Tactical Question for the Group Re Terminology In Discussing Reason and Logic

    Quote from Elayne

    Conclusions about absence of gods can't be accurately made from logic.

    I agree with that, although I believe it should be stated as ".....cannot be accurately made from logic alone." I think that would be one reason why the Epicureans considered "anticipations" to be a kind of innate evidence which provides an evidentiary starting point for evaluation of the subject, so that the entire subject would not be grounded in abstract logic and speculation

    Quote from Elayne

    I put my confidence in my first-hand observations of nature, and in the complete absence of evidence for supernatural gods.

    I think the part where we are not connecting is here. I agree that the root of the issue is first-hand observation, but I think Epicurus held that it is proper to infer conclusions from first-hand observation which we then treat as established principles and expect to be valid even in places where we have not seen any evidence (such as beyond reach of telescopes). Such a principle would be "the universe has no supernatural gods over it," or "nothing comes from or goes to nothing" treated not just as a sum of prior observations but as an established principle that can then be dealt with on an intellectual level as principles considered "proven" rather than in a category with those things which await further confirmation. That text reference to "awaiting further confirmation" I see as another indication that Epicurus held that observations must be converted to principles (to the category of "confirmed; no longer awaiting confirmation"), and those conclusions would then be a large part of the outlines he referenced in the opening of the letter to Herodotus to be used in daily processing of information.

    Quote from Elayne

    And whenever more detailed evidence is obtained, at the level too small or too far away to investigate without instruments, never has any researcher found any observations a god was needed to explain

    Agreed, but as per the above, the conclusion that Epicurus reached from this observation was to place it in the category of knowledge which is not waiting further confirmation. We can call that category "first principles" or something else, but the category would be considered as established to the point of a fundamental of nature, not just "the sum of past observations."

    Quote from Elayne

    You seem to want explanations which appeal to those with less education or intelligence, whether those explanations are correct or not.

    Well in response to this I will simply say that we still are not joining the issue other than that you seem to be considering words like "logic" and "reason" as in tension with having an open mind to incorporate future observations. I see this as the point being made by Epicurus when stating then wise men should be "dogmatists" and "not mere skeptics" and also as the point made by Lucretuis in considering the man who asserts that he knows nothing to be perverse or trifling or Lucian saying that an Epicurus would consider the deceit of Aristotle the Oracle Monger as a fraud, even though the did not know the precise way the fraud was being committed. We could also list here the statement by Lucretius that it would in fact be better to affirm an incorrect reason than to give up confidence in the senses; or really the entire "multivalent logic" approach where multiple possibilities are entertained where they are not contradicted by evidence. Each of these seem to me to affirm that Epicurus was suggesting that it is necessary to form our observations into principles which are then considered to be the building blocks by which we evaluate evidence and make our day to day decisions.

    It seems to me that there is an issue here in how to consider whether anything is "established" in life to the point where it can be considered firm and unchallengeable within the philosophy. Thinking back to that statement of Epicurus, the point of the study of nature is not to become an encyclopedia of facts which ends with "and this is what has been discovered to this point and will be revised in our next edition" but to deduce a set of life operating principles by which we can confidently hope to live happily.

  • Cassius January 21, 2021 at 4:38 PM

    Changed the title of the thread from “Tactical Question for the Group Re Terminology” to “Tactical Question for the Group Re Terminology In Discussing Reason and Logic”.
    Quote from Elayne

    You seem to want explanations which appeal to those with less education or intelligence, whether those explanations are correct or not. But a sturdy philosophy should not repel scientists who note inaccuracies or cling to conclusions that could result in less educated people feeling threatened by published reports about new observations.

    This, combined with the nearby and ongoing discussion of the mind-blowing Parmenides assertions, reminds me that I have always identified with this attitude from Thomas Jefferson's letter to Peter Carr. And I have to agree with Jefferson - I would much rather live my life in community of ploughmen than a community of Parmenides fans, and I do think the issue is the "artificial" nature of the professors' rules. Which is not to say that the ploughman doesn't have rules of his own, but that he finds them located in things that are sensible to him. All of this hark's back to Joshua's video early in the thread about Lincoln basing his reasoning on eternal forms. It still seems to me that it is usually not flaws in the reasoning once started, but flaws in the starting point, that seem to be the issue:

    Quote


    Moral Philosophy. I think it lost time to attend lectures on this branch. He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his Nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the [beautiful], truth, &c., as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, & often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules. In this branch, therefore, read good books, because they will encourage, as well as direct your feelings. The writings of Sterne, particularly, form the best course of morality that ever was written. Besides these, read the books mentioned in the enclosed paper; and, above all things, lose no occasion of exercising your dispositions to be grateful, to be generous, to be charitable, to be humane, to be true, just, firm, orderly, courageous, &c. Consider every act of this kind, as an exercise which will strengthen your moral faculties & increase your worth.

    Cassius this is sad to me to hear, because Epicurus was cutting edge in his day and I do not think he would want to exclude intelligent scientists from his Garden. It is one thing if they exclude themselves but another to repel them by being unwilling to see that physics can be safely updated without injury to the philosophy.

