SLSL quantum physics

[Richard Fiero]

jbor wrote:
>  . . .
>It seems he's [TRP is] more interested in the *history* of 
>science than he is in science per se (though all the 
>Pavlovian/poisson and benzene ring/coal tar stuff in _GR_ 
>demonstrates he's no slouch in the field of hard science 
>either), and then he goes on to talk about Norbert Wiener's 
>books and Henry Adams, and how their theories informed the 
>composition of the story. (p.14)

The eighteenth century culture of M&D constantly uses metaphors 
from seventeenth and sixteenth century physics.  In like 
manner, we use metaphors of nineteenth and eighteenth century 
physics in biology, the social sciences and economics.  (Please 
see Philip Mirowski's works that form a very convincing 
story.)  My point is that yes, TRP is knowledgeable  in the 
history of science and gets it right because more importantly 
his perception that the current century uses metaphors from the 
prior century's physics is correct. We also use Aristotelean 
physics in our daily lives that isn't worth a shit.

With respect to The Uncertainty Principle and Entropy, it's 
unfortunate that mathematical entities happen to have English 
names (Chaos?) that permit them to be used in common language. 
The OED doesn't tell us any of the eight definitions of entropy 
but simply points to how the word has been used.

Since I'm claiming that Pynchon doesn't get out of character, 
I'll have to insist that there will be no mention of QM in 
Pynchon until he writes a text with a 21st century 
timeframe.  I'll add that almost always Pynchon gets it right 
except when the intention is to mystify (mislead) in spite of 
whatever Brownlie, Moore, et. al. have to say.