Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
value
Premium Member
Posts: 748
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by value »

GE Morton wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:09 pm
value wrote: November 11th, 2022, 4:57 am
A property can only be considered to have been meaningfully relevant (i.e. be definite/determinate) IN experience.
Of course, given that "meaning" and "relevance" apply only to experiencing, sentient creatures. But whether a property is meaningful or relevant to someone has no bearing on whether it exists.
In ontological realism the assumption is made that the quality 'be definite/determinate' (i.e. that it exists) is able to be denoted meaningfully which means that one is obligated to explain the origin of that ability. It is nonsensical to presuppose that an external world would stand meaningless and independent from a mind that is to 'find' meaning in that world.

While an individual creature is evidently not the origin of the external world, the observer per se is a concept that is logically applicable.

GE Morton wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:09 pm
Experience therefore must precede all notions of properties and cannot be of the same kind as a something that has properties while experience cannot be factored out either.
Again, of course --- one must experience a property before one can develop any notions about it. But the necessary conditions for there to be a notion of a property are not necessary for the existence of the property.
How can that be said of the idea of notion of properties in a general sense, e.g. the applicability of 'subjective perspective per se' on anything within the external world?

GE Morton wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:09 pm
What is reality otherwise than that of which it can be said to have been observed?
Anything imagined which may serve as a cause of that which is observed.
With 'reality' I meant 'the external world' that supposedly posseses the nature intrinsic existence without mind.

The idea 'meaninglessness' is not coherent with the idea of an external world that is to produce conscious experience. Therefore, there is a requirement of 'assignment of meaning' (signification) that requires a fundamental explanation.

As mentioned in an earlier discussion I view the term value to mean 'beholder of meaning' which means that anything that can be seen in the world (all that is empirical) is value. That meaning would therefore be necessarily 'a priori' to (relevant before) value.

The idea that value (e.g. an intrinsic existing external world) can be the origin of itself is absurd. Therefore that external world requires the facilitation of the assignment of meaning (signification) as ground for its value and that cannot be otherwise than an observer since it is the observer that logically introduces the begin by which finite value manifests itself.

The begin introduced by an observer is therefore logically the begin of the external world.

GE Morton wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:09 pmI have no idea what an "a priori meaning" would be. You're using terms with well-established and understood meanings (i.e., "meaning"), to denote something obscure and not included in any dictionary definition of that term. There are no "a priori meanings." One may only speak of "meanings" with reference to something that has a meaning, such as a term or symbol. What exists a priori --- prior to conscious creatures --- is a (postulated) external world capable of producing them.
You do not agree with my use of the term meaning. The basis is the idea that meaning is only applicable from within a subjective perspective relative to an intrinsic existing external world.

My primary argument has been that the idea of value - all of which it can be said to exist or to be empirically evident - to fundamentally be the origin of itself is absurd. Value requires the assignment of meaning (signification) and without that an 'external world' cannot be meaningfully relevant.

Therefore there must be a 'meaning' that is relevant a priori to existence.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GE Morton »

Consul wrote: November 11th, 2022, 1:21 pm
Consul wrote: November 11th, 2022, 1:14 pm"Bell showed that the mere supposition that the values of the spin pre-exist to their ‘measurement’…leads to a contradiction."[/i]

My point is that if there are no definite/determinate spin-values prior to measurement, then particles have no spin at all prior to measurement—neither a definite/determinate one nor an indefinite/indeterminate one. That is, prior to measurement particles are absolutely spinless.
The presence of a determinable quantity such as spin requires the presence of some determinate quantity such as some determinate spin-value; so if there is no determinate of the determinable in question, then the determinable itself doesn't exist.

