
Why You Don't Believe Fermat's Principle - sytelus
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/fall01/fermat/Fermat.html
======
ttctciyf
Wait, "we in Laouche's Youth Movement.." (
[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Spring...](http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Spring2004/ScienceYouth.pdf)
) - what is this publication, exactly?

Wikipedia says:

> 21st Century Science and Technology is a quarterly magazine established in
> 1988 following the federal government's closing down of its predecessor
> Fusion Magazine (1977 to 1987). It has the same editor and material as
> Fusion.[67] The last hard copy issue of the magazine published was the
> Winter 2005-2006 issue. Subsequent issues are available in electronic PDF
> format only. The magazine deals with a variety of issues, including
> criticism of claims of anthropogenic global warming, promotion of the use of
> DDT[68] and support for an alternative to the standard atomic theory, based
> on the "Moon model" of Robert James Moon.[69] Notable writers include: J.
> Gordon Edwards, Zbigniew Jaworowski and Paul Marmet. According to Science
> and other sources, it is published by supporters of Lyndon LaRouche.

(
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_Energy_Foundation#21s...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_Energy_Foundation#21st_Century_Science_and_Technology)
)

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

~~~
nikdaheratik
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.

