"God does not play dice with the world", is the famous quote of Albert Einstein, and though some claim he was proven by Niels Bohr to be wrong in this assumption; in fact, I'd say he still was right, and I'll try to explain this now.
The idea of chaos is that there is a phenomenon unbound by physical laws which expresses completely irrational behaviours; such as a particle which may or may not in fact be a wave, depending upon the observer. In a universe with a linear time dimension, this would appear to be so, but the nature of chaos can always only be that of a limited perspective; from the perspective of God as the supreme being, perceiving the absolute infinity of space and time, the macrocosm and the microcosm, there can be no chaos, no effect without a cause.
From a limited dimensional view, we can say that for example a 3D object viewed on a 2D plane, moving through it, may express a chaotic behaviour; this is only because of the limited perspective. If we were looking at the object as it is in 3D it would appear completely rational. With this idea in mind, particles and waves may appear as behaving chaotic from a linear time viewpoint, when in fact from a 2D time perspective it is both a particle and a wave.
The appearance of chaos in linear time is in fact the only reason 2D time could be possible, because without it everything that has happened from the advent of time to the end of time would always happen this way and could never in any way ever happen in any other way. Chaos means anything can happen, but actually it both does and doesn't, because in 2D time it looks more like a seed growing into a tree where linear time is but a fibre. All the fibres in this "tree" are all the time-lines there could be from this seed; "anything" means we could find ourselves in either of the time-lines, and "chaos" that we have no idea how we got there.
Scientists explaining that we cannot know which time-line we end up in when observing particles and waves say it is because of a chaotic behaviour, and yet they notice that the observer does in fact affect the behaviour; which is an improper way of saying that the observer is capable of moving from the time-line where it is a particle to the one where it is a wave.
So far we have only had a look at 2D time, which can be seen as the shape of a "tree", but in fact we cannot say which shape it has since time-lines, if time can be found to have a smallest unit, will branch exponentially raised to space for each such time-unit; and if no such time-unit exists: infinitely. A mushroom shape would probably be closer in similarity at any rate. What then would it mean to talk about 3D time, and what purpose would such a concept have?
Well, consider the development of this "tree" or "mushroom" of time, consisting of an almost infinite number of time-lines; now see this as one single time-line: a 2D-time-line. 3D time would be to see this 2D-time-line develop into another mushroom-shape of 2D-time-lines. The same as with 2D time, there has to be a component of chaos in linear time for it to be able to exist; so there has to be a component of chaos in 2D time for 3D time to be possible - otherwise there can only ever be one 2D-time-line. However, just as we may look upon a surface and on it project a 3D space; such as when we view a 3D virtual reality, e.g. in a computer game, projected on our 2D computer screen; we may look upon 2D time and see 3D time projected on it, and then the chaos component is only a requirement for linear time, i.e. the difference between a 2D mushroom and a 3D mushroom; metaphorically speaking, of course.
