Once again, fajitas, your literal mind fails you. I cannot write a precise discussion of every single idea I mention, or each of my comments would be the length of a book, and they are already far longer than they should be. I mention an idea, and leave it to the mind of the reader to fill in the missing pieces. Any reader, even a critical one, can understand these are broad strokes, but not an adversarial one such as yourself.
Still, in this particular case, you are right that I have not discussed simulation as a valuable tool. It may certainly be; I would find it fascinating. But does it qualify as a quantitative theory? Maybe. If you have a theory of each of the system's elements, and the simulation follows reality for some non negligible time. But would it be a model of history or a model of psychology?
Would it make us understand history as a process more than we do now? In the end, if you simulate the entire universe accurately, you could predict any physical, chemical, biological, psychological and historical process. But would you understand them better? I don't think our knowledge of particle physics helps us understand human psychology, even if if some day it is able to predict it (Dostoyevsky touched on this very point 150 years ago[1]). Every level of abstraction demands its own models.
I am afraid studied my studies of nonlinear systems ended back at university, many years ago. I must say, though, that I am a bit surprised at your comment. As I was writing my previous ones, I was imagining you saying that what I say here contradicts things I've said to you before about the validity of historical knowledge. I contemplated writing a few more paragraphs that explain the difference, but feared it would make the comment even less readable. Can you see it?
In any event, fajitas, literal, adversarial readings tend to suffuse the discussion with a very autistic feel. I suggest that before classifying my words as "nonsense" -- though this classification does have a nice, succinct, quality -- you would try to understand what I am saying; this usually leads to a more interesting discussion.
-----------
[1]:
...science itself will teach man (though to my mind it's a superfluous luxury) that he never has really had any caprice or will of his own, and that he himself is something of the nature of a piano-key or the stop of an organ, and that there are, besides, things called the laws of nature; so that everything he does is not done by his willing it, but is done of itself, by the laws of nature. Consequently we have only to discover these laws of nature, and man will no longer have to answer for his actions and life will become exceedingly easy for him. All human actions will then, of course, be tabulated according to these laws, mathematically, like tables of logarithms up to 108,000, and entered in an index; or, better still, there would be published certain edifying works of the nature of encyclopaedic lexicons, in which everything will be so clearly calculated and explained that there will be no more incidents or adventures in the world
...
A PROPOS of nothing, in the midst of general prosperity a gentleman with an ignoble, or rather with a reactionary and ironical, countenance were to arise and, putting his arms akimbo, say to us all: "I say, gentleman, hadn't we better kick over the whole show and scatter rationalism to the winds, simply to send these logarithms to the devil, and to enable us to live once more at our own sweet foolish will!" That again would not matter, but what is annoying is that he would be sure to find followers
...
Ha! ha! ha! But you know there is no such thing as choice in reality, say what you like," you will interpose with a chuckle. "Science has succeeded in so far analysing man that we know already that choice and what is called freedom of will is nothing else than--
...
And that is not all: even if man really were nothing but a piano-key, even if this were proved to him by natural science and mathematics, even then he would not become reasonable, but would purposely do something perverse out of simple ingratitude, simply to gain his point. And if he does not find means he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point! He will launch a curse upon the world, and as only man can curse (it is his privilege, the primary distinction between him and other animals), may be by his curse alone he will attain his object--that is, convince himself that he is a man and not a piano-key! If you say that all this, too, can be calculated and tabulated--chaos and darkness and curses, so that the mere possibility of calculating it all beforehand would stop it all, and reason would reassert itself, then man would purposely go mad in order to be rid of reason and gain his point! I believe in it, I answer for it, for the whole work of man really seems to consist in nothing but proving to himself every minute that he is a man and not a piano-key! It may be at the cost of his skin, it may be by cannibalism! And this being so, can one help being tempted to rejoice that it has not yet come off, and that desire still depends on something we don't know?
-- Notes from Underground