Posts by Godfrey

Quote

So as to: "The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. " I think Epicurus would say that statement is exactly correct. Our human reality cannot be fully understood as "physics." Our human reality is real to us through the canonical faculties, including not just the bodily senses, which are "more" understandable in terms of physics, but also the feeling of pleasure and pain and anticipations, which arise from physical processes but in effect constitute a separate playing field of understanding

Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but this is my intuitive answer to the idea that there is no free will.

Thanks for the links, Don! I'll take a look at those over the weekend.

I recently listened to a podcast with Alan Alda interviewing Brian Greene. You're right, he's a very good speaker and presenter of ideas; I've been thinking of reading one of his books but haven't yet. I'm also considering Victor Stenger's book God and the Multiverse: it looks like it has less to do with god and more to do with presenting a history of the ideas leading up to current cosmological thinking, which could be a good (if challenging) read. Stenger is an experimental as opposed to a theoretical physicist, which is something I like about him. I don't recall where Greene is on that spectrum but he seemed quite grounded.

Both Greene and Stenger, at least to some extent, consider the philosophical implications of the conclusions of physics. From what I've read or listened to, Stenger addresses the fallacy of god, while Greene addresses the implications of living in a world devoid of meaning. And they both reach ethical conclusions compatible with those of Epicurus. Greene, however, is adamant that free will doesn't exist. I personally don't buy that, and I'm not sure I'm ready to go down that rabbit hole although I would like to read his reasoning at some point.

Hmmm. I've definitely got to read up on the multiverse. I have no idea about spaces between or different sets of laws....

It also eliminates any supernatural since everything that exists is subject to natural laws.

Quote

From Don: "I do find the idea of multiple universes existing side by side in the wider multiverse, all with radically different laws of physics or whatnot, intriguing."

However universes with different laws of physics might provide an opening for the supernatural. I'm not at all familiar with theories of a multiverse (although I did watch that Spider-Man movie ). Sounds like some challenging reading to tackle!

Good discussion! I may have missed it in reading your posts, but isn't a major philosophical value of infinite time and space the idea that nothing (such as a creator) can exist outside of said infinity? To me, this is the key difference between "infinite" and "innumerable."

Recently there was some discussion of the expanding universe, heat death, the infinite (in time and space) universe and the ramifications of these ideas. I just came across an image from 1750 of the universe comprised of infinite galaxies, which made me think that it might be useful to start a thread on the topic. Just in case anybody would like their mind blown!

Here's the article that the image came from:

http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/a-finite-…ok-collections/

Happy Twentieth!

Apologies for this tidbit from the Argyle Sweater calendar:

I completely agree with all of the above. To go off on somewhat of a tangent: those who suppress their pain no longer have fully functioning physical/emotional faculties as noted above. So to what do they resort? Reason. This is one pathway to placing reason on a pedestal, which often leads to obviously bizarre conclusions. There are no longer any valid "checks and balances" for their ruminations.

Just another place where Epicurus got it right, by placing reason subordinate to the Canon.

Quote

It doesn't matter as long as I accept a non-supernatural explanation but don't get hung up on the "right" answer. That doesn't appeal to me. I personally enjoy contemplating this kind of thing, reading about theories, having my brain twisted in a pretzel by quantum physics, string theory, black holes, etc. I don't fear these phenomena. So does that lack of fear matter here?

Don, this is a really short reply to a question that deserves more, but I think this statement of yours (if I'm reading it right) is a good illustration of not getting hung up on the "right" answer. Is string theory absolutely correct? Are multiverses fact? These are ideas of theoretical physics and they may or may not be correct; they haven't yet been proven to be true or false. But are you going to study these until you can prove their correctness? If not, then you're not getting hung up on the right answer. If you enjoy the mental gymnastics involved in contemplating these ideas (I do, until I don't) there's nothing anti-Epicurean about that until it starts to drive you batty.

Proven and observable science is another matter entirely. But my take is that Epicurus was dealing with theorizing, as he didn't have the technology to verify many of his conclusions. So rather than spend his life trying to prove that, say, lightning is caused by x but not y or z, he was satisfied that any of x, y or z could be proven correct. Since he worked out all of these from logic based on observation, consistent with his overall theory (atoms and void), it wouldn't matter which might turn out to be correct. When it came to his "big picture" theories I wouldn't expect him to be so loosey-goosey.

