Many of our discussions involve ideas such as variation, "fuzziness," impreciseness, similarity, and related concepts.
A concomitant phenomenon is error. I have become quite intrigued by the question: Why is there error? Not how, not what are the mechanisms of error (inadequate information, misperceived inputs, etc.), but why is there error in the first place? Why is perfect replication not possible? Why can't an acting agent exactly repeat an action? Is error a necessary condition for variation? If no errors occurred, would there be any change? I can only think of two reasons that may play a necessary and sufficient role, to wit (1) erosion or degradation (ex.: the ball bearings wear out and the axle stops turning), but unfortunately, when examined, "erosion" is the result of other factors (friction, surface effects, gravity) and thus may not be in itself sufficient or necessary. And (2) Heisenberg's Indeterminacy, namely, that since the precise states of subatomic particles are random and cannot be determined, the interaction of the atoms themselves, and the molecules they compose, and the substances that the molecules compose, all the way up to the discrete object in the universe, change in minuscule ways from moment to moment so that they vary in slight ways when they perform repeated actions. When Indeterminacy is considered, the first reason (erosion) appears to be a result of it and not a co-contributor. I'm asking here because I think this topic impinges on aesthetics in a number of ways. Mainly, I think, that since error is unavoidable, variation and change are held up as significant factors in art-making: they are "crescential," essential and necessary for growth. But this is making a virtue of necessity. The question still remains: why error? I am not aware of any philosophical or other inquiries into this specific question about error. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