Determinables and Determinates: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dete ... rminables/
Yes indeed.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GE Morton »

Consul wrote: November 11th, 2022, 2:40 pm
GE Morton wrote: November 11th, 2022, 1:33 pm
Consul wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:34 pm
GE Morton wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:09 pmAgain, of course --- one must experience a property before one can develop any notions about it.
The physicists have developed the notion of spin without anyone of them ever having experienced this property of particles.
Oh, no. They didn't develop the notion of spin; it is an experienced property (of planets, gyroscopes, etc.) which they apply (rather gratuitously) to their elementary particles. What they actually observe is just differing deflections of those particles in magnetic fields.
Yes, of course, you can see a macroscopic object such as a gyroscope spinning; but you cannot see the (quantum) spin of a single particle (which doesn't actually rotate like a visible gyroscope). So unlike our ordinary concept of spin (or rotation), the quantum-physical concept of spin isn't grounded in the (direct) perceptual experience of quantum spins. And measuring a physical quantity is not the same as perceiving it (directly).
What they're perceiving directly are instrumental readings of vectors of particles traversing a magnetic field. Dubbing that behavior as due to "spin" is convenient, perhaps, but misleading.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GE Morton »

Consul wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:36 pm
We do have concepts of properties other than experiential/phenomenal properties ("qualia").
That is actually an interesting question. Do we? We can, of course, transpose perceptible, experienceable properties of apples to oranges, or of gyroscopes to photons, but can we conceive properties we've not experienced at all, of anything? We can surely coin a term for some novel, never-experienced property, but can we truly have a concept of it?

The properties of things are the differentia which enable us to distinguish one thing from another. We can conceive imaginary things, but typically we
describe them with familiar property terms, just combining them in ways never actually experienced.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GE Morton »

value wrote: November 11th, 2022, 7:20 pm
In ontological realism the assumption is made that the quality 'be definite/determinate' (i.e. that it exists) is able to be denoted meaningfully which means that one is obligated to explain the origin of that ability.
Biochemistry and organic evolution explain that ability pretty well.
It is nonsensical to presuppose that an external world would stand meaningless and independent from a mind that is to 'find' meaning in that world.
It will be "meaningless" is there are no sentient creatures to whom it has meaning. "Meaning," like "good," and "value" are relative terms --- they denote relations between some thing and some sentient creature. There is nothing "nonsensical" about a universe which harbors no sentient creatures. In such a universe "good," "value," "meaning," etc. would have no application; they'd denote nothing.
Again, of course --- one must experience a property before one can develop any notions about it. But the necessary conditions for there to be a notion of a property are not necessary for the existence of the property.
How can that be said of the idea of notion of properties in a general sense, e.g. the applicability of 'subjective perspective per se' on anything within the external world?
We assume there to be an external world, postulate one, in order to supply a cause for the experiences we have, for our own existence. Though we have no direct knowledge of that world (only the indirect knowledge we gain via sensory experiences), we construct a conceptual model of that world. We consider that model to be the "real world" as long as it enables us to predict, modify and manipulate future experiences.
What is reality otherwise than that of which it can be said to have been observed?
Anything imagined which may serve as a cause of that which is observed.
With 'reality' I meant 'the external world' that supposedly posseses the nature intrinsic existence without mind.
"Reality" (per common usages of "real") embraces both the phenomena of experience AND the postulated external world.
The idea 'meaninglessness' is not coherent with the idea of an external world that is to produce conscious experience.
That's true. If that external world produces, via its internal workings, conscious creatures then that world may have "meaning" to those creatures, or some of them. But it will have no "meaning" until that happens.
As mentioned in an earlier discussion I view the term value to mean 'beholder of meaning' which means that anything that can be seen in the world (all that is empirical) is value. That meaning would therefore be necessarily 'a priori' to (relevant before) value.
Again, "meaning" and "value" are relative terms, which relate things to persons (or other sentient creatures). And, no, "anything that can be seen" is not "value." That is a misuse of that term. Anything may HAVE value to some person or other, but without the valuer there is no "value."
The idea that value (e.g. an intrinsic existing external world) can be the origin of itself is absurd.
There is no need for it to have an origin. It may well be eternal:

"Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore something has always existed."
---Robert Nozick (which argument he attributes to his 9-year old daughter)
GE Morton wrote: November 11th, 2022, 12:09 pmI have no idea what an "a priori meaning" would be. You're using terms with well-established and understood meanings (i.e., "meaning"), to denote something obscure and not included in any dictionary definition of that term. There are no "a priori meanings." One may only speak of "meanings" with reference to something that has a meaning, such as a term or symbol. What exists a priori --- prior to conscious creatures --- is a (postulated) external world capable of producing them.
You do not agree with my use of the term meaning. The basis is the idea that meaning is only applicable from within a subjective perspective relative to an intrinsic existing external world.
Meanings, of the external world, or things in it, or of anything else, are indeed subjective (different things will have different meanings to different people). What I denied above are "a priori meanings," which you seem to be using to denote a "meaning" which exists in the absence of any sentient creatures.
My primary argument has been that the idea of value - all of which it can be said to exist or to be empirically evident - to fundamentally be the origin of itself is absurd. Value requires the assignment of meaning (signification) and without that an 'external world' cannot be meaningfully relevant.

Therefore there must be a 'meaning' that is relevant a priori to existence.
Well, that argument is simply a non sequitur. The term "value" does not denote "all of which it can be said to exist or to be empirically evident." It denotes a relation between something and some valuer. That something X exists does not entail that it has any value, and it will have none unless some valuer assigns one to it. And there certainly need not be a valuer to assign a value to some X in order for X to exist.
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Mercury »

"If that external world produces, via its internal workings, conscious creatures then that world may have "meaning" to those creatures, or some of them. But it will have no "meaning" until that happens."

Pardon the interjection, but only 'life' is necessary to 'value.' Consciousness is not necessary. The simplest of organisms will move away from a hot needle.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GE Morton »

Mercury wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:23 pm "If that external world produces, via its internal workings, conscious creatures then that world may have "meaning" to those creatures, or some of them. But it will have no "meaning" until that happens."

Pardon the interjection, but only 'life' is necessary to 'value.' Consciousness is not necessary. The simplest of organisms will move away from a hot needle.
That is stretching the meaning of "value" quite a bit.
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Mercury »

Mercury wrote: November 12th, 2022, 2:23 pm "If that external world produces, via its internal workings, conscious creatures then that world may have "meaning" to those creatures, or some of them. But it will have no "meaning" until that happens."

Pardon the interjection, but only 'life' is necessary to 'value.' Consciousness is not necessary. The simplest of organisms will move away from a hot needle.
GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 3:34 pm That is stretching the meaning of "value" quite a bit.
Consider how values arise in evolution. At base, the pain/pleasure reflex - built upon, and finding new expression in more complex organisms for many millions of years before intellectually expressed by human consciousness. e.g. Jane Goodall describes social enforcement of moral reciprocation in chimp societies.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GE Morton »

Mercury wrote: November 12th, 2022, 3:58 pm
Consider how values arise in evolution. At base, the pain/pleasure reflex - built upon, and finding new expression in more complex organisms for many millions of years before intellectually expressed by human consciousness. e.g. Jane Goodall describes social enforcement of moral reciprocation in chimp societies.
Well, values don't "arise in evolution." Stimulus-response arcs and innate drives are not values. Values are subjective and idiosyncratic; what a person values and how he ranks what he values is unpredictable. Most of the the things people value confer no survival advantage whatsoever, and some people place little value on things that do confer survival advantages.
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Mercury »

Mercury wrote: November 12th, 2022, 3:58 pm
Consider how values arise in evolution. At base, the pain/pleasure reflex - built upon, and finding new expression in more complex organisms for many millions of years before intellectually expressed by human consciousness. e.g. Jane Goodall describes social enforcement of moral reciprocation in chimp societies.
GE Morton wrote: November 12th, 2022, 11:30 pmWell, values don't "arise in evolution." Stimulus-response arcs and innate drives are not values. Values are subjective and idiosyncratic; what a person values and how he ranks what he values is unpredictable. Most of the the things people value confer no survival advantage whatsoever, and some people place little value on things that do confer survival advantages.
I've argued elsewhere that the 'transvaluation of values' Nietzsche identified - was not the weak fooling the strong, but the explicit expression of a pre-existing morality for the purposes of joining hunter gatherer tribes together in multi-tribal societies.

