error-free universe

[György Dudas]

Is the universe error-free? like no bugs, glitches or system errors. No patches, no fixes required?
I think that's what we all agree upon. Everything is defined, no ambiguities?

When we create our virtual worlds, we try to remove and fix all bugs, glitches and ambiguities (even Tetris is a virtual world btw). Should we try to get our worlds error-free?

I fixed yesterday a small bug in ASLAP, where some pieces were out of sync. From the players perspective, it would be a bug. From the world/game perspective there are no bugs. As the creator I can decide: this is a glitch or an error. I decided to fix it. If I don't fix it, then the world is as it is. Should I be more involved (as a  creator), to "fix" my world?

After release, I will not patch it or fix it. When it is done it is done. Everything is attribute to that world.

Since it is not physics based, and since I do not give out a user manual or tutorial, there are no errors. The player cannot compare it to the "real" world, like in a driving game, where you would notice artifacts, clipping errors etc.... so there are no errors by definitition, right?

Going back to our "real" universe. Could it be fixed? Are there errors, but we do not notice them, since we cannot compare our universe to a proper-functioning universe? Since there is no tutorial for our universe?

Some would say that death is an error. I don't share this opinion.

( "From the ridiculous to the sublime" needs more love

cheers,

[György Dudas]

so there are no errors by definitition

 

[God at play]

"From the ridiculous to the sublime" needs more love

It's a bug 

[Chris W]

I think it just depends on your viewpoint, as you've already touched on.  If you see the universe as something that naturally grows from an initial state and continually compounds upon itself, then really it is just realizing itself, and whatever naturally occurs is what it is, with no judgement of correctness being even applicable to the discussion.  If you see it as the realization of a plan (like a game or other work of art), then sure, that realization could be in error as regards the initial vision.  There's a theological debate here that I don't really care to get into, but I think it's pretty obvious where it lies 

[QXD-me]

It probably depends on what you mean by "error". For me an error in something is when that aspect deviates from, or works against, its purpose within the given context.

For the universe I don't believe it has a purpose, or if it does its unknowable to us and thus irrelevant, and as such it is error-free by definition (as far as we can tell). For games you presumably make each for some purpose and so every aspect that goes against that purpose is an error, be it weird graphics glitches or inappropriate game mechanics.

Fixing bugs often makes me feel kinda sad because the bugs amuse me in and of themselves, but if they detract from the game as a whole then they've gotta go.

EDIT: just realised that my first line is very similar to what Chris said. Well played...

[Pehr]

You know the ”impossible figures” by Escher, Reuterswärd and others.  These are drawings of objects that are impossible to make physically.  The parts just do not fit together simultaneously, into a consistent body. However, locally they are OK. So if you are very small compared with such an impossible object, and walk around on it, you would never detect any error.

Now, the laws of physics are local, so the universe as a whole could be logically inconsistent, without violating the laws of nature. Free of errors, as far as we can find out, but yet ”impossible”.  We cannot decide whether we live in a logically impossible universe or not …

 (I don’t know what my physics colleagues would say about this)

By the way, I should like to make a computer game based on impossible drawings.

[God at play]

Now, the laws of physics are local, so the universe as a whole could be logically inconsistent, without violating the laws of nature. Free of errors, as far as we can find out, but yet ”impossible”.  We cannot decide whether we live in a logically impossible universe or not …

That is awesome! The bug has been fixed, there is now more love 

[Michaël Samyn]

As you say, something can only be considered an error if there is a perfect reference somewhere. This is not just religion. This is politics too. The reference in politics is ideology. And I think it's better to have one than to believe you've not been infected by the one the ruling system wants you to have. The very notion of an error could be ideological. Distrust freedom!

As far as art is concerned, I believe the reference should be human life. There's a lot of joy in recognition, and in finding small discrepancies ("errors"). But art that is disconnected from human life too much, doesn't move me.