Entropy

[Vincent A. Maeder]

This goes to the fundamental argument of fate versus free will, the great
difficulty in the search for a theory that ties the quantum world to the
relativistic world, thermodynamics versus nonlinear dynamics, and the model
of the microcosm versus the macrocosm.  Although it is said "As above, so
below," physicists, chaosticians and philosophers seem to be stumped on this
one.

The universe is one great knowable mass to the point until we reach the
edges where the interstitial spaces between the great and the small seem to
contradict and reject each other.  There is, perhaps, a third force, some
third dimension above the dimension of fate and the dimension of free will,
beyond the dimension of the quantum and that of the relativistic where our
answers are found and where these seeming contradictions are cured.  

As for critique of Mr. Pynchon's work via nonlinear dynamics, the very
assumptions that envelope his work seem to prevent such analysis.  Or
perhaps I am wrong?  If a theory or piece of literature assumes a linear,
dynamical format, is a nonlinear analysis prevented?

V.

-----Original Message-----
From: KXX4493553 at aol.com [mailto:KXX4493553 at aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 3:48 PM
To: Vincent A. Maeder; monrovius at yahoo.com; pynchon-l at waste.org
Subject: Re: Entropy

I see there one contradiction in the old and the new theories of
thermodynamics: the second law of thermodynamics is a very deterministic
view of the world, and Pynchon (the early Pynchon) is a fan of it; the new
theories, the nonlinear theories à la Prigogine are indeterministic ones. Or
is it the difference between macrocosm and microcosm? The macrocosm is
deterministic, the microcosm indeterministic? Isn't there a contradiction in
Pynchon's work itself? Or does he only speak about macrocosmic structures,
and the microcosmic ones are only examples? Isn't it impossible to analyze
P.'s work in the categories of the chaos theory? 

Just a thought. 

kwp