The origin of values is a moral sense - fostered in individuals in a tribal context by the advantage a moral sense offers the individual within the tribe, and the tribe composed of individuals that share food, share childcare, defend each other, engage in reciprocal grooming etc. Jane Goodall's work with chimpanzees suggests such behaviours long pre-date human intellectual awareness, and fulfil my definition of values - if not yours.

I think you're talking about evolutionary drives playing out in an environment that has changed dramatically in just a few thousand years. Civilisation is only 12-15,000 years old, and was largely agricultural for most of that time. It's only in the past few hundred years industrial civilisation has developed; with people living in societies where they don't know most of the people around them.

May I suggest your conception of values is consistent with modern day social atomisation. If that's what you were going for, congrats, you nailed it. The subjective and idiosyncratic values of the socially excluded and alienated.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GE Morton »

Mercury wrote: November 13th, 2022, 12:24 am
The origin of values is a moral sense - fostered in individuals in a tribal context by the advantage a moral sense offers the individual within the tribe, and the tribe composed of individuals that share food, share childcare, defend each other, engage in reciprocal grooming etc. Jane Goodall's work with chimpanzees suggests such behaviours long pre-date human intellectual awareness, and fulfil my definition of values - if not yours.
Moralities are not the "origin of values," though individuals who adopt certain moral precepts will value them (they only adopt them because they do value them). People can assign a value to anything.

To value something means to desire it, be attracted to it, and be willing to give up something --- time, effort, money, some other good --- to obtain it, retain it, or protect it. What one is willing to give up in order to obtain some X is the quantitative measure of X's value to that person. Values per se are not social; Crusoe alone on his island will value various things; non-social animals value various things. We can estimate the value of a given thing to Alfie (or an animal) by observing Alfie's behavior with respect to it --- what he is willing to give up to secure it.

Moralities are rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. To the extent individuals find the advantages of a social setting desirable, they will also desire --- value --- rules that permit that setting to remain viable. Values, and the capacity to value, precede moralities.
I think you're talking about evolutionary drives playing out in an environment that has changed dramatically in just a few thousand years. Civilisation is only 12-15,000 years old, and was largely agricultural for most of that time. It's only in the past few hundred years industrial civilisation has developed; with people living in societies where they don't know most of the people around them.

May I suggest your conception of values is consistent with modern day social atomisation. If that's what you were going for, congrats, you nailed it. The subjective and idiosyncratic values of the socially excluded and alienated.
Yes indeed. The advent of civilization --- societies characterized by cities, which are communities so large than most of their members do not know most of the others --- forced a radical transformation in the nature of the relationships between individuals and in the moralities that are workable in that context. What works for kinship-based tribal societies does not work for "societies of strangers."

What people will value depends upon what is visible to or at least conceivable by them --- they rank the options available, of which they're aware, and direct their efforts accordingly. In insular tribal societies that range of options is narrow; in civilized societies it is vast. Different individuals in the latter fill their shopping baskets with different goods from that cornucopia.

There is, to be sure, an atavistic longing among some for the simplicity, familiarity, constancy, uniformity, and intimacy of tribal life --- the social form followed by all primates, including humans, for several million years. That longing leads to laments about "alienation."
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Mercury »

Mercury wrote: November 13th, 2022, 12:24 am
The origin of values is a moral sense - fostered in individuals in a tribal context by the advantage a moral sense offers the individual within the tribe, and the tribe composed of individuals that share food, share childcare, defend each other, engage in reciprocal grooming etc. Jane Goodall's work with chimpanzees suggests such behaviours long pre-date human intellectual awareness, and fulfil my definition of values - if not yours.
GE Morton wrote: November 13th, 2022, 12:33 pmMoralities are not the "origin of values," though individuals who adopt certain moral precepts will value them (they only adopt them because they do value them). People can assign a value to anything.

