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.
-
-
I will read the Friston book when it drops. But I’m tentatively skeptical as well...but in general, I’m skeptical of all unifying theories...unless they accept the full on metaphysical weirdness of Spinoza or Fazang
-
My impression is that a lot of the enactivist reaction to FEP is methodological, the result of a distaste for unifying theories as such, especially those that can be written in equations. While I appreciate the historical basis for this reaction, I struggle to sympathize.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
IMO history could be cast as a process of attractors re-assembling elsewhere. As we say in our PLReviews papers, the FEP isn't a theory of everything. It needs historically deep disciplines to flesh out the historical transitions – I think this is its fundamental limit (for now)
-
IMO the philosophical challenge for FEP as a "grand unifying theory" is to provide some systematic way to establish conditions on "locality" across various scales, such that ergodic approximations are useful.
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
it seems like the attractor is a random set which would vary with initial distribution, so that a system's historicity gets covered in a way.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.

