One reason I was tempted to say "too postmodern" is Arida's use of the term language where, above, I used metaphor: quantum theory as language of urban design. That clicks with what I understand as the postmodern tenet that everything is relative to the words you use to describe it. I'm wary of that argument in any context, maybe because as a software guy I make castles in the air out of language (for) yet that language has to be very exact, and must have already been explained to the computer in terms of very real nonlanguage constraints (against). You'd think the latter wins out, and maybe it does, but when you build enough turtles under your world you start to find emergent properties that can be advanced enough to be magic. I also can't argue that use patterns change reality, but still that's only where people are concerned. Antagonists usually frame it as a belief in supernatural phenomena like magic, where words and human intent can literally transgress physical rules; but I can't grant that, and I can't explain it away by conflating the soft, language-susceptible world of bits with the hard world of atoms (not that I know people do, but it seems to be an argument of antipostmodernists).
So I was way out of my depth and never finished the book (being a way overdue library book helped me quit), though I suppose I enjoyed the excursion.
In other news, dishwashers are not magic. You could wash dishes by hand if you had to.