The laws of thought as axioms?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The laws of thought as axioms?

Post by Steve3007 »

Eduk:
OK but I think, again correct me if I am wrong, that you are talking about a very special case of dissatisfaction?

Let's take the big bang theory.
Q. Why did the big bang take place.
A. Unknown.

Person A: concludes that the big bang theory is therefore incomplete, doesn't answer the question they want answering and is therefore reasonable to ignore, denigrate etc.
Person B: concludes that the big bang theory is an incredible theory worthy of spending life times in the application of, while at the same time hoping that their question could be answered.
I suppose person A is a bit unreasonable to denigrate something just because it doesn't serve the purpose they expect of it. But I guess it takes all sorts.


Nameless:
Yes, Wilson's quote is comprised of numerous statements, all true. So?
You misunderstood what I was saying. Doesn't matter.
I don't need a theory, QM has one, and it has been correct in it's predictions... 100% of the time!
Are you not aware of the problems reconciling QM with General Relativity? Have you solved those problems?
QM has refuted/eviscerated all of Aristotle's so-called 'laws of logic'!
Please quote a proprosition from Quantum Mechanics which, in your view, contradicts a law of propositional logic.
Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The laws of thought as axioms?

Post by Namelesss »

Eduk wrote:
I don't need a theory, QM has one, and it has been correct in it's predictions... 100% of the time!
Sorry I have never read anything about QM making any claims on formal logic.

Sometimes it's up to us to do a bit of thinking on our own.
The business of QM is not primarily regarding 'logic', whether 'formal' or useful.
It takes a philosopher to synthesize from diverse fields of study/knowledge.
Scientists cannot do it.
The info is there for you to evaluate, logically, for yourself.
QM deals with matter at the quantum level, not formal logic. Or at least to be precise I've never read anything written by a physicist which was the scientific consensus and directly arrived from QM. I have read lots of nonsense from people who know nothing about QM.
So, you have read "lots of nonsense" from people who have differing Perspectives and don't support your already placed bias.
Your demands for 'consensus' among anyone, is another impossible demand.
And shows your need for the fallacy of authority/numbers while unable to think for yourself.
You are like the 'believer' who points to a world of 'believers' as evidence and proof.
It ain't so.
It is easy to dismiss when you do not understand enough (in your case QM) to make your own analysis, independently.
In reality, it makes no difference... I'm not trying to convince you of anything, or infect you with some 'belief'. I am just offering something that I have experienced to anyone who is interested.
Attacking 'logic', as I have done, is not a personal thing. You didn't invent logic, you merely experience it, are comfortable with it, like me, but to 'believe' it, is insanity!

-- Updated November 23rd, 2017, 3:05 pm to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:
I don't need a theory, QM has one, and it has been correct in it's predictions... 100% of the time!
Are you not aware of the problems reconciling QM with General Relativity? Have you solved those problems?
You are moving the goalposts.
Your 'problems' make no difference. My statement remains true nonetheless.
Find me one QM prediction that failed?
Our economy is based more and more on QM!
I need not get into your alleged unreconciled problems for my statement to be valid.
Please quote a proprosition from Quantum Mechanics which, in your view, contradicts a law of propositional logic.
A photon is both a wave and a particle, at the same time. It is both A and not A, at the same time! And sometimes A, and sometimes not A, etc... all depending on Perspective of the same One thing!
I don't see any possible argument against this, it is QM101
Capisce'? *__-
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: The laws of thought as axioms?

Post by Eduk »

There was once a fox who spied some sweet looking grapes up high. He jumped and jumped for the grapes but always fell just short. On the last jump before he was willing to give it all up he finally caught the grapes. Feasting upon them he realised they were sour and not ripe. He then ate the remaining grapes and declared them most sweet and delicious.
Unknown means unknown.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The laws of thought as axioms?

Post by Spectrum »

VarunSoon wrote:Are the three laws of thought (identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) really the foundational axioms of deductive logic?

Does they not depend on the definition of truth values and the definition and properties of logical connectives?

The three laws can be determined to be true in all circumstances by just looking at their truth table (so we do NOT need to presume them to be true).
What is truth is always qualified and conditioned by human-made frameworks [there is no God created framework].

Logic [deductive, inductive, etc.] is conditioned by a human-made or human-based framework.
Note logic is fundamentally conditioned by human biology and psychology.
  • Biology of Knowledge: The Evolutionary Basis of Reason 99th Edition
    by Rupert Riedl

    The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology) 1st Edition
    by William S. Cooper
The 3 fundamental laws of deductive logic cannot be absolute, i.e. independent of any human elements. Such laws of logic are not Universals like the supposedly God given laws independent of human involvements.

Thus the 3 fundamental laws of deductive logic are axioms only for those who agree with its human-based Framework.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The laws of thought as axioms?

