|
Hi
Pete,
My only comment in
reply is to your (rhetorical) question:
For example, is
it meaningful to talk about the "qualitatively or quantitatively
measured behavior" of, say, an ingot of lead (Pb) inside an evacuated Bell jar
("the system"), wherein the lead ingot and the jar are in thermal equilibrium
with the jar's environment? No matter how you pick your delta t across the
initial & final states, any measurements you might make of the system's
"behavior" during the delta t are going to show zero variance (within the
precision of the measuring instruments). Is it meaningful to say that the
system states across the delta t define a
"process"?
From my
particular (peculiar?) perspective, I would say "yes" in answer to that
question. I take the view that 'process' is closely allied with its etymological
roots: deriving from L. processus - "advance, progress, lapse of time",
which in turn is from L. procedere - "go forward". To me, the
commonality here is the spanning of time, what we are calling the delta-t, and
the specifics of the behavior is not central to the definition.
Thus, for
me, the behavior of any system across some delta-t is a process; the specific
nature of the behaviors encountered does not generically qualify or
disqualify.
But again, as you
note, depending upon one's purpose, changes (or lack of them) in behavior may
indeed be an appropriate qualifier (or disqualifier) from the application of the
term 'process' in a given context.
Regards,
Tim
Hi Tim:
Sorry
for the delay in replying to your post. I'm lucky to have any window of time
at all in which to respond.
As I've already explained in my earlier
posts, the definition I ultimately settled on has worked well in the
application for which I developed it.
I'll have to give some thought
to your definition. It might work in my application, but that would hinge
on what kind of qualitative or quantitative measurements one
would make to describe the system's behavior... that is, what parameters
one picks as being sufficient to the descriptive task at hand. In my case,
"energy or information" parameters worked as the semantic equivalent of your
"qualitatively or quantitatively
measured" parameters, and "exchanges" worked as the semantic equivalent of
your term "behavior". In that sense, your definition seems equivalent to mine,
only with slightly different semantic encoding.
All the comments I made
in my earlier posts still apply as regards the purpose for which one creates any
definition; the definition has a job to do, so that establishes a context. I'm
not sure how general one can make a definition of a word like "process" and
still expect it to be useful. For example, is
it meaningful to talk about the "qualitatively or quantitatively
measured behavior" of, say, an ingot of lead (Pb) inside an evacuated Bell jar
("the system"), wherein the lead ingot and the jar are in thermal equilibrium
with the jar's environment? No matter how you pick your delta t across the
initial & final states, any measurements you might make of the system's
"behavior" during the delta t are going to show zero variance (within the
precision of the measuring instruments). Is it meaningful to say that the
system states across the delta t define a "process"?
In an earlier
post, I admitted to a certain prejudice underlying my original question. That
prejudice is an artifact of a certain specificity in the context in which the "general" definition I
was looking for had to be useful. As it turned out, my specification of
"energy" was a mundane, utilitarian parameter. "Information" was far more
fundamental, or at least it was more useful as a descriptive process
parameter.
But then, I'm already biased toward "information" as a far
more fundamental parameter than energy in most processes in the first place.
It seems to me that there was at least one series of earlier posts that
addressed the subject of information -- alas, 'twas a thread I didn't
have time to read. I've saved it, though; perhaps I should go back and read it
before I stir up matters that the participants in that earlier discussion have
already resolved.
In any case, "process" connotes some sense to me that
is descriptive of non-zero values in the parametric measurements one makes
about any system one is attempting to describe or analyze across the given
delta t. I had specific purpose in my use of the term "exchanges" -- again,
because of the specific context in which I intended the definition to apply --
a purpose that John M.'s suggestion of the alternate term "changes"
couldn't adequately address. "Exchanges" implies a certain degree of
connectivity to or integrability with the subject system's environment. It's
more descriptive of the kinds of changes one finds in the systems I'm
studying, which admittedly kind of shoots my "general" specification for a
"process" defintion in the foot. So maybe I wasn't really looking for
something quite as general as I thought I was. (heh)
Best
regards,
Pete
|