    Interestingly, in this case, your quoted passage advises limiting reason and rules, which is the position I have taken, while you are arguing to stick rigidly with rule-like models. I am more like the ploughwoman here who says pay more attention to reality.

    If no one had ever made any further observations, then it would be understandable to take your position. However, observations have been made and are part of the popular press-- some of these observations have even been incorporated into technology which we use. And lay people, your ploughmen, read about these things! It is a disservice to tell them newer models endanger EP, when it isn't true. That leaves them in a confusing position where they could feel threatened unnecessarily by emerging observations. They would have to stick their heads in the sand like ostriches trying to block out the world which is moving on past them.

    I think I have exhausted my efforts to change your mind and that this will be my last comment on the subject. If you ever decide to reconsider, I think there's enough here between me and Elli that you can come back to it.

    Quote from Elayne

    I do not think he would want to exclude intelligent scientists from his Garden.

    I completely agree. Your next sentence that they might exclude themselves though seems more likely to be a problem, if Cicero was correct, and on this point I bet he was:

    Quote from Elayne

    If no one had ever made any further observations, then it would be understandable to take your position

    The main point I would leave this with for now is that I think you and I are mainly having a terminology debate, but beneath the surface of that debate lies the deeper issues that are more clear when reviewing what Frances Wright wrote. It's not you who I have the big difference with as much as it is Frances Wright.and her "observation is everything" approach that is very explicitly stated here. She's representing that as as Epicurean philosophy and we need to decide whether she's right about that or not.

    My tentative conclusion about Frances Wright is that her position on this issue was wrong, and that this is the reason, more than anything else, why she seems to have essentially dropped the subject of Epicurus for the rest of her life and devoted herself to pure local politics. I won't argue that her decision was wrong for her, because if she got the most enjoyment out of politics then it isn't appropriate for me to second-guess that, but I can easily see how her views led her to conclude that she had gotten all she was ever going to get out of Epicurus and to move on to something else.

    I think the issues underlying this question are very important to the future growth of a real "Epicurean community" in the future. The reason I titled this thread as "tactical" is that I don't think we have been clear enough about a definite set of principles about "what it means to be an Epicurean." Most of the time the public discussion on Facebook and similar places has been focused on discussion of happiness and "pleasure as the goal" that everyone can interpret the way they want to. As a result the people we attract on Facebook or in local meetup efforts are often thinking we're just going to be attending some kind of self-help psychology group for the purpose of helping them de-stress in addition to their Yoga and/or their Prozac.

    That is where I think we have to get over this current issue, because it is essentially the issue of dogmatism that has caused several divisions in our efforts in the past. The issue is somewhat like - "Can we say for sure that anything important is definitely "known" about the universe, about life after death, or the existence of gods?"

    If we follow the Frances Wright line and say "everything is observation," that leaves those big-picture questions open, and many people will feel tricked. If we were to invite people to a meeting and then spent our time talking about eternity, infinity, atoms, nothing from nothing, and the like, then those people will feel like they are in the wrong place, as that is not at all what they came to hear. I would say maybe as much as 80% of the Facebook group, or more, fits that category.

    So I think we have to start being more clear, and more "dogmatic" that Epicurus held to a certain set of principles that remain fundamentally valid. Sure I agree that many of the physics details need to be updated, but I am personally convinced that the large conclusions (eternality, infinity, absence of infinite divisibility, role of the senses and reason, life throughout the universe, responses to Platonic arguments against pleasure, responses to Parmenides on motion, etc.) are still very valid and at the very least worth talking about as reasonable solutions to these questions.

    If you follow Frances Wright's reasoning, all of the physics and "answers to essential questions about the universe" are essentially out the window, and you do in fact become basically a self-help psychology group with just a different slant on pleasure and pain.

    That's why I think the Frances Wright perspective has to be cleared up before we can move to a next level of engagement. We'll constantly run into the disappointment I mentioned if we don't. We've actually been pretty consistent over the last six months in holding regular Skype discussions, but until we reach some conclusions about the Frances Wright perspective, we wouldn't even be able to agree on topics for a conference.


    Would the topics for a live conference be:

    (1) the pleasure of music (2) the pleasure of smooth motion, (3) the pleasure of food, and (4) why pleasure is more important than logic and reason?

    Or would the topics be:

    (1) the universe was not created by a supernatural god but is eternal, (2) the universe is infinite in space so there is no room for a supernatural god, (3) matter cannot be divided forever, and the elemental particles are the source of stability and repeatability, (4) he who says he knows nothing is a trifler and perverse, and (5) Epicurean logic and reasoning are based on evidence from the components of the canon, which is why it is the best kind.
    Frances Wright seems to have been one of the most brilliant writers on Epicurus in the last 500 years, yet in the end she dropped away from it, so I think there important lessons to be learned from this.

    Ack. Relying primarily on observations does not mean we can't make pragmatic conclusions. I thought last night I was "done" with trying to explain myself but lol 😂 apparently I am not!

