Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
-
- Posts: 341
- Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
Potenial Infinity
Characterised by a repeating process, such as repeatedly adding to a number. These processes increases towards infinity without ever actually reaching it.
Actual Infinity
This is what most people think of when they say infinity; a non-finite number or quantity. Examples would be the actual existence of a completed infinite set or a physical property like length, mass taking on an infinite value.
Actual Infinity is impossible. I have numerous arguments:
Numerical Argument
- Assume Actual Infinity exists as a quantity
- Then there must be a quantity X such that X > all other quantities
- But X + 1 > X
- There is no such quantity
- Actual Infinity is not a quantity
Materialistic Argument
- How exactly is Actual Infinity and the materialistic world view comparable?
- For example, can a physical quantity larger than any other possible physical quantity exist?
Geometrical Argument
- It is impossible to construct a line segment with the property that it is longer than all other line segments
The real number line
- Consider the Numbers on the real number line.
- For example between 0 and 1.
- Does the interval contain an actual infinity of numbers?
- No.
- Numbers have length zero
- they are just logical labels on a line
- So the length of the interval 1 divided by the length of a number 0 equals UNDEFINED.
The counting paradox
- Say you meet an Eternal being in your Eternal universe
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?
The Measure Problem
- Assume time is eternal.
- If it can happen it will happen.
- An infinite number of times.
- No matter how unlikely it was in the first place!
- So all things happen an infinite number of times.
- So all things are equally likely.
- Reductio ad absurdum. Time is not eternal
The passage of time
- Time clearly passes
- Time cannot have started passing infinity long ago because there is no way to get to today.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- If the universe has been around for ever then it should be in thermodynamic equilibrium by now.
- But the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium
The Big Bang
- Looks suspiciously like the start of time
Paradoxes are solved
- Galileo's paradox is solved: There are less squares than numbers because not all numbers are squares. Yet each number has a square so the number of numbers and squares must be the same. He is trying to compare two actually infinite sets, IE comparing two undefined things. A set definition is not complete until all its members are iterated.
- Hilbert’s infinite hotel paradox is solved; such a hotel cannot exist.
- Cantor's Paradox: ‘The set of all sets is its own power set. Therefore, the cardinal number of the set of all sets must be bigger than itself.’ The set of all sets is an ACTUAL INFINITY so not a completely described set. You cannot soundly reason with it. Leads to the paradox.
- Zeno’s paradoxes are solved. Time and space are discrete (separate proof)
Common sense View
- The Actually Infinite exists.
- Reductio ad absurdum.
- No it doesn’t.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
These are all bogus arguments because they all rely on "infinity" having a 'specific value', that can either be mathematically manipulated, or physically compared/measured. You can't 'pin down' "infinity" to a specific number/value, and then treat it as such, otherwise you are just playing Zeno games. Infinity is not a mathematical construct that can be manipulated/compared/added/subtracted/multiplied/divided/etc.Devans99 wrote:Actual Infinity is impossible. I have numerous arguments:
Numerical Argument
Materialistic Argument
Geometrical Argument
The real number line
The counting paradox
The Measure Problem
The passage of time
Paradoxes are solved
As Karpal so eloquently stated "Cut infinity in two and each 'half' is still infinite."
If I were to use your flawed reasoning, then I would simply say -- we are not in thermodynamic equilibrium yet, because we are not at the end of infinity yet!Devans99 wrote:2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- If the universe has been around forever then it should be in thermodynamic equilibrium by now.
- But the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium
This is logically incoherent. If there is no (pre-existing) 'time' to "bang", then the Big Bang could not "bang" out the start of 'time'. Time can't exist BEFORE it exists.Devans99 wrote:The Big Bang
- Looks suspiciously like the start of time
Agreed. Causation is impossible in a timeless/matterless/spaceless state. Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to be caused/created. (i.e. causation is not possible until AFTER the creation of the universe). And so, as per your statement above, it appears we then both agree:Devans99 wrote:"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth"
"The universe has ALWAYS EXISTED".
-
- Posts: 341
- Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
Something which has no starting point cannot exist and is paradoxical as I demonstrated multiple times. Give me an example of something without a start from the real world...RJG wrote: ↑October 10th, 2018, 12:32 pm Devans, I notice you shy away from attacking the term "always existing", and instead prefer to attack the misleading word "infinity" instead. An "always existing" universe has NO starting point, whereas "infinity" implies a starting point (occurring an infinite time ago). Logic tells us that the universe has ALWAYS EXISTED. Can you prove this otherwise?
