Sunday Zoom - August 17, 2025 - 12:30 PM ET - Topic: "All Sensations Are True"

Quote from Rolf

even when they have a higher degree of expertise than you?

I think the key is in this part of the question. I certainly admit that there are many people with more expertise in many subjects than I have. Doctors know more medicine, computer scientists know more programming, and so on down the line.

But despite their expertise in specific subject areas, claims of mysticism, radical skepticism, and total determinism are already adequately proved to be false. And there is no good reason to hold open a possibility in one's mind that they will ever prove to be true.

Proof of mysticism would require not simply proof of a force stronger than ourselves. In fact it's part of the philosophy that there are many living beings in the universe other than ourselves on earth, and that we expect some of them to be more technologically advanced than we are. There may in fact be intelligent forces in operation in our world now or in the past which we do not currently recognize. We will likely soon visit Mars and then eventually leave our solar system and visit other parts of the universe, and it is possible that others from other parts of the universe have already visited ours. But there are thousands of years of human experience (observation plus deductive reasoning) to establish that the forces of nature operate on regular principles which are consistent with having a fixed nature. There is no evidence or logical reasoning based on that evidence to postulate an intelligent force behind the universe *as a whole.*

Proof of radical skepticism would require evidence that *nothing* in the universe has a regular consistency that can be predicted. There is no real reason to argue this one further other than to observe that many things are in fact known and deserve to be considered facts of reality.

Proof of total determinism would be on the same order as proof of radical skepticism. Epicurean philosophy firmly holds that many things are in fact determined by purely physical factors, but the issue is that not *all* things are so determined. In our (and my), own experience we have held the ability to affect how our future lives will be lived, and that is sufficient proof of the point.

All of these are issues on which Epicurus had every reason to be confident in his day, and we today have 2000 years more evidence that confirms that he was right to be confident then.

But there is one more thing I would add to this analysis, and that is that experience also shows that there are people who are strongly motivated to push this issue for reasons that also have to be acknowledged to exist. There are no supernatural forces, and knowledge is possible, but because humans have free will they are free to postulate the opposite, and there is a lot of power to be gained and money to be made in doing just that.

The arguments made by Lucretius at the beginning of his poem about the priests spinning tales, and the arguments by Lucian in Alexander the Oracle Monger and the other citations go in exactly that direction. It is for that reason that the Epicurean approach is so important. Certain people will always find it in their self-interest to throw around fear, uncertainty, and doubt as a means of manipulating people who are not steeled against this by the Epicurean approach. It is not true that there are mystical forces, it is not true that all things are predetermined, and it is not true that knowledge is impossible, but it certainly is true that there are people who will make such claims, and it is therefore necessary to have a proper understanding of why they are wrong.

Quote from DaveT

I don't think scientific endeavor used by mainstream scientists exploring and testing the boundaries of physics, have an agenda to prove there are mystical realms or that knowledge is impossible.

I see that as raising the same issue Bryan raised. Who has the authority to say what is "mainstream" and what is not? And if "mainstream" is defined as the majority position, then we are to follow science by majority vote? I suspect it was in a context like this that Philodemus made the aside that democracy is or can be the worst form of government.

Quote from DaveT

And even those scientists (thinkers and experimenters) who are exploring the degree to which human behavior is entirely mechanistic, I.e. biologically and environmentally determined,will admit that theirs is a minority opinion so far.

And in regard to this, that's a very important "so far" there at the end, and I it is my observation that tolerance of opinions which dissent from that which is proclaimed to be "mainstream" by the majority is declining fast. And that's an inherent bug (or feature) of the deference to experts in matters of philosophy vs. science. You're quite right that many scientists are not willing to state their personal beliefs as to where their opinions lead, so there's an inherent bias toward more and more accumulation of power by those who proclaim that they alone have the expertise to even ask the questions, much less answer them.

i wish I were overstating this problem and I want to keep a bright line against discussing modern politics, but we can find ample illustrations of this problem throughout history, even if we exclude the events of the last 200 years. I don't expect the devoted skeptics or determinists or mysticists to seriously entertain my opinions any more than I seriously entertain theirs, but history has shown that the Epicurean viewpoint is the minority, and the majority are always all-too-ready to enforce their opinions on "science" just as much as on religion or any other subject.

I'm glad there are (were) people like Daniel Dennet promoting compatibilist views, but it's a constant effort to keep the free flow of information and opinions going.

And that what takes us back to the central issue -- do we simply defer to "experts" and get out of their way when they proclaim that modern science makes Epicurean philosophy (except for the ice cream and friendship and tranquility part) totally obsolete? I'd say of course not.

Dave:

The primary example I have cited in the past is Lawrence Krauss and his book "A Universe from Nothing" which we've discussed in the context of the Heraclitian Flux thread. We've also discussed Sabine Hossenfelder and her strongly determinist viewpoint.

But I know you're asking a much more general question, and it comes down to asking for specific cites to particular scientists to whom I object, in the absence of which it is your view that the concerns I have about these issues is unwarranted.

