|
|
Subject: Of X-Men and the Anthropic Principle: Stacey E. Ake
Metanexus: Views 2003.03.26. 2886 words
Consider the anthropic principle in its weaker version (WAP). According to the John Barrow and Frank Tipler book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, [1986], the WAP can be stated as follows:
"The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so," (sec. 1.2).
Now, I must admit that I have no idea what this really means. As near as I can figure, this means to me that "we are here because we're here" or, perhaps more amicably stated, "if we weren't here, we wouldn't be here."
Yes, well.
Now, maybe it's the covert logician in me that sits down with the introverted statistician and together they cry foul. But when I read the WAP, I hear something like this in my head:
"The observed values of all weather outcomes are not equal, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there is a picnic (going on) today and by the requirement that there have been at least enough hours for the weather to change in the last few days."
Furthermore, I must, of course, add the fact that today it is sunny, and I am picnicking. And that is the why and the when of my writing down this principle.
But is this all that the Anthropic Principle is about?
Read on to find out whether this is the case, and, if so, what that case has to do with Storm, Wolverine, Rogue, and the other X-Men.
--Stacey E. Ake
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Subject: Of X-Men and the Anthropic Principle
One of the fascinating things about working in the science religion arena is
the assortment of strange and wild places in which the issues of science and
religion raise their wily heads. I don't simply mean while talking with the
mechanic fixing the car for (what seems to me to be) the 30 billionth time
or with the Amish youngster on the Philly to Pittsburgh train. In those
cases, I am no doubt as much an instigator responsible for taking the
conversation in that direction as my interlocutor. What I mean is the subtle
but insistent presence of the science and religion debate (and often in its
more conservative avatars) in the commercial media. In other words, this is
not a problem relegated to my private conversations or the later hours of
PBS.
I have found science & religion as the topic of plots on shows as varied as
Touched by An Angel, Law & Order, The West Wing, Andromeda, Enterprise
(alright, I concede the point that anything influenced by Gene Roddenberry
is bound at some point to take on the dilemma of science and religion
headfirst and by both horns), Evergreen, 7th Heaven, and CSI: Miami. And I
am somewhat confounded, because I didn't even own a TV until recently; so,
unless I am somehow touched with my own personal power of ascertainment
bias, I can only assume that the science religion debate is "out there" even
more obviously than I perceive it. And, of course, one wonders whether the
reason for the science religion debate being "out there" at all just might
have to do with the strange claim of "The X-Files"; namely, that the truth
is out there.
But is it? For, at least in my interpretation, one of the strongest truths
embodied by "The X-Files" was that while the events experienced may actually
be "out there" somewhere, the truth claims (casually known in some circles
as "the facts") were safely, securely, and more often than not, quite
differently sequestered in the minds of Mulder and Scully at the end of each
episode. Experiencing the same thing did not lead Mulder and Scully to
create the same explanation for the event experienced. "I want to believe"
said the poster hanging in Mulder's office, but as the show demonstrated,
both he and Scully already did believe...different things. And part of the
show's tension resulted from Mulder's really wanting Scully to believe what
he believed. Mulder as ET missionary would make for an interesting study,
but his attempts to convert the scientific Scully often failed, and for a
very strange reason: the residual effects of her reasonable Catholicism.
Ironies abound, and it would seem that Chris Carter is as sensitive to them
as Gene Roddenberry was.
Perhaps it is just the attractiveness of that little letter "X"? For "X" is
the unknown variable, that most interesting of receding dynamical objects
which the truly curious mind is ever in search of. And I don't mean the
gerry-rigged pseudo-variability of the algebra "X"; I mean the mind-bending,
ultra-contradictory nature of the real "X" of the living universe. I guess
you might consider it the John Cage approach to knowledge and possibility.
As Cage says of himself, "I can't understand why people are frightened of
new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones." To which I say a hearty "Amen"!
Now, new ideas are novelties, changes in the way things are; they are,
essentially, mutations (and if one wishes to be Dawkinsian about it, they
are mutations in memes, but how is that possible?). And this topical
transition (albeit awkward) brings me to my next "X"-namely, that of "The
X-Men". For, the X-Men are mutants-and they aren't all men. They are all,
however, characters in an eponymous Marvel comic book, and the subject of a
recent movie, the sequel to which will be coming out this summer. The comic
book serial by Stan Lee began in 1963, and it is Marvel Comics'
longest-running and most successful title. In this story, teenagers who come
into their mutant powers are either recruited by Magneto (the bad guy) or
are taken into the care and tutelage of Professor X (Professor Charles
Xavier) who trains them up to use their powers for the good of their lesser
fellows (Homo sapiens) and to, of course, combat the malevolent machinations
of Magneto.
