Beyond Error: Philosophy of Indeterminacy in the Age of Algorithms

  • Jaime del ValEmail author


The paper exposes the transition from a mechanistic worldview in which error is conceptualized as the situation where expected causalities are not met, to a post-mechanistic scenario prevailing since the start of the twentieth century, where indeterminacy instead is the predominant feature of an intrinsically chaotic world. In this scenario, Shannon’s Information Theory reconceptualized entropy as presence that needs to be capitalized and current algorithmic culture exponentially expands in an all-encompassing thrust to preempt novelty. I propose the inverse turn by promoting the idea that a sustainable social ecosystem needs to sustain high levels of indeterminacy as its measure of openness and capacity for non-violent reconfiguration. I further expose my own artistic practices dealing with reconceptualizations and experiential techniques of movement, perception and the body which elaborate a positive account of sustained or consistent indeterminacy.


Cybernetics Big data Proprioception Kinesthetics Neurodiversity Metabody Algorithm 


  1. Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berthoz, Alain. 1997. Le Sens du Mouvement. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
  3. Cedeño Montaña, Ricardo. 2017. Portable Moving Images: A Media History of Storage Formats. Berlin: De Gruyter Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. de Lahunta, Scott. 2004. “L’appareil de locomotion: uneépistémetechnologique.” In Interagir avec les Technologies Numériques. Bruxelles: Contredanse.Google Scholar
  5. Deleuze, Gilles. 1986. Nietzsche and Philosophy. Translated by Hugh Tomlinson. London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1990. “Post-scriptum sur les sociétés de contrôle.” In Pourparlers, 240–247. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit (originally in L’autrejournal, n° l, May 1990).Google Scholar
  7. Foucault, Michel. 2003. Vigilar y Castigar, Nacimiento de la Prisión. México: Siglo XXI Editores.Google Scholar
  8. Hayles, N. Katherine. 1990. Chaos Bound: Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2012. How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Jaeger, Werner. 1977. La teología de los primeros filósofos griegos. México: Fondo de Cultura Económico.Google Scholar
  11. Lucrecio. 2012. De Rerum Natura. De la Naturaleza. Barcelona: Acantilado.Google Scholar
  12. Malabou, Catherine. 2008. What Should We Do with Our Brain? Translated by Sebastian Rand. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Manning, Erin. 2016. The Minor Gesture. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Massumi, Brian. 2002. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2015. Ontopower: War, Powers and the State of Perception. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2017. “The Art of the Relational Body.” In Mirror-Touch Synaesthesia: Thresholds of Empathy with Art, edited by Daria Martin, 191–209. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Shannon, Claude E. 1948. “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” The Bell System Technical Journal 27 (July, October): 379–423, 623–656.Google Scholar
  18. Varela, Francisco, Evan Thomson, and Eleanor Rosch. 1993. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Wiener, Norbert. 1948 [2013]. Cybernetics or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Reprinted by Martino Publishing in 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Reverso/Metabody InstituteMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations