The math is not the territory: navigating the free energy principle

authors: Mel Andrews year: 2021 See in Zotero

Literature Notes

The term “free energy principle” (FEP) is getting misused and contributing to reification of models.

Models come with a structure and construal. Structure - actual math + math system that is involved Construal - interpretation about what the math means

Models $\ne$ Real world analogy $\ne$ literal meaning Model framework $\ne$ A theory - its a formalism to talk about a theory

The history of the FEP comes from scientists talking about physical properties, then to analogies of statistics that act like physical properties, to eventually biological/ systems using the statistics (that acted like physical properties).

Critics say that there is no reason we should simply accept that the FEP is what a system does, or that it doesn’t “represent” what is actually going on. Andrews argues this is a feature not a bug. Math is itself meaningless unless you attach it to an interpretation.

Scientists need to be careful to

1. Refer to the model as a “FEP model” and not the real world
2. Separate what the model says from knowledge of the real world - a model must be validated to match predictions to experimental evidence.