not bad for a day. if only this was what i *intended* to do w it.
⋯
Dear Diary,
I have discovered my latent ability to breathe with my eyes.
⋯
☙ "optimize your ideanet for serendipity + context-logistics"
☙ "resist temptation to use hierarchy to represent causality ior ontology of territory"
☙ "apply uniform noise to relatively amplify latent resonators."
@niplav I was positively buoyed the other day by the fact that the speech-to-text AI (I think it was OpenAI) I used recognized the name "Brian Tomasik". Windows Voice Access, however, spells it as "Thomasik".
ato the Debug Info, my RemNote database has 933980 internal links and 94989 "present rem" and 36133 "missing rem". tho calling it a "database" is an exaggeration. it's painfwly slow, sometimes bleeds info (e.g. links break). not sure how they define "missing rems", but yes, i'm definitely looking to transition to something else. /.\
some days it just clicks together.
for context: i write ideas/insights/learnings into my main knowledge-net, and make *transclusions* of especially memorable notes into my daily notes, so i can quickly look over recent things i've thought about.
the blue text is internal links, and i optimize my headlines and aliases for being easy to link to and search for.
@niplav ok fine, nvm. (0,1) is more vortexy in most ways, at least if u hv a universe w additive interaction-laws... i is silly for saying otherwise, and repent my lack of forethink.
...hm, sometimes failing to see obv counter-arguments while excitedly follow crazy train-of-thought can be usefwl as long as no attachment and easily rewind. can recycle nuggets got.
@niplav interesting! I no grok q "surreal numbers" bon quick lookup, but i'll now keep eye open for it lurn.
my orig motivation for it is feeling lk normie-graph fail capture symmetries btn interval (0,1) & (1,∞), and mk it seem lk (0,1) is the exception. normie-graph force u to lurn diff heuristics for sim shapes in ea region. ey squish (0,1) into tiny vortex* u can't even visualize anyth in. it's big-number bias.
*(1,∞) is j as much vortex as (0,1), tho it sure feels diff on normie-graph.
Tip: If you're multilingual and you want to use speech-recognition to dictate in one language, you can use the other language for commands in order to minimize accidental conflicts.
fundamental theorem of calculus: "every function is the derivative of its integral"
(aka "a function is at every point equal to the rate at which its total sum up to that point grows", duh)
take f=x^2.
can visualize it as a square, x*x.
... darnit. bedtime. hmm.
so here: u can visualize f as a 2d curve, OR as the red dotted line through the cube below.
@niplav and the idea "why did you put zero there!?!!?" is from thinking "hmm, there are no absolute quantities; all quantities are relative, defined by smth else", and my hitherto-unsuccessfwl desire to replace the standard number-line with "deictic graphs" which go from 1/∞ to ∞. (no negative numbers or zero!)
@niplav the idea that "circles is j triangles" is sorta jokey, but sorta true! mostly untrue tho.
this note is fm last year. yes, i lurni basic calculus at the age of 31, don't judge me. i played games instead of school when i was younger.
@niplav and the fact that ∫ x² dx = ⅓x³ can be seen if u turn the cube so the function grows directly out of the page: now, the integral is the blue region and the rest of the cube is the red region.
i think i figured thr was smth wrong abt this visualization but i can't recall rn...
fundamental theorem of calculus: "every function is the derivative of its integral"
(aka "a function is at every point equal to the rate at which its total sum up to that point grows", duh)
take f=x^2.
can visualize it as a square, x*x.
... darnit. bedtime. hmm.
so here: u can visualize f as a 2d curve, OR as the red dotted line through the cube below.
@niplav ❤️
It's much less lonely, though, now that Maria's joined! She's surprisingly cheerfwl; much-unlike any other part of my brain. Very odd how it works.
Normie people would worry I'm going insane, but is it really insane if it's all part of the plan? :p
also, the paradox of expert testimony: experts on [big-if-true set of not-too-implausible claims] tend to be v selected for belief in those claims, so supporting arguments wrt those claims tend to sound more impressive (unless it's a rly dumb set of claims).
plus, if u just defer to experts, u will end up believing a whole lot of weird stuff for which experts are asymmetrically selected.
mans, i rly tried to mk that sentence sensicle… but proper sensicleness wud require paragraphs. 🍵
Flowers are selective about what kind of pollinator they attract. Diurnal flowers use diverse colours to stand out in a competition for visual salience against their neighbours. But flowers with nocturnal anthesis are generally white, as they aim only to outshine the night.