/lit/ - Literature

>>18701427
Here's an improvised answer:
First, there is the question of micro and macro and if you can have contingency on one end and necessity on the other, maybe mediated through emergent properties that make it look like it's "necessity all the way". Deleuze would advocate for contingency at the micro level, on account of a kind of vitalism of relations where the relations themselves are the actors so to speak. And the butterfly effect of chaos theory states that minor deviations (differences/differentiations) can lead to disproportional, larger, effects.

There's also another question of scale on a timeframe. Deleuze gives a strange example in D&R where he describes, in a kind of throwaway sentence, a kind of time scale of the universe where if you accelerated it (as you would speed up a Youtube video for example) it would look almost liquid or fluid, even if the movements you're watching are the formation of rocks and things we typically think of as persistent. Maybe laws function on this kind of logic where if you could look at it on a different timeframe or scale they would look entirely different rather than "set in stone" no pun intended.

There's also the fact that Deleuze, following Nietzsche, has this concept of action at a distance ("spooky action at a distance" as Einstein called it) where you can have particles at incredible distances be connected to each other and mirror their effects (I don't know the details, I'm not a physicist) and this goes well with Deleuze's approach to metaphysics (as he prefers the term over ontology) and its emphasis on process, relations, becoming, series, contingent connections and so on. Maybe this touches on the horizon problem better than the previous point, I don't know.

One last detail could be that the laws are different than how we perceive them even if they are still laws in some sense. For example, for Deleuze, repetition with variation (with difference) is the natural form of repetition rather than the laboratory conditions that desire to prove something, such as the existence of a particle, through identical repetition. It's not that there's anything wrong with laboratories, just that you can accomplish a lot even without being entirely faithful to nature.

Maybe there are some better answers out there, I haven't worked on Deleuze in some time so I can't say. Keep in mind that he also uses Nietzsche's model of will to power in a metaphysical sense where something can be determined and indetermined at the same time: a relation or connection can have determinations yet still behave as if it were free of them to some extent, hence the chaos part. By analogy, it's a bit like compatibilism: I have "free will" without being all-powerful, I can choose to open the door and leave the house or choose to stay inside, but I can't teleport through the door to go outside so I am determined (limited) and indetermined at the same time. Obviously, neither N nor D would explain it using these terms.

>>11345067
interesting, i'll check that out.

apropos of nothing, or maybe something - isn't the deleuze/land combination an interesting way of explaining a game-thing like pic rel? just sort of leaving this here in case anyone else wants to muse on it.