Thank you!
In the split-screen experiment, it is not the observers consciousness that collapses the wave function, but a proto-consciousness within the state itself that decides to go one way or another.
Wow THAT sounds weird!
Most of the rest sounds about as complex as I would expect it to be. Thank you for taking the time to make those notes!
THIS is something I surely agree with, and applies to our conversation here too:
Quantum mechanics is a provisional theory, and in very early days.
Thanks to Charles for this link -- we are going to need to double back and address this to understand the issue of "harmony" -- another example where Epicurus is attacking Plato. Sounds like Epicurus/Lucretius are supporting Simmias, at least to some extent, but possibly not fully:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simmias_o…lato.27s_Phaedo
Simmias' attunement analogy[5]
Socrates attacks Simmias's Analogy with four different arguments:[6]
Thus, Simmias' argument cannot be upheld.
[Crosspost from FB} One of our members, DC, has submitted an interesting question for learning: "What are some ideal Epicurean jobs? What can an average person do to lead an Epicurean lifestyle of moderate work and more time for pleasure?"
First, instead of an "ideal" job, because we hold no beliefs in abstract ideals and our goal is pleasure, I will reframe the question as "what are some jobs that could help me have a pleasurable life?"
When I see that question, it reminds me to back up even a little more and ask "how can I spend my time to have a pleasurable life?" Not everyone will decide that having a paid job is the most pleasure-producing use of their time. Some may have financial resources such that they don't need a job but may want one anyway-- others may decide not to work for pay.
If we've decided a job is necessary for pleasure, then we can think about our personal preferences and interests, our resources for obtaining any necessary training, and whether there are pains associated with jobs we are considering. Not thinking abstractly, we will want to know what opportunities are available in the places we'd want to live, and who our coworkers might be. How might the job differ from one city or country to another? How would factors like unions and other legal structures affect us? Do we like being employees, employers, working in groups, or alone? We would take a detailed view.
In some cases, the job itself can add to our pleasure-- not just the income it produces. This makes the choice of jobs an extremely individual one.
In other cases, we may find options are more limited or decide that available jobs are more pain than pleasurable, and in that case we might decide to pick one that maximized income or free time, depending on which choice suited our personal pleasure needs the best. If we live in a place where there is a lot of free or low cost pleasure, maybe outdoor activities or free concerts or museums and libraries, maybe we will work only as much as needed for food and shelter. It just depends.
As far as "average" person goes, that is an abstract way to think, not Epicurean. It doesn't matter what an imaginary average person wants to do-- it matters what you enjoy and want to do. We don't all have the same pleasures.
"Moderate" work-- our philosophy is not about moderation but maximizing pleasure. Moderate is an abstract idea, and what one person calls moderate will be extreme for another. And a person might not enjoy "moderate" work-- some prefer strenuous work or longer hours (especially if the work itself is pleasurable), and others would like to work as little as possible so they can do other things. So I wouldn't worry about the concept of moderation. It makes decisions unnecessarily complicated.
"More time for pleasure"-- what we are really after is the maximum pleasure, not more time. We each have the same number of hours in a day and make decisions how to spend those hours in such a way as to enjoy life the most. It will be a very personal, subjective process, and it is definitely worth the time to think about.
A short version of my own job history-- I wanted to be a physician from childhood. I got pleasure in the science and the learning process, so I successfully completed both an MD and a PhD. Part of the reason I got the PhD, though it took longer, was that by doing so I had my tuition waived with a scholarship and got a stipend. Parts of the training were painful. Back then, 120 hr work weeks were the usual-- but for me this was outweighed by pleasure at learning, the work itself, and the future pleasure I was building for myself.
After training, I have had different employed positions which I chose (or left) for specific work environment reasons. Right now, I have a job at a nonprofit clinic which I enjoy very much. The pay is less than at jobs I assess to be more painful than pleasurable-- for example, I do not enjoy a rushed schedule. I'm maximizing pleasure, according to my own preferences.
If you are a person who is squeamish about blood, needles, etc, or maybe just don't like talking to patients or something else about medical work-- it would be a mistake to copy my job choice! In that case, those long hours of training would just lead to misery.
DC:
Interesting. I guess as the old saying goes - work that you enjoy isn't work. A lot of my friends, including me, do not enjoy their work, but feel unable to move to a different more enjoyable job or career path due not having the resources to retrain or just because there are limited employment options in COVID right now. They often have more options than most of them give themselves credit for, but they seem unwilling to put the work in and take the risk to change to a career that would be more fuffiling. I guess they should apply the hedonic calculus more and see that the trade off of hard work and late nights now, will likely result in happiness payoffs later.
