Being before the Big Bang

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Bohm2
Posts: 1129
Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 6:05 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Canada

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Bohm2 »

Consul wrote:Anyway, a non-spatiotemporal world, i.e. one to which the concepts of space/spatiality/extension and time/temporality/duration are inapplicable, is not a physical world.
Why, because you or some philosopher say so? Physical is whatever, physics tells us there is, irrespective of how offensive it may be to our common sense notions. It is not up to the philosopher to determine what counts as physical. If the physics community introduces a concept to explain phenomena that may defy spatio-temporality, so be it. In fact, with respect to quantum correlations, some physicists have already suggested that
...no story in spacetime can tell us how nonlocal correlations happen, hence nonlocal quantum correlations seem to emerge, somehow, from outside spacetime.
Can quantum theory and special relativity peacefully coexist?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3714.pdf

Quantum nonlocality: How does Nature perform the trick?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0912.1475.pdf

Moreover, concepts postulated by modern physics (e.g. non-locality, dark matter, dark energy, point particles, entangled systems, multiple universes, multiverses, hidden dimensions, etc.) would likely have offended scientists/physicists of previous generations but that is no reason to consider such entities as non-physical. Who knows what a future science/physics will need to postulate in order to explain phenomena? It is not up to the philosopher to delimit the concepts that will count as physical.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Eduk »

I might be wrong but it seems philosophy forums are the wrong place to go for high quality philosophy.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Consul »

Bohm2 wrote:
Consul wrote:Anyway, a non-spatiotemporal world, i.e. one to which the concepts of space/spatiality/extension and time/temporality/duration are inapplicable, is not a physical world.
Why, because you or some philosopher say so? Physical is whatever, physics tells us there is, irrespective of how offensive it may be to our common sense notions. It is not up to the philosopher to determine what counts as physical. If the physics community introduces a concept to explain phenomena that may defy spatio-temporality, so be it. In fact, with respect to quantum correlations, some physicists have already suggested that

Moreover, concepts postulated by modern physics (e.g. non-locality, dark matter, dark energy, point particles, entangled systems, multiple universes, multiverses, hidden dimensions, etc.) would likely have offended scientists/physicists of previous generations but that is no reason to consider such entities as non-physical. Who knows what a future science/physics will need to postulate in order to explain phenomena? It is not up to the philosopher to delimit the concepts that will count as physical.
(I'm not interested in a philosophy vs. science metadebate here.)

Physics is the science of the physical, and it is circular to define the physical in terms of whatever is postulated by physics or whatever physics deals with. Physics is then the science of the subject matter of physics, but we want to know what that is. There's a title on a page of the Fermilab website: "Science of Matter, Energy, Space and Time". That's what physics is, and that's what the physical is: the MEST system (complex/matrix).

For example, a non-spatiotemporal Platonic heaven populated by abstract objects such as (purely) mathematical ones cannot meaningfully be called a physical world. Nor can Berkeley's concrete but totally immaterial universe, where nothing exists but immaterial souls and their immaterial ideas.

I know that some physicists such as Carlo Rovelli, who specializes in loop quantum gravity, speak of a "physics without space and time"; but what they reject aren't the concepts of spatiality (extension) and temporality (duration) as such, but a certain conception thereof such as the view that space is a substantial container occupied by things and fields. Rovelli equates spacetime with the gravitational field, but the very concept of a physical field involves the concept of spatiality/extension. He also speaks of interactions of field quanta (particles), of events and processes, all of which involve the concept of temporality/duration (even if there is no absolute and universal background time, as Rovelli assumes).

(Whether quantum fields are really concrete, physical entities rather than just abstract, mathematical ones is a central question in the ontology of quantum mechanics—which I'm not going to discuss here.)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Rr6 »

There is no debate of what is true and Ive laid it clearly many times. None have any rational, logical common sense that would add to or invalidated my givens.

1} "U"niverse / "G"od

....1A} spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent }[metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are not space, they are concepts of space. Few appear around here appear to understand the even this simple concept, much less acknowledge this truth or accept it as truth,

---------------------------line-of-demarcation-------------------------------------------------------

....1b} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied space, that, embraces the following,

......1c} our finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse.

.........1c2} fermions, bosons and any aggregate collection thereof aka observed physical/energy/time/frequency/sine-wave topology ex ^v^v /\/\/\/\

..........1c3} spirit-3, metaphysical-3, gravity I speculate is positive shaped geodesics arc of space,

...........1c4} spirit-4, metaphysical-4, dark energy I speculate is negative shaped geodesic arc of space.

Where have all the philosophers who search the true nature of Universe/God/Nature gone too, long time passing....sung to B Dylan song.

