chaos theory for lay people? [was MDMD(4) p.123 small re-write]

[Matthew P Wiener]

Vaska writes:

>There seem to be no "chaos theory" images in _M&D_.  What I've
>noticed, so far, is a developing critique of 17th/18th [+ 19th
>century science] in the novel, plus a sprinkling of [it seems quite
>affectionate] jokes and puns that advert to late 20th-century
>science.

The latter seem to be limited to particle physics (the Higgs bo's'n),
or else (like the L.E.D.'s integral) are retrofits of 20C jokes.

>[...] I would like to know more about precisely that kind of science
>so as to be able to assess the meaning of its absence in this
>a-historically historical novel, otherwise so full of deliberate
>anachronisms of all kinds.

I would first assess the meaning of the science that is present.

>			     I expect there's a reason Pynchon doesn't
>mention it -- and I expect it has nothing to do with ignorance.

Based on his SLOW LEARNER self-criticism, I assume he's voluntarily
toned down the namedropping approach to the sciences.  Nothing deeper.

I don't recall any references to quantum mechanics, superconductivity,
relativity, evolution, or the periodic table either.  Worrying about
the lack of chaos is thus probably a perspective error.

>The people I talked to last year, before this novel came out, did
>give me a fairly hefty bibliography on the subject, but I'm afraid I
>still don't know where to start from.  So, if Matthew or somebody
>else has a couple of pointers to some reasonably accessible stuff on
>the subject [and I don't mean Prigogine & Stengers], I'd appreciate
>hearing of them.

I would normally recommend Gleick, but the latest J BECKETT STUDIES
had an absolutely horrible Gleick-based reading, so I'm not hopeful.
Ian Stewart and Ivar Ekeland have written books that are certainly
better from the technical point of view.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba at sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)