3 ms·

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: to prove that science arises from some form of foreknowledge and intent requires demonstrating the knower and a

by sounds 10y ago

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: to prove that science arises from some form of foreknowledge and intent requires demonstrating the knower and a falsifiable test of intent. Non-falsifiable discussion arising from Fermat's letters is interesting but is not the same as a repeatable experiment.

alimw 10y ago
What do you mean? The argument revolves around a test (of angle of refracted light) that is falsifiable and repeatable.
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  The thesis, if you want to call it that as it is never clearly stated in the article, is that there is some sort of intention in nature and/or the universe that guides the results of interactions. The claim is not falsifiable in the strictest sense, because there's no way to interrogate the universe to get it to state its "intentions". More than that, the example of Fermat's Principle is not really supportive of anything that the author seems to be saying about the nature of the universe. Fermat's Principle is basically saying that light takes the path of least resistance through the medium instead of having its path be determined strictly by it's velocity and and direction. The underlying reasons why light moves this way may have seemed very strange at the time, but make a great deal of sense when viewed through the lens of quantum physics which accounts for the dual nature of light as both a particle and a wave. In this case, treating light strictly as a particle moving through space would cause issues as there would be no way for such a particle to "know" the correct path to take before it gets there in order to minimize the amount of time it takes to pass through the medium. However, if you treat light in this case as a wave that propagates through all potential unobstructed paths until it collapses in the "right" path the result from Fermat's principle makes sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_principle So basically, this is no proof of any underlying "intention" in the universe, but rather a demonstration that classical physics is not always adequate at describing what is going on and then you will likely have to reach for other (equally mechanistic) tools if you want a more complete explanation.

by sounds 10y ago

alimw 10y ago

What do you mean? The argument revolves around a test (of angle of refracted light) that is falsifiable and repeatable.

nikdaheratik 10y ago
The thesis, if you want to call it that as it is never clearly stated in the article, is that there is some sort of intention in nature and/or the universe that guides the results of interactions. The claim is not falsifiable in the strictest sense, because there's no way to interrogate the universe to get it to state its "intentions". More than that, the example of Fermat's Principle is not really supportive of anything that the author seems to be saying about the nature of the universe. Fermat's Principle is basically saying that light takes the path of least resistance through the medium instead of having its path be determined strictly by it's velocity and and direction. The underlying reasons why light moves this way may have seemed very strange at the time, but make a great deal of sense when viewed through the lens of quantum physics which accounts for the dual nature of light as both a particle and a wave. In this case, treating light strictly as a particle moving through space would cause issues as there would be no way for such a particle to "know" the correct path to take before it gets there in order to minimize the amount of time it takes to pass through the medium. However, if you treat light in this case as a wave that propagates through all potential unobstructed paths until it collapses in the "right" path the result from Fermat's principle makes sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_principle So basically, this is no proof of any underlying "intention" in the universe, but rather a demonstration that classical physics is not always adequate at describing what is going on and then you will likely have to reach for other (equally mechanistic) tools if you want a more complete explanation.