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 …
-
-
Replying to @evantthompson
If the science turns out to show beyond reasonable doubt that living systems are ergodic, to what extent would this compromise other aspects of the enactivist program? In other words, to what extent are you theoretically committed to this bet going your way?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @eripsa
Good question. I don't think enactive ideas stand or fall with this issue. Part of the problem here is exactly what "ergodic" means. It may be that "nonstationary" is more relevant. (Ergodic may be compatible with nonstationary, but I need physicists to say)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @eripsa
if it's non-stationary it can't be ergodic. it if it stationary it may or may not be ergodic.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
That's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification.
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.