The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

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
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by JackDaydream »

@Steve3007

I know that you say you don't see why materialists or anyone else would suggest that consciousness is an illusion, and I am puzzled by it. But, there are some mainstream thinkers who have, especially Dennett, as well as the behaviourist, BF Skinner. I find their arguments extremely hard to grapple with, and I wonder if it just an attempt to say that inner reality does not matter. It appears to me to be a way of dismissing the experience of consciousness.

As far as my own statement about the translation from physical to mental states what I am trying to say is that there is so much exploration of neuroscience in terms of the wiring. However, the actual experience of consciousness is harder to understand. If anything, I am probably coming from the opposite position to Dennett and Skinner, believing that focus and attention needs to be upon inner reality and awareness for understanding consciousness.
PoeticUniverse
Posts: 638
Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by PoeticUniverse »

JackDaydream wrote: October 27th, 2021, 2:30 pm holographic
What is known as the 'holographic principle' differs from an image hologram and has to do with the boundary being able to project what is within; however, it only works in a universe with an anti desitter universe with a negative cosmological constant which our universe doesn't have.

Still,

Since the entropy of a black hole is known
To depend on the surface area of
The event horizon and NOT on its volume,
Then our third dimension MIGHT BE a projection.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by JackDaydream »

@PoeticUniverse

Yes, the holographic model only borrows its name from the image of the hologram, but I have to admit that I have always been fascinated by holographic images. Black holes are interesting, but symbolic black holes too. It is interesting how science and the symbolic aspects of the arts come together as aspects for thinking about the nature of reality.
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Gee »

stevie wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:40 am
Gee wrote: October 25th, 2021, 2:36 am
stevie wrote: October 25th, 2021, 1:54 am
JackDaydream wrote: October 24th, 2021, 8:11 am @ stevie

... Many do seek the whys within the physical sciences but even these do draw upon metaphysics. ...
I don't think so. Based on and in line with already validated knowledge a logically consistent hypothesis is set up that can be experimentally tested. If the hypothesis can be confirmed by experiments then the concept of "hypothesis" is transformed into the concept of "theory". So there is no room for metaphysics.
So stevie,

Maybe you don't think so, but on the other hand maybe you should think about it a little more.
I don't think so considering the quote I have responded to.
My statement did not just apply to your current response, but to a summation of your responses in this thread. You do not appear to understand metaphysics at all, and seem to think that science does not require interpretation. You would be wrong if that is what you think. There is a reason why science is referred to as a child of philosophy -- it is an extension of philosophy.
stevie wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:40 am
Gee wrote: October 25th, 2021, 2:36 am I ... would like to state that science is ... very much about observation.
Correct. In contrast to metaphysics science it about what can be publically observed, i.e. about what is accessible by the five senses independent of beliefs, i.e. about what is evident.
Yes. Science is about objective information, but all information is interpreted, subjectively, so what one person may see as evidence another may not. Take the example of a policeman trying to get valid information from a group of witnesses who saw a crime in progress. One would think that if they all saw the same thing, their testimony and evidence would be the same, but it rarely is. Their five senses take in the information, which is then colored by their subjective biases, beliefs, experiences, memories, distractions, etc., so that the "evidence" is not as cut and dried as you imply that it is. Truth is subjective, which means that there will always be interpretation, which means that metaphysics is inevitable.
stevie wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:40 am
Gee wrote: October 25th, 2021, 2:36 am Please observe that you are in a philosophy forum, not a science forum, and that this is the forum dedicated to metaphysics
Please observe that when a users tries to conflate sience and metaphysics then that is in line with this forum. And when another user states that science and metaphysics are incompatible categories then that is in line with this forum, too.
But neither of them has anything to do with Michael Talbot's book, The Holographic Universe.
stevie wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:40 am Posting in a forum that also is dedicated to metaphysics does not depend on being a follower of metaphysics.
I can not believe that you used the phrase "follower of metaphysics". I remember that the members of that science forum also could not tell the difference between religion and philosophy. Generally speaking religions have "followers", metaphysics does not.
stevie wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:40 am And finally please observe that this forum isn't exclusively dedicated to metaphysics but also to epistemology.
Which is a good thing, because if we did not have epistemology seeking knowledge, then we may not really need science.
stevie wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:40 am
Gee wrote: October 25th, 2021, 2:36 am Also note that the current topic is about consciousness; it is not about the brain, so science is pretty clueless on this subject as most insist that consciousness is relegated to the brain.
Taking the brain as the source of consciousness it depends on the inclination of the user as to whether the current topic is related to the brain or the consciousness. Looking at the title of this thread brain or consciousness may be called 'aspects of the current topic' but not 'the current topic'.
OK. Do you have some information to add regarding the current topic?