Infinity is not a mathematical construct. Nether does it exist in the real world. Its just a flawed, contradictory concept. You were brainwashed just like me with this infinity stuff. I've got over it. Give me an example of Actual Infinity from the real world...RJG wrote: ↑October 10th, 2018, 12:32 pm These are all bogus arguments because they all rely on "infinity" having a 'specific value', that can either be mathematically manipulated, or physically compared/measured. You can't 'pin down' "infinity" to a specific number/value, and then treat it as such, otherwise you are just playing Zeno games. Infinity is not a mathematical construct that can be manipulated/compared/added/subtracted/multiplied/divided/etc.
Yes, but in the sense Einstein taught us about. You have to imagine all of space-time as a static block that has existed always and incorporates time. Why is this difficult? Do you disagree with Special Relativity? Nearly all scientists and philosophers buy it. Why do you not buy it?
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
Why can't it exist? And where have you demonstrated it? I've only seen your references to an "infinite starting point", but not to a "NO starting point" (as in "always existing").Devans99 wrote:Something which has no starting point cannot exist and is paradoxical as I demonstrated multiple times.
Circles have no starting point. Where is the beginning of a circle?Devans99 wrote:Give me an example of something without a start from the real world…
Time has no starting point. Where is the beginning of time?
Devans, I don't necessarily disagree with you here, which is the reason I always avoid using this misleading/deceptive word. So with that said, can you make a case that "always existing" is impossible, and do so WITHOUT basing your arguments on (this deceptive word) "infinity"?Devans99 wrote:Infinity is not a mathematical construct. Nether does it exist in the real world. Its just a flawed, contradictory concept. You were brainwashed just like me with this infinity stuff. I've got over it. Give me an example of Actual Infinity from the real world…
RJG wrote:"The universe has ALWAYS EXISTED".
You must see something that I don't. When I say "the universe has ALWAYS EXISTED", this is based on logic, (not science!) It is based wholly on the simplified logic that X can't exist before X exists, ...and not upon Einstein/Special Relativity/or anything else.Devans99 wrote:Yes, but in the sense Einstein taught us about. You have to imagine all of space-time as a static block that has existed always and incorporates time. Why is this difficult? Do you disagree with Special Relativity? Nearly all scientists and philosophers buy it. Why do you not buy it?
1. Starting/creating/causing implies 'time'. Nothing happens in a timeless state. Without the pre-existence of time, there can be no starting/creating/causing of anything. Therefore it is logically impossible for time to pre-exist itself so as to then create itself.
2. Starting/creating/causing implies 'space'. Nothing happens if there is no place to happen. Without some pre-existing space, there can be no place to start/create/cause anything. Therefore it is logically impossible for space to pre-exist itself so as to then create itself.
3. Starting/creating/causing implies 'matter'. Nothing happens if there is no-things happening. Without some pre-existing matter, there is nothing to start/create/cause anything. Therefore it is logically impossible for matter to pre-exist itself so as to then create itself.
4. If the Universe is composed of time/space/matter, then the Universe cannot be started/created/caused. Therefore if the Universe exists, then it has ALWAYS EXISTED.
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
That's still infinity. If the universe has always existed, then it has already existed for an infinite amount of time. Adding a second does not make something larger than infinity.devans99 wrote: ↑October 10th, 2018, 10:44 am Actual Infinity does not exist. First just to remind the two types of infinity:
Potenial Infinity
Characterised by a repeating process, such as repeatedly adding to a number. These processes increases towards infinity without ever actually reaching it.
Actual Infinity
This is what most people think of when they say infinity; a non-finite number or quantity. Examples would be the actual existence of a completed infinite set or a physical property like length, mass taking on an infinite value.
Actual Infinity is impossible. I have numerous arguments:
Numerical Argument
- Assume Actual Infinity exists as a quantity
- Then there must be a quantity X such that X > all other quantities
- But X + 1 > X
- There is no such quantity
- Actual Infinity is not a quantity
Well, that holds for a finite universe also, and it does not contitute an argument yet.Materialistic Argument
- How exactly is Actual Infinity and the materialistic world view comparable?
- For example, can a physical quantity larger than any other possible physical quantity exist?
Geometrical Argument
- It is impossible to construct a line segment with the property that it is longer than all other line segments
Let's say your deduction is correct that things will repeat. You skipped the step where you demonstated that the universe cannot last forever and repeat.The Measure Problem
- Assume time is eternal.
- If it can happen it will happen.
- An infinite number of times.
- No matter how unlikely it was in the first place!
- So all things happen an infinite number of times.
- So all things are equally likely.
