Have you ever heard the suggestion
that given enough monkeys banging on enough typewriters with enough time, they
will eventually produce something like a work of Shakespeare? That idea was
first proposed by French mathematician Émile Borel
1 and
then used by British astronomer Arthur Eddington. Both were using the analogy to
show while nothing can be considered impossible from a mathematical standpoint,
certain ideas are so unlikely that they can be discounted.
2
However, as what came to be known as the Infinite Monkey Theorem entered the
popular culture, it seemed to be turned on its head. Many people seem to think
that the analogy shows that absolutely nothing is impossible given enough time.
The problem is m the analogy was used to show just how improbable a particular
theory on gas movements really is by comparing it to something more easily
pictured in people's minds: monkeys producing works of literature. That's why
Eddington finished his version of the analogy with "The chance of the monkeys
doing so is decidedly more favourable than the chance of the molecules returning
to one half of the vessel."
3
The folks over at
Uncommon Descent have written a
detailed response to the Infinite Monkey Theorem and how it applies to the
origin of life, but that isn't my reason for writing this post. The more
interesting point in my opinion is the assumptions that are carried along with
the analogy itself. In Borel's day, there were no such things as computers that
could generate purely random outputs of letters, so he used a theoretical monkey
to make his case. But the folks over at the University of Plymouth were
intrigued by the concept, so they thought they'd give it a try on a much smaller
scale.
Real Monkeys and a Word Processor
In 2003, researchers placed a
computer with monitor and keyboard in a cage of six monkeys at the Paignton Zoo
for a month. The Associated Press report quoted lead researcher Mike Philips who
said, "At first, the lead male got a stone and started bashing the hell out of
it. Another thing they were interested in was in defecating and urinating all
over the keyboard."
4
Eventually, the simians figured
out that the screen would respond to a keyboard touch. Would this be the
breakthrough to have the monkeys produce a word or two of English?
Unfortunately, no as the primates only "produced five pages of text, composed
primarily of the letter S. Later, the letters A, J, L and M crept in."
5
How Our Assumptions Color Our Beliefs
The Infinite Monkey Theorem is
interesting on several levels. While it is mathematically possible to generate
something like Hamlet using an infinite number of computers for an infinite
time, such actions would require more time and more matter than has been
estimated in our universe since its beginning. It is therefore zero for all
practical purposes. So such word pictures don't help on issues like the origin
of life.
More importantly, it demonstrates how much we color scenarios with
our assumptions. Most people picture putting a keyboard before a monkey and the
animal will be pushing buttons before too long, not using it as a lavatory. Our
humanity assumes that others will act like us. It's why many animal researchers
make the mistake of
anthropomorphizing animal behavior and what's responsible for the
Clever Hans effect.
So, it's important to examine your own beliefs.
Sometimes your biases are harder to spot than you think!
References