    1) The universe was not created by a supernatural god and this has not one thing to do with how long it has existed. There is no observational OR logical connection between those two things. So don't worry about new theories regarding the beginning of the universe.

    2) Not having "space" outside the universe for a supernatural god has not a single thing to do with there not being one. Such a being would still have to take action within the universe to be relevant to us, and it doesn't happen. There's space outside my living room but that doesn't mean I need to consider a magical unicorn being outside. Besides, this argument does not dissuade supernaturalists who believe in a supernatural realm apart from the material one, a realm invisible to all our instruments. The idea of material "room" would just make them roll their eyes. Recognize this as an endless "god of the gaps" situation and move on.

    3) We don't quite know yet how stability and predictability work at the smallest level, but we can clearly observe it happening at the macro level, so we do know these are properties of matter and energy.

    4) He who says he knows nothing may be technically correct, because the tiny degree of uncertainty is there, but it has no bearing on our lives unless we get obsessed with it. If getting obsessed with it causes a person maximum pleasure, then that's fine, but if it causes anxiety, there's therapy to get over obsessions. No amount of evidence can relieve someone's anxiety, according to evidence, but therapy can be extremely helpful. **** When someone clings to a conceptual conclusion as if adjusting it would make reality disintegrate before their eyes, given that reality doesn't in fact disintegrate, this is a dysfunctional anxiety situation as well and may not respond to more data.

    5) The most unreliable logic is casual; formal logic eliminates some of those errors; and the most reliable procedure is to spend time making observations from senses and feelings for premises, and when you form deductive models from those observations, remember that no abstract model can ever fully replace reality, models are thus inherently incomplete (the word "pleasure" is not the same as the feeling of pleasure), and even a deductive model is abstract. Models can be pragmatically useful despite being incomplete. Always subject your deductive models to the available evidence. Be aware of your innate pattern recognitions and of your concepts, and remember that these patterns, such as the sensation of justice, are experiential, and that there is no material item "justice" that is the same for every person.

    And to clarify a little what it's like to place observations first: there is no amount of logic that can tell me I don't feel pleasure when I feel it 😂. There is no amount of logic, of any type, that can convince me I don't interact with reality through my senses, because the person would have to give me information via my senses-- I don't even have another way to receive their logic except through my body. This is a description of my certainty and not a logic conclusion. If they want to convince me I'm a brain in a vat, how will they even show me math except through my senses? 😂

    This is a bedrock sensation of certainty for me. I feel no obligation to believe in anything that has not been demonstrated to me. My prolepses, I have observed also.

    Would the topics for a live conference be: 


    (1) the pleasure of music (2) the pleasure of smooth motion, (3) the pleasure of food, and (4) why pleasure is more important than logic and reason? 


    Or would the topics be: 


    (1) the universe was not created by a supernatural god but is eternal, (2) the universe is infinite in space so there is no room for a supernatural god, (3) matter cannot be divided forever, and the elemental particles are the source of stability and repeatability, (4) he who says he knows nothing is a trifler and perverse, and (5) Epicurean logic and reasoning are based on evidence from the components of the canon, which is why it is the best kind. 


     The laconic answer by Epicurus that excludes all the dilemmas of "either or" by Aristotle is : "I say, BOTH of the above"! 


    Αnd from Epicurus letter to Pythocles and why I insist to be carefull with the usage of hellenic words. 


    "μάλιστα δὲ σεαυτὸν ἀπόδος εἰς τὴν τῶν ἀρχῶν" 


    And most of all give yourself up to the study (την των αρχών) i.e. of the first principles....

    what Epicurus really means with of our "first principles" that "nothing comes from nothing" and the things akin to them? 

    He could mean, most of all give yourself up to the study of the axiom/principle of the law of conservation of energy and the theory of the special relativity showed that mass is related to energy and vice versa by E = mc2 i.e. the mass–energy as a whole is conserved. 


    << καὶ ἀπειρίας καὶ τῶν συγγενῶν τούτοις θεωρίαν>> 

    and of the "infinity" and of the things akin to them... 

    The greek word "απειρία" (infinity) does not mean actually only something related with the eternity (time) and without boundaries (space). It means also of something that is without (a) +(experience) [α+πειρία] i.e. something that is not testified by the experience through the senses/feelings/facts/space time. 

    And if something that is not testified by the experience it's similar to the nothing. Outside the bing bang and outside the facts of the space time was the nothing. 

    Please, do not make so much efforts to understand what Epicurus meant. The 93% of what Epicurus said along with Leucippus, Democritus and Lucretius are proved by the science day by day. The terminology may change but the principles are the same how the Cosmos/Cosmi are creating.


    Please, my friends keep patient on waiting what would be the theory that will testified by the experiments, as I would like to give you a friendly admonition : Please first organize among you personal meetings to be known better to each other and be saved by each other, and leave as a second choice the conferences and the symposia in public. Because if you want to give a credence to my experience of the symposia in Athens, that friends of Thessaloniki and Athens met in person once a year... The results of all the conferences and the symposia in public became a whole mess. 

    Pleasure is the goal! 

