I agree dissolve doesn't have the same power as disintegrated or dispersed. Disperse conveys to me the dispersal of seeds... Which is a word Lucretius uses for atoms.
Edit:
Other options from LSJ
Break up
Destroy
Part asunder
Untwining (that's a word!)
On a more prosaic note: is "dissolved" the most accurate English word? It's in most of the translations, but I keep associating it with dissolving something in water. Resolved into its elements, dispersed, dispersed into elements, broken down into atoms seem to work. Especially "dispersed into elements".
I think I will second Godfrey's comment here. It might be best choice, but it does seem to introduce a detail (implication of water) that really is not a part of the thought being expressed. DeWitt's "dissolution" might even be a little better.
"to loose one from another, to part asunder, undo, dissolve"
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, διαλύω
Dying exists as something we can experience.
We cannot experience death... Or Death, if you will.
We can't "be" dead. Only in the sense that "Epicurus *is* dead."
No one who has died has experienced or is experiencing or will experience "death."
Death is a convenient shorthand for something that we can talk about.
Oh, I wouldn't introduce "afterlife."
Death is the way to translate that. If you want "the state of 'being' dead" but we have no "being" after we die .
Death IS literally nothing for us.
We do not exist.
We are not.
There is nothing for us.
the first word should be a definite article?
Yes.
I'm late to the game here but I'm crafting a response to some of this... Just haven't had a chance to get it finished.
It's possible we should wrap this one up for now and move to discuss PD02. Comments?
LOL! 
"wrap this up" Oh, Cassius is so optimistic. Maybe with the addition of "... For now"
The complete and independent are
We have to say "The one who is x and y is..."
Nate brings up a good question.
I find myself thinking of one thing that could fall under the rubric of "blessed and imperishable" is possibly the memory of Epicurus himself, also linking it to "reverence is good for the one reverencing." Epicurus is dead, neither he nor his memory have anger or gratitude but the memory still has potency in the world.
Maybe barking up the wrong tree, but I'm trying to find wider application of PD1 within the literal meaning of the text.
Consider this musing out loud.
What is blessed and imperishable that is not a god?
Oh, it's not the reference to the gods, it's the use of the plural where the text has a singular.
Take a look at all the nuances of χάρις in LSJ, especially section II.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, χάρις
I think I have a problem with "favor." I can't put my finger on it but I'll try to percolate on it.
Can we vote more than once? I think my "first" choice changes daily!
If I might take a whack at the task ... “The blessed and imperishable [gods] neither trouble themselves nor others, as neither anger nor obligation afflict them; for, all of this is weak. <In other places, however, Epicurus said the gods are reached by reason, that, on one hand, [the gods] exist partially distinct; those [gods], however, made of the same consistency exist due to the continuous stream of similar images upon the self, personally, in the form of humans.>”
Generally, I like where you're going, but the insertion of [gods] disguises the fact that Τὸ μακάριον and (Τὸ) ἄφθαρτον are singular, not plural. This may not be significant but then again might be. Sedley seems to imbue those singular references to the gods as referring to one's individual conception of a god.
I think I know what you're trying to convey with the ending but I got a lot lost myself there.
There's also the issue of how to translate Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον. The definite article Τὸ shows the two words μακάριον (and) ἄφθαρτον should be taken as nouns in the sense of:
One who is...
That which is...
A thing/being that is...
I'd even venture so fast as to suggest:
One who has the traits of bessedness and Incorruptibility...
Do you personify the traits? Do you make them an impersonal thing? Do you apply them to a being??
Don do you agree that "incorruptible" or something like is is more appropriate than "immortal"?
Yes. Incorruptible is better than immortal.
α "not, un-" + Φθαρτον "destructible, perishable"
χάρισι "favourable disposition towards someone: grace, favor, goodwill; gratitude"
I'll keep my choice to myself as not to influence anyone's vote for now 
In an attempt to help everyone in their voting, here are some older notes I had on PD1
Greek text: Usener edition
1 Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει· ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται· ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον.
"One who is blessed/completely happy/blissful and imperishable/indestructible has no troubles themself nor causes troubles for others; as a consequence, they are affected by neither anger nor gratitude; because all this would be an indication of weakness/sickness/lack of strength." Being affected by anger as a sickness or weakness makes sense, but why would being affected by gratitude be a sign of weakness? In the Letter to Herodotus, Epicurus wrote "For troubles and anxieties and feelings of anger and partiality do not accord with bliss, but always imply weakness and fear and dependence upon one's neighbours." This appears to demonstrate that the negative aspects of anger or gratitude would be that it would show a lack of self-reliance / αυτάρκεια. If we needed reassurance / affirmation from others and didn't just do things because they were pleasurable, we're not truly living a blessed life. That sense of self-assurance would make one το μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον. Blessed, yes. Imperishable? This echoes the idea that, once desires are uprooted, they can't come back. Some of the senses of φθαρτος, opposite of ἄφθαρτος, are "pass away, able to be bribed, adrift." Considering the opposite of these qualities gives a deeper sense to what a mortal life potentially filled with ἄφθαρτος would be like. And consider that Epicurus decided that it is τὸ μακάριον, neither male nor female. I think that's significant. Some older translation gloss over that when translating the other parts: he is exempt from movements of anger. The proper way to express it might better be to use "one who is…"
Perseus Project: [139] [ιι.] Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει, ὥστε οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται: ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον. [ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησι τοὺς θεοὺς λόγῳ θεωρητούς, οὓς μὲν κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν ὑφεστῶτας, οὓς δὲ καθ᾽ ὁμοείδειαν ἐκ τῆς συνεχοῦς ἐπιρρύσεως τῶν ὁμοίων εἰδώλων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀποτετελεσμένωι ἀνθρωποειδῶς.]
Perseus Project translation: 1. A blessed and eternal being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon any other being ; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and partiality, for every such movement implies weakness [Elsewhere he says that the gods are discernible by reason alone, some being numerically distinct, while others result uniformly from the continuous influx of similar images directed to the same spot and in human form.]
Ούτε … ούτε
συνέχω
ἀσθενής m or f (neuter ἀσθενές); third declension ἀσθενεῖ DATIVE after εν
τοιοῦτον
neuter nominative singularReferring back to Τὸ μακάριον καὶ ἄφθαρτονmasculine and neuter accusative singularOf this kindSuch a one
EARLY CHRISTIANITY AND GREEK PHILOSOPHY:
THE ARGUMENT OF ACTS 17:16-34 IN LIGHT OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DEBATES OF EARLY POST-HELLENISTIC TIMES
https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/291165/THESIS%2520FINAL_corrected.pdf
Thank you Don for all of your work in bringing the information here!
It's literally been my pleasure
I just wanted to add here how unimaginably fortunate we are for the libraries and archives that have scanned their books and ancient and medieval manuscripts. Online repositories allow us to do research with an ease that would have been inconceivable to Usener, Wotke, Bailey, et al. What would have involved international travel, getting permission from administrators of institutions, and other difficulties not that long ago, now involves me just casually bringing up 14th century manuscripts, magnifying, copying, and comparing, with merely a few keystrokes.
By Zeus! The Internet gets a (deservedly) bad rap sometimes, but for things like this, it is absolutely wonderful and amazing.
Edit
And I should add that the Internet provides us with the opportunity to have this virtual Garden, too!
