Posts by Martin

Welcome Garden Dweller!

Godfrey:

I do not have a simple reference but maybe my approach helps: The analogy between chaos and entropy was an obstacle to my understanding of entropy during my study. When ignoring that analogy and instead concentrating on the definition, which means that entropy is a measure of the probabilty to observe a particular combination of the states of many particles in a system , we should expect that the development with time goes toward combinations with higher probability, that is higher entropy.

In a system consisting of 2 sub-systems, it should be possible to get a decrease in entropy of one sub-system if the entropy in the other sub-system increases at least as much as the entropy in the first one has decreased.

To make sense out of empirical data, scientists build a model because observations without a model hardly lead to any understanding and there is no justification to extrapolate the data or to trust their reproducibility without a model.

The model gets tested with more empirical data, preferably from systematic experiments designed to refute the model.

If a model passes the tests and there is no better model at hand, this model eventually becomes part of scientific knowledge but might later on be refuted (or more often just abandoned) when contradicting data or a better model are found.

Speculation comes in if models have no strong empirical base and are not tested or are possibly not even testable, e.g. string theory or the multiverse as of now.

Here is my slightly adapted comment from the thread on FB:

Essentially, I agree with Cassius' comments.

1. It does not matter for the philosophy whether Epicurus' postulate of an eternal universe is false if taken literally.

From ancient times until about 1920, models postulating an eternal universe were compatible with the evidence, although the universe would eventually become void of life because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Epicurus' eternal universe avoided a lot of questions to which only speculative answers could have been given.

Einstein himself constructed a model for a stable, on large scales homogeneous universe, which could be eternal. But soon after, new evidence ruled out his stable universe.

Using those of the current models which are best supported by evidence (which excludes multiverse(s) for now), the universe started from something close to the big bang and before that, time did not exist either. The universe will expand into eternity but it seems there is no way around the extinction of all lifeforms.

2. There are some possibilities to interpret Epicurus' eternal universe in a way that it still holds if not taken literally. E.g. the universe has already been in existence far longer than mankind and is likely to still exist for much longer than us who are currently alife. So, postulating an eternal universe is a fairly accurate approximation as far as our pleasure is concerned.

3. Cosmology seems to stand out from other branches of physics in a unique way: Acceptable physical models in the other branches usually have no contradictions in themselves and do not contradict basic physical principles within their range of applicability. But so far, there is no cosmological model without fundamental contradictions in the physics.

4. Even the most rudimentary type of philosophy with the least assumptions, scientism, still does make assumptions to become in any way useful.

EP goes way beyond scientism and therefore makes more assumptions. Although EP is based on physics, it does not follow conclusively from empirically tested physics.

We here support EP because we perceive it as the most convincing philosophy, in particular because it does not resort to the supernatural and because it is useful for planning and living our lifes.

Thanks for sharing Kennedy's inspiring speech in this fitting context, Nate.

The "seeds of nationalism" in there did not appear to be excessive after listening to it once.

Happy 20th!

Welcome Ataraxia!

... and not only with Simone...

Welcome Todd!

Welcome Charles!

Thanks to both of you for this excellent discussion!

La Jouissance does not match the description by Blanning. The assigned year is different, too.

I checked the 41 poems from Frederick which are published at

https://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/gedichte-5321

but none of them matches the description. Some of them do touch on Epicurean topics.

"his father had Frederick's "best friend" executed for trying to help him escape" actually happened. They both deserted together, and the friend got sentenced in compliance with the penal code to death by a court (not the King) and executed but Frederick was not because the judges declared themselves unfit to judge over the crown prince. So, his father forced him to watch the execution of his friend as a penalty. The father was such a dick that one historian who started to write his biography gave up in disgust.

Let me take some time (quite some time actually) to dig up something. From about 1985 to about 2016, I have mostly ignored popularized physics because I found it too diluted and misleading in my study. Meanwhile, I have read a few popular physics books written by physicists but not yet Stenger. He is on my path because of the recommendation by Alex.

If our equivalent to the work of Otto Warburg is the work of Norman Dewitt, I very much hope that we are not the equivalent of Thomas Seyfried.

I see no reason to doubt the validity of the lab work done by him and his team and those whose work he references. However, out of his passion to help cancer patients, he resorts to conclusions and recommendations which are exaggarated, misleading, overly general, premature.

He implies that the aspects of cancer as a genetic disease and as a metabolioc disease are mutually exclusive. This is nonsense. They go hand in hand. Main stream oncological research has followed up with a lot of work on Warburg's results.

Those gross professional mistakes and associating himself with known quacks certainly has damaged Seyfried's reputation among scientists and increased his popularity with conspiracy theorists.

So, he is rather an example of how not to proceed to promote a philosophy.

Low-carb diets are probably OK to try out. I see a good chance that they may help with diabetes and maybe even slow down the growth of some types of cancer cells. However, for most types of cancers, they are probably irrelevant. Even those types which are slowed down are unlikely to get cured by the low-carb diets because the body maintains a considerable level of glucose in the blood to prevent death from extreme hypoglycemia.

Happy 20th!

"... that we love the person so much that without them life is not worth living ..." does not make sense because this would accept suicide out of mourning, which is not Epicurean because we have coping techniques to get over the mourning.

The way this passes hedonic calculus is rather that we love the person so much that we take great risks of losing our own life to avoid the pain of not having tried to save the friend.

Moreover, if the action is spontaneous, it is rather out of a strong feeling to help the friend urgently than to contemplate hedonic calculus first.

The relationship between EP and utilitarianism is touched upon in this quote from John Stuart Mill's book "Utilitarianism", Chapter 2:

"The multiplication of happiness is, according to the utilitarian ethics, the object of virtue: the occasions on which any person (except one in a thousand) has it in his power to do this on an extended scale, in other words to be a public benefactor, are but exceptional; and on these occasions alone is he called on to consider public utility; in every other case, private utility, the interest or happiness of some few persons, is all he has to attend to."

This statement seems to indicate that it is fine if the vast majority of people sticks to Epicurus' philosophy, and that utilitarianism provides guidance primarily for those with power/influence/expendable wealth.

However, Mill's interpretation of EP seems to be quite different from the interpretation which we have worked out here and on the related FB pages. Unfortunately, Mill's writing style is often rather hiding than clarifying what he means. So, I might not add a lot to this thread but I look forward to comments of others who read his book.

So far, I could not find sufficient sources within EP on how an Epicurean politician should make diffcult decisions. The quote above might suggest that for Epicureans, voting for a utilitarian party might be the best choice in a state with many more people than fit in one Epicurean community.

That is because if an Epicurean candidate from outside my inner circle told me he would just follow his feelings moderated by his private hedonic calculus, I would not vote for her/him but rather a utilitarian competitor.

This is unsatisfactory because it would indicate that a nation with a mix of an Epicurean majority and utilitarian leaders would probably produce greater net pleasure for me than a homogeneous nation of Epicureans with Epicurean leaders.

Welcome Dubitator314!

Welcome, Ed!