Hari Kunzru Quotes

Entropy theory is indeed a first attempt to deal with global form; but it has not been dealing with structure. All it says is that a large sum of elements may have properties not found in a smaller sample of them.

I think the next century will be the century of complexity.

Disorder can play a critical role in giving birth to new, higher forms of order.

Science has explored the microcosmos and the macrocosmos; we have a good sense of the lay of the land. The great unexplored frontier is complexity.

The current understanding was that it was impossible to predict how something would evolve because it was a very turbulent environment full of things interacting with each other.

I tried to develop some theories that took account of the uncertainty in the world and the complexity in the world.

And so from that, I've always been fascinated with the idea that complexity can come out of such simplicity.

In little localized pockets, the universe is capable of building some beautiful complexity.

When systems come to be far from points of equilibrium, they reach bifurcation points, wherein multiple, as opposed to unique, solutions, to instability become possible.

Chaos is hard to create, even on the Internet.

Chaos is found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought. It always defeats order, because it is better organized.

My take is that the kind of complexity which says we can always generate complexity from simple interactions following for example rules.

There’s so much distance between the fundamental rules and the final phenomenon, that it’s almost unbelievable that the final variety of phenomenon can come from such a steady operation of such simple rules.

A system is a set of things people, cells, molecules, or whatever interconnected in such a way that they produce their own pattern of behavior over time... The system, to a large extent, causes its own behavior.

Both chaos theory and fractal have had contacts in the past when they are both impossible to develop and in a certain sense not ready to be developed.

Orderliness by itself is not sufficient to account for the nature of organized systems in general or for those created by man in particular. Mere orderliness leads to increasing impoverishment and finally to the lowest possible level of structure, no longer clearly distinguishable from chaos, which is the absence of order. A counterprinciple is needed, to which orderliness is secondary. It must supply what is to be ordered.

Chaos has come to be associated with the study of anything complex, but, in fact, the mathematical techniques are directly applicable only to simple systems that appear to be complex.

To some physicists chaos is a science of process rather than state, of becoming rather than being.

The Web is now philosophical engineering. Physics and the Web are both about the relationship between the small and the large.

We should be exploring consciousness at the neural level and higher, where the arrow of causal analysis points up toward such principles as emergence and self-organization.

I don't only write about English literature; I also write about chaos theory and... ants. I can understand ants.

There is a strong tendency in explanatory prose to invoke quantities of tension, energy, and whatnot to explain the genesis of pattern. I believe that all such explanations are inappropriate or wrong.

We know from chaos theory that even if you had a perfect model of the world, you'd need infinite precision in order to predict future events. With sociopolitical or economic phenomena, we don't have anything like that.

A view of nature as dense and nonlinear is at the core of our contemporary science. Process and order emerge subtly.

Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.