On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 10:11:53AM +0000, Ralph Alexander Bariz wrote:
> Thats ok, then development will stay on my own gitlab instance and official
> mirrors nonetheless are hosted by tuxfamily.
> I just released v0.2 and would like to package it and push it to debian
> repos. However I have no idea how to do it right. Is there some guide?
I have assembled some newcomer information for the "Mentoring of the
Month" we are running in Debian Med team:
https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMed/MoM#preview
Debian Science and Debian Med are sharing a very similar policy so
you might be able to replace med-team by science-team and should
basically know what to do.
Hope this helps.
Kind regards
Andreas.
> The output will be multiple packages:
>
> - libcausal-cpp.deb
> - libcausal-cpp-dev.deb
> - libcausal-cpp-examples.deb (examples shall stand alone, since they are nice
> to just play with... gol implementation n stuff. probably also splitting them
> up once and putting them into packages like causal-gol.deb)
> - causalviz-cpp.deb (analyzes causal structure and renders it into graphviz
> dot graphs... in v0.2 defunct)
>
> And in future also:
>
> - libcausal-d.deb
> - libcausal-dev.deb
> - libcausal-examples.deb
>
> BR
> Ralph
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Thursday, September 3, 2020 10:25 PM, Anton Gladky <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > <[email protected]>:
> >
> >> 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 <[email protected]>
> >> 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
> >>> <[email protected]>:
> >>>
> >>>> 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 ΔI/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.
--
http://fam-tille.de
