There's beauty in imperfection. Found ancient fractal program I
  used in the late 80s/early 90s called FRACTINT. I remember
  spending a lot of time changing the parameters, making new
  fractals, zooming in, watching the colors come from the deepest
  calculable depths and exploding into life....and starting big
  and watching the colors go down into the depths of the fractals,
  to continue their lives, sight unseen by me, but I knew,
  mathematically, they _could_ still be there. Yet, as beautiful
  and perfect as it is, I enjoy when things get even more
  complicated than that. What's the calculation for this? A video
  taken of a fractal that was moving around, frames removed, the
  imperfect 256 colors reduced to a standard 256, resulting in
  different colors altogether... and a transparency that suddenly
  asserts itself in a bright FLASH every loop. What's that
  formula? That's when things get interesting to me, for as
  perfect as our calculations may be, entering reality gets to be
  a little more complicated, and that intersection between
  perfected ideals (no matter how complicated) and actual
  complicated reality (no matter how simple) is an unending source
  of fascination to me.[1]ezgif.com-optimize(2) ==] a) Fractals
  are an outgrowth of Chaos theory (or explained by) b) Philosophy
  in this era is often characterized by logic, precision, clarity
  and yet... c) wanted to talk about it more, and perhaps this
  post, which was inspired ultimately last night by: i) the
  changing of the group name to Chaos ii) a resulting discussion I
  had regarding the Chaos theory origin post on my profile iii)
  inspired some research that brought me back 26 years ago to run
  DOSbox and download FRACTINT to then share a Fractal
  (Mandelbrot, no tweaking) to Vine, taken with shaking hand,
  converted to animated GIF, frame removals, compressing of
  colors, and the eventual result here, that some call "glitch
  art" but whether that's appropriate or not (I don't know), I
  find it works. Cause and effect. Can you tell the causes from
  the effects you see below? The Inverse problem becomes solvable
  when you have more information about causes such as I provided.
  But if you did not have the causes, could you determine causes
  simply by the video itself? These things are important in
  Philosophy.

References

  Visible links
  1. http://icopiedyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ezgif.com-optimize2.gif