Post by Steve3007 »

Nameless:
You are moving the goalposts....
You seem to me to have a curiously personal attitude towards the subject of quantum mechanics, as if pointing out that it is not a complete description of all possible observations is some kind of insult. There are no "goalposts". I'm merely pointing out that the big challenge of modern physics is uniting the theory of gravity (General Relativity) with the theory of everything else (Quantum Mechanics).
Find me one QM prediction that failed?
QM cannot describe gravity. It cannot predict the perihelion precession of the planet Mercury, which is described by General Relativity.
Our economy is based more and more on QM!
I have studied and taught physics, and worked in software and electronics for many years. So it's not necessary to tell me that.
I need not get into your alleged unreconciled problems for my statement to be valid.
Why do you feel that you have to say "alleged", as if we're in a court of law? Are you saying that there is no task to be done in uniting QM and GR?
A photon is both a wave and a particle, at the same time. It is both A and not A, at the same time! And sometimes A, and sometimes not A, etc... all depending on Perspective of the same One thing!
Saying "a photon is both a wave and a particle" is not logically equivalent to saying "It is both A and not A". It is saying "It is both A and B". I am both a human and a mammal. There is no logical contradiction in saying that. If I had said "I am both a human and not a human" that would be a logical contradiction.

Saying that a thing has more than one aspect to its full description, or that it is a member of two sets, or that it has some aspects of one thing and some aspects of another is not illogical.

"Wave" and "particle" are models - abstract concepts to help us describe the observed properties of various parts of the world. Photons have some properties that are best modelled with the particle concept and some that are best modelled with the wave concept. There is no logical contradiction involved there.

In my experience, people often get confused about this. Quantum Mechanics is impossible to understand by reference to common sense. It introduces some difficult ideas. But that's not the same as saying that it defies logic. People seem to confuse common sense with logic.

-- Updated Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:39 am to add the following --

Nameless, if you want to see a description of an experiment which demonstrates this aspect of the nature of photons (and, by extension, other particles) try this:

onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... 85#p232485
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: The laws of thought as axioms?

Post by Eduk »

"Wave" and "particle" are models - abstract concepts to help us describe the observed properties of various parts of the world.
This is what I was trying to say earlier. We are trying to take a concept from the macro world we live in which makes perfect sense in the world we live in and then apply it to a quantum world. Our conceptions do not make sense at the quantum level, there is no parallel, it is confusing, the most intelligent physicists on the planet cannot conceptualise what is going on. This is why those conceptions (even if they be our best efforts) cannot possibly 'prove' logic is 'wrong'.
To give a simpler example. Most popular pictures of an atom show electrons moving around a nucleus like planets around the sun. This is wrong. This is not what an atom 'looks' like. I was taught that in school many years ago and only recently found that to be incorrect (unlike Steve I'm not a physics teacher).
Unknown means unknown.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The laws of thought as axioms?

Post by Steve3007 »

Eduk:
This is what I was trying to say earlier. We are trying to take a concept from the macro world we live in which makes perfect sense in the world we live in and then apply it to a quantum world.
Yes, but perhaps we shouldn't beat ourselves up about that too much. We've got to start somewhere. There is a popular expression in Quantum Mechanics: "Shut up and calculate!" which suggests that we should just concentrate on the fact that we have very successful and accurate mathematical models which are pretty good at describing and predicting our empirical observations. The suggestion is that we concentrate on those and don't worry about trying to picture what the world is "really" doing aside from those observations; trying to get a satisfying intuitive understanding of it. It's an understandable approach, given the evidence, but it's very difficult for most people to be that abstract and dry. People like pictures and concrete. They like to relate it all to something that they can see, touch, pick up and examine. That's perfectly natural, considering that this is how science starts - with the direct evidence of our hands and eyes.
Our conceptions do not make sense at the quantum level, there is no parallel, it is confusing, the most intelligent physicists on the planet cannot conceptualise what is going on.
I wouldn't say there is no parallel at all there. There's just no exact parallel with the concepts that we've created to describe everyday things, like water waves and snooker balls. I guess this shouldn't be surprising, because clearly a photon is not a water wave and it is not a snooker ball. It is a photon. But we can still use these everyday objects as metaphors, or models, to help us to conceptualize some aspects of the way that photons appear to behave. We can make some particular observations that we attribute to the presence of photons, and say "Oh! That reminds me a bit of the way waves act on the surface of water!" and we can make some other observations and say "Oh! That reminds me a bit of the way bullets act when they come out of a machine gun!". And we can then extrapolate to other aspects of the way that water and bullets behave to see how far these comparisons can take us.
This is why those conceptions (even if they be our best efforts) cannot possibly 'prove' logic is 'wrong'.
The whole notion of "proving logic to be wrong" by making empirical observations and spotting patterns in those observations (a.k.a. science) is muddle-headed.
To give a simpler example. Most popular pictures of an atom show electrons moving around a nucleus like planets around the sun. This is wrong. This is not what an atom 'looks' like. I was taught that in school many years ago and only recently found that to be incorrect (unlike Steve I'm not a physics teacher).
I used to be a physics teacher, many years ago. But maybe it's still my duty to stick up for the teaching methods!

