I’ve been
doing a lot of reading about free will lately, and I hope to be able to put
together some future entries that update some of my thinking. I think some of my earlier entries were
rather naïve of, if nothing else, the historical context of the ideas I
presented. But that is the nature of
learning.
Anyway,
something came to mind recently, and I’d like to try it out. It kind of goes back to my “Turing Numbers”
<here>, but I have a few more thoughts.
The question
I asked myself was whether a random series of numbers could encode
information. I’m assuming I’m not the
first person to try this, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a whole field
related to this. But I wanted to see if
I could create a series of numbers that has all the characteristics of a series
of random numbers, but in reality encodes a message. And I want the “message-encoded” random
series to be indistinguishable from a truly random series of numbers.
So, here is
what I came up with. It is a series of
149 binary digits. I present two such
series below. One of these is random
(well, I just used the random number generator in Excel) and the other was
created by me and encodes a simple message.
What I wonder is whether you can tell which one is which?
BOX A
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1’s = 77/149 (51.7%)
BOX B
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
1’s = 74/149 (49.7%)
There are
certainly various statistics you can run on these two sets of numbers. I will tell you that they are both supposed
to represent a 50:50 distribution of 0’s and 1’s – a series of coin flips. I included the total number of 1’s in each of
the two boxes (below each box), and they are both close to 50%. I did not spend a lot of time trying to work
out other ways to characterize this series.
For example, I’m sure that there is a predictable distribution of the
number of 1’s in a row for a truly random series, and I did not work hard to
make sure that my encoded series met those criteria. I assume that I could write a computer
program to figure out those details for me.
But, the point is, I believe I could match whatever characteristics of
the random number sequence you care to measure if I had a long enough
series. Thus I think, without trying to
come up with a real mathematical proof, that I could match any simple random
series yet still encode information. I’d
be interested if anyone can figure out which of the two series is the “encoded”
one; and if so, how you figured it out.
Of course, it would be really impressive if you could figure out the
encoded message, but I think you’d need a longer series to figure that out,
even if I told you which one had the message.
I think that there is just not enough information to figure out the
message…so I would be shocked if someone could figure out the message. I’ll give the “answer” in my next entry.
Who
cares? Well, I had this idea and I
thought I would try it out. It has to do
with free will and how it can avoid determinism. Specifically, I was thinking about the random
(or indeterminate?) nature of some aspects of quantum mechanics. My thought would be that maybe we think something is random when it is
actually “intentional” and only appears to be random. Is there any way for us to know the
difference between the two? In general,
we think of all material things as being either determined or random. But is it possible that some (or all??) random
things are actually intentional? By
intentional, I mean that some form of “will” imposes on the event to make it
happen with a specific desired outcome.
The outcome looks random to us, but it achieves an intentional outcome,
not a random one. It would have no
pattern because the “will” doesn’t have a pattern (because, of course, it’s a
“free will”).
So, with my
two sets of numbers, I could give one of you the way to break the code and then
I could communicate with you through what appear to be random numbers to
everyone else. Is that possible? It seems to me that, with the appropriate
effort on the part of the encoder, it can be done.
I’m going to
jump way ahead for the moment, admitting that this idea is not fully
thought-out. I have been wondering how
free will could effect an outcome in the brain without messing with the
fundamental laws of physics. How could
an “uncaused cause” (which I believe free will is – see <here>) not mess
with the nice, well-characterized, determinant laws of physics? Well, it seems to me that the idea of
information encoded in a random distribution could provide an answer or at
least a clue. If the will is directly
affecting what appears to be a random particle path, yet does so without
disrupting the properties of that random distribution, it could transmit
information (i.e. its intention) without messing up the rest of the physical
laws. Is that possible? Well, it came to my mind, so I thought I
would put it out there.
