论文标题
关于自由能原则下的流量：评论“自由能原理的物理学有多具体？” Aguilera，Millidge，Tsantz和Buckley
Regarding Flows Under the Free Energy Principle: A Comment on "How Particular is the Physics of the Free Energy Principle?" by Aguilera, Millidge, Tschantz, and Buckley
论文作者
论文摘要
在最近由于Aguilera-Millidge-Millidge-Tsantz-Buckley引起的自由能原理（FEP）的技术批评中，有人认为，在许多情况下，在常规上写的是$ \ unicode {x2014} $ nytysiers of Dynameristiations''''''''''''''''''''''''''在对他们的批评的非正式评论中，我重点介绍了两个兴趣点在很大程度上是正确的，但是他们的论点对FEP并不致命。我继续猜想，基于路径的FEP配方具有关键特征，可在广泛的物理体制中恢复其解释能力。 Correspondingly, this piece takes the position that the application of a state-based formulation of the FEP is inappropriate for certain simple systems, but, that the FEP can be expected to hold regardless.
In a recent technical critique of the free energy principle (FEP) due to Aguilera-Millidge-Tschantz-Buckley, it is argued that there are a number of instances where the FEP$\unicode{x2014}$as conventionally written, in terms of densities over states$\unicode{x2014}$is uninformative about the dynamics of many physical systems, and by extension, many 'things.' In this informal comment on their critique, I highlight two points of interest where their derivations are largely correct, but where their arguments are not fatal to the FEP. I go on to conjecture that a path-based formulation of the FEP has key features which restore its explanatory power in broad physical regimes. Correspondingly, this piece takes the position that the application of a state-based formulation of the FEP is inappropriate for certain simple systems, but, that the FEP can be expected to hold regardless.
