xavivives

Over the last few months, I've been developing an unorthodox perspective on entropy [1] . It defines the phenomenon in much more detail, allowing for a unification of all forms of entropy. It also defines probability through the same lens.

I define both concepts fundamentally in relation to priors and possibilities:

- Entropy is the relationship between priors and ANY possibility, relative to the entire space of possibilities.

- Probability is the relationship between priors and a SPECIFIC possibility, relative to the entire space of possibilities.

The framing of priors and possibilities shows why entropy appears differently across disciplines like statistical mechanics and information theory. Entropy is not merely observer-dependent, but prior-dependent. Including priors not held by any specific observer but embedded in the framework itself. This helps resolve the apparent contradiction between objective and subjective interpretations of entropy.

It also defines possibilities as constraints imposed on an otherwise unrestricted reality. This framing unifies how possibility spaces are defined across frameworks.

[1]: https://buttondown.com/themeaninggap/archive/a-unified-persp...

Yeah, I was referring to full moon. Maybe in combination with other environmental variables. Why can't it be?

If that's case the behaviors relying on it have been quite fucked up for some time.

A theory I have is that some may use it as Schelling point [1] to coordinate. For reproduction but maybe other things too.

Similar how the environment conditions after a rain can be the catalyst for ants nuptial flight [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuptial_flight

Ambiguity is an intrinsic quality of language. The first words that an infant learns are exclusively learned through ostensive definitions (defining by pointing). This implies that the meaning of those words is fundamentally different to each of us, as it's founded on our phenomenological experience and not through the dictionary. Further words are learned to combine previous definitions and more ostensive definition, so ambiguity is carried on.

Lojban does not eliminate the ambiguity of the meaning of the words, but the ambiguity of its syntactical structure.

To me, the ambiguity of language, and the impracticality to change the meaning of words are the fundamental issues preventing humans to enhance the innate cognitive abilities, and the root cause of most human conflicts around communication.

Any profession and culture has its own jargon, this enables them to express the particular quality of their reality with much more accuracy than common language.

So, instead of trying to build a shared language, what we can do is to create a personal Language for each of us. Not for the purpose of communication, but for the purpose of improving our reasoning and internal model of the world, so we can describe and make sense of our particular reality with much more accuracy.

I've been dedicated to building "Interplanetary mind-map", a tool that supports making your language by making your meaning more explicit. [0]

At the same time, I've been using a prototype of it, to build my personal Language. You can browse into each word and see my particular understanding of it. [1]

[0] - https://github.com/interplanetarymindmap/docs

[1] - https://xavivives.com/#?expr=[%22i12D3KooWBSEYV1cK821KKdfVTH...

A more relatable example to me is with chocolate bars. A 85% chocolate has 3 times more sugar than a 95% chocolate. I wonder the world-wide impact in people health if they advertised the ratio in terms of sugar instead of cacao.

This is fascinating... I've been working on an extremely similar protocol Interplanetary mind-map [0] for about 5 years. I'm surprise I've never seen Noosphere before. It has the exact same topology, on top of IPFS and IPLD, and its also motivated as a tool for thought and aiming to enable transclusion among many other things. The main difference I see is that I'm aiming for a full adaptive system of information, including computation, not only note-taking (I bet you guys have more thoughts).Trying to figure this out has let me to quite deep rabbit-hole around language and semantics [1]. I've actually have a proof of concept running as my website [2], you can navigate about 500 of my "thoughts". Everything in there are transclusions, and the user-interface are notes/memos themselves. I think we should talk :)

[0] https://github.com/interplanetarymindmap/docs/ [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9TudZ_fC3o/ [2] https://xavivives.com/

Hi, sorry I missed your reply. The email was indeed missing and it was added short after posting it here. You can just email me at xavi at vocdoni.io. The documentation is a big beast and our source of truth, I'll highly appreciate if you can point me to the broken links.

It seems relevant to point out that there are two types of sweat glands [1]. And they secrete different stuff:

"Eccrine sweat is clear, odorless, and is composed of 98–99% water; it also contains NaCl, fatty acids, lactic acid, citric acid, ascorbic acid, urea, and uric acid. Its pH ranges from 4 to 6.8. On the other hand, the apocrine sweat has a pH of 6 to 7.5; it contains water, proteins, carbohydrate waste material, lipids, and steroids. The sweat is oily, cloudy, viscous, and originally odorless; it gains odor upon decomposition by bacteria. Because both apocrine glands and sebaceous glands open into the hair follicle, apocrine sweat is mixed with sebum."

The article mentions acid lactic as a signaling metric. Only the Eccrine glands sweat contains it.

This explains why the no-correlation between strong oddor (casused by the apocrine sweat).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_gland

An audio-reactive, programable, super-awesome, buggy, free tool for visualizing animated gifs: http://ludovico.io/

Strava shows the spent moving time by default. If you want the overall time to be shown you have to tag it as a "Race". https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/22428904-Using-Strava-Run...

I also want to point out that when running barefoot/minimal you reduce the stride and increase the cadence. In my experience the result of it is that speed its generally reduced, specially downhill and flat surface.

And by going completely barefoot the surface of the terrain it really defines the speed you can go. When going fast the pressure on the sole its greater and if the terrain its harsh you are forced to slow down. A lot of time until the point of walking, or even slower. In complicated terrains the potential outcome for stepping over the wrong stone it really makes you to be conscious about every movement, slowing down as well.

True. I'll try to get a blood test next time. What are you guys recommendation on what to check?

Warning added.

My resources are limited. But given the chance I won't mind repeating it.

I did not see a doctor. Not before, not after. The truth is that even if I had seen one I wouldn't take in account her opinion anyway.

The current standards for nutrition are based on a diet rich in carbohydrates. Any response from a doctor (at least the ones I have access to) will discourage this event. It just doesn't fit on their models. Plus they have to play safe. I appreciate all the people who are concern about my health. I'm doing fantastically well. Thanks.

I do believe that ketosis is the "default" state for the human being. I have plenty of reasons for that and I'll try to explore more arguments in other posts. Its a very broad subject and I wanted to narrow the scope.

I didn't do this experiment out of nowhere. I've been running in ketosis for long time and I know myself pretty well. I've been reading and educating on the subject. I'm not completely stupid. I know the risks and I know there is a lot we don't know about. But if I've done it its because previous runs and experiments gave me the enough confidence.

This post doesn't suppose to be a scientific study, not to give any medical advice (I'm taking note from your comments and I'll add a warning). Its just my experience based on what I thing should be a more commmon approach, to focus more on the fundamentals than on a micro view.

I did ran all the way. Surely it wasn't fast, but take in account that there was 2000+ meters of elevation gain.