Re: process definition in Robert ROSEN's work Digest - 24 Jun 2004 to 27 Jun 2004 (#2004-133)

[icb <***>]

Hi,  Pete:

Implicit in the word " process", especially in natural
processes,  is dynamics; most people think of, 
or refer to, a dynamic process, when they write about a
"process", and Robert Rosen's work is also discussing
extensively dynamic processes in living systems. Early examples are found
in his published papers in the Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics in
1964 on Quantum Genetics where he addressed the question of quantum
observation and measurement, and microphysical  processes, as well as in
his more recent, 1996 paper listed by Tim under "Resources" at
this  Rosen Forum website.  Therefore, the word process may
have different meanings depending on the context in which the process
occurs: e.g., logical process, thinking process, quantum process,
macroscopic process, stochastic process, biological process, repair
metabolic process. A "process", therefore, implies a change, or
sequence of changes, pertaining to the dynamics of a system, or several
interacting systems, although, as seen from the above examples, it is not
limited to what we call  and define as "dynamical
systems".  As pointed out above, there are imaginary processes,
too, "gedanken" experiments as Albert Einstein liked to call
them. However, in classical thermodynamics, or thermostatics of
"reversible processes", or equilibrium processes, or for
a "closed system in equilibrium" a 'process' is simply a
sequence of equilibrium thermodynamic states for which the entropy DOES
NOT CHANGE, that is one considers only 'quasi-static' processes
for which both the intitial and the final state have the same
entropy. Needless to say, such a closed system can only exchange
energy with the outside world, and there is no exchange of substance
("matter") between the closed system and its environment.
Furthermore, such a system --when in equilibrium-- has the "same
temperature inside it". -at all locations within it. Then, in other
contexts, in which humans are involved one speaks of an "information
process", that may or may not involve a sequence of events, although
if looked at from a  statistical thermodynamics perspective, it does
involve states and 'molecular configurations'. In standard Quantum
Mechanics
quantum processes have a mathematical definition that allows 'states' --
in the Schrodinger picture of QM-- to be defined in terms of
observables--which means
that the 'quantum process' always depends on the context and is always
probabilistic, 'or stochastic' in a mathematically-defined sense, and in
the case of the
observation, or measurement, process is generally irreversible, and
not reproducible from one measurement to the next, but only for a very
large number
of observations there will be definite probabilities of occurrence.
Quantum mechanically, even  extremely close to absolute zero (Kelvin
scale) temperature
there is/are quantum process (es) occurring. Note, however, that
superconductor materials have a 'well-defined' QUANTUM state on
the macrosopic scale, called the 'superconducting state' below a
certain critical temperature, that may appear thermodynamically as an
equilibrium state. For example, the current through
such a superconductor-- may appear to be very constant in time, although
some extremely minute d.c. current, "noise" fluctuations should
be present in any real material (but they are extremely small indeed!!).
The current running through the superconductor is still an energy
propagation process- within the superconducting wire /system- with
no apparent 'friction' or energy loss inside the superconductor-- that
occurs at the speed of light, and with no apparent entropy change
either.

Therefore, to be able to define a 'process' , any 'generic' process in a
meaningful , Rosennean manner, is to define the context and
the type of system, or systems it refers to--such as simple, or
'complex'--in Robert Rosen's terms. One may define a simple
process as a " well-defined sequence of events that can be
fully analized in terms of the exact ---and reproducibly measured--
states, or steps, that define such events. Clearly, a biological
process does not satisfy such a simplicity criterion, neither does a
social process, or a judicial process (which often is defined as
"procedure", in fact,--a word derived but not identical with
process-- as it is defined by human laws- whose definition and
interpretation involves certain specified individuals or groups of
individuals. 

I am not sure if this either helps answer your question, or if it is the
answer you are looking for, but, as usual,  "the devil is in the
details."

Regards,

Ionel 


At 12:07 AM 6/28/2004 -0400, you wrote:

There are 2 messages totalling 330 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. RR-centric "Process" Definition? (2)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:42:17 -0700
From:    Pete Giansante <***>
Subject: RR-centric "Process" Definition?

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
Howdy Folx:

It's been a long time since I've been able to keep up with my reading of posts to the list -- let alone post anything -- owing to the fact that the next phase of my research is fully funded and I've been fully immersed in the work since February.

I'm writing to ask a favor of all ye denizens of RR-space. I've searched in vain for a semantically precise definition of the noun "process" anywhere in RR's, Rapoport's, or von Bertalanffy's works (the ones I have, at least), but no go. At this point, I'd be delighted to find any definition -- whether general or domain-specific -- that provides me with a comprehensive perspective other than my own.

(I found an example of a domain-specific definition in Rapoport's General System Theory, p. 82:

stochastic process -- a sequence of events governed by certain probability laws

That's not particularly helpful, actually...at least not for purposes of inferring Rapoport's general definition of "process", which in this case might presumably reduce to:

process -- a sequence of events

I doubt that such a general definition would be completely satisfactory to Rapoport. In any case, it's not satisfactory to me as a useful general definition of process.

Here's my question:

Does anyone know of a general definition of "process" anywhere within RR's work, or at least somewhere within his antecedent or subsequent ideological flowstream? If a general definition isn't known, I would be grateful for any references to definitions of a domain-specific nature.

I have my own, of course, but I'd like to check my perspective against those of more expert minds...ideally, RR's.

Thanks!

