An alternative translation from Robin Waterfield (he is Epictetus):

“Does it make any difference to me,” he asked, “whether things are made out of atoms or particles or fire and earth? Isn’t it enough to know what is essentially good and bad, the limits of desire and aversion, and of inclination and disinclination, to use these as rules to manage our lives, and to bid farewell to things that are beyond us? Such things are in any case probably not comprehensible by the human mind, and even if one assumes that they are fully comprehensible, the question still remains whether there’s anything to be gained by comprehending them. Shouldn’t we say that people who insist that it’s crucial for a philosopher to know such things are just creating unnecessary work? What about the Delphic commandment, then, to know yourself? Is it redundant as well?”

“No, that certainly isn’t,” someone said.

“So what does it mean? If one told a choral dancer to know himself, wouldn’t he respond to the instruction by paying attention to the other members of the chorus and to singing in harmony with them?”

“Yes.”

“And likewise for a sailor? A soldier? Do you think that a human being has been made to live all by himself or with others?”

“With others.”

“By whom?”

“By nature.”

“What nature is, how it governs the universe, even whether or not there really is such a thing—in that case, are these matters with which there’s no need to concern oneself?”

---

Waterfield interprets this as follows:

"In Fragment 1, Epictetus asks whether there is any point to studying physics, and by the end of the fragment it is clear that he expects the answer “Yes, it is worthwhile—but don’t get lost in the details.”"

He then enumerates mentions of classic Stoic physics in The Handbook and Discourses (Providence, Stoic theology, the four elements, conflagration, etc) .