    Thanks :)


    Beauty and virtue and such are worthy of honor, if they bring pleasure; but if not then bid them farewell!

    Quote from Elayne

    No amount of evidence can relieve someone's anxiety, according to evidence, but therapy can be extremely helpful

    This is the sentence I would use to discuss what I see as the only practical difference between our positions. I don't think that Epicurus would have devoted so much of his life to exploring and writing about nature if he did not think that evidence can and does relieve anxiety in some people, when processed into a reasonable system of thought such as he presented in his philosophy. I think the point where we are missing each other is that you are correctly pointing out that for some people, no amount of evidence presented to them is going to change their mind. Such people are for any of many possible reasons not oriented toward making up their minds based on evidence, and for them some type of therapy is the appropriate option. But I would contend that many others DO make up their minds based on evidence, and its to those that Epicurus and Lucretius primarily directed their work. They wouldn't have ignored those who aren't interested in evidence, but the great bulk of their work seems to me clearly directed to those who were interested in a reasoned and logical analysis of the great questions of life. And yes, I'll repeat that I don't think a "reasoned and logical analysis of the great questions of life" means what Plato and the Stoics meant in their version of what I would call "formal logic."

    As a result it is entirely appropriate for some people to devote their lives to the study of nature and to take that information and develop a system of reasonable and logical thought like Epicurus did, and like Lucretius followed. The fact that others exist for whom no amount of gathering of evidence and system-building and reasoned presentation is going to make a difference is no reason at all not to engage in gathering of evidence and system-building and reasoned presentation for those who find such activities persuasive.

    Quote from elli

    The laconic answer by Epicurus that excludes all the dilemmas of "either or" by Aristotle is : "I say, BOTH of the above"!

    I agree with Elli's laconic answer here -- BOTH approaches are legitimate and the Epicurean tent is big enough to contain them both. But I would strongly resist the idea that the ethics should or could reasonably be presented without the physics and the epistemology (the discussion of reason and logic and evidence that we are discussing now).

    Quote from elli

    Because if you want to give a credence to my experience of the symposia in Athens, that friends of Thessaloniki and Athens met in person once a year... The results of all the conferences and the symposia in public became a whole mess.

    I continue to be fascinated by the situation among the Epicureans in Greece, and I am not satisfied that we should let that question go unexamined. In fact I think the answer there is very likely close to the subject that we are discussing. I think Elli is correct that closer personal contact would help alleviate any "mess" that might exist between disputing participants in Greece (or anywhere else), but I also don't think that the disputes are "only" a result of lack of personal contact. I think if people don't identify differences in approaches and bring out those differences for examination, then issues can never be resolved and progress made.

    Even though this current debate may seem disconcerting I think it's among the most important we've ever had. We've been through debates before about whether "pleasure as the goal" should be kept front and center in presenting Epicurean philosophy, and we've seen people go separate ways because of disagreement about that. Rather than just have these debates go unresolved, it seems to me it's a lot better to explore in the open the reasons *why* the issues are important. That way even if people have to agree to disagree, then those of each position can continue to explore the implications of their positions, rather than leaving the different perspectives frozen perpetually. I think this discussion has been very useful for us all and I'm very glad we have had it.

    I meant to say "anxiety disorder", which is how I think of anxiety, a persistent false fear, vs fear which is reality based (tiger about to eat you). I disagree though that there is no other significant difference between our positions, because the fact remains that you are telling people modern physics models somehow threaten our philosophy, and it's not true. You are saying that the philosophy of reality can't survive new conclusions about reality, and it's not true. I am saying the philosophy can only survive by being open to (and not fearful of) new observations and conclusions on the specific ways reality functions. Imo that is not peripheral at all but central to preventing the philosophy from becoming something of only historical interest.

    Im really sorry but the communication/contact through a machine i.e. a computer or a telephone or a skype and without any camera, can't produce strong bonds of friendship and FEELINGS. The machines have no feelings and they do not produce feelings. It is just a tool and does not lead to the real goal.

    Where the friendship is based on ? Where do you looking for the friendship? On the ideas and theories ? Sorry, the conversations on philosophical ideas only do not lead to the real goal.

    From Physics: atoms repulshing, swerving, colliding for the creation of many Cosmi ====> to Canon:: hedonic calculus through senses, feelings and prolepsis===>to Ethics: common benefit/frankness of speech sharing knowledges and things with personal and non personal meetings, generosity, bravery.

    The issue starts from Physics, is measured through the Canon and ends in Ethics, and it's: the creation of many Cosmi/friendships/communities/societies with real persons, as real as the atoms are !

    Do you think that Epicurus established the Garden and maintained it as such, in the basis of theories only or mostly in trusted humans with blood and bones?

    Why was the happenings of celebrations in every 20th and of birthdays?

    What means exaclty the attached photo with the letter to Themista ?

    Epicurus was clear in ES 78: The wisdom/knowledges is a mortal good, i.e. they will die within us and with us. Friendship is an immortal good.