I would very much like to oblige you and go through specific citations, and in fact we could use AI questioning (as I believe I recall us doing in that other thread) to try to make the effort more manageable. Or as an alternative, we could look these issues up in Wikipedia and get a sense of the general drift of the majority viewpoints from their point of view. Over time I will do my best to satisfy you and those who ask these questions (as you are definitely not alone) with all the resources I can bring to bear on it. In fact this is one example why I have not agreed to ban all use of AI resources on the forum. Doing raw research on who takes what position is likely to be an excellent use of AI as a starting point for answering these questions.

But at the most basic level, we'll simply have to disagree as to what we individually observe from our own experiences. My observation is that not only are my general concerns not overstated, but they are in fact understated. In fact I think these issues are much more of a concern than is generally appreciated precisely for the reason that the observation is correct. It is my view that much of "science" has become so dominated by political and corporate considerations that it is not even acceptable to discuss the possibility that there is any suppression of dissent.

At the moment I have to budget my time and pick my battles, and I think it is much more important for me to focus on the "absence of pain" and "nature of pleasure" ethical issues, along with the epistemology questions that come into play, than it is to catalog the scientists who I believe to be on the wrong side of these issues.

I'll get back to this as I can find the time, because I do agree that the issue is important. But it is my strong perception that the battle over deference to experts in physics is closely related to issues of dogmatism and determinism that some people consider to be outside physics. if our physics issues were limited to "X scientists are right about subatomic particles and Y scientists are wrong," then there would be seem to be no reason for urgency or concern over which set of scientists is correct.

But it is precisely because the positions taken on physics do impact the other issues and have such clear implications for them that Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins found it appropriate to argue. Again I do not defer to Richard Dawkins as a modern-day Epicurus, but if there is anyone sensitive to Epicurus's viewpoint as they conflict with modern attitudes, I would put Dawkins near the top of the list. It is my perception that Krauss sees the importance of the same conflict as does Dawkins, but from the opposite viewpoint. And I do not see Dawkins and Krauss as outliers, but as the tip of the iceberg.

If your experience has been different, and you see no scientists arguing these positions I am concerned about, then I'll take that as an encouraging data point and consider it in my future attention on this issue. But my own personal experience in attempting to keep current on educated but non-specialist literature over my adult life has led me to a strongly opposite conclusion.

But by all means let's continue this discussion now and over time and as long as anyone reading this thread is willing to continue it, because it's certainly a goal of mine to have more material developed on this extremely important issue.

Rolf speaking for myself (and I suspect Bryan would agree but he will say it better), I am not denying the existence of subatomic particles in any way whatsoever. And what is currently held to be the lowest level may ultumately prove to be only another intermediate step.

But the point Epicurus is making is that the particles are not "infinitely" indivisible, as asserted by some, with the corollary being that Epicurus holds that regularity comes from the consistency of the ultimate particles, not from (as others assert) a mystical overlay at any or every step along the way.

We're always dealing with the logical games of Parminides in that sense -- the assertion that there is NO bottom limit whatsoever, which leads to conclusions such as motion is impossible and other assertions that are contrary to what we sense to be the case.

It's the unstated implications of the assertions of INFINITE divisibility and FINITE size and age of the universe as a whole that creates the logical problems and inserts the possibility of supernatural forces that is objectionable.

Quote from Rolf

If somebody presents physical, observable, repeatable evidence for something that contradicts my worldview, I’d be a fool to not at least consider it. Blind acceptance and rejection is the domain of supernatural religion. This isn’t me blindly rejecting epicurean physics in favour of whatever I read in science articles, but asking honest questions about things I’m genuinely unsure about.

And I completely agree that that is the right attitude. Going further, however, there is absolutely no reason to expect, and therefor every reason to reject, contentions that "one day" science will prove the existence of a supernatural force, or absolute determinism, or radical skepticism, because those are logical impossibilities given what we know already. If you admit that "maybe they'll prove those things tomorrow" then you've essentially lost the game already, because you will have given in and accepted an argument for a "possibility" that has no evidence to support its possibility whatsoever. You've lost the game of logic if you give in to logic that has no basis in hard evidence.

Our position of no supernatural forces, hard determinsm is false, and radical skepticism is false, is already proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are big philosophic issues, but I personally place "the universe as a whole is eternal" and the universe as a whole is infinite in size" in the same category as already proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Nothing can come from nothing or go to nothing" is very close to the same category, but that is one where everything turns on your definition of a "thing" (energy? waves? some other term?) and since quantum mechanics is what we're talking about, it's perfectly acceptable to me to talk in those terms rather than atoms, as long as the ultimate limit is remembered and the mysticism doesn't thereby creep in.

Quote from Rolf

Thanks for the reply Cassius. I feel I may be a bit lost in the weeds... From the way you describe things, it doesn't seem like the observable and verifiable aspects of quantum physics and modern physics in general contradict Epicurean physics at all, beyond some changing terminology (eg. "atom" referring to the smallest indivisible substance). Quantum indeterminacy seems to align well with the idea that some things happen by chance rather than necessity or choice.

