Friston's free-energy principle is based on the premise that living systems are ergodic. Kauffman begins his new book with the premise that life is non-ergodic. Who is right? My money is on Kauffman on this one, but what do I know? A World Beyond Physics https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-world-beyond-physics-9780190871338#.XNGVGw1PdIQ.twitter …
-
-
I think (though I’m not an expert here) that the FEP only cares about ergodicity within some very restricted space of brain/boddy states, e.g. predictions. That’s much more plausible than ergodicity within the space of all DNA or other molecules.
-
@micahgallen@neuroconscience care to weigh in/clarify? - 10 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes: ergodicity is a relative concept. There is no 'brain', or 'cell', these are anthropomorphisms. One can just compare one chosen Markov blanket to another chosen Markov blanket. Futhermore, FEP is descriptive, it can only be understood by MEPP of the upper Markov blanket.
-
Just like equilibrial/non-equilibrial: depends on the scope, where you 'close' the system. Or: it's just semantics. There is no mathematical formalization of the qualification 'ergodic', only in a comparative sense.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.