I have just added you into the Debian Science Group on salsa. Usually salsa is used to maintain the packaging stuff, but the upstream is hosted mostly on github/gitlab and similar.
Best regards Anton Am Mi., 2. Sept. 2020 um 10:20 Uhr schrieb Ralph Alexander Bariz < ralph.ba...@pm.me>: > Hi Anton, > > Since I'm using Debian(in truth Parrot OS, a Debian Testing based > derivative) its just natural, that I want to take care to get it into > Debian repositories. Also I want to get it away from my quite insecure own > gitlab instance, having it on Debian Salsa Git would be perfect. Also I'd > like to pass ownership, or at least get some push from somewhere else > making it impossible to (get forced to) re-license it. Who knows where > home-office rules of theese times lead to, just want to be sure it stays > AGPL. Also for sure I'd like to join the team. > > BR Ralph > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 9:35 PM, Anton Gladky <gl...@debian.org> > wrote: > > 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 set of "Wirkung" influencing each >> other >> >> >> *Axioms*: >> >> - Principle of "demand": nothing happens without triggering >> interaction as it is required in sum interaction >> - Principle of "inertia": nothing happens without a sufficient cause >> (investment of energy by trigger of interaction) >> - Principle of "exclusivity": no concurrent involvements of a single >> "aspect" can happen >> >> >> *Deductions*: >> In our view "time" seems to be something passing by as a whole. We do not >> naturally understand why time can be "slower" or "faster" in relation to >> observers "time" and why it seems to be connected with "space" even both >> seem to be very different. Principle of "exclusivity" brings up an >> understanding of "time" as a causal order influenced by the amount of >> interactions happening on an aspect and "space" being just the consequence >> of this order. While this might at first glance make sense for dense >> systems it seems not to explain the observed dilatation for accelerated >> systems. When thinking about "speed" in such a context, we need to see what >> speed does. So it seems naturally to me, when an object of a certain speed >> is moving its interaction partners are changing due to that directed >> quantity of speed when assuming a homogeneous density distribution of whats >> in front and whats behind. But when closely thinking about the problem I >> have to acknowledge the amount of interaction of an accelerated system >> might increase on acceleration and there fore lead to an inverted effect as >> on unaccelerated moving away from lesser dense systems towards more dense >> systems. This assumption allows to understand the speed of light as the >> point where a system is interacting with everything available what leads to >> observed wave behavior of light and other particles accelerated to near >> light speed. Also this allows to understand why there cannot be a "higher" >> speed. There is no more than "everything" available. As there is no spatial >> but only causal direction any more. The requirement to invest more and more >> energy for gaining higher and higher speeds is due to the principle of >> "inertia" in context of every single interaction. A system requiring to >> interact with "everything" also requires the energy for doing so. However >> propagating(what I'm not necessarily doing), that unlimited energy is >> required to accelerate a system of mass to speed of light would, in this >> context, imply an unlimited amount of possible available interaction >> partners what conflicts with the thought of a finite reality, a begin and >> an end. >> >> Due to "demand" everything is uncertain unless information is required in >> interaction, at that point overall demand defines probability. >> We tend to see things in an absolute way wondering about effects observed >> in quantum mechanics. In a system perfectly isolated from any interaction >> partner which is not interacting with observer, however it seems natural to >> measure what is expected by observer why observed system might seem to be >> certain before measurement. So the assumption making quantum mechanics that >> unintuitive is the assumption uncertainty would be the exception and >> observer is unrelated to observation. But at this point it seems, >> uncertainty is the default and probability is strongly defined by >> requirements of the sum of all observers but when all other observers are >> interacting with observer looked at it seems certain all the time. >> >> Here space gets really messy. It seems that there is nothing like a >> "space". No framework stuff is existing within but just a mesh of demands >> for causal interaction. So assuming space gets bent inside a star would >> imply it is the same "space" which somehow gets altered. But, to me, it >> seems more, that there is nothing in common between our "Wirklichkeit" and >> those within some star like our sun except the interfacing surface of it. >> We are not part of the inner mesh of "demand" within a star and there fore >> could only tell properties observable from the outside. The inner of a star >> however stays uncertain to us and might, if there is no demand playing a >> role unknown to us, fit the expectation of outside observer basing on >> happened observations until intrusion and direct measurement but never will >> violate made observations. One could say, the "Wirklichkeit" will come up >> with a way to ensure consistency across all observations and if its not >> possible to ensure then observation wont be possible. >> >> *Example of an oscillating system*: >> When imaging a system consisting of oscillators in a matrix >> interconnected by springs, one could also speak of a granular membrane, we >> can apply exactly such a causality. This causality would be defined by an >> oscillator passing it's impulse to their neighborhood using Hooke's law >> implying them to also pass their impulse to their neighborhood. When >> applying some impulse to one of those oscillators this leads to a wave >> which, under the assumption of system being symmetric, is as perfectly >> circular as granularity of systems allows while, for obvious reasons, it >> gets more and more circular towards radius getting infinite. This example >> has two possible manifestation. The one is discrete and there fore limits >> the smallest size of impulse by (overall difference in impulse)/(number of >> neighbours) > 0 and there fore leads to impulse getting lost(entropy/heat) >> when *Δ*I/Nn = 0. The other is continuous and does not know entropy what >> seems not to be real. The probably most interesting observation would be >> certain effects known from quantum mechanics like interference's without >> requiring any real or even transcendent constants and purely using integer >> domains for parameters and result. >> >> >> >> >> >> >
