Re: "Process" Definition in the SpaceTime of an Organism and in relation to Quantum theory?

[Ionel <***>]

Hi, Tim:

Related to the comments exchanged here, there seems to be also an
interesting new reference that you might like to add a link to, which is on
non-reductionist views of organisms at:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/hoarchi.php

The author does not seem to be aware of Robert Rosen's work, but I might
simply have not seen all that she wrote in several of her recent books
published in the UK.

Regards,
Ionel
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 08:31:32 -0400, Tim Gwinn <***> wrote:

>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
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Pete
>Giansante
>  Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 4:01 AM
>  To: ***
>  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
>