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

[John M <***>]

Dear Ionel,\
I really don't want to speak FOR Pete, but I see the question between the
two of you (= the three of us: I side with Pete) as identifying, what it may
mean to state:

"The World (Universe, Nature) Is Not A THING, But A PROCESS
(of unceasing changes)".

Not "a" process in some procedure or domain.

I have exceptions to Pete's definition as well, in another post.

Regards
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ionel" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: process definition in Robert ROSEN's work Digest - 24 Jun 2004
to 27 Jun 2004 (#2004-133)


> My original, complete response is quoted below and it does include two
> specific references about precise process definitions from Robert Rosen's
> work, both recent and earlier published work:
>
>
> >>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
>
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 03:27:30 -0700, Pete Giansante <***>
wrote:
> >Ionel
>
> >Thanks for your response.&nbsp; I've inserted some comments below:<br>
> ></font><br>
> >icb wrote:<br>
> ><font color="#ff0000"><b><i>(snip)</i></b></font><br>
> ><blockquote cite="***"
> > type="cite"><font color="#cc0000">Therefore, to be able to define a
> >'process' , any 'generic' process in a
> >meaningful , <i>Rosennean manner,</i> is to define<u> the context </u>and
> >  <u>the type of system</u>, or systems it refers to--such as simple,
> >or
> >'complex'--in Robert Rosen's terms.</font> </blockquote>
> >Right...but I wasn't looking for that degree of specificity. I do
> >understand that RR was determinedly precise in the semantic structures
> >he used to articulate his thoughts, and of course that included his
> >characteristic precision in identifying the contexts in which his ideas
> >applied, and the system types that he discussed within those contexts