Toward a Unified Metaphysical Understanding: Questions regarding information and process

Questions regarding information and process

2012-05-08, by John Ringland

Some questions regarding the relation between a 'process' and a 'schema'.

Note: in this context a 'schema' is structured information that symbolically represents a process.

Examples of schemas are sheet music (for a musical sound-scape), written language (for a linguistic speech act), computer code (for a running application), DVD encoded data (for a digital movie) , html/php/... (for a website), wavefunction (for the dynamical evolution of a quantum system), neural activity (for a sensory or cognitive impression), etc.

Is it possible (in general) for a schema to fully characterise a process?

Is it possible for different (although logically equivalent) schemas to fully characterise the same process?

Do there exist processes that are inherently uncharacterisable - i.e. processes for which it is inherently impossible for there to exist a schema that fully characterises it (not just in practice, but in principle)?

What are the fundamental principles by which a schema represents a process?

If there are uncharacterisable processes, then in what way does the characterisation fail, and due to what fundamental principles?

Are schemas only descriptive of observations of a process? If so, which schemas and how are they only descriptive?

Or do schemas play a generative role in the unfolding of the process? If so, which schemas and what roles?

What is the relation between the coherence of a process and its representability as a schema? I.e. is it true or false, that all coherent processes are representable (in principle, although not necessarily in practice)?

Note: here 'coherence' means that there is some structure or form to a process, i.e. it is not just a collection of arbitrary and entirely unrelated events happening in random succession.

Are incoherent processes representable?

Does the complexity of the schema relative to the complexity of the process give any measure of the degree of coherence of the process? I.e. the characterisation of a truly random process requires an enumeration of each state in succession, whereas a trivially coherent process (e.g. with the form of a sinusoid) can be defined for all states by its underlying pattern. Hence a more compact schema is possible for coherent processes. Is this true in general? If so, then what is the meaning of the Kolmogorov limit (the smallest possible schema for a given process)?

Is it true or false, that ALL processes have some underlying schema that is playing a generative role in the unfolding of that process? If true, then what are the details of how this is happening? If false, then what are the details of how coherent processes operate in the absence of any generative schema?

Every schema is expressed in some language; so is there some language that is low-level enough and general enough to be able to express any schema? I.e. some language of pure pattern and relation without any high-level constraints on the type of patterns and relations?

Can mathematics be used as such a language? If yes, then why? If no, then why?

Can languages such as English (with technical extensions) be used as such a language? If yes, then why? If no, then why?

What is the relation between a 'system' and processes / schemas?

[< Back] [Toward a Unified Metaphysical Understanding]