    ES 18. Remove sight, association, and contact and the passion of love/friendship is at an end.


    fg. 457 Passion for true philosophy destroys every disturbing and troublesome desire

    For hellenic language the words love/eros and friendship are synonyms.

    For Epicurus the love for our philosophy is an erotic emotion!

    E.S. 66 We support our friends not by mourning but by caring for them.

    Sorry, but you will fall in the same trap of my fellow Greeks here, who they endlessly spoke through emails about the ideas, and in the end, the only they left as real friends was not even an idea.

    Epicurean philosophy is measured and applied only with the experiences/actions in the real life. Please do not leave it in laboratory conditions or in the hands of academics. X/





    Beauty and virtue and such are worthy of honor, if they bring pleasure; but if not then bid them farewell!

    Quote from Elayne

    fact remains that you are telling people modern physics models somehow threaten our philosophy, and it's not true.

    I am not seeing myself as disputing the part I quoted or any of the rest of what I quite there.

    My view is that modern physics has a position on whether the universe is eternal and similar issues, and Epicurus had a position on those issues. Everyone can think about and decide for themselves what they want to believe and how much personal research they want to do, but they'll never even be able to consider Epicurus' position unless they know what it was and his reasons for holding them.

    I certainly am not an expert in modern physics, and it's not appropriate for me to suggest to people that they should take a particular modern physics position either. I'm not qualified to say that a particular expert today is right, so I should not be in the business of endorsing one view over another, or saying that a particular expert has conclusively proved Epicurus wrong on the ultimate conclusions, even where there are many intermediate issues that clearly would appear to need revision.

    Regardless of which side we take, there's no escaping the fact than in representing something to be Epicurean philosophy there 's a clearly documented position that Epicurus took on many of these issues. I don't think it was appropriate for Frances Wright to ascribe positions to Epicurus that conflicted with those he actually took, and I would not think it appropriate for someone to endorse a particular model unless they are themselves experts in the science. You're certainly a lot closer to that than I am, but even then, it's not a part of Epicurean philosophy to endorse the work of any particular scientists or to say that even a "consensus of scientists" deserves deference. For the very reasons you're saying, "science" changes over time and thus its conclusions change. We aren't in the business of being experts in science, we're in the business of finding a workable philosophy of life that allows us to live happily. Epicurus himself said that it would be better to follow the religionists than to give in to particular "scientists" of his day -- those that denied the possibility of "free will."

    I note that while I was composing this Elli wrote another very good post about remembering important issues like friendships and feelings. I totally agree with that. I note that she closed with "Please do not leave it in laboratory conditions or in the hands of academics." I totally agree with that too, and that is why I do not think we should ever be in the business of placing our opinion on ultimate issues in the hands of "experts" who claim that they in their laboratories have access to ultimate truths that other people don't. I am very willing to believe that they have access to all sorts of detailed observations that others don't have, but I think every person has to reserve for himself or herself the ultimate responsibility for their ultimate conclusions about their place in the universe. And whether I think they "have to" or not -- that's the nature of things. Nature hasn't set up a system where we are all compelled to believe the same thing, or to find pleasure in the same things.

    By no means do I live in fear of modern science, nor do I think that modern science threatens the significant conclusions of Epicurean philosophy. But I reserve to myself the ultimate right to decide whose opinions I am going to follow when issues are disputed, and I think Epicurus taught that as well. Epicurus resisted the idea that the scientific experts of his day should be the ultimate authority on issues where no direct evidence was possible, and I think the same approach is valid today. Many people are troubled by issues where we can never observe directly (life after death; was there an origin of everything; will there ever be an end to everything). Where we can only infer the unknown from the known there are always going to be competing theories, and everyone has to decide how to apply those theories to their own lives.

    Quote from Cassius

    Epicurus resisted the idea that the scientific experts of his day should be the ultimate authority on issues where no direct evidence was possible, and I think the same approach is valid today.

    Cassius sorry, in the era of Epicurus there were not scientific experts, but astrologers, and charlatans. Only Aristotle had had a credit, but for Aristotle the purpose was the knowledges for the knowledges themselves and not to bring the knowledges in the real life with actions and on how we should live. Besides Aristotle used the methodology of dialectics. He did not leave behind his teacher Plato, and he spoke with frankness of speech to Plato, when Plato did not pass to Aristotle the leadership of his academia, but in one of his nephews, and then Aristotle has to establishe the Lyceum and the Peripatetic school.

    Epicurus if was alive in our days first he would find FRIENDS, they will read all together many of the scientific papers on materialism, they will writting whole books and papers to help many of scientists for finding the obvious. He would strongly argue only this: that from Physiology i.e. all sciences that ALL are using till now the CANON, they have to be connected and with Ethics and with the goal of pleasure. This is the issue with many of the scienctists - not all - they do not know what is the true philosophy. Usually they discover it in old age, and when the issue on death is approaching.

    Beauty and virtue and such are worthy of honor, if they bring pleasure; but if not then bid them farewell!

