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

TL;DR

This paper discusses the limitations of the traditional state-based formulation of the free energy principle (FEP) in physics, proposing that a path-based approach may better explain system dynamics across various regimes.

Contribution

It highlights the shortcomings of the state-based FEP and suggests that a path-based formulation can restore its explanatory power in broad physical contexts.

Findings

State-based FEP is limited for simple systems.

Path-based FEP may better explain physical system dynamics.

FEP remains valid across different physical regimes.

Abstract

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.