For us, I think it comes down to the distinction between experimental and theoretical physics. Experimental physics is verifiable and doesn't typically allow for multiple explanations, while theoretical physics deals with currently unverifiable ideas. Theoretical physics is where you can play with multiple explanations but not get hung up on the "right" answer.

That turned out rather verbose for a "really short reply"!

In my Zen days I was quite aware of the difference between "pain" and "suffering" as I was dealing with back pain. There was the sensation in the nerves, sometimes quite intense, (pain) and the cringing in anticipation of that pain or the tensing up in response to the pain (suffering). The "suffering" made the "pain" much greater; reducing the "suffering" helped in finding physical relaxation which in turn reduced the pain.

Regarding the idea in the article that we need to embrace pain as a friend: on the more subtle end of the scale, at least for myself, the tendency is to be totally ignorant of pain. I think this is what is mis-perceived as the mythical "neutral zone." Being aware of this low grade pain is, to me, a key skill for an Epicurean in that it can prevent much future, greater pain. You could even call it a life hack if you are so inclined.

Maybe "prudent living in an atomic universe" or "understanding pleasure in an atomic universe" or something along those lines....

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xp…8943-story.html

Excellent and pertinent article SamJ!

And the Epicurean Canon gives us the tools to know ourselves, which in a nutshell is what I was describing above. It's not just about square towers and bent oars!

SamJ, regarding the atomic universe.... Since everything is material and there is no supernatural or afterlife, this should put all of our focus on our lived life. This has given me an understanding that the only meaning to my life is that which I choose, and that this choosing is a process of being open and attentive to my desires as well as to my sensations, unconscious knowledge, and pleasures and pains. This choosing is an intuitive and hard to describe process, and of course it's different for everybody so it may not even be useful to try to describe it. But my opinion is that working with this process is far more important than any life hack, unless you want to think of it as a life hack. At any rate, this is giving me more confidence in my choices and, as a natural consequence, more focus in my daily activities.

Another implication of the atomic universe is that I find that I have a greater sense of wonder after I've been giving "the nature of things" an extended bit of thought.

We had a thread on this a while back:

Practical Daily Pleasure-- Creating Pleasurable Habits

Lately, I'm finding that I don't think much about seeking particular pleasures. Instead I think about the atomic universe and its implications, and that seems to motivate me to focus on a particular task, either for a day or for multiple days. Interestingly, the tasks that I choose in this manner keep turning out to be pleasurable even if I was originally envisioning them as onerous.

So I've belatedly done my due diligence, and the video is a fascinating stroll through the ancient town of Herculaneum, BUT with nary a peep about the Villa of the Papyri. There's no narration but there are captions describing many of the spaces. It's a walk through the streets, the baths, some shops and some houses. Worth a watch, just be forewarned that there's nothing about Epicurus, the scrolls or the Villa.

This virtual tour of the tomb of Ramesses VI turned up in my feed:

Pharaoh Ramesses VI Tomb

It's pretty impressive, and got me wondering if there are any such things for Epicurean sites.

Here is one for Herculaneum:

Herculaneum Walking Tour

It's a YouTube video of around 90 minutes, with ads. I haven't watched it in it's entirety yet, but it's basically a guided tour of the site. Personally I prefer the 3D reconstructions as you can navigate around as you like, but this type is perhaps more educational. Anyway, if anyone is tired of Netflix this might be a pleasant diversion.

Not sure when you added the edit Cassius, but SVG is a vector. I opened it in LibreOffice Draw and it looks quite crisp. If you need to convert it to AI for Illustrator, there are free online converters; I don't use Illustrator so I don't know if it will import SVG files. Frankly I've never heard of an SVG file before so I don't know if you can work directly with that file or not.

Never heard of this site before! Here's somebody who does 3D modeling:

https://www.fiverr.com/matiikiv/sculp…r-moment-attack

Of course 3D is going to cost more than an avatar....

Things to think about regarding the graphic design: line drawing or tone? Classical or cartoon style? Collect different styles for different uses?

It might be easier to "cartoonify" a Classical drawing than to "classicize" a cartoon drawing.

It also looks like some of the outlines are quite thin when it comes to holding the piece together structurally. That's probably another adjustment the artist will have to make. It's quite a complicated project and, as you say Cassius, it would help to have some fairly simple but accurate graphics to work from. There are actually two design problems to solve: 1) the design of the portraits, and 2) designing the outlines, creases and shadows in a way that they will hold the cut material firmly together in one piece (or as few pieces as possible).