Gee
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Gee »

Pattern-chaser wrote: October 25th, 2021, 10:49 am
Gee wrote: October 25th, 2021, 2:36 am [To stevie] ... this is the forum dedicated to metaphysics -- something that you do not understand.
In fairness, our recent topic on defining or describing "metaphysics" failed to discover any form of words with which all (or most) could agree.

One reason for this is that the word is used as a catch-all term, so the things that it gathers together and refers to are not as intimately associated as intuition might expect.

It's like "unconscious mind". We have the "conscious mind", which refers to one part of our minds, and "unconscious mind" that refers not to one part, but to all of the other parts of the mind: a catch-all term, which understandably leads to some confusion. Especially when the one-part term, "conscious mind", is contrasted with the all-parts term, "unconscious mind", as though they are somehow equivalent, and therefore, comparable. But this is not about the mind, it's about metaphysics, and this paragraph is offered only as an example of catch-all terms, and how they can sometimes lead to confusion. 👍
I agree that metaphysics is difficult and confusing, but I don't agree that one should dismiss it out of hand while posting in the metaphysics forum. It seems a little disrespectful. I would never do that in a science forum, even though my personal opinion regarding some science is less than it could be.

Gee
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by stevie »

Gee wrote: October 27th, 2021, 11:11 pm
stevie wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:40 am
Gee wrote: October 25th, 2021, 2:36 am
stevie wrote: October 25th, 2021, 1:54 am

I don't think so. Based on and in line with already validated knowledge a logically consistent hypothesis is set up that can be experimentally tested. If the hypothesis can be confirmed by experiments then the concept of "hypothesis" is transformed into the concept of "theory". So there is no room for metaphysics.
So stevie,

Maybe you don't think so, but on the other hand maybe you should think about it a little more.
I don't think so considering the quote I have responded to.
My statement did not just apply to your current response, but to a summation of your responses in this thread. You do not appear to understand metaphysics at all, and seem to think that science does not require interpretation. You would be wrong if that is what you think. There is a reason why science is referred to as a child of philosophy -- it is an extension of philosophy.
stevie wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:40 am
Gee wrote: October 25th, 2021, 2:36 am I ... would like to state that science is ... very much about observation.
Correct. In contrast to metaphysics science it about what can be publically observed, i.e. about what is accessible by the five senses independent of beliefs, i.e. about what is evident.
Yes. Science is about objective information, but all information is interpreted, subjectively, so what one person may see as evidence another may not. Take the example of a policeman trying to get valid information from a group of witnesses who saw a crime in progress. One would think that if they all saw the same thing, their testimony and evidence would be the same, but it rarely is. Their five senses take in the information, which is then colored by their subjective biases, beliefs, experiences, memories, distractions, etc., so that the "evidence" is not as cut and dried as you imply that it is. Truth is subjective, which means that there will always be interpretation, which means that metaphysics is inevitable.
stevie wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:40 am
Gee wrote: October 25th, 2021, 2:36 am Please observe that you are in a philosophy forum, not a science forum, and that this is the forum dedicated to metaphysics
Please observe that when a users tries to conflate sience and metaphysics then that is in line with this forum. And when another user states that science and metaphysics are incompatible categories then that is in line with this forum, too.
But neither of them has anything to do with Michael Talbot's book, The Holographic Universe.
stevie wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:40 am Posting in a forum that also is dedicated to metaphysics does not depend on being a follower of metaphysics.
I can not believe that you used the phrase "follower of metaphysics". I remember that the members of that science forum also could not tell the difference between religion and philosophy. Generally speaking religions have "followers", metaphysics does not.
stevie wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:40 am And finally please observe that this forum isn't exclusively dedicated to metaphysics but also to epistemology.
Which is a good thing, because if we did not have epistemology seeking knowledge, then we may not really need science.
stevie wrote: October 25th, 2021, 3:40 am
Gee wrote: October 25th, 2021, 2:36 am Also note that the current topic is about consciousness; it is not about the brain, so science is pretty clueless on this subject as most insist that consciousness is relegated to the brain.
Taking the brain as the source of consciousness it depends on the inclination of the user as to whether the current topic is related to the brain or the consciousness. Looking at the title of this thread brain or consciousness may be called 'aspects of the current topic' but not 'the current topic'.
OK. Do you have some information to add regarding the current topic?

Gee
I don't mind if you are a follower of metaphysics. It is just that I am not. No need to open up new sub-topics because we would always end up with you arguing from a metaphysical perspective and me rejecting that and there wouldn't be any benefit.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Gee »

JackDaydream wrote: October 25th, 2021, 10:29 pm I am glad to receive a reply from someone who has read Talbot's ideas. I have to admit that I didn't pay too much attention to the notes, but just sought to understand the basics of the perspective from a philosophical point of view.
My thought is that Talbot knew that he was presenting an idea that would rattle some cages, so he needed to present as much valid and credible evidence as was possible; hence, the 20 pages. There are some eastern thinkers that have been promoting the idea of correlations between quantum physics and religious ideas, or consciousness, but Talbot was not religious as far as I know. His references deal with neurology and physics, and his book was very well received, but I can tell you it is way out of my league.
JackDaydream wrote: October 25th, 2021, 10:29 pm I would definitely agree that the understanding of the nature of consciousness can probably be best understood by science, philosophy and religion having ' equal voice'.
When I was a child I read a statement that was written on a building downtown. It said, "Man is a physical, mental, and spiritual being." Many years later, I concluded that this statement is true, as it is not disputed by philosophy, religion, or science. After further study, I realized that all life is physical, mental, and spiritual, which many people will disagree with, but there is a great deal of evidence to support this position.

Because life is our only evidence that consciousness exists; and because life is physical, mental, and spiritual; and because science studies the physical, philosophy studies the mental, and religion studies the spiritual, it appears we need all three disciplines to fully understand life and consciousness. Each of the disciplines has multiple theories that fall flat because they do not have all the information needed to come up with a comprehensive theory.
JackDaydream wrote: October 25th, 2021, 10:29 pm My own searching is one which seeks to combine these, but many people don't think that science and religion are compatible at all. Of course, there are such varying approaches to religion, and the perspective from which I approach religious experience and knowledge is to see the wide panoramas of comparative religion.
I don't need science and religion to be compatible, just respectful of each other.

My approach is much like yours; I looked for commonalities in religions and found them. All religions promote a morality; morality is just laws guided by emotion. All religions bond their people, usually requiring meetings for prayer or study, to promote their togetherness. Bonding is done through emotion. All religions have sacraments, rites, and/or rituals that note specific developments in our lives such as birth, the age of consent, coming of age as a preteen, marriage, giving birth, aging into crones and elders and death. All of these developments, every damned one of them, relates to hormone changes and all hormone changes cause emotional changes. Religions were celebrating our changes in hormones thousands of years before they knew what hormones were. Then there is the work that religions do regarding charities, grief counseling, and celebrating our births and marriages. It is all about emotion. That is what religion studies -- emotion. We call it spirituality, but what it actually is, is emotion.
JackDaydream wrote: October 25th, 2021, 10:29 pm Science and religion approach life differently, in the sense that science looks for theories based on evidence and religious worldviews are based on symbolic ways, as expressed in stories. But, Talbot' s emphasis on how even the holographic model is a model only captures the way in which knowledge is limited.
Science and religion have to approach their studies differently because science searches out knowledge, much like philosophy does, but religion can't do that because emotion is not actually known -- it is experienced. Because of the difficulty of the subject matter, religion has to use symbols, art, stories and poetry, dance, etc., in order to convey it's messages. Then if you add in the history and culture of the people (bonding) and run all of that through the unconscious aspect of mind and Jung's archetypes, it is pretty easy to see why religions become what they are.
JackDaydream wrote: October 25th, 2021, 10:29 pm It may be about the way in which explanations are based on models, descriptions and metaphors that is extremely important, and that the understanding of consciousness needs to blend these varying aspects in order to come to a fuller understanding because consciousness involves all of these aspects in their fullest complexity.
I am not even certain that language (knowledge) is up to the task of explaining consciousness. I keep coming back to the idea that knowledge (language) is static -- on it's own it does not do anything. If you take the greatest thoughts known to man and write them down and put them in a drawer, years later they will still be there. They will not do a thing. The physical (matter) at least takes up space and over time will decay, so there is some action there. Emotion (the spiritual) is an actual force that has/is movement, attraction and repulsion, but it is not known, only experienced.

Anyway, I certainly don't have the answers.

Gee
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Belindi »

Gee wrote:

Anyway, I certainly don't have the answers.


The following is not a criticism of Gee who writes well.It is not a criticism at all. I want to help.

All of philosophy, perhaps especially metaphysics, is an academic discipline, which same as other academic disciplines is quite difficult to understand unless one has been taught it by an experienced teacher at some level appropriate to age and experience.

It is possible to learn it at a distance, say from an accredited beginner's text book.
There are some rightly famous philosophers who do have answers, and these are sometimes difficult to read , so a proper teacher can guide the learner through the maze of philosophy and philosophers and recommend secondary sources to study.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

stevie wrote: October 27th, 2021, 11:43 pm I don't mind if you are a follower of metaphysics. It is just that I am not.
As Gee said:
Gee wrote: October 27th, 2021, 11:11 pm I can not believe that you used the phrase "follower of metaphysics". I remember that the members of that science forum also could not tell the difference between religion and philosophy. Generally speaking religions have "followers", metaphysics does not.
There is no such thing as a "follower of metaphysics". It is not a belief system; it only gathers together a particular grouping of philosophical issues.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Steve3007 »

Pattern-chaser wrote:There is no such thing as a "follower of metaphysics". It is not a belief system; it only gathers together a particular grouping of philosophical issues.
Absolutely. I think this is why, as discussed in that other topic, the conversation gets needlessly confused if everybody has their own different definition of a word, like metaphysics. We get silly notions like "being a follower of metaphysics", and others, like the idea that it's all about teleology or that it's somehow all about emotions or all about consciousness or numerous other misuses. Surely better to stick to what it actually means in the context of philosophy.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by JackDaydream »

@ Gee

I think that you are right to point out that the ideas in the book, 'The Holographic Universe' probably rattled some cages, but, essentially, it was only a model. It is extremely different from some kind of 'religious' perspective, because it comes as simply as an idea to be thought about like many other scientific models, nothing more or nothing less. My understanding is that its advocates presented it in such a way, recognizing that it was only a model.
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3220
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by JackDaydream »

@Steve2007

Yes, I think that most people, including those on a philosophy site have such different perspectives on the idea of metaphysics. The biggest problem may be if this is not recognised, and anyone tries to presume that their own is the ultimate one, without regard for the ambiguity of the term and the implications for philosophy discussion. Somehow, the way metaphysics is defined or understood may have implications for the agenda of questions about reality, and what perspectives are considered important or relevant for debate.
stevie
Posts: 762
Joined: July 19th, 2021, 11:08 am

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by stevie »

Pattern-chaser wrote: October 28th, 2021, 6:13 am
stevie wrote: October 27th, 2021, 11:43 