Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynosure
For example, one can design and program a computer application, such as a simulation or a game, with elements of randomness in it, but one would never want chaos in that application. Chaos in a computer application would be considered to be poorly conceived algorithms or sloppily written code, or to be outright errors, i.e. "bugs". Randomness in a simulation or a game stimulates, challenges and pleases the end users. Chaos pisses them off and makes them not want to use that application.
|
Would that be human error? Poor programming = faulty program. Not necessarily an element of chaos but a shitty program that doesn't function properly that could be fixed by human intervention.
Quote:
|
For me, randomness/chaos is an element of the universe, a physical requirement. I would more or less equate it with the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. I think human beings can act in disorderly ways-- ways that don't help us improve the contexts of our lives in the universe-- but they are not, ultimately and en masse, responsible for the existence of randomness/chaos.
|
Agreed. It's that equal balance of order and disorder. This brings me to this idea. What if what we call "chaos" and observe chaos as, is just a great deal of order that we can't possibly understand or even begin to comprehend. Therefore our, and I use this term loosely, "ignorance" is put off to the theory of chaos because we don't see it for what it is meant to be.