Elayne:
There are times when options are more limited. Occasionally I've stayed in jobs that had become painful until I could figure out an alternative. Even working a 3 month notice can be a big pain, lol. During those times I looked for as many ways as I could to make my time more pleasurable, and some of my decisions were mental actions. For instance, the mental action of taking time to enjoy knowing I was helping my patients-- smiling at them-- taking time to recall pleasant memories. Sometimes a small thing like just slightly slowing down helped, and I confess I enjoyed the minor subversiveness of resisting a rushed pace.
AT:
Why is ‘not thinking abstractly’ an Epicurean quality?
I enjoy planning my life to maximise pleasure.
This involves a great deal of abstract thinking.
‘I enjoy doing this, I don’t enjoy doing that, therefore I will organise myself to do more of this and less of that.’ (And if I discover that the results are disappointing, I will change my plan).
All this strikes me as a great deal of abstract thinking and I’m concerned that this is described as ‘not Epicurean’.
Martin:
A degree in science offers many opportunities where pleasure is associated with a large part of the work, and then it does not matter that the effort on the job is much more than moderate in early stages of the career.
In my case, I liked physics the most, chemistry a close second. So I did a master-equivalent degree in physics and a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. The effort for both was much more than moderate but mostly pleasurable because I liked learning.
After many years of mostly hard and mostly pleasurable work, I started to get increasingly exhausted from even a reduced schedule of just 8 hours of work such that I had no more energy to pursue demanding hobbies which before had given me a lot of pleasure in addition to that from work. In response, I took time-outs from work. Hedonic calculus applied to potential major expenses had resulted in me never buying a car or other luxury items which I did not really need (fridge, TV, ... ). Therefore, I can afford to travel and to take unpaid leave every year for these time-outs, which I spend mostly on hobbies and meeting friends.
Another example: A close relative without degree (divorced mother of one kid) appeared stuck in a low paid part time job at poverty level. She went through the effort to make a social science degree at a tele university in a subject fitting her employer's scope, subsequently got an adequate full-time job and is happy with it.
Cassius to A.T.:
Elayne can of course best answer this herself, but the point I believe she is stressing is that in Epicurean philosophy motivations are ultimately traced to real things - the reality of the pleasure or pain that our choices bring to us - and not to abstract goals that some people (other philosophies) represent to be independent of and even superior to pleasure and pain (i.e, - "virtue").
The philosophical problem I believe Elayne is referencing is not that she has a problem with "one plus one equals two," but that philosophical devotion to abstractions, rather than (as Epicurus taught) to things that are ultimately real, leads to Platonism, Platonism's stoic varieties, and all sorts of other categories of problems.
Even to say "I am devoted to pleasure" can be considered to be abstract thinking, and to be productive it is necessary to trace that back and identify pleasure as a feeling, something that is real to you, and not just as a word floating in the air or in your brain.
Oh this reminds me too, that in my checking it always seemed to me that there ought to be a PDF version of a public domain version of the Loeb Lucretius, as I think several (at least two) editions have been published. But unlike many of the other older Loeb editions, I have not been able to find a PDF of it. Munro and Bailey are easy to find (links here: http://www.newepicurean.com/library ) but not the Loeb.
I have the Loeb edition too, as it is great to have the facing page Latin. But it is my understanding (i hate to say, if Susan just bought the Loeb) that the Hacket edition (the black cover, at the Amazon link) is the most recently-updated version of Martin Ferguson Smith's work. I may be wrong, but I am gathering that the Hacket version is a revised and updated version of his work on the Loeb.
Ha -- the Devil seems to have MANY advocates in the world, maybe too many! 
It's pretty clear that the current state of this topic among those who discuss it is a question of dark vs darker implications, and so my observation is that most people who want to remain sane simply refrain from discussing it. The ones who like to discuss it in current terms seem to be dominated by those who find fascination in dancing in the darkness, so to speak.
But of course being a loyal Epicurean I am convinced that there will eventually be a way forward that vindicate the non-supernatural "reality-based" perspective, and we sore need leaders in this department - it is too important an area in which to default. Maybe Roger Penrose is an example or has clues to the way forward; maybe not.
So at present we are left in an uncomfortable position of being on the defensive in an area that was originally an Epicurean strength, and that needs to change. The best defense is a good offense!
But for now I don't see much for us to offer except to look for and compile links to those who have tried to engage on this field, and then by strength of willpower affirm that our conclusions are strong that life is too important to us to give up and give in to those who have succeeded in turning "science" into a tool of supernaturalism and skepticism.