123, ABC thats how easy Universe can be...sung to M Jackson tune.

The truth exists for those who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it. imho

r6
Rr6 wrote:Space ( ) - Time^v - Space )( exists eternally and there is not any rational, logical common sense basis or much less as shred of evidence for any other conclusion.
Sticking to facts and rational, logical common sense is so much better for any philosophy forum that is searching for true nature of Universe/Nature/God. imho
Rr6 wrote:There exists macro-micro infinite, non-occupied space, that, embraces the finite occupied space. Simple concept/scenario.
This is so simple yet so few appear to grasp the simple, acknowledge the simple much less accept such a simple concepts/scenario. Why?
Mostly it has to do with ego blocking their ability to do so. :--(
Those who want to investigate the true nature of "U"niverse and Universe{ occupied space } need to begin with the above.
To exclude the above is excluding the greatest whole set. imho. For some the truth sets them free while for other it traps them in endless false projections, misunderstandings if not worse.
r6

(Nested quote removed.)
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Eduk »

No one would try to debate you for a couple of reasons. Firstly it would be a waste of time. Secondly nothing you write has meaning.
Unknown means unknown.
Dustin
Posts: 11
Joined: March 25th, 2014, 9:39 pm

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Dustin »

Felix wrote:
Was Being the same then as now, or radically different? Did nothingness prevail before the bang?
You question pertains to Existence, not to Being. Being can coincide with Nothingness but Existence cannot: there are states of existence, e.g., our material Universe, and then there is nonexistence, i.e., Nothingness, Being may coincide with both.

Sartre contended that existence precedes essence, but if existence is a mindless process without creative capacity, how can that be?
so, you say that existence is not a prerequisite of being. How can a thing be so, if it is not so? if a thing is and is not then it must be a difference of placement, but if we are talking about all things and placement permanent and entire, how can it both be and not be, because displacement is no longer possible. A thing may potentially be, and then not be before it is. But, then time is our displacement. Do you mean without difference in time? is it the same to be as to be possible? but this renders everything to be and not be forever, because if a thing is or will be then it must be possible. But then to be is irrelevant because a thing that "doesn't matter" is so because it makes no difference whether it happens or not. What is more suitable to the category then a thing which both is and is not. :lol:

-- Updated March 15th, 2017, 10:38 pm to add the following --
Eduk wrote:No one would try to debate you for a couple of reasons. Firstly it would be a waste of time. Secondly nothing you write has meaning.
What!!?? How rude, no meaning?? You might as well say nothing exists. But I'm sure there are lots of things that you notice from day to day, and I should hope that if you were to be in the middle of the street when a car approaches that you would get out of the way. And you know that, when a car approaches that it "means" you should move. I say that a thing has meaning so long as it causes some change; so long as it is noticed by something, and if we say by God then that meaning is also its purpose, because God is beyond reproach. for the most part yes, a thing will Go unnoticed, and the great infinite of things by which it will be overlooked can be enough to consider that things have almost no meaning what so ever, But... they have a little bit. :)
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Rr6 »

r6---The truth exists for those who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it. imho
Truth is that most of the so called philosophers around here have huge mental blockage to truth because of the ego ergo they continue to make false statements and non-truths ergo lack of intellectual integrity is far easier than acknowledging truths when presented to them.

"U"niverse > Universe > universe > ego aka I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse.

I first learned of hierarchies, outlines and lists in grade school. Same goes for reading I learned in grade school. Not sure when I first became of ego and how problematic it can be in search of true nature of Universe, reality etc.

Also not sure when I first learned that physical/energy cannot be created { big bang } nor destroyed { some heat death scenarios }.

There is no debate because some no better than to stick ego foot in mouth. Nothing looks more silly than to walk around with foot sticking out of mouth in public. Just look at U.S president to of huge ego foot in mouth syndrome.

r6
Rr6 wrote:There is no debate of what is true and Ive laid it clearly many times. None have any rational, logical common sense that would add to or invalidated my givens.
1} "U"niverse / "G"od
....1A} spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent }[metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are not space, they are concepts of space. Few appear around here appear to understand the even this simple concept, much less acknowledge this truth or accept it as truth,
---------------------------line-of-demarcation-------------------------------------------------------
....1b} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite, non-occupied space, that, embraces the following,
......1c} our finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse.
.........1c2} fermions, bosons and any aggregate collection thereof aka observed physical/energy/time/frequency/sine-wave topology ex ^v^v /\/\/\/\
..........1c3} spirit-3, metaphysical-3, gravity I speculate is positive shaped geodesics arc of space,
...........1c4} spirit-4, metaphysical-4, dark energy I speculate is negative shaped geodesic arc of space.
Where have all the philosophers who search the true nature of Universe/God/Nature gone too, long time passing....sung to B Dylan song.
123, ABC thats how easy Universe can be...sung to M Jackson tune.
The truth exists for those who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it. imho
r6
Rr6 wrote:Space ( ) - Time^v - Space )( exists eternally and there is not any rational, logical common sense basis or much less as shred of evidence for any other conclusion.
Sticking to facts and rational, logical common sense is so much better for any philosophy forum that is searching for true nature of Universe/Nature/God. imho

