Re: Other processes

[Pete Giansante <***>]

Hi John M:

I just found the "Wrap-Up" post in my Inbox... evidently I sent it to myself. (!) I'll check it to make sure it's complete, and then post it.

Hi Ionel:

Sorry for having referred you to a non-existent post. It's on the way.

Pete

---

John M wrote:

Hi, Pete,

I resisted to comment to Ionel's post, because I woud have had to force myself to start - as you did - with: "Right". Chaos is a topic I was 'in' for some years and abandoned it when I got better (broader?) ideas. I used to be named at Jamie's Ceptual Inst. "Our Resident Chaotician" - not anymore. But that would lead astray from the topics� at hand..

I strongly disliked the Lorentz farce about the butterflies, repeated in literature the ~28,754th time by Ionel, which was� a good weapon� in the arsenal of the conventionalist - reductionist hardheads. I also averted from the "physical chaology", really an pxymoron: to calculate the definitionwise uncalculable into a nonchaotic system (redefining 'chaos').

�

You refer to your response to me (Wrap-up?) - no specifics. Did you mean to the one:

�

>>> (excerpt):

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

From: John M

To: ***

Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 11:26 AM

Subject: Re: RR-centric "Process" Definition?

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.

...?????...(SNIP the rest)� �

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

if yes, I missed it from my mail. I certainly would like to read it. Especially with your remark on the journalistic joke of Lorentz. You wrote:

>As I said in my "Wrap-Up" post to John M., that's a very different context than the one that motivated my original question.<

�

Wouldn't it be helpful not to refer just to "complex systems"? That raises all kinds of irrelevant connotations from the part of the zillion arbitrary definitions of 'complex'.

� I know that we, on this list, refer to RR-complexity, but let us say so.

�

'Chaotic' as I would look at it now, IS deterministic, simply beyond the boundaries we observe and exercising influences from disregarded (maybe still undiscovered?) parts.

Out of� several reductionistic 'spaces', first: into unaccounted orders of magnitude, then

off-boundary-qualia and in the topical "non - restriction" openness.

It appears really in the (RR) natural systems domain. Not within well-trimmed models.

�

So, please, if you have the post I missed, kindly mail it to me, if not, write one.

I will be delighted to read it.

�

John M

�

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

From: Pete Giansante

To: ***

Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:49 PM

Subject: Re: Other processes

Hi Ionel:

Right... but I hope I've adequately stipulated my aversion to the notion of� "initial and final states" in my earlier reply to John M. I'm not dealing with "chaotic processes" anyway. They are complex, but not chaotic. I've got some fairly well-defined coherent systems, whose interactions are characterized by sufficiently coherent processes that they can be quantified, their interactive processes can be replicated, their behavior can be predicted, and those predictions can be corroborated as to their accuracy. The butterfly effect is a hypothesis; I don't know of any methodology by which it can be quantified, replicated, predicted, or corroborated. As I said in my "Wrap-Up" post to John M., that's a very different context than the one that motivated my original question.

As an aside, the constraint that a system "come back to where it started from" is not relevant to any of the systems I'm studying. In principle, I'm not even sure that's possible in complex systems. Probably not. Irreversibility is ubiquitous in real-world systems. Whether the systems are "deterministic" may or may not be applicable. In chaotic processes, one can assume determinism until the cows come home. For my purposes, the question is one of utility, by which I mean "usefulness".

In any case, your reference to such processes is intriguing. I would be fascinated to read some of the literature. Can you point me in the direction of some sources you'd be willing to recommend?

Thanks!

Pete

---

Ionel wrote:

RE: Process definition

There is a growing literature on "chaotic processes" also, that don't seem
to fit the proposed definition, it's a deterministic type of process that
may end up a long way from where it started and will 'never' come back to
where it satrted from. Lorentz's story of the butterfly's wings air flow
in Brazil causing a Tornado in North America!

Everyone on vacation... beware of tornadoes!

Ionel