And in the meantime take what comfort is possible in knowing that we aren't the first in the position we're in ---in need of
a man whose intelligence was steeled against such assaults by skepticism and insight, one who, if he could not detect the precise imposture, would at any rate have been perfectly certain that, though this escaped him, the whole thing was a lie and an impossibility.
Just this short excursion back into the subject of quantum physics this afternoon leads me to wonder if we should not consider Roger Penrose first, maybe even higher than Victor Stenger, as the leading exponent of the way to deconstruct the destructive arguments that some draw from quantum physics.
Rather than just leave the entire issue hanging, it would be good to have at least one suggestion to give to people who are interested in pursuing this subject.
Does anyone have nominations besides Roger Penrose and Victor Stenger?
Sigh - I do not seem to have a good collection of links from past discussions. I will see what I can find and post them here, including:
Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics
No Big Bang? Quantum Equation Predicts Universe Had No Beginning
I have not watched this, but given Roger Penrose's position in the article above, this is probably worth including:
This one may be even more on point, an interview about his book: "Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe"
Godfrey what I don't know because I haven't taken the time to read is whether Victor Stenger really grapples with quantum physics theory. Do you recall?
Don I am thinking we are talking mainly about the famous line from Lucretius book 1, where the latin is clearly "religio."
Yes that wikipedia article goes into what I would expect the issue to be: What does "positive" mean? Why use the word "positive" rather than 'pleasure"? Do they resolve "positive" as meaning things beyond pleasure? And yes according to this they head right back into the "virtue ethics" issues that seem to characterize humanism. And to these extent these categories are accepted as ends in themselves, this would definitely appear to be an Aristotelian, rather than Epicurean, approach:
Thank you Don! I always appreciate the thoroughness of sources that reprint a facsimile of the text itself so we can see visually how much fragmentation and how much reconstruction is involved.
Yes Susan I think this viewpoint is VERY widespread. At various times in the past we have had people come through the Epicurean groups who are very "into" the physics aspect, and some of them have been very helpful in opposing these conclusions. I get the impression from discussions a couple of years ago that Victor Stenger might be a writer who goes in a more Epicurean direction, but I am not sure. At the present time we have Martin who has a lot of interest in this area, but perhaps not so much on the ultimate theoretical conclusions and definitely without enough time to devote to writing some in-depth material on it. Scattered about in other threads here, which I would have to go looking for to find, I've posted about articles here and there which might point in a more positive direction, but I haven't had the expertise, time, or motivation to pull anything together.
I will stake out the position, however, that I think we have here an issue that is deeper than just quantum physics itself. It seems to me that there are clear parallels between what we confront today and what Epicurus faced in certain aspects of Platonism or Pythagoreanism, in which "advanced mathematics" and/or geometry were being used to advance theistic theories that Epicurus felt compelled to respond against. It's my view that this is why we have the texts preserve the debate about the size of the sun, and why Epicurus chose to accept what he interpreted to be the evidence of the senses rather than accept the claims made by the geometricians.
So there's a great opportunity for someone who really wants to dig into this to explore at length some really fascinating material, but it's a big project that will take a certain type of person to accomplish. In the meantime, however, we do need to develop more approachable explanations for why the most extravagant claims made by these guys need to be dismissed without letting them worry us.
That's why I quoted that phrase from Lucian and I do think it is exactly applicable.
I am not familiar with a specific school of psychology known as "Positive Psyschology." I know from a private message that Godfrey has an article that we might want to post here, but maybe someone knows a more representative link that would explain the issue.
Is this wikipedia article a decent start? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_psychology
If so, it might occupy an uneasy middle ground between Epicurus and Aristotle and/or Humanism, and it seems those ultimately resolve in favor of the non-Epicurean approach because they insist on gravitating toward "meaningfulness" rather than "pleasure." "Eudaemonia" and "flourishing" seem to always end up being Aristotelian.
Positive psychology is concerned with eudaimonia, "the good life" or flourishing, living according to what holds the greatest value in life – the factors that contribute the most to a well-lived and fulfilling life. While not attempting a strict definition of the good life, positive psychologists agree that one must live a happy, engaged, and meaningful life in order to experience "the good life.” Martin Seligman referred to "the good life" as "using your signature strengths every day to produce authentic happiness and abundant gratification".[7]
The Garden! Organization is not the offence.
I agree that organization is not the offense, and I agree with the implication that aspects of the organization and/or rituals that the Epicureans probably developed would be hard to distinguish from a "religion."
It seems to me that Epicurus is clearly holding that "gods" of a certain type exist, and that it is important to have a correct understanding and attitude and approach toward them, so if someone wants to call that "understanding and attitude and approach" a "religion" then that might be understandable, the way we use the term "religion" today.