- Reductio ad absurdum. Time is not eternal
If it is a block universe with time as the fourth dimension then today was always here. There are other solutions to this problem.The passage of time
- Time clearly passes
- Time cannot have started passing infinity long ago because there is no way to get to today.
if the universe had a starting point, that means that suddenly there was a wealth of non-equilibrium that has been following the second law since then. If that can happen once, it could happen, for all we know, again and again.2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- If the universe has been around for ever then it should be in thermodynamic equilibrium by now.
- But the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium
Except there is no consensus amongst cosmologists and astrophysicists that it was. There are a lot of hypotheses that place that Big Bang in a sequence, in a larger meta-universe, etc.The Big Bang
- Looks suspiciously like the start of time
It's really odd you mention this one since it contradicts an earlier argument of yours since Cantor argued that infinite sets can be larger than each other.Paradoxes are solved
- Galileo's paradox is solved: There are less squares than numbers because not all numbers are squares. Yet each number has a square so the number of numbers and squares must be the same. He is trying to compare two actually infinite sets, IE comparing two undefined things. A set definition is not complete until all its members are iterated.
This section seems on the incomplete side.Common sense View
- The Actually Infinite exists.
- Reductio ad absurdum.
-
- Posts: 341
- Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
I demonstrated that actual infinity is not a mathematical quantity. Mathematics is a mirror of the real world; if maths cannot describe infinity, it probably does not occur in the real world.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑October 10th, 2018, 2:33 pm That's still infinity. If the universe has always existed, then it has already existed for an infinite amount of time. Adding a second does not make something larger than infinity.
I assumed that time was eternal (=universe lasts for ever within time) and then showed that the assumption leads to a contradiction. Proof by contradiction.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑October 10th, 2018, 2:33 pm Let's say your deduction is correct that things will repeat. You skipped the step where you demonstated that the universe cannot last forever and repeat
I do however think that time may be circular so everything repeats. Nature abhors macro-discontinuity so the shape of our universe may well be circular (a torus) with the time dimension running around the body and the space dimensions being within the circular cross sections. In this model, all the matter is neatly brought back together at the big crunch. The big bang immediately follows the big crunch. They are the same big bang and big crunch each time (same time co-ordinates). As Nietzsche foretold, we all live the same live over and over again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return
Yes but if the universe had existed for ever, it would spend 99.999...% of its time in heat death... so it would need a huge fluke for us to be here at all.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑October 10th, 2018, 2:33 pm if the universe had a starting point, that means that suddenly there was a wealth of non-equilibrium that has been following the second law since then. If that can happen once, it could happen, for all we know, again and again.
We know time slows in the presence of gravity. The extreme gravity of the Big Bang would of brought time to an almost complete stop just after the big bang.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑October 10th, 2018, 2:33 pm Except there is no consensus amongst cosmologists and astrophysicists that it was. There are a lot of hypotheses that place that Big Bang in a sequence, in a larger meta-universe, etc.
Cantor was on a religiously inspired quest to make a name for himself. He has not done maths or science any favours.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑October 10th, 2018, 2:33 pm It's really odd you mention this one since it contradicts an earlier argument of yours since Cantor argued that infinite sets can be larger than each other.
-
- Posts: 341
- Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
'No starting point' is the same as 'starts at infinity'. Infinity is just a label we use to mean unbounded. Everything I've said about infinity applies to a universe with no start.RJG wrote: ↑October 10th, 2018, 1:51 pmWhy can't it exist? And where have you demonstrated it? I've only seen your references to an "infinite starting point", but not to a "NO starting point" (as in "always existing").Devans99 wrote:Something which has no starting point cannot exist and is paradoxical as I demonstrated multiple times.
Circles have a start point; its just arbitrary which point you select as a start. Circles are finite. You can't use time as an example because that is what we are debating (you can't prove time has no start).
So I'm still waiting for an example.
Time and change are different. Change is possible without time. For example the photon does not experience time yet its position and wavelength change. So there is not a logical problem with time being created in a timeless base reality. Base reality would have pre-existing space and matter from which our universe is created.RJG wrote: ↑October 10th, 2018, 1:51 pmDevans, I don't necessarily disagree with you here, which is the reason I always avoid using this misleading/deceptive word. So with that said, can you make a case that "always existing" is impossible, and do so WITHOUT basing your arguments on (this deceptive word) "infinity"?Devans99 wrote:Infinity is not a mathematical construct. Nether does it exist in the real world. Its just a flawed, contradictory concept. You were brainwashed just like me with this infinity stuff. I've got over it. Give me an example of Actual Infinity from the real world…
I've made multiple cases; you just need to realise 'infinite time' and 'always existing' are the same thing. One more example for you then; if the universe has always existed within time, what is the total number of particle collisions so far? It must be a number. Another paradox. Anything without a start is paradoxical.
