chaos theory for lay people?

[Matthew P Wiener]

Vaska writes:
>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?

It is context for your interest about the lack of chaos theory.  I
went on to mention a short list of Other Important Science that is
lacking from M&D.

>>>[...] 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 don't.  I agree it is silly to evaluate the lack first, more so
here because the lack is rather extensive.  Chaos theory hasn't been
singled out for negative treatment (see comment about context above),
so without some prior understanding of the positive, speculation here
is unmoored, if not unhinged.

>>>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 Pynchon as a
>namedropper.

But I do.  Even before he confessed.  It ranges from bald insertions
(the math graffito on the GR toiletship) to all his loose metaphors,
which critics tend to find rather profound, and I simply find them
disconnected.  (Well-written, loads of fun, and all, but just not
integrated in.)

In contrast, Tom Stoppard in ARCADIA stages an almost literal "period
doubling route to chaos".

>	       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,

The "not shy away" is very limited, at least so far as "20C science"
goes.  That is important to notice.

>	       then I [you can do your own thing, of course], want to
>think a little bit further about the specific authorial choices made
>in _M&D_ precisely with respect to "science" as some monolithic
>project of the West.

Well, you lost me with this "some monolithic project of the West" bit,
but I recommend not focussing on chaos theory.  Pynchon in M&D clearly
did not not focus on chaos theory, and the authorial choices seem far
more broadminded.

You may recall a Borges piece where the detective figures out the key
to some mystery when he relates a parable about the one word omitted
from a story means it is the key word.  An excellent way to proceed,
but only when there is just that one word missing.

>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.

Neither.  I just find it mistaken on its face.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba at sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)