    OK I have to apologize to everyone for being so distracted today that I have been delayed in responding more completely. As for myself, I continue to see this exchange as totally productive and a good-faith difference in perspective among friends. I do not doubt for a moment the good faith of everyone involved. I don't insist that my friends see everything the same way I do, nor do I let my friends insist that I see things their way.

    I do, however, doubt the good faith of people like Lawrence Krauss, especially after watching his debate on something from nothing with Richard Dawkins. I believe that history has shown that scientists are every bit as open to errors of prejudice and bias and self-interest as anyone else, and I believe that nothing revolutionary has happened in human nature in the last 100 years to think that those errors of bias and prejudice and self-interest have been or ever can be eliminated.

    Elli in referring to Epicurus I was mainly referring to those mathematicians whose mathematics was indeed in retrospect pretty good in calculating the size of the sun. It seems to me that Epicurus doubted them in large part because of what he perceived was their lack of good faith in arguing for conclusions beyond the scope of their facts. That remains a hazard today.

    Here's my list of views that I personally hold but expect no one else to consider as evidence any more than they would consider the nonsense of any other dottering old fool. I've never suggested that anyone should take my point of view on anything, as a matter of fact. All I do is take the material I can find on Epicurus and interpret it in a way that seems the most persuasive to me. That's all I can do and of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. These are mine. In each of these I should probably add "And I do not believe that any evidence to the contrary is conclusive" -- but that get's tiresome. These are my conclusions at this point in my life:

    • I do not believe that the universe as a whole was ever created at a single point in time.
    • I do not believe that the universe as a whole will ever come to an end.
    • I do not believe that the universe has a size limit.
    • I do not believe that the things we see around us are infinitely divisible.
    • I do not believe that the viewpoint that the universe is composed of solid bodies and void has entirely lost its usefulness.
    • I do not believe that any enumeration of elemental particles would ever come to an end.
    • I do not believe that from any realistic viewpoint that the elementary particles, no matter how we define them, are motionless.
    • I do not believe that the universe as a whole has a center (or floor, walls, or ceiling, for that matter)
    • I firmly believe that elemental parties have a capacity that is reasonably describable as being capable of swerving at no fixed time and no fixed place

    To me, that leaves me in broad agreement with the fundamental assertions of Epicurean physics quite well.

    So to compare this to the original list of twelve, the only one that my understanding that truly indisputable modern science would say needs revision would be eleven and perhaps nine.

    PN 01 Matter is uncreatable.

    PN 02 Matter is indestructible.

    PN 03 The universe consists of solid bodies and void.

    PN 04 Solid bodies are either compounds or simple.

    PN 05 The multitude of atoms is infinite.

    PN 06 The void is infinite in extent.

    PN 07 The atoms are always in motion.

    PN 08 The speed of atomic motion is uniform.

    PN 09 Motion is linear in space, vibratory in compounds.

    PN 10 Atoms are capable of swerving slightly at any point in space or time.

    PN 11 Atoms are characterized by three qualities: weight, shape and size.

    PN 12 The number of the different shapes is not infinite, merely innumerable.


    Now of course I am not saying that modern science does not have lots of detail that can be applied to stating these more accurately or in ways that would significantly revise them. But I think each of these can be interpreted in a way that remains consistent with what I understand to be modern science.

    Now is Lawrence Krauss and / or other people going to tell me that my views are obsolete and that I need to spend more time in physics classes.? Sure. And he'll go to his grave doing his best to make sense of the evidence in front of him, as I will to mine.

    I know it's somewhat uncomfortable to talk about these issues so frankly, but my analysis is that it helps everyone to think about these issues and see where people stand. I never represent that I am a physicist, and I freely admit that many physicists don't seem to agree with these conclusions.

    I do what I do because it is enjoyable and satisfying on many different levels, and as Epicurus said "In a philosophical discussion he who is defeated gains more, since he learns more."

    And I say all this with a smile and is as good a humor as ever! ;)

    I should say more about Lawrence Krauss. I'm not accusing him of being a bad person either. My main observation there is that there seem to be people who actually revel in uncertainty and doubt, and in particular, in creating uncertainty and doubt in other people where it did not previously exist. Now that can certainly be a good thing, but some people seem to carry it to an extreme of seeking uncertainty and doubt as an end in itself, and I don't think that's something that Epicurus would approve of. And I get that sense about Lawrence Krauss in his desire to define "nothing" in away that is counter-intuitive to a traditional and logical interpretation of the word "nothing." Of course there's that pesky word "logical" again ;)

    Personally I'm not familiar with the idea of first principles and the idea as described by Elayne seems to me to be quite useful. I'd be grateful for any elaboration!

    It seems to me that the twelve assertions listed above are all subservient to the principle "we live in a material universe that has provided no evidence of the supernatural or of an afterlife." As a layman I can't say whether or not any one of the twelve principles is correct, but I do think that they are all subject to clarification due to modern physics. But if one or many of these principles is proven to be false, the only thing of importance to me is whether or not that disproves the principle that I've stated. If that principle is disproved then I need to rethink my approach to life!

    I probably have a tendency toward oversimplification, but this first principle (if it is correctly called that) brings me more pleasure than trying to comprehend and verify the twelve principles.