Pete

------------------------------

Date:    Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:37:29 -0400
From:    John M <***>
Subject: Re: RR-centric "Process" Definition?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C45C8E.F23E5820
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

For Pete's sake!=20
I used quite satisfied the word without questioning my complacent common =
sense understanding. Now I am in trouble. RR used the term problem-free, =
I suppose, (Judith?)=20
and I would be surprised to find a 'definition'.
So I looked up the internet - to not much avail. X process and Y =
process. In http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/=20
I found the expected hogwash with the remark:
 "process philosophy pivots on the thesis that the processual nature of =
existence is a fundamental fact with which any adequate metaphysic must =
come to terms."
so process philosophy explains by processual nature. Big deal.
I don't find 'sequence of events' processual by itself, unless the=20
events are combined in some way "into a process".=20

Pete, I try to verbalize (improvise) a 'first attempt' version and am =
all in arms to see yours. It goes something like:

"A connected flow, as in a sequence of events pertinent to a domain - =
the ocurring events influenced by the preceding ones from within the =
domain or without, but interactive with it".  -=20
('Domain' taking care of the 'metafizix') -
I am sure with more than these 2 minutes of formulating I could come up =
with different wordings - not necessarily wiser ones...

This one sounds awful. Not the one from a "more expert mind"=20

Gimme your better one!

John M


  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Pete Giansante=20
  To: ***
  Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 8:42 PM
  Subject: RR-centric "Process" Definition?


  Howdy Folx:

  It's been a long time since I've been able to keep up with my reading =
of posts to the list -- let alone post anything -- owing to the fact =
that the next phase of my research is fully funded and I've been fully =
immersed in the work since February.=20

  I'm writing to ask a favor of all ye denizens of RR-space. I've =
searched in vain for a semantically precise definition of the noun =
"process" anywhere in RR's, Rapoport's, or von Bertalanffy's works (the =
ones I have, at least), but no go. At this point, I'd be delighted to =
find any definition -- whether general or domain-specific -- that =
provides me with a comprehensive perspective other than my own.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
    (I found an example of a domain-specific definition in Rapoport's =
General System Theory, p. 82:

      stochastic process -- a sequence of events governed by certain =
probability laws

    That's not particularly helpful, actually...at least not for =""> purposes of inferring Rapoport's general definition of "process", which =
in this case might presumably reduce to:

      process -- a sequence of events

    I doubt that such a general definition would be completely =
satisfactory to Rapoport. In any case, it's not satisfactory to me as a =
useful general definition of process.=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---


  Here's my question:

    Does anyone know of a general definition of "process" anywhere =
within RR's work, or at least somewhere within his antecedent or =
subsequent ideological flowstream? If a general definition isn't known, =
I would be grateful for any references to definitions of a =
domain-specific nature.

  I have my own, of course, but I'd like to check my perspective against =
those of more expert minds...ideally, RR's.

  Thanks!

  Pete

------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C45C8E.F23E5820
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
For Pete's sake!
I used quite satisfied the word = without=20 questioning my complacent common sense understanding. Now I am in = trouble. RR=20 used the term problem-free, I suppose, (Judith?)
and I would be surprised to find a=20 'definition'.
So I looked up the internet - to not = much avail.=20 X process and Y process. In http://pla= to.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/=20
I found the expected hogwash with the=20 remark:
 "process philosophy pivots on the = thesis that the=20 processual nature of existence is a fundamental fact with which any = adequate=20 metaphysic must come to terms."
so process philosophy explains by = processual=20 nature. Big deal.
I don't find 'sequence of events' = processual by=20 itself, unless the
events are combined in some way "into = a=20 process".
 
Pete, I try to verbalize (improvise) a = 'first=20 attempt' version and am all in arms to see yours. It goes something like:
 
"A = connected flow, as=20 in a sequence of events pertinent to a domain - the ocurring events = influenced by the preceding ones from within the domain or without, but=20 interactive with it".  -
('Domain' taking care of the = 'metafizix')=20 -
I am sure with more than these 2 = minutes of=20 formulating I could come up with different wordings - not necessarily = wiser=20 ones...
 
This one sounds awful. Not the = one from a=20 "more expert mind"
 
Gimme your better one!
 
John M
 
 

----- Original Message -----

Pete = Giansante=20

To: *** =

Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 = 8:42 PM

Subject: RR-centric "Process"=20 Definition?

Howdy Folx:

It's been a long time since I've = been able=20 to keep up with my reading of posts to the list -- let alone post = anything --=20 owing to the fact that the next phase of my research is fully funded = and I've=20 been fully immersed in the work since February.

I'm writing to = ask a=20 favor of all ye denizens of RR-space. I've searched in vain for a = semantically=20 precise definition of the noun "process" anywhere in RR's, Rapoport's, = or von=20 Bertalanffy's works (the ones I have, at least), but no go. At this = point, I'd=20 be delighted to find any definition -- whether general or=20 domain-specific -- that provides me with a comprehensive perspective = other=20 than my own.

(I found an example of a domain-specific definition in Rapoport's = General System Theory, = p. 82:

stochastic process -- a sequence of events = governed by certain probability laws

That's = not=20 particularly helpful, actually...at least not for purposes of = inferring=20 Rapoport's general = definition of=20 "process", which in this case might presumably reduce to:

process -- a sequence of=20 events

I doubt that such a general definition would be completely = satisfactory to Rapoport. In any case, it's not satisfactory to me = as a=20 useful general definition = of=20 process.=20

Here's my question:

Does anyone know of a = general definition of "process" = anywhere=20 within RR's work, or at least somewhere within his antecedent or = subsequent=20 ideological flowstream? If a general definition isn't known, I would = be=20 grateful for any references to definitions of a domain-specific=20 nature.

I have my own, of = course, but I'd=20 like to check my perspective against those of more expert = minds...ideally,=20 RR's.

Thanks!

Pete


------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C45C8E.F23E5820--

------------------------------

End of ROSEN Digest - 24 Jun 2004 to 27 Jun 2004 (#2004-133)
************************************************************