I would say that the "planets around the sun" model of the atom that you describe is not wrong, as such. It's just wrong not to properly emphaise that it is a model, and that a defining feature of models is that they are not the thing of which they are a model. They represent some, but not all, aspects of it.

You're right to place the word 'look' in quotes. If we try to ask what atoms 'look' like we have to be clear exactly what we're asking. The normal definition of "what something looks like" is about the way billions of photons of light bounce off it and enter our eyes. Clearly that doesn't make sense when considering individual atoms. So "what an atom looks like" is a more general consideration of the properties that we associate with it. And there are some senses in which an atom "looks like" a mini solar system, with the electrons as planets and the nucleus as the sun. But, as you know, this is far from being a perfect analogy.

Also, it makes sense to teach physics in layers, re-visiting each subject several times, with increasingly complex and accurate models each time. This also roughly reflects the way in which the subject developed historically. So it makes it possible to put things into historical context and gradually catch up to the most recent state of knowledge.

If you'd gone on to study physics after school you would have re-visited the subject of atomic structure, and learnt about the reasons why Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism mean that the "solar system" model of the atom is physically impossible because the electrons would rapidly collapse into the nucleus, emitting their orbital energy as EM waves. You'd then have learnt about the "half-way house" Bohr model of the atom, and on to modern quantum theory.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: The laws of thought as axioms?

Post by Eduk »

There is a popular expression in Quantum Mechanics: "Shut up and calculate!" which suggests that we should just concentrate on the fact that we have very successful and accurate mathematical models which are pretty good at describing and predicting our empirical observations. The suggestion is that we concentrate on those and don't worry about trying to picture what the world is "really" doing aside from those observations; trying to get a satisfying intuitive understanding of it. It's an understandable approach, given the evidence, but it's very difficult for most people to be that abstract and dry.
Yes I know that this is a conversation that the best physicists have. In short I'm happy from some physicists not to try and others to try. It is not clear which is the best approach so leaving it up to each individual seems fair to me.

Thank you for the write up by the way, nice to read some educated opinion. Oh and I wasn't criticising teachers for me having this concept of planets around suns with space in-between, I blame myself for my own ignorance.
Unknown means unknown.
Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The laws of thought as axioms?

Post by Namelesss »

Steve3007 wrote:Nameless:
You are moving the goalposts....
You seem to me to have a curiously personal attitude towards the subject of quantum mechanics, as if pointing out that it is not a complete description of all possible observations is some kind of insult.
Really? I made no such claim, so I have nothing to defend there. Sort of another goal post shift fallacy, with some ad-hom sprinkles.
I am not arguing QM, I am offering the evidence as displayed by QM in refutation to Aristotle's insane 'laws of logic'.
The 'evidence' is the fire beneath your finger, how you hypothesize and theorize about it is something else.
I don't need to defend QM.
It seems to be quite popular amongst a broad spectrum of folks, let history judge.
But cutting edge, what's happenin NOW!, is that the evidence has, after all this time, demonstrated that the Eastern philosophers were right on all the time and the Aristotelian's, well... There seems to be much that has been taken for granted that is NOW! being ... re-examined! *__-
There are no "goalposts". I'm merely pointing out that the big challenge of modern physics is uniting the theory of gravity (General Relativity) with the theory of everything else (Quantum Mechanics).
Ugh, back to that...
Anyway, 'my theory' reconciles both theories (and there is more than one theory of gravity, and no good one!
Until mine, that reconciles it perfectly with QM.
How can that be?

"Quantum mechanics comes on as so off the wall that only a mystical state of mind can even begin to probe it's mysteries!" - Richard Feynman and Chuangtse
Find me one QM prediction that failed?
QM cannot describe gravity. It cannot predict the perihelion precession of the planet Mercury, which is described by General Relativity.
Is it me? Am I being obtuse?
I asked for a prediction MADE that has failed, and you offer 'prediction results' (ostensibly) that QM has not made?
Maybe it's the digesting turkey, but, ... there go the goalposts again! *__-
Our economy is based more and more on QM!
I have studied and taught physics, and worked in software and electronics for many years. So it's not necessary to tell me that.
Are you saying that there is no task to be done in uniting QM and GR?
Other than my theory, yes, you are right, yet, there is yet treasure to be found, yet..
We have left the topic and gone careening down some side rail.
A photon is both a wave and a particle, at the same time. It is both A and not A, at the same time! And sometimes A, and sometimes not A, etc... all depending on Perspective of the same One thing!
Saying "a photon is both a wave and a particle" is not logically equivalent to saying "It is both A and not A".
Beg your pardon? In Aristotelian 'logic', it must be either/or, both cannot be True! It exists in a dualistic polarity, a 'lie' in itself, a 'make-believe' 'Reality'.
And the definition of wave and particle certainly support their 'polarity'.
The Enlightened East Knows better, that Truth is 'inclusive', ALL inclusive! *__-
So, the 'logic' being simultaneously both A and not A, the extent of both opposite 'poles' is True is valid;