I think that's generally correct. As long as we are all devoted to finding the explanations for all phenomena in Nature, and we are not implying that there is something "non-natural" behind what we see, then all is well.

And I will be happy to agree that most scientists are approaching things in that way. But we're not able here to become specialists ourselves, and the real issue is not the legitimate debate between competing natural theories, it's the "uses" to which the scientific theories are put by non-specialists who do not admit the limitations of the existing science that causes most of the problems.

There are definitely differing interpretations of the Heisenberg "uncertainty" principles and the issues surrounding Schroediger's cat. But in the field we are in (practical philosophy for living life) those become slogans that can be used to intimidate nonspecialists into believing that "of course" nothing is really knowable or predictable, or "of course" we make our own realities through our observation of it. Again, no one is doing that here, but part of our job in understanding (and promoting) Epicurean philosophy is to talk about how it responds to challenges.

Really the "swerve" in Epicurean philosophy is open to exactly this same kind of misuse. We've discussed before that if you took "the swerve" to its possible logical extreme, then the swerve would consume the rest of the physics and make all the rest of the system fall apart. This is discussed in AA Long's article "Chance and Natural Law in Epicureanism." But neither Cicero nor the other enemies of Epicurus recorded an attack like that, obvious as it would have been to make it, because it seems the Epicureans were careful to limit the operation of the swerve to prevent that kind of application.

It's definitely a constant challenge to keep things in line, but I think it begins to come into focus when - for example - you realize that to Epicurus "atom" just meant "indivisible" and that it makes no difference at all where that level is found -- whether it is found what we call today at the molecular, atomic, subatomic, quantum, or whatever other level. The argument to swat down is the essentially mystical argument that the divisibility "never" stops, because that would compel the conclusion that there is ultimately nothing (except a supernatural force) that can be counted on as a basis for the predictable reality that we do see to exist.

Dave:

I can offer this:

I don't perceive them as arguing about "the degree two which science and faith can coexist." ("Looking further, apparently they did initially have different views on the degree to which science and faith could coexist.) I think they both defer to "science" and disparage faith (belief without evidence) and on that I think we all agree.

The video to which I point is here:

The video description says this:

Quote

Krauss's latest book, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing, explains the scientific advances that provide insight into how the universe formed. Krauss tackles the age-old assumption that something cannot arise from nothing by arguing that not only can something arise from nothing, but something will always arise from nothing.

The underlined point I think illustrates what I am arguing against, and I listened to enough to hear them debating whether the start was "completely nothing" or not. From an ordinary philosophical understanding of words, it is ridiculous to troll people with the idea that something not only "can" but "will always" arise from nothing.

I don't have time to listen to the rest of the video (though I would like to) but that's already enough to establish that if things can come from or go to nothing, then the rest of Epicurean common sense physics, and indeed all predictability of science or rational logic leading to confidence in knowledge, would be eliminated.

Krauss is something of scientist and if I recall as you wade through the video that he backs off the accusation that he's talking about "absolutely nothing" -- but this is exactly the kind of sensationalism that "regular people" aren't going to be able to navigate through. And those are the ones I am most concerned about, not about those who find this all very amusing as apparently Krauss does. In this first part of the video that's playing in the background I think I hear in Dawkins' voice that he too takes this seriously and doesn't really appreciate Krauss' attitude (even though it may result in more book sales for them both),

Thanks Bryan! I have never heard of Le Sage but that gives me some reading to do. It is intuitively the most likely explanation without hocus pocus and presumably relates to magnetism as well. And it fits well with the modern tendency such as Krauss to talk about space not really being empty. Of course it's not, there are "particles" flowing everywhere and in all directions.

Quote

Le Sage's theory of gravitation is a kinetic theory of gravity originally proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690 and later by Georges-Louis Le Sage in 1748. The theory proposed a mechanical explanation for Newton's gravitational force in terms of streams of tiny unseen particles (which Le Sage called ultra-mundane corpuscles) impacting all material objects from all directions. According to this model, any two material bodies partially shield each other from the impinging corpuscles, resulting in a net imbalance in the pressure exerted by the impact of corpuscles on the bodies, tending to drive the bodies together. This mechanical explanation for gravity never gained widespread acceptance.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that LaSage claimed that he had all the answers. As far as i know, he didn't invent an anti-gravity machine or do anything else to prove his theories with finality beyond advancing the general theory that gravity is explained by particle flows. Particle flows are phenomena for which we do have analogs in real-world experience, whereas those who suggest theories that have no experimental or analogical argument at all do not have such a basis.

The real issue here is not who has the final answer and who doesn't, but that of retaining confidence that there will at some point be an explanation which comports with that which we do observe, and not - at any point while we wait - defer to theories that are self-consistent but which have no contact with the reality that we do observe. Especially when those theories are used to undermine the confidence of laymen that there is a natural order to things rather than a supernatural or chaotic basis.

I consider all information about people like LeSage and others who explore rational explanations for phenomena that is poorly understood to be helpful to everyone as examples of the right attitude, regardless if they don't complete the job that we'd like to see completed.