chaos theory for lay people?

[Vaska]

Matthew P Wiener wrote:
>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.

Yes. So?  

>>[...] 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.

Silly me not to have thought of doing so in the first place.  But please
don't feel bound by my interests and the approach I may take.

>>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 can't make that assumption -- and don't think of Pycnhon as a namedropper.
If he's going all out to produce a critique of the Enlightenment, and if as
part of that critique he also and at length develops a critique of 17th/18th
cent. science, and if all of that it going on in a novel that does not shy
away from occasional anachronisms, then I [you can do your own thing, of
course], want to think a little bit further about the specific authrorial
choices made in _M&D_ precisely with respect to "science" as some monolithic
project of the West.  

If you find this trivial or of no interest to you as a Pynchon reader,
there's no need to read any of my messages on this topic.  

Vaska