Hi Ralph,
thanks for the introduction. Could you please shortly formulate how the
Debian Science Team can be useful for you?
Best regards
Anton
Am So., 30. Aug. 2020 um 14:13 Uhr schrieb Ralph Alexander Bariz <
ralph.ba...@pm.me>:
> Hi all,
>
> My name is Ralph Alexander Bariz. I've written a, I think quite usable,
> proof of concept for a runtime which should introduce a new kind of
> algorithmic dedicated to the graph oriented modeling and execution of
> complex non-linear systems.
> Please see
> https://gitlab.ralph.or.at/causal-rt/wiki/-/blob/ralph/debconf/debconf.odp
> Please see the C++ POC Implementation
> https://gitlab.ralph.or.at/causal-rt/causal-cpp
> I request to move over the whole project group to salsa
> https://gitlab.ralph.or.at/causal-rt
> My salsa username is "udet".
>
> Below I've written, for people interested in the why and probably a way to
> some kind of new discrete and, error-resistant discretely, executable
> physics, the thesis. I would also like this post to be seen as an official
> pre-publication of this thesis.
>
> Thanks.
>
> *Preface*:
> I'm system analytics and architect, no mathematician. So this wont contain
> a lot of numerical math what probably also is not necessary but instead the
> results of a structural analysis of what Germans call "Wirklichkeit".
>
> While this journey begun with working out a methodology to model and
> execute symmetric interaction simulations on GPU's utilizing definite
> integrals I was not convinced it could allow to model and execute the aimed
> complex systems observed to be real.
> It continued passing by actor model systems which were more what I seek
> for but still very data oriented while lacking for a definition of "the
> how".
>
> At that time I came into contact with Werner Heisenberg's and Hans-Peter
> Dürr's "last assumption" defining a virtual entity they called "Wirks".
> This, for me, was the key to understand what we seem to have missed all the
> time. Here a discrepancy between the German and the English language got
> very obvious. While a certain understanding of "the how" seems to be deeply
> integrated into German language, the English language seems to completely
> lack it. This discrepancy gets most obvious when thinking about the classic
> definition of causality in both languages. While the English language
> defines causality as the implication cause -> effect, while cause and
> effect are both about the "what", the German definition is "Ursache"(cause)
> -> "Wirkung" while "Wirkung" is not about the "what" but about the "how".
> Also one might note, the English "reality" covers the German "Realität" but
> not the German "Wirklichkeit" while the reality is about the set of all
> being and the "Wirklichkeit" is the set of all happening.
> When trying to model this thought of a "Wirks" there came up a few
> implications which made such a model very attractive not only in context of
> Max Planck's assumption of a discrete energy and spacetime but also seems
> to connect the strings in context of thermodynamics and the simple
> question, why there is entropy but also allows to neatly and exactly define
> a model of time and why density(mass and extent) of a system influences the
> flow of time within this system in relation to another system of another
> density. Also it seems, that such a model allows to understand certain
> effects observed in quantum-mechanics and why space is not a that certain
> thing as we use to treat it as. Causal dynamics has implications to the
> concept of "calculus" and neatly defines the symmetric corner-cases where
> it is useful but clearly points out why in "real" asymmetric/complex and
> not dominated(like domination of suns mass where error can but cut as
> negligible) cases it cannot be applied.
>
> In the following lines I will not handle the concrete "proof of concept"
> implementation for classic computing I have done but use one of its
> example's to support some of previously broached claims. Still it has to be
> clear, this POC implementation is NOT complete neither correct. Also please
> mind, here I define causal dynamics as the thesis observed and deduced but
> not as the thesis making philosophical sense. There is an extended thesis
> assuming that all systems are continuous in their nature and its aspects
> are discretising on interaction but since there, for me, is no hint
> available yet, that this could be the case, but even seemingly one that
> this might not be the case(entropy) I will not touch this thought at this
> point.
>
> *Definitions*:
>
>- A "Processor" is an environment allowing the execution of a causal
>systems
>- An "Aspect" is a piece of Information in context of a system
>- A "Wirks" is the necessity of information to change
>- A "Tick" is a pattern allowing a processor to process a certain
>"Wirks" within a causal system
>- A "Wirkung" is a branch of "Wirks" implying each other
>- A "Wirklichkeit" is an integral