To value something means to desire it, be attracted to it, and be willing to give up something --- time, effort, money, some other good --- to obtain it, retain it, or protect it. What one is willing to give up in order to obtain some X is the quantitative measure of X's value to that person. Values per se are not social; Crusoe alone on his island will value various things; non-social animals value various things. We can estimate the value of a given thing to Alfie (or an animal) by observing Alfie's behavior with respect to it --- what he is willing to give up to secure it.

May I refer you back to my earlier remark that the simplest of organisms will move away from a hot needle.

You replied: "That is stretching the meaning of "value" quite a bit."

How so?

GE Morton wrote: November 13th, 2022, 12:33 pmMoralities are rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. To the extent individuals find the advantages of a social setting desirable, they will also desire --- value --- rules that permit that setting to remain viable. Values, and the capacity to value, precede moralities.
What is valued by the individual may not be valued by the group!
I think you're talking about evolutionary drives playing out in an environment that has changed dramatically in just a few thousand years. Civilisation is only 12-15,000 years old, and was largely agricultural for most of that time. It's only in the past few hundred years industrial civilisation has developed; with people living in societies where they don't know most of the people around them.

May I suggest your conception of values is consistent with modern day social atomisation. If that's what you were going for, congrats, you nailed it. The subjective and idiosyncratic values of the socially excluded and alienated.
GE Morton wrote: November 13th, 2022, 12:33 pmYes indeed. The advent of civilization --- societies characterized by cities, which are communities so large than most of their members do not know most of the others --- forced a radical transformation in the nature of the relationships between individuals and in the moralities that are workable in that context. What works for kinship-based tribal societies does not work for "societies of strangers."

What people will value depends upon what is visible to or at least conceivable by them --- they rank the options available, of which they're aware, and direct their efforts accordingly. In insular tribal societies that range of options is narrow; in civilized societies it is vast. Different individuals in the latter fill their shopping baskets with different goods from that cornucopia.

There is, to be sure, an atavistic longing among some for the simplicity, familiarity, constancy, uniformity, and intimacy of tribal life --- the social form followed by all primates, including humans, for several million years. That longing leads to laments about "alienation."
If all you mean by value is 'what I want' then I'm at a loss to understand the philosophical significance. "Subjective and idiosyncratic" values are no values at all. Robinson Crusoe may want things; he may want A more than B - so "values" A; but this is value as an adverb, not as a noun. Crusoe cannot commit an immoral act because there is no-one to sin against.

noun:
principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what is important in life.
"they internalize their parents' rules and values"
Similar: principles, moral principles, ethics, moral code, morals.

Values with philosophical significance; the noun form - are social values. Consequently, my argument traces values from the simplest organism moving away from a hot needle, via proto-moral behaviours in chimpanzee societies, to religious expression of moral values for the purposes of uniting hunter gather tribes to form societies and civilisations, unto political values.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by Consul »

The only values relevant to this thread are physical ones, i.e. values of physical quantities!
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GE Morton »

Consul wrote: November 13th, 2022, 4:38 pm The only values relevant to this thread are physical ones, i.e. values of physical quantities!
True. This diversion is clearly off-topic.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022

Post by GE Morton »

Mercury wrote: November 13th, 2022, 2:26 pm May I refer you back to my earlier remark that the simplest of organisms will move away from a hot needle.

You replied: "That is stretching the meaning of "value" quite a bit."

How so?
I copied this post to a new thread, "Morals and values --- how are they related?"

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18393

Comments there.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

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