Daniel Davies wrote:
>
> ------------------------------
> All the rightist chaos theory
> apologetics along the lines Michael has descrbied (or at least, all of it
> that I've seen) has been at a very shallow level of udnerstanding indeed.
>
Would it be possible to expand this and say all the chaos theory not
written by mathematicians or physicists has been a very shallow level of
understanding indeed -- that understanding usually being a mere series
of speculations around the suggestiveness of the word "chaos"? I have
read some very obtuse literary criticism playing with the _word_ rather
than with any real knowledge of chaos theory. (I have no such knowledge
myself, just some sense of what it is _not_.)
One can find similar playtime activity around the word "entropy," and around the second law of thermodynamics.
Carrol