|
Hi, Pete,
as I indicated in my reflect to Ionel, I have
some 2nd thoughts upon your general (process, that is).
"process (general): The sequence of energy or information exchanges
that effect or define a system?s transition between an initial state and a final
state."
I cannot refer to this "en. or info xchngs"
since I have no idea what you mean by "energy" (used, however, all over
physix).
Info is also a term to be identified in this
usage. Finally I may suggest to ponder "changes" for "exchanges" - can be 1
way.
I accept 'something' that "effects or
defines". That's more than what I scribbled (influencing only). However I
strongly objected
in the first reading to restrict the "process" concept to changes between (the
system's) initial and final state. You correctly identified this point in the
subsequent text - so no objection.
"System in a different context" and "process
space" seem to me as pertaining to (reductionistic) limited topical
model-systems.
while I am all for the practicality of
reductionist endeavors, I like and use the result of such: our technology, in
cleaning up the theoretical meanings I would keep away from the cut-off, limited
models and their discussion. A 'natural system' (as I understand RR's wording -
and so far nobody objected over many months I asked for it on this list) meaning
the 'maximum model' with unlimited connections - has no 'different context' or
'process space'.
One word on 'far from equilibrium': a
reductionist snapshot called equilibrium is an artifact in a world of ceaseless
changes.
It shows the XVIII-XIXc primitive (scientific)
view of "the world as a THING". Complex is everything, unless we cut it into
boundaries, when the formed model 'seems' less complex.
Where do we go from here?
Regards
John M
\----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:16
AM
Subject: Re: RR-centric "Process"
Definition?
Hi John M:
Thanks for your
response. It's good to be back, if only for a short visit. I miss y'all, and
look forward to a time when I have the luxury of more frequent discourse with
RR-minded folks.
I wish I had time to include snippets of the
wide variation I found in the usage of the word "process" while Googling
around the web a couple of days ago. Some of them were hilariously imprecise.
I will simply characterize most of them as not useful for my purpose.
I'll give you the general definition I've settled on (for the time
being), although I take great exception to the suggestion that it's in any way
"better" than yours, mon
ami:
process (general): The sequence of energy or information
exchanges that effect or define a system?s transition between an initial
state and a final state.
Note the deliberate
semantic precision in my use of the article "an" in reference to the initial
and final states. I don't believe in initial and final states in any absolute
sense -- at least not for complex system descriptions that have much utility
in the real world. My use of "an" in specifying those states means "some
intial state" and "some final state" that corresponds to the system's behavior
during the process span over which one is making observations. It accommodates
the fact that all specifications of "initial" and "final" are purely arbitrary
selections that define the process span in a way that identifies the subject
system's context...which is just another way of saying that it's part of the
configuration of the process space.
IOW, it's a convenience whose sole
purpose is to establish some precision in the semantic referents by which the
system can be identified coherently for a given discussion or perspective. It
was the only way I could tolerate the inclusion of "initial" and "final" --
which are, of course, context-dependent themselves. Where complex,
far-from-equilibrium systems are concerned, selection of another initial state
or another final state is, essentially, tantamount to defining a different
system, or the "same" system in a different context. Or, I suppose if one
wanted to adopt the most general perspective, it would be tantamount to
defining the same system in a different process space.
Anyhow, I had
the advantage of knowing where I was going in moving from the general
definition to the domain-specific definition that I ultimately had in mind.
The general definition stated above served nicely for the intended purpose, so
I guess all's well that ends well. ;-)
Thanks again for your response!
Best
regards,
Pete
John M wrote:
For Pete's sake!
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?)
and I would be surprised to find a
'definition'.
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
events are combined in some way "into a
process".
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". -
('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"
Gimme your better one!
John M
-----
Original Message -----
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.
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
|