(Nested quote removed.)
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
User avatar
Bohm2
Posts: 1129
Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 6:05 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Canada

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Bohm2 »

Consul wrote:For example, a non-spatiotemporal Platonic heaven populated by abstract objects such as (purely) mathematical ones cannot meaningfully be called a physical world. Nor can Berkeley's concrete but totally immaterial universe, where nothing exists but immaterial souls and their immaterial ideas.
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about stuff studied by physics. Is the wave function function, physical? Obviously it is, since it's at the foundation of pretty well most of physics. Is it a spatiotemporal entity? Well, I don't see how it can be, since for a multi-particle system the wave function (q) = (q1 ,..., qN ) is not a weird field on physical space, it's a weird field on configuration space, the set of all hypothetical configurations of the system. For a system of more than one particle that space cannot be physical space. That is why some have adopted an episteic interpretation, others a multiple world interpretations, others a non-local interpretation, etc.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no fixed conception of body/matter/physical running through scientific developments that can serve as a metaphysical base for what there is.
Hence, no a priori analysis of the physical, no a priori identification of the essence of the physical, deriving from philosophical thought has any privileged status in scientific inquiry. Science is a bootstrapping operation which is not substantively constrained by a prioristic forms of speculative or analytic philosophy and which can in principle help itself to anything that can meet the test of scientific rationality.
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Rr6 »

r6---The truth exists for those who seek it, those who don't and those who scoff at it. imho
Entanglement--- spooky-action-at-at-distance --- I have answer with a long cosmic key having two ends at 90 degrees to each other.
...note this above cosmic key if gravitational apply's to multiverse scenarios below also........

Higher-dimensions is just ultra-micro gravity and dark energy and this is same as parallel or multi-worlds.
...Micho Kaku makes this clear in his Hyper-space book..................

Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are not spatial they exist only as complement to non-occupied space and Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )(.


A finite set of multi-verse's is all fine and dandy in so far as, they are connected--- via gravity if not also dark energy ---as the one, finite, occupied space Universe.. Simple not complex conceptual scenario.

Occupied space eternally exists eternally and there is not any shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. Physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed nor can gravitational Space ( ) or dark energy Space )(.

H,mm did I leave out any other scenarios?

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Eduk »

Rr6 well done you completed the universe with a score of 100%.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Rr6 »

Eduk wrote:Rr6 well done you completed the universe with a score of 100%.
Well thanks, I guess. I'm doubtful of any sincerity of content from you, based on at least one other posting directed at me.

Cosmic cost accounting is 100% i.e. everywhere and every-when. Fuller would have us believe that our occupied space Universe is always off-center--- i.e. dis-equilibrium ---by one negative or positive tetrahedron{ quanta }.

For years I presented my geometric quanta version of gravity via a triangle that expanded and contracted over time /\ on a forward trajectory following a geodesic.

A year or so again, via my explorations of prime numbers, I came to seeing gravity and dark energy as the geodesic arcs of a torus, with inversions from the peak of positive and negative curvature as the body of torus ergo our observed reality/physical/energy/time/frequency/sine-wave topology. That is the simple version.

However, that inversion from gravitational peak of curvature or dark energy peak is still only three nodal events ergo a triangle with two of events in gravity surface or dark energy surface the third event inside as the body of the torus ergo still a triangular /\ set.

Again this is the simple version and the simplest set. Simple because it appears to be represented by only a 2D pattern. Yet we observe 3D space. Or least most of us do. Atreyu{?} believes space doe not exist. A 2D triangle is space of area. 3D is space of volume.

I believe the truth exists for those with sincere desire to find it. I've consistently been sincere in my search and recording of it for many years now.

