The math here is little more than window dressing, and not used correctly at that. Bifurcation diagrams are described several times in the text, but the bifurcation diagrams that are used in chaotic dynamics do not indicate a splitting of universes but rather the location of periodic points in a parametric family of dynamical systems. (I suppose if you made a graph showing splitting of universes you could call it a bifurcation diagram too, but there is no reason to think the two are at all related.) Worse is the author's idea of a strange attractor as an attractive person who pulls a system into chaos. (In fact, a strange attractor is simply a measure-zero attractor in a dynamical system which has fractal dimension. This is a hallmark of a chaotic system, but it does not "create" the chaos.) The closest we get to actually learning anything is from the several mentions of the idea of sensistive dependence in chaotic dynamical systems. (However, he fails to recognize that this notion is believed to apply to our universe as it is now, and that one would not need to imagine people and things appearing randomly to be able to claim that reality is chaotic.)

That's what the adult me, the mathematician me, thinks about this book. Too much of the math is used incorrectly. But, reading this book awoke part of the young teenager I was back in the 1980's, and I can say for certain that the boy I was would have really loved this book!