[AppeasingRoko]

Also, the worst use of Occam's razor I've ever seen. By your logic, superficial observation and intuitive models of reality are more likely right than in depth, much more-complicated science.

How is a process of building muscle through exercise, which humans have been doing for hundreds of years, and which is extremely well understood by modern science more likely wrong than a bizarre metaphorical similarity to how physical objects degrade due to stress? Use it or lose it is our latest understanding of both the mind and the body.

[Aron]

Physical objects degrading under use by natural forces, is a common pattern and all a part of entropy and so on. We also happen to be physical objects. We can propose, and we know it's true that the body has repair mechanisms. However, it is a far more complicated effort to repair everything than to damage everything. Therefore, one should be open to establishing where the burden of proof lies, so that we know how to process the science, which tends to be rather unconvincing, frequently contradictory, etc. when it comes to issues like this.

[AppeasingRoko]

Okay, I am happy to leave this part of the discussion. I think biological processes are highly distinguishable from non-biological ones, however (i.e. heavy brain usage is highly beneficial).

However, the article just says minimum exercise should be maintained for minimum entropy... there's no analysis as to why minimum entropy is a good thing. Longevity and wellbeing are complicated, multifactorial goals, and are certainly not determined by something as reductive as "biological entropy".