    The reason I care about the outcome of this conversation is that I want to see EP survive and not be made obsolete, because I get pleasure from the pleasure of other people. I also feel some pain when it appears to me that Epicurus, a cutting edge, revolutionary scientist in his day, would ever be considered to support a less than cutting edge position today, when he's not here to defend himself. That, I realize, is silly, bc he's dead and can't be hurt! 😂

    Here is my summary on which PDs can hold up:

    Pd1 Matter is uncreatable: no, not in the way he described matter. If we change it to matter/energy is uncreatable, that holds up, but may not have been true in the Big Bang when matter/energy may not have functioned as it does now. Since that happened so long ago, I don't mind saying matter/energy is not created, because of the "is". An "is" doesn't rule out things having been otherwise in the past, so I'll take it.

    PD2 Matter is indestructible : not true in the original description. Could reframe as matter/energy is indestructible. However, if there is a "big collapse" to conditions preceding another big bang, and everything we call matter/energy winds up taking no space and the physics we understand now changes-- then PD2 may not always be true. That doesn't change that it is true now and certainly during any survivable conditions for life. I'm fine again here with an "is" because it doesn't constrain the distant future. PD1 and 2 are accepted physics for the current universe, now that it exists.

    PD3 no, the universe does not consist of solid bodies and void. The hard body model of physics is over. That one cannot even be metaphorically accepted. And since we are including all known types of energy fields as matter, there's not much void if any, especially if what looks like void has dark energy. It's just wrong. But it doesn't change that there's no god.

    PD4 solid bodies are either compounds or simple. Just take out the word solid and it's ok

    PD5 the multitude of atoms is infinite. We could translate better and say the multitude of elementary particles is infinite. But to be accurate, we actually don't know. It is unclear whether the universe is infinite or just very big, and the answer depends on that. Either way, it's so big in comparison to us that it might as well be infinite. If it is finite, that doesn't mean there's anything outside it. And there's still no god.

    PD 6 the void is infinite in extent. Unclear. There are some observed areas of apparent void in space (not on earth) but they may not actually be empty-- they may have dark energy. We don't know enough to say this, and it's not relevant to being sure there's no supernatural god.

    PD7 the atoms (elementary particles) are always in motion. That one seems to have held up 😂

    PD8 the speed of atomic (elementary particles) is uniform -- that's not true. They can be accelerated, for instance. And since you are including particles like photons in matter, then those are (obviously) at the speed of light. You can look around without a physics lab and know that other stuff is not moving at the speed of light. PD8 can't be fixed-- it's just wrong.

    PD9 motion is linear in space, vibratory in compounds. Well, no. Elementary particles have vibratory motion even when they have linear motion. There's also rotational motion, orbital, and suborbital motion.

    PD 10 atoms (elementary particles) are capable of swerving slightly at any point in time. This physical description doesn't fit current ideas of probabilistic behavior of matter. Epicurus thought it was a literal swerve from linear movement and that's not what happens. It can be metaphorized to say future events are probabilistic, but imagining a little particle speeding along and suddenly, unpredictably changing course is not really what happens. I would leave out the "any point in time "-- I don't think we know that.

    PD 11 atoms (elementary particles are characterized by 3 things-- weight, shape, and size. That one would need updating to mass, charge, and spin

    PD12 the number of the different shapes (of elementary particles) is not infinite but innumerable. Shape is not a thing used to describe elementary particles, and so far there are a limited number of different types, nothing close to innumerable types. This one just needs to have a note for historical purposes -- it's not relevant any more. There's no way I can think of to re-state this in a way that is correct.

    So you see, some of this information is not controversial in being outdated. Some is still unknown, but some things actually need to be revised now.

    I agree it's important to question experts -- and also to question Epicurus. I don't put anyone on privileged footing when it comes to whether I would question them! So when you say why should we believe experts, I am with you, and it includes Epicurus.

    I agree it's important to know where his ideas came from, and his thought processes. And it's also important for people today to know they can come to his same overarching conclusions about this being a material universe, about absence of gods, and about pleasure as the goal, while studying ongoing discoveries in physics. It's not that I want to say Epicurus didn't have PD8 and 12-- he did.

    If we think of a conclusion like any of these PDs as a "diagnosis", and the observations as signs and symptoms-- parents sometimes get scared when they finally get a diagnosis for their kids' troubles. That's normal. And if the diagnosis changes, it's also scary. But what's true is that even though a diagnosis, a model of disease, provides useful information, the label doesn't change the child. The child is still who they are with or without the label. In the same way, reality is what it is with or without the concepts being applied.

    I mainly want people to know that PD 8 and 12 being inaccurate and almost all the others needing updating doesn't do a thing to mess up the overall conclusions. And to put more weight on observations than reasons-- to emphasize the Canon. That's my whole point.

    A few words about the quantum vacuum.

