也還算穩定，
06:18
until the Samarra bombings in the
139
366000
2000
直到06年伊拉克大選時，
06:20
Iraqi elections of '06.
140
368000
3000
Samarra炸彈攻擊事件
06:23
And the system gets perturbed. It moves upwards
141
371000
2000
才開始讓系統變得紊亂，往上發展
06:25
to a fragmented state.
142
373000
2000
成為分裂的叛軍組織，
06:27
This is when the surge happens.
143
375000
2000
接著美軍增援部隊進入伊拉克。
06:29
And depending on who you ask,
144
377000
2000
不管你問誰，
06:31
the surge was supposed to push it up even further.
145
379000
3000
大家都認為美軍增援會讓 α 值更往上推升，
06:34
The opposite happened.
146
382000
2000
但是 α 值往下降了，
06:36
The groups became stronger.
147
384000
2000
叛軍變得更強大，
06:38
They became more robust.
148
386000
2000
戰力也提升了。
06:40
And so I'm thinking, right, great, it's going to keep going down.
149
388000
3000
這時我在想，很好，時機對了！ α 值會持續往下降，
06:43
We can talk to them. We can get a solution. The opposite happened.
150
391000
3000
便能進行談判，共同找出解決的方法。但天不從人願，
06:46
It's moved up again. The groups are more fragmented.
151
394000
3000
α 值又往上推升了，叛軍組織又分裂了。
06:49
And this tells me one of two things.
152
397000
2000
這讓我發現，
06:51
Either we're back where we started
153
399000
3000
要不是美軍增援毫無幫助，
06:54
and the surge has had no effect;
154
402000
2000
讓我們退回原點；
06:56
or finally the groups have been fragmented to the extent
155
404000
4000
要不然就是叛軍已經分裂到不具破壞力，
07:00
that we can start to think about maybe moving out.
156
408000
4000
美軍可以撤出伊拉克了。
07:04
I don't know what the answer is to that.
157
412000
2000
我不知道答案是哪一個，
07:06
But I know that we should be looking at the structure of the insurgency
158
414000
3000
但我知道我們該持續觀察叛軍的組織，
07:09
to answer that question.
159
417000
2000
以便找出正確的答案。
07:11
Thank you.
160
419000
2000
謝謝各位。
07:13
(Applause)
161
421000
5000
(掌聲)
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Sean Gourley - Physicist and military theoristSean Gourley, trained as a physicist, has turned his scientific mind to analyzing data about a messier topic: modern war and conflict. He is a TED Fellow.
Why you should listen
Sean Gourley's twin passions are physics (working on nanoscale blue-light lasers and self-assembled quantum nanowires) and politics (he once ran for a national elected office back home in New Zealand).
A Rhodes scholar, he's spent the past five years working at Oxford on complex adaptive systems and collective intelligent systems -- basically, using data to understand the nature of human conflict. As he puts it, "This research has taken me all over the world from the Pentagon, to the House of Lords, the United Nations and most recently to Iraq". Originally from New Zealand, he now lives in San Francisco, where he is the co-founder and CTO of Quid which is building a global intelligence platform. He's a 2009 TED Fellow.
In December 2009, Gourley and his team's research was published in the scientific journal Nature. He is co-founder and CTO of Quid.
Sean Gourley | Speaker | TED.com