Posts by Martin

Welcome Ataraxmys!

Welcome Dab!

Welcome Bryan!

Mirages seem to be not a suitable example in this context. They are real optical phenomena which happen outside of our bodies, which our eyes report correctly to the brain and which are not tricks our eyes play on us.

Welcome Jordan!

Happy New Year!

Welcome back, Matt!

The video nicely illustrates what we know today. (Note that turning the balance upside down is just a joke and still just shows the force on us as the counterforce from hard enough material to prevent us from breaking or sinking through the balance and not directly the force with which we pull up Earth. We know from theory which is confirmed by other experiments that we pull up Earth with the same force.)

Knowing this helps to get clear how wrong or misleading Epicurus' reference to down is. Some people have even used this wrong usage to claim that Epicurus was a flat-Earther. Epicurus use of down is so much against his own physics that he probably meant "down" in a different way but I have not yet seen and could not figure out a meaningful way. Maybe the ancient Greek word had a broader or different meaning than our "down".

Welcome Bartleby!

The practices do not need to be necessarily traceable to Epicurus or be logically derived from EP. If they work and are compatible, that is good enough. Not each of them will work for every Epicurean.

Here are some suggestions:

For me, occasional meditation for up to one hour guided by a Buddhist monk works fine, whether on radio, from CD or live. For some Epicureans, it might be counterproductive.

Occasional daydreaming as the simplest form of meditation is fine, too.

Running several kilometers at least twice a week boosts motivation to take action toward pleasure.

Doing something together with friends increases pleasure compared to only doing my own things.

I am very late commenting in this thread because the topic does not interest me that much and religion can be very divisive. Here is my addition to some aspects of the discussion:

Epicurus saw no sensory evidence of gods, attributed the knowledge humans claimed to have of them to inner perceptions and stated that the gods were not supernatural. 2300 years ago, this did not constitute a contradiction.

Meanwhile, we have dramatically extended our senses with corroborated detailed scientific models and reliable instruments. As material beings, gods are not excluded from scientific examination.

Todays science refutes Epicurus' internal imagery of gods because no such special image particles are detectable.

Moreover, the spread of information through particles, waves or fields is essentially diluted by a law following the inverse of the square of the distance.

With the huge distances to the neighboring galaxies, solar systems and even planets in our own solar system, large telescopes are needed to produce images as demonstrated by our astronomers.

Our fairly detailed knowledge of anatomy leaves no space for such inner telescopes for internal perception.

The religions which have arisen in different cultures may have some overlap but they are mutually exclusive.

Taking the inner sensations of something god-like as relating to some actually existing being has produced thousands of cults contradicting about every other belief over the course of history and more cults keep springing up.

This indicates that there are no actually existing gods to which the religions/cults refer, no matter whether the gods are considered to be natural or supernatural.

Even within the same culture/religion, reasoning of different "priests" has typically lead to a further splitting into more and more mutually exclusive sects.

The strength of the inner sensation of a god by people who have been or have themselves conditioned for this has probably been the driving factor of the waves of atrocities committed by religionists who misinterpret these inner sensations as factual evidence.

The global occurrence of religions is indicative of a genetic disposition to look for awe-inspiring beings. This science-based explanation refutes the claim that the perceived gods actually exist.

Modern science is a branched out further development of some parts of Epicurus' philosophy. Applying these principles of Epicurus' philosophy has lead to the refutation of Epicurus' imagery of gods into a supersensory brain as of today's science (with no claim on what future science may reveal in an unexpected twist).

Pleasure is central to Epicurus' philosophy, not the divine. Therefore, abandoning the conclusion from inner perceptions to existence of gods is preferred over keeping a revealed major inconsistency in the philosophy. This is similar to the much less controversial abandoning of other refuted parts of Epicurus' physics.

Other than postulating the existence of alien species (for which we might find tentative evidence at best but which would most likely be too far away to communicate with or travel to) and interpreting gods conceived by humans as symbolism, there is nothing credible left in Epicurus' gods.

In conclusion, there is nothing important left in Epicurus' gods other than the historic aspect for complete understanding of ancient Epicurean philosophy.