In the X-Men film, the role of Professor X is played by Patrick Stewart,
formerly known as Captain Jean-Luc Picard of Star Trek: The Next Generation.
A nod to Roddenberry? Perhaps. Meanwhile, the anti-hero, Magneto, is played
by Ian McKellen whose most recent acting avatar was as Gandalf in the Lord
of the Rings film trilogy. Naturally, a variety of sweet young things play
the various heroes and villains. But all this is as expected. There are
fights, special effects, knowing looks, moments of dire danger, and risky
acts of heroism. But there is also a physics class. And there is even a
homework assignment: for the next class, please hand in your papers on...the
anthropic principle.
The anthropic principle? Upon recovering from this stunning presentation in
Marvel comic book cinematic heaven, I had to laugh. For, you see, the
Linnaean species identification for the X-Men mutants is Homo superior,
quite the compelling example of binomial nomenclature, don't you think?
Now, I am not a subscriber to, nor a person in need of, the ubermensch,
superman, Homo superior theories of the average comic book character. I
suspect I have never been alienated enough or, at least, not in the "right"
way. Moreover, I am not given to either Shavian or Wellsian moments. But the
anthropic principle? Why would such an idea be included in the film version
of "The X-Men"?
Well, let's consider the anthropic principle in its weaker version (WAP).
According to the John Barrow and Frank Tipler book The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle, [1986], the WAP can be stated as follows:
"The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not
equally probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that
there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement
that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so," (sec. 1.2).
Now, I must admit that I have no idea what this really means. As near as I
can figure, this means to me that "we are here because we're here" or,
perhaps more amicably stated, "if we weren't here, we wouldn't be here."
Yes, well.
Now, maybe it's the covert logician in me that sits down with the
introverted statistician and together they cry foul. But when I read the
WAP, I hear something like this in my head:
"The observed values of all weather outcomes are not equal, but they take on
values restricted by the requirement that there is a picnic (going on) today
and by the requirement that there have been at least enough hours for the
weather to change in the last few days."
Furthermore, I must, of course, add the fact that today it is sunny, and I
am picnicking. And that is the why and the when of my writing down this
principle.
Now, as anyone who watches the weather knows, today's actualities are
yesterday's probabilities instantiated. The proponents of the WAP know this
as well; thus the need for the "requirement that the Universe be old enough
for it to have already done so" caveat.
I will, at this step in the argument, point out what one must needs point
out to every student of introductory genetics, with its problems of
probability and statistics: namely, the tricky conundrum that correlation is
not causation. For the best that correlation can give you is an hypothesis,
maybe even a working hypothesis, or an observation. But correlation does not
provide one with a conclusion. (An aside: this deadly dyad of confusing
correlation with causation and then combining said confusion with a
misapplication of Koch's postulates is what is getting a lot of "genetic
medicine" into trouble. We saw this once already with the HIV/AIDS problem,
and we will see it again in the future. But biology does not work according
to logic; it does not even work according to physics. The biological world
is subject to a law alien to the world of physics-and pretty much alien to
the world of chemistry as well-namely, "Stay alive!" And to this law, there
is one functional corollary: Whatever works! But I speak of causal
fallacies, and I digress....)
So, to return to the matter at hand (correlation vs. causation): there is
the problem presented by my famous blue (and white) raincoat. As a loyal
Penn Stater, I wore my famous blue raincoat (FBR) to every Nittany Lion
game. And when I wore the raincoat, the Nittany Lions won. But when I didn't
wear it, they lost. There is, in fact, a 100% correlation with my plastic
blue fashion statement and Penn State gridiron victory.
Now, it seems to me that when it is phrased this way, the problem of
confusing correlation with causation stands out in bas-relief. No one in
their right mind would actually believe that my blue raincoat is the pivotal
requirement for Nittany Lion victory-otherwise, if it were, I would no doubt
be currently living in a State College luxury apartment subsidized by Joe
Paterno and the PSU alumni association. On the other hand, if one were of a
superstitious turn of mind, one might assume that the famous blue raincoat
DID in fact play a role in PSU football prowess and thus act accordingly.
