Re: "Process" Definition?

Tim,

Congrats to your new abode!

In the process of process - With our agreeing with different base (you: a more or less math-phys impressed computer buff, me: letting things rather vague) here are some remarks:

I support your "cause insufficient", but find also "behavior" partial: it refers IMO to the actor, not the action. And your:

>..."as measured (qualitatively or quantitatively) on some observable(s) of the system."<

Don't forget that a measurement is a comparison (of a model?) to another model. Especially if you select the comparative model ("SOME" observables). I don't squeeze you out with "system", it may be a 'natural system' so I let it go. And it is good that you don't 'select' ONE cause (reduction from the unlistable many).

We established with Pete our agreement on the inadequacy of the "initial and final states" _expression_ aready, so I don't repeat it. -

Your proposed version in your explanation as it reads:

>"I think this definition would encompass physical processes as well as processes such as 'logical process', thinking process', and so on, that Ionel mentioned in an earlier post. " <

makes it clear that you do not define "PROCESS", but certain kinds of processes. Pete and I strive for a general identification "what to call PROCESS". (If I may speak for both of us).

>"Along with John M., I too am unsure what you mean by "energy or information exchanges".<

I questioned first Pete's take on "energy" (and "information") itself, before I start thinking about exchanges involving those questioned items. Otherwise Pete seemed to accept my "change" instead of "exchange" which may involve a give-and-take business.

Q: if (your) 'energy' is a process, how can it be "part of 'process'? Hierarchy of them?

Same for information. Would you deem the situation an 'idem per idem' illogicality?

And another "terrible" idea that came up now, while playing with the words:

Since we and everything else BELONG into nature - the wholeness - (take MY word for it)

I would not use "MY (or anything else's) environment": we all belong to it. I am part of MY environment. I am not the pipe-smoking scientist in the armchair at the fireplace watching that little quirk universe as it swirls around in the ashtray. I am within. Part of the (my?) environment. And so is every model (!) you may talk about.

(How does that sound? Did RR take position about "me vs my environment"? )

Please take my friendly objections as coming from a position similar to yours.

Have a good time in your new home

John M

---- Original Message -----

From: Tim Gwinn

To: ***

Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 8:53 AM

Subject: Re: "Process" Definition?

Hi Pete,

I'm still catching up here, after the move to the new house, so my comments are a bit out of step with the discussion. Specifically, with regard to your definition (from below):

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.

As I read this, "sequence of energy or information exchanges that effect or define" refers to causal factors: what causes the system behavior to act in a particular way between the given initial and final states. I tend to consider 'process' as referring to the behavior itself, as measured (qualitatively or quantitatively) on some observable(s) of the system. (I suspect that by "a system's transition" you are referring to system behavior?) We can, in many cases, determine or distinguish the causal factors of a particular process, but I am inclined to think that 'process' would be defined on the system behavior itself. So, I offer this alternative:

Process (general): The qualitatively or quantitatively measured behavior of a system between a given initial state and a given final state.

I think this definition would encompass physical processes as well as processes such as 'logical process', thinking process', and so on, that Ionel mentioned in an earlier post.

Along with John M., I too am unsure what you mean by "energy or information exchanges". Are these exchanges with the environment only? I am not sure this would be useful for Rosennean complex physical systems, which do not rely entirely on impressed forces from the environment to define their behavior, but rely also on forces and constraints internal to the system - these would not be seen as meaningful "exchanges" with anything outside the system. I am also unsure that "energy or information exchanges" would be an inclusive enough phrase for a general definition of process (i.e., is it the case that all things which "effect or define a system's transition" are reducible to terms of "energy or information exchanges"? I do not know).

As you point out in your "wrap-up" post, the utility of a definition depends on purpose and what you want to know. So, I'm not arguing right-and-wrong here, only tossing out another possibility.

Regards,

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:***On Behalf Of Pete Giansante
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:16 AM
To: ***
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