This does not need to prevent us from joyful participation in religious ceremonies and deriving pleasure from inner perceptions of imaginary gods.

Welcome GeorgeS!

Yes, when comparing theories themselves, that would be a dividing line but my last remark referring to theories was a diversion from the main topic interpretations of quantum theory.

The interpretations do not affect the calculation of the results. Wigner and I would get the same results when solving a quantum mechanical problem (unless I make a mistake) or when conducting an experiment with electrons but he thinks that his mind influences the electrons and I do not think so.

Answer to Susan and Cassius:

The Schroedinger equation is - within its range of validity - well supported by evidence. Quantum entanglement is well supported, too, and is already used for secure communication in the sense that any attempt to spy on the stream of information between transmitter and receiver would be detected. Billions of dollars are spent to develop quantum computers, which independent of the specific design are all based on entanglement.

Schroedinger equation and quantum entanglement really point to something VERY weird going on that does not fit with classical physics.

In general, quantum mechanics itself is rock solid with lots of experimental evidence. Future discoveries or an ingenious new theory might lead to a major overhaul but that is not likely to happen any time soon.

For many physicists, using "Shut up and calculate!" as the motto, the quantum woo starts already with any attempt of an interpretation.

I do see some value in interpretation but have no criteria at hand to tell in general how sensical interpretations are different from nonsensical ones.

When an interpretation is used to derive conclusions which are not backed by plain quantum mechanics, that interpretation is most likely nonsensical. Other than that crude indicator, the assessment is case by case.

The most common nonsensical interpretation is to attribute quantum uncertainty or other features of quantum mechanics to the influence of the consciousness of the observer.

(When playing golf with a demolition crane, the uncertainty of the trajectory of the ball is not due to the consciousness of the player but due to the clumsiness of the tool.)

Another kind of woo is when theories which so far have been untestable (i.e. they are not even hypotheses as of now) are misrepresented as factual descriptions of reality (e.g. string theory, multiverse theories). A far-reaching interpretation of such a theory is most likely nonsense to the power of 2 (e.g. an interpretation with teleportation between "parallel universes").

Quantum theory is not the problem but quantum woo is, i.e. nonsensical interpretations of quantum theory create problems by misleading people into wrong beliefs.

I never felt that the study of science was harmful beyond maybe to have wasted some time on studying in detail something which I will never use but that is unavoidable because as a student at university, I did not know in advance whether it will become eventually relevant.

I would like to sue the Catholic Church to give me back many hours of eager study of the Bible and other Christian texts and attending mass when I was a child and adolescent.

The harmful effect of being a Christian child was to distrust and refrain from pleasure and to socially isolate myself from peers who I considered to be mostly "sinners" by whom I did not want to get "tempted".

Luckily, I overcame this before the end of senior high school but I still feel the effect of insufficient socialization in my youth because I still need to make conscious efforts where others behave naturally without conscious effort.

By trusting our emotions I mean that we do not negate the precognitive reaction. In case of doubt what I mean, Don's more precise wording shall override what I wrote.

If the image is from a webpage, you can open the image in a new tab, copy the link from that tab and paste it under link upon clicking the image icon in the top bar of the new comment box.

If you want to upload the image from your computer, create the comment first, than choose edit in the comment box and proceed with upload.

To delete parts of an already made comment, choose edit in the comment box and delete as in any electronic document.

With respect to what is pleasure and what is pain, we trust our emotions. This does not create trouble because with respect to the decision what action to take, we use reason overriding emotions to produce results which we expect to be pleasure which is worth the pain we incur during or as a side effect of the action.

Anger is an emotion which I usually try to diffuse and will certainly override with reason when taking action. On occasion, anger may provide good motivation to take action, whereby the action is still decided upon by reason.

Love for trusted friends is an emotion which may sometimes guide my actions with reasoning reduced to sanity checks.

While drafting the paragraph, I did not notice Don's comment. But at first sight, there is no contradiction between his comment and mine.

Welcome here too, Susan!

This seems to be the same as 32 in red.