Moreover, having observed PSU fan behavior for many years, I am fairly
certain that many folks do indeed behave in this way-usually without regard
to the actual numerical ratios of football scores. Thus, it would seem that
in cases of superstition, intermittent conditioning is, in fact, the most
effective method of reinforcement. Furthermore, one last point, before
moving on: it would be a tremendously facile, not to mention inordinately
lazy, move at this juncture to posit that from this type of superstition
religion arises. I am not making this move.
Strangely enough (to some), I do not make this move for the same reason that
I look askance upon the AP, as well as ID theory, in any of their avatars as
bulwarks to religious faith; namely, that they are superstitions, albeit
scientifically savvy and numerically nuanced forms of superstition. And, as
in many things, the Danes have the best word for this situation:
"overtro"-the idea that superstition is, essentially, above or beyond
belief. (And please note: one could, of course, point out that there might
be a "chaos theory" explanation for the effect of my famous blue raincoat on
Penn State football fortitude. Quite possibly, but since chaos theory is
essentially anything but "chaotic", I feel that we are back in the same
position from which we started-square one. On the other hand, if one wished
to explore and experiment with the possible relationship between my raincoat
and PSU victory-for example, one hypothesis: from where my season ticket
holder seats were, the stadium lights were such that my blue raincoat shone
like Glenn Close as the "woman in white" in The Natural and thus inspired
the quarterback or the defensive linemen to footballer feats of surpassing
glory. Well, by all means, test that hypothesis. But if this is the case, we
then also see that the WAP, like my FBR theory, is an observation or
conjecture in search of an hypothesis or explanatory theory which would then
be in pursuit of an experiment or other supporting data.)
Now, all of this has been a roundabout way of saying what was made
blatantly, if fleetingly, obvious in the film The X-Men.
Consider the WAP again: "The observed values of all physical and
cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values
restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life
can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to
have already done so," (Barrow & Tipler, sec. 1.2).
Now, as the first premise of the WAP states, it is true that "the observed
values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally
probable". As a matter of fact, the mutation rate (read: frequency) for
achondroplasia, a type of "dwarfism" that occurs sporadically in the human
population, is 7/242,257 x 1/2 (2 alleles per zygote) = 1.4 x 10e-5. (See
Furthermore, to expand upon the second feature of the WAP, these physical
and cosmological quantities, including mutation rates, "take on values
restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life
can evolve" or, in the current case, where carbon-based life with
achondroplasia or (in a comic book world) where carbon-based life with super
mutant X-Men powers can evolve.
And, finally, there is that time caveat or "the requirement that the
Universe be old enough for it to have already done so." Well, we have seen
the arrival on the planet of folks with achondroplasia; perhaps, it will
merely be a matter of "X" time before the Universe has become old enough for
mutants and others, for the Homo superior, to have already done so. In other
words, the perspectival time aspect that allows the anthropic aspect of the
anthropic principle to appear/be revealed/be "obvious" shows that the
anthropic nature of the principle is an artifact of time. Or, that is to
say, that what we see now, we do in fact see now, only because we are seeing
at a particular time: now. Was there anything in the age of dinosaurs to
point to the currently anthropically dominated earth? Only if you (a human!)
were there and were rooting for those mini-mammals, and, as I mentioned
before, I am not given to Wellsian flights of fancy.
And thus the point of (or, at least my point about) the movie: Perhaps,
given that the odds for mutants are even smaller than the odds for "normal"
humans, what we now know as the Anthropic principle will someday come to be
known as the Mutant principle or the X-Men principle. If nothing else, the
X-Men movie reveals how very subtly notions of the great chain of being, of
human apotheosis as the end all of creation or evolution (the reader may
choose), and of the desire for a teleology of which we are the telos still
dominate the scientific imagination.
But when I see that the score is still HIV 42,000,000 : Humans 0, then I
find it a little hard to believe that humans are the end all of all that is,
except when one assumes from the start that they are. And that kind of
assumption is called begging the question. Personally, my money is on the
nematodes; for like God, they are everywhere. But, then again, the same is
true of E. coli.
"As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics
and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as
if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming."
--Freeman Dyson
But remember the key words: it almost seems....
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This publication is hosted by Metanexus Online
Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays
and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in
original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous
columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable
essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to Dr. Stacey Ake,
Associate Editor of Metanexus at
Copyright notice: Columns may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full
with attribution to the author of the column and "Metanexus: The Online Forum
on Religion and Science
From: Stacey E. Ake
Email:
Home page