RJG wrote:"The universe has ALWAYS EXISTED".You must see something that I don't. When I say "the universe has ALWAYS EXISTED", this is based on logic, (not science!) It is based wholly on the simplified logic that X can't exist before X exists, ...and not upon Einstein/Special Relativity/or anything else.Devans99 wrote:Yes, but in the sense Einstein taught us about. You have to imagine all of space-time as a static block that has existed always and incorporates time. Why is this difficult? Do you disagree with Special Relativity? Nearly all scientists and philosophers buy it. Why do you not buy it?
I agree the universe always existed but it must always exist outside time like Einstein said. If the universe always existed inside time then that would imply an actual infinity of time has passed so far; which is impossible.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
Not so. One has a starting point, and the other does not.Devans99 wrote:'No starting point' is the same as 'starts at infinity'.
Not so. If you notice, your infinity arguments attack "starting points" (or fixed quantitative/specific comparative values), whereas "always existing" contains NO such starting points or specific values (to be attacked). Your comments such as "Assume Actual Infinity exists as a quantity" is non-sensical with respect to "always existing". It seems you are playing a strawman game, by focusing your arguments toward that which has a specific value or starting point, so as to then be attacked (argue its impossibility).Devans99 wrote:Everything I've said about infinity applies to a universe with no start.
Instead of arguing for the impossibility of "infinity", can you pose an argument for the impossibility of "always existing"???
I think this depends on definition. From my view, a starting point means there are no points before the starting point. If I arbitrarily pick a point on a circle, points still exist both CW and CCW of my arbitrary point. I could continually slide my finger along the (circumference of this) circle for-ev-ver and never get to the end, or I could go backwards and never ever find the starting point (that point where no more points exist).Devans99 wrote:Circles have a start point; its just arbitrary which point you select as a start.
Not so. If these were the same thing, then you could pose an argument of the impossibility of 'always existing' without evoking a starting point or specific value (or other aspects that have no relevance to 'always existing').Devans99 wrote:I've made multiple cases; you just need to realise 'infinite time' and 'always existing' are the same thing.
What makes this a paradox? Are you saying particles can't collide, because the number of collisions are incalculable?Devans99 wrote:One more example for you then; if the universe has always existed within time, what is the total number of particle collisions so far? It must be a number. Another paradox. Anything without a start is paradoxical.
Not so. I think you are confusing this with "simultaneous". As far as I know "instantaneous" (zero-time) change/motion is still not possible.Devans99 wrote:Change is possible without time.
There's not? Doesn't causation/creation itself require time? If so, then where does this time come from to create time with?Devans99 wrote:So there is not a logical problem with time being created in a timeless base reality.
The word "infinity" is the problem/confusion. "Cut infinity in two and each 'half' is still infinite." --- KarpalDevans99 wrote:If the universe always existed inside time then that would imply an actual infinity of time has passed so far; which is impossible.
-
- Posts: 341
- Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
Actual Infinity extends for ever; it has no starting point. An always existing universe is modelled with time going to -infinity. That does not make it a starting point though; its just a label; time extends back for ever.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
Disagree. ...there is no "start" whatsoever in "always existing"; or in true 'infinity'. This false equivalency is the source of your logical errors.Devans99 wrote:'No starting point' is the same as 'starts at infinity'.
Agreed, ...which thusly defeats all your 'the impossibility of infinity' arguments (those that rely on your 'finite' values/representations).Devans99 wrote:Actual Infinity extends forever; it has no starting point.
There are no 'finite' values: no "starting" or ending points whatsoever in "always existing" (true infinity). Your arguments attack these ficticious/non-existent 'finite' values, which thusly result in flawed conclusions. In essence, your arguments attack 'apples' to conclude 'no oranges'.
Again, if you replace "always existing" (no finite values) with your "infinity" (with finite values) in your arguments, then all your
arguments fall apart.
If we use "always existing" in lieu of "infinity", then all our confusion (and logical errors) disappear.
If the universe exists, then it has ALWAYS EXISTED.
...the End.
- Consul
- Posts: 6044
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
This is true if the universe encompasses all places and times, in which case there is and can be no time when it doesn't exist. Then, the temporal relations before and after aren't applicable to the universe as a whole, because there aren't and can't be any pre-time or post-time times. Sentences such as "Before the universe existed there was nothing" are then self-contradictory, because they imply that there was a time when there was no time.