    The quantum field theory proposed by modern physics forces us to abandon the classical distinction between vacuum and matter, especially since it has been shown that elementary particles can be born spontaneously from vacuum with the proper supply of energy. Emptiness is nothing, it is not non-being! Instead, it contains, potentially, an unlimited number of particles that are created and disappear non-stop. The void is actually a living void! The void has ceased to be considered the passive and non-participatory context of the play of natural phenomena and is recognized as a dynamic state of paramount importance.

    I was surprised to find just yesterday that Epicurus in his Epistle to Herodotus refers to the void with the term "nature non palpate/untouched". It is indeed difficult to imagine how an ancient philosopher who knew nothing at all about quantum phenomena, thought of referring to the void as "nature", that is, something that exists and is obviously related to the other "nature of tangible things", even if it is not palpate/untouched!

    The motion of particles in a world of probabilities.

    Each particle can be described as a moving or stationary "wave packet", while the amplitude of a wave in a space over a period of time is related to the probability of finding the particle in that space at that time. Thus, two quantum particles that are ejected by the same device, under the same initial conditions, can make different paths and end up in two different places. Or two identical nuclei will split at very different times, or even into different particles.

    Lucretius in "On the nature of things" De rerum natura: "… When atoms carry their own weight in a straight line down into space, at indefinite moments and in indefinite places, they deviate somewhat from their trajectory, only to the extent that you can say that the movement has changed their. "Without this deviation, everything would be directed like raindrops parallel to the three depths of the vacuum, and no contact, no collision would be made between the original elements, and so nature would not create anything ...".

    Feynman: “A philosopher once said, "It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results." Well, they don't!”

    CONCLUSIONS

     Modern Physics has enriched our perceptions with many new concepts and has greatly deepened or differentiated the old ones. The world continues to be described by atoms, but also elementary particles and quanta, all of which have structure, quantum behavior and relativistic motion, dynamics and materiality.  


     The existence of discontinuity in matter is what allows the formation of structures in space. The diversity of the cosmos presupposes the existence of small material parts that in combination do the things we perceive. The ability to enumerate and combine building blocks is also the basis of mathematics, that is, the understanding and conception of the world on a more abstract level.   


    Structures are not only in space, but they are also in time. An example of a spatially structured entity is a simple stone, but also an entire cave with stalactites and stalagmites. An example of a time-structured entity is a simple note, but also an entire symphonic music play. The objects of the world have at the same time spatial and temporal substance and structure, that is, they are living phenomena and they fill us with admiration!  

    Reference 2

    From the Book: The moment of quantum - Alfred Goldhaber (theoretical physics) Robert Crease (history and philosophy of science) - ROPI Publications, 2015

    “What we need is a Lucretius who will be baptized in the source of Einstein, Schrödinger and Heisenberg, to compose a modern "De Rerum Natura" and to interpret the mystery and beauty that are inside and beyond the electron and space … »

    Source: New York Times, 1930

    An excerpt of a work entitled: “For the understanding of Nature on the scale of the microcosm”.

    Tassos Liolios April 22, 2019

    Professor of Department of Nuclear Physics and Elementary Particle Physics Department of Physics, and of Sciences in Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

    https://www.physics.auth.gr/people/41

    http://epicuros.net/new/241_-Gia-t…toy-mikrokosmoy

    Beauty and virtue and such are worthy of honor, if they bring pleasure; but if not then bid them farewell!

    Silence in church :P

    The letters of Paul, dated to the middle of the first century AD, were written to specific communities in response to particular questions or problems. Paul was in Ephesus around the year 56 when he received disquieting news regarding the church at Corinth. Factionalism had developed. At the fellowship meal some got drunk while others were left hungry. There seemed to be a preference for ecstatic prayer at the expense of works of charity, with a number of members all "speaking in tongues" at the same time. It was apparently reported to him that women were appearing at the assembly without the head covering customary in contemporary Greek society, and may have been arguing over their right to address the assembly. The fledgling community appeared to be in disorder. :D

    Corinthians 14:33-35(NIV) states:

    Quote
    "As in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

    ^^^^^^

Unread Threads

    1. Title
    2. Replies
    3. Last Reply

    2. Evidence of Survivors of Pompeii and Herculaneum 1

      • kochiekoch
      • November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM
    3. Replies
      1
      Views
      94
      1

    4. Don

      November 20, 2024 at 8:17 PM

    2. “Better to lose the money because of me than to lose me because of the money.” 3

      • TauPhi
      • November 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM
    3. Replies
      3
      Views
      215
      3

    4. Don

      November 19, 2024 at 9:30 PM

    2. An Anti-Epicurean Article - "The Meaning of Life Is Not Happiness" (For Future Reference) 12

      • Cassius
      • November 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM
    3. Replies
      12
      Views
      898
      12

    4. Pacatus

      November 19, 2024 at 12:17 PM

    2. Was De Rerum Natura intended as satire? A lecture by THM Gellar-Goad. 14

      • Julia
      • November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM
    3. Replies
      14
      Views
      1.1k
      14

    4. Julia

      November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM

    2. New Slideshow: Nothing Comes From Nothing

      • Cassius
      • November 10, 2024 at 3:51 PM
    3. Replies
      0
      Views
      536