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - n
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

It is saying "It is both A and B". I am both a human and a mammal.

As I said, waves and particles represent a valid dualistic polarity, two 'sets', unlike humans which are a subset of mammals.
"I am both a human and not a human" that would be a logical contradiction.
Yes!
And that would also be a True statement!
Saying that a thing has more than one aspect to its full description, or that it is a member of two sets, or that it has some aspects of one thing and some aspects of another is not illogical.
True enough...
"Wave" and "particle" are models - abstract concepts to help us describe the observed properties of various parts of the world.
Not only do I agree with you, I would expand that to include all 'observed phenomena'.
Photons have some properties that are best modelled with the particle concept and some that are best modelled with the wave concept. There is no logical contradiction involved there.
I think that we've talked this one out sufficiently, no?
In my experience, people often get confused about this...

Is this where I am dismissed into a 'group' of people who 'often get confused about this'? Unworthy of further attention? *__-
Who might see things from a 'different' Perspective?
Quantum Mechanics is impossible to understand by reference to common sense. It introduces some difficult ideas. But that's not the same as saying that it defies logic.

Not talking about 'common sense', Hoss!
Damn goalposts must be on Viagra!
People seem to confuse common sense with logic.
Darn those... people!
Wait, are I one of 'em?
Aren't 'comming sense' a subset of lorgic?
Nameless, if you want to see a description of an experiment which demonstrates this aspect of the nature of photons (and, by extension, other particles) try this...
Thank you, but in a friendly riposte, I'll offer in conclusion;

"...scientists are condemned by their unexamined assumptions to study the nature of mirrors only by cataloging and investigating everything that mirrors can reflect. It is an endless process that never makes progress, that never reaches closure, that generates endless debate between those who have seen different reflected images, and whose enduring product is voluminous descriptions of particular phenomena." - The Adapted Mind

Of what is 'photons' and all other observed phenomena ultimately composed, whether daydreams or diamonds, ultimately composed?
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: The laws of thought as axioms?

Post by Eduk »

I'm sorry am I misreading you. You have a theory which reconciles QM with the theory of gravity?
Unknown means unknown.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The laws of thought as axioms?

Post by Steve3007 »

Nameless:
Me:
Saying "a photon is both a wave and a particle" is not logically equivalent to saying "It is both A and not A". It is saying "It is both A and B"...
Nameless:
Beg your pardon? In Aristotelian 'logic', it must be either/or, both cannot be True!...
Incorrect. If we're talking about the law of the excluded middle, that law states that a proposition cannot be true and its negation simultaneously be true. In other words, if "A" is that proposition, "A" and "Not A" cannot both be true. The observation that photons have some properties that remind us of waves and some other properties that remind us more of particles does not violate this rule of logic.

If we're not talking about the law of the excluded middle, state which of the laws of logic we're talking about.

Nameless:
...It exists in a dualistic polarity, a 'lie' in itself, a 'make-believe' 'Reality'. And the definition of wave and particle certainly support their 'polarity'.
You appear here to be rambling meaninglessly, probably due to having read and half understood some popular accounts of quantum mechanics. Obviously saying that a photon is "a lie in itself" is gibberish.

I'd suggest you read the OP of the topic to which I posted a link earlier and perhaps make some comments on that experiment in that topic. Or read the volume of Feyman's lectures on physics in which he describes the more well known double-slit experiment involving electrons.

-- Updated Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:35 am to add the following --

Eduk to Nameless:
I'm sorry am I misreading you. You have a theory which reconciles QM with the theory of gravity?
That does indeed appear to be what Nameless is claiming.

Nameless:
Anyway, 'my theory' reconciles both theories (and there is more than one theory of gravity, and no good one! Until mine, that reconciles it perfectly with QM.
An ambitious claim. I look forward to seeing the theory and the experimental results that are successfully described and predicted by it. I will note that several other past posters on this site alone have made similar grand claims. They often seem to go along with claims that there are various authorities in the world of physics who deliberately suppress their insights for reasons of ego or profit. Let's see if similar claims emerge here.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021