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. > > > > > >