So i put this issue in the category of issues for which Epicurus is using a word in a way that we aren't familiar with today, so we just have to approach it carefully. I forget where the reference is but I recall that one of the Cicero texts documents that people complained about Epicurus doing that even in his own time (at least Cicero's time). Surely he's doing the same thing with "gods" and he's probably doing the same thing with "virtue," and most of all he seems to be doing the same thing with "pleasure" and even "pain" when he starts with his two categories of feelings that include all the individual types of feelings.
Since words are not held to be "magical" or connected to platonic ideal forms in Epicurean theory, and Epicurus was taking a different position on issues of the method of approaching "definitions" there's nothing "wrong" with Epicurus doing that, but it means we have to be very careful because we're used to using those words in different ways.
Don I hope I have not misunderstood your reference. I have a PDF of the Polytheism article where the clip above comes from, but I do also have A PDF of the Chilton translation of Festugière, and a hard copy of Chilton's book on Diogenes of Oinoanda, so I may have botched my reference above.
A friend of mine recently sent me this video link below. The first 11 minutes or so is a simplified restatement of what is supposedly current science. I have no way of knowing whether it is accurate or not, but regardless of that, once they get to about the 12 minute mark, they begin to assert that quantum physics establishes that mind creates reality, I think they are way over any line of reasonableness. After the 12 minute mark it gets worse and worse. The further you go the clearer it is that the purpose of the video from the beginning was to advocate such "mind over matter" assertions pointing to theism and/or Platonic idealism.
This is pretty much the beginning of what I object to around 12:22, but it gets a lot worse:
And this is the full video:
I have seen this kind of reasoning alluded to many times before, and one of these days I would like to see if we can produce something in response to materials of this type and perhaps this one in particular.
My general expectation is that much of the observational data explained in the first part of the video is accurately reported, but that the conclusions drawn from those observations are not the only ones that can be drawn, and because those conclusions conflict with other aspects of human reality, those conclusions are invalid.
I ran this by Martin, and he suggested that I be sure to note "that we are not interested in wasting our time to debate/refute every nonsense which is out there, but we want to make sure that our friends are aware of such examples of science being misrepresented by charlatans to fool people into believing nonsense."
I know that only a limited subset of people here at Epicureanfriends.com are motivated to pursue this issue, and probably a smaller number of those are qualified to attack it with any legitimate expectations of producing a thorough refutation.
But one of the purposes of this forum is to "group-source" the work that needs to be done in keeping people from being led astray by false philosophies, and surely issues involving Physics are uniquely of interest to those raised in Lucretius and the details of Epicurean philosophy. So with that I'll launch the thread and hope over time we can develop a productive approach to responding to things of this type.
At the very least, perhaps we can begin to compile a list of sources and/or authorities (Victor Stenger?) who are ahead of us in responding to these assertions.
In the meantime, here is a quote from Lucian's "Aristotle the Oracle-Monger" which seems appropriate:
And at this point, my dear Celsus, we may, if we will be candid, make some allowance for these Paphlagonians and Pontics; the poor uneducated ‘fat-heads’ might well be taken in when they handled the serpent—a privilege conceded to all who choose—and saw in that dim light its head with the mouth that opened and shut. It was an occasion for a Democritus, nay, for an Epicurus or a Metrodorus, perhaps, a man whose intelligence was steeled against such assaults by skepticism and insight, one who, if he could not detect the precise imposture, would at any rate have been perfectly certain that, though this escaped him, the whole thing was a lie and an impossibility.
Hmm-- I clipped that off the version that I had downloaded some time ago. Looks like I downloaded it in 2016 but I confess I can't remember where I got it! pasted-from-clipboard.png
I went through a period downloading a lot from Jstor, but this looks more like a version from Academia because I don't see any identifying markings on my original.
As for German, I know Martin has limited time, but he's been very helpful with some translation work in the past.
Yes thank you for this Don! I had the pdf in my collection but can't recall if I have read it. Might as well clip and paste the key letter here. It certainly seems to me to be consistent with Epicurus, though I have no way of commenting on whether it was Epicurus himself who wrote this, or another Epicurean:
This kind of argument seems very sincere to me as a logical extension of his views. Discussion like this is a large part of the reason that I think Epicurus was serious about this view, rather than just creating a screen to protect himself from sanctions against blasphemy.
Joshua it may now be up to you to get us back on track (after my digressions) with some analysis and reflection. Have we made any progress on unwinding the issues you were thinking about in the original post?
