|
Dear 'Piper'Pete,
you exchenged pretty wise ideas with Tim. One
silly question from me:
you write about (and Tim quietly seconded)
measurements for identifying 'process'.
"...non-zero values in the parametric
measurements one makes about any system ..."
what do you
suggest for the measurement: a
comparison with a limited model? I try to generalize all the way to
'natural systems', not measurable AS a lmited model BY a limited model. Then:
Parametric? (your physicist slip is
showing).
"...pick your
delta t across the initial & final states, "
I would love to extend 'process' even into the
atemporal as well (don't know still, how???) so my stubborn ways require different identifications,
but that's my problem.
I agree with your 'overestimating' of
information, I generalize that, too, into "acknowledged difference". Until
someone/thing does not acknowledge it - it is no information. Then, however, it
may DO something, if built into the 'structure' of the accepting acknowledger. If "it" responds to
it, the item is "consciousness". (Responding may also be a simple storage). A
good example of generalized 'responding' is an ionization of a compound upon the
information of a nearby el. charge. (Chemical-physical consciousness). Or
GBShaw writing an essay upon a news. (Quantitative-domain differences only).
Well, I don't want to hurt you so I
finish.
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: "Process" Definition?
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
Tim Gwinn wrote:
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
(previous content
snipped)
|