Please share if you have any rational, logical common sense that adds to, or invalidates my findings, speculative, fact or other.

r6
Entanglement--- spooky-action-at-at-distance --- I have answer with a long cosmic key having two ends at 90 degrees to each other.
...note this above cosmic key if gravitational apply's to multiverse scenarios below also........
Higher-dimensions is just ultra-micro gravity and dark energy and this is same as parallel or multi-worlds.
...Micho Kaku makes this clear in his Hyper-space book..................
Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are not spatial they exist only as complement to non-occupied space and Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )(.
A finite set of multi-verse's is all fine and dandy in so far as, they are connected--- via gravity if not also dark energy ---as the one, finite, occupied space Universe.. Simple not complex conceptual scenario.
Occupied space eternally exists eternally and there is not any shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. Physical/energy cannot be created nor destroyed nor can gravitational Space ( ) or dark energy Space )(.
H,mm did I leave out any other scenarios?
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Consul »

Bohm2 wrote:I'm talking about stuff studied by physics. Is the wave function function, physical? Obviously it is, since it's at the foundation of pretty well most of physics. Is it a spatiotemporal entity? Well, I don't see how it can be, since for a multi-particle system the wave function (q) = (q1 ,..., qN ) is not a weird field on physical space, it's a weird field on configuration space, the set of all hypothetical configurations of the system. For a system of more than one particle that space cannot be physical space. That is why some have adopted an episteic interpretation, others a multiple world interpretations, others a non-local interpretation, etc.
It's anything but obvious that the wave function is a concrete, physical entity. What is obvious is that qua mathematical function it is not; so the question is whether it represents anything in physical reality—some "quantum field". We have the same question with regard to configuration space. Is it a real physical space or just a mathematical model?

By the way, this book might interest you:

* Ney, Alyssa, and David Z. Albert. The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Wayne92587
Posts: 1780
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Wayne92587 »

I just made this up as I write it down, so there will without a doubt be a need to make adjustments.


The wave function is the motion of a Single Particle as it transcends the relativity of Time and Space; the Particle as it exists during its wave function, exists in the past, the present and the future.

Space is physical, however Space is not readily apparent because Space has no displacement, no angular momentum, no velocity of speed and direction, a Particle appearing as though it were Space itself; a particle is measurable in Time Only.

The wave motion of a particle is meaningless because it has no displacement in Space, no angular momentum, no velocity of Speed and Direct; the Physical existence or non-existence of a Particle an so Space, being Uncertain.

The oscillation, vibration, of a particle of Space is meaningless, is insignificant, exists as the innate, minute, motion of a Singular Particle of Space, exists as Pure Unadulterated Energy, that makes a Humming Sound. OHM!
User avatar
Bohm2
Posts: 1129
Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 6:05 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: Canada

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Bohm2 »

Consul wrote:
Bohm2 wrote:I'm talking about stuff studied by physics. Is the wave function function, physical? Obviously it is, since it's at the foundation of pretty well most of physics. Is it a spatiotemporal entity? Well, I don't see how it can be, since for a multi-particle system the wave function (q) = (q1 ,..., qN ) is not a weird field on physical space, it's a weird field on configuration space, the set of all hypothetical configurations of the system. For a system of more than one particle that space cannot be physical space. That is why some have adopted an episteic interpretation, others a multiple world interpretations, others a non-local interpretation, etc.
It's anything but obvious that the wave function is a concrete, physical entity. What is obvious is that qua mathematical function it is not; so the question is whether it represents anything in physical reality—some "quantum field". We have the same question with regard to configuration space. Is it a real physical space or just a mathematical model?

By the way, this book might interest you:

* Ney, Alyssa, and David Z. Albert. The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Thanks, I've already read some of the papers found in that book. With respect to the wave function, I can't think of any physicist who would not consider the wave function to be "physical" but I suppose it depends on how one uses the term. Personally (and even though you disagree)I think the term "physical" is a vacuous term for reasons previously discussed (Hempel, Chomsky, etc.).

Regardless, the debate is not whether the wave function is physical or not. The controversy is whether the wave function is ontic or epistemic; that is, does it represent something "real" or is it, instead, something more akin to representation of knowledge, information or belief. For one of the best reviews on the topic see:

Is the Quantum State Real? An Extended Review of ψ-ontology Theorems
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1570.pdf

Another paper by Leifer that summarizes the recent no-go PBR theorem that may rule out certain interpretations:

Can the quantum state be interpreted statistically?
http://mattleifer.info/2011/11/20/can-t ... istically/
Eaglerising
Posts: 231
Joined: April 2nd, 2016, 8:12 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jiddu Krishnamurti
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: Being before the Big Bang

Post by Eaglerising »

I have noticed that "nothingness" is the bases for most of this discourse. Yet, "nothing" is an illusion created by thought. Just because something cannot be seen or proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is illogical and impossible for nothing to create something. Therefore, it might be wise to figure out what is perceived as being "nothing" really is. In other words, is there something which is neither physical nor nonphysical?
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

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