However, to say (truly) that the universe has always existed is not to say that the universe qua spacetime is temporally infinite, because the former is true even if the past is not infinite.
-
- Posts: 341
- Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
Well ok, heres one with "always existing" as you have asked:
- Say you meet an always existing being in your always existing universe
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?
Still a paradox I feel. Same for all the others examples I gave.
But not within time; that would mean the universe had no beginning; which means its could not exist. Everything has a start (still waiting for a counter example).
The universe exists as Einstein said as a static 4D block incorporating time.
Time always existing would mean endless chains of cause and effect stretching back in time. But the chains go on for ever and have no start; they cannot exist.
Is there a reason why you are so keen on Presentism? Kinda going out of style since Special Relativity...
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
RJG wrote:If the universe exists, then it has ALWAYS EXISTED.
Consul, when I say "always", I mean more than just the temporal aspect of it. I mean the 'certainty' of it, ...i.e. beyond any temporal limits.Consul wrote:However, to say (truly) that the universe has always existed is not to say that the universe qua spacetime is temporally infinite, because the former is true even if the past is not infinite.
P1. The universe exists.
P2. Either the universe was created or it was NOT-created.
P3. It is logically impossible for the universe to be created.
C1. Therefore, the universe was NOT-created.
C2. Therefore, since the universe exists, it has ALWAYS EXISTED.
There are NO starting points in "always existing". Therefore this "always existing being" is a bald faced liar. He could not have "always been counting" because there would be NO "starting point" for him to start his count (no point that was at "0" or "1"). He can't possibly claim to have "always been counting" if he never 'started' the action of counting. Any counting action would be a 'finite' action within the infinite "always existing" universe.Devans99 wrote:Well ok, heres one with "always existing" as you have asked:
- Say you meet an always existing being in your always existing universe
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?
Still a paradox I feel. Same for all the others examples I gave.
Why would endless time mean endless causal chains? Causation has no (zero) effect on time. Time can occur without causation, but causation can't occur without time.Devans99 wrote:Time always existing would mean endless chains of cause and effect stretching back in time. But the chains go on for ever and have no start; they cannot exist.
RJG wrote:If the universe exists, then it has ALWAYS EXISTED.
Agreed.devans99 wrote:...that would mean the universe had no beginning…
Not so. The universe certainly exists.devans99 wrote: ...which means it could not exist.
Not so. Not the universe. It is logically impossible for our universe to have been started, caused, or created. Time (and space/matter) cannot exist prior to its own existence. X<X is not logically possible.devans99 wrote: Everything has a start…
-
- Posts: 341
- Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
Its a thought experiment and he is telling the truth. You are just having problems excepting that things without a start are paradoxical I think.RJG wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 4:05 pmThere are NO starting points in "always existing". Therefore this "always existing being" is a bald faced liar. He could not have "always been counting" because there would be NO "starting point" for him to start his count (no point that was at "0" or "1"). He can't possibly claim to have "always been counting" if he never 'started' the action of counting. Any counting action would be a 'finite' action within the infinite "always existing" universe.Devans99 wrote:Well ok, heres one with "always existing" as you have asked:
- Say you meet an always existing being in your always existing universe
- You notice he is counting
- You ask and he says ‘I’ve always been counting’
- What number is he on?
Still a paradox I feel. Same for all the others examples I gave.
If you are a determinist then all of reality is just cause and effect. One version of the prime mover says you can trace these chains of cause and effect back to an original 'uncaused cause'; IE God. Whether you believe that or not; the alternative of non-terminating chains of cause and effect is unacceptable; those chains would have no start so they could not exist.RJG wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 4:05 pmWhy would endless time mean endless causal chains? Causation has no (zero) effect on time. Time can occur without causation, but causation can't occur without time.Devans99 wrote:Time always existing would mean endless chains of cause and effect stretching back in time. But the chains go on for ever and have no start; they cannot exist.
-
- Posts: 341
- Joined: June 17th, 2018, 8:24 pm
Re: Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?
BTW, the answer to the paradox is that no such being could exist because 'always existing in time' is impossible.devans99 wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 4:53 pmIts a thought experiment and he is telling the truth. You are just having problems excepting that things without a start are paradoxical I think.RJG wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 4:05 pm
There are NO starting points in "always existing". Therefore this "always existing being" is a bald faced liar. He could not have "always been counting" because there would be NO "starting point" for him to start his count (no point that was at "0" or "1"). He can't possibly claim to have "always been counting" if he never 'started' the action of counting. Any counting action would be a 'finite' action within the infinite "always existing" universe.
Do you not see that your insistence on 'no starting point' means that our universe could not exist at all?
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023