i was just reading the two posts you pointed out to me about chaos theory. My sentiments precisely, so to speak. You have queried about some place for 'quantum chaos' in my eonic model. I can show you all the 'chaos' you want, but it wouldn't be the deterministic chaos that appears unexpectedly from classical physics via Poincare and even appears in certain asteroid behaviors, I forget the name of the good popular text on that.
However there is a (superficial) way to see the eonic effect in terms of 'something like' chaos in the sense that my eonic transitions tend to target local futures which deviate from course, so to speak. The eonic sequence then seems to be a straightener. There are many ways to look at the issues in term sof dynamic formalism but none of this matches the original models, so I tend to leave it alone. The eonic model invokes just that, models, but the result is non-standard, and yet suceeds for the same reason a highlevel systems diagram succeeds, i.e. it describes 'how something works', in the sense of what it does, without specifying 'how that something really works' at a deeper level.
The eonic model says that if we divide the historical system into zones and periods and study their relationships we can find a definite structure, a sequence with what look like transitions between the intervals of that sequence. If we adopt that approach the data falls into place like the pieces of a puzzle. We know we are onto something, but we can't quite say how it works at a deeper level, or any level. There is no deeper level. It isn't a question of it 'really being atoms' described at a higher level.
It is pure abstract 'evolution' of civilization in an overlay process operating directly on consciousness as 'self-consciousness', often visible as 'creativiity'.
Look at the facts. Why, in a typical Axial Age description, are we seeing a strong clustering of creative individuals across the whole of Eurasia in a compressed time frame? As we zoom out we see that this data is part of something larger, and then we see why world system theorists are trying to explain a piece of it, without quite succeeding.
We were supposed to find such a thing, but it is there, and it makes Darwin grounds for paper airplane treatment, in his fond attempt at the descent of man.

We cab duagrammatically describe this process, but its correct analysis is not so simple.
And this is a 'real' model, i.e. realistic, it avails itself of all the levels of the data, in all aspects of man and history, not simplifications.
We don't have the tools to deal with that, although Kant discovers a hint, Buried beneath mechanical issues are ethical, then esthetic, and finally teleological issues. These interract in a sort of triadic complexity.
I can't be otherwise, but current science just can't handle a macroevolution that changes world history in a given direction the basis of some mixture of dynamical oand ethical/esthetic factors.
What can I say. Draw a logical branch diagram like the yes/no diamond in a computer program.  Write out the diamond shape, with its yes/no exit branches and inside the diamond write 'is it art', branch yes/no.
That's a goofball version of something that could be made to make sense, yet no methodology can handle that. Instead we are trying to stuff the data in a straightjacket.

Relax, therefore, and go with the quiet 'high level diagrammatic' of the eonic model with its transitions and e-sequence. World history will start to make sense.
John Landon
Beta Project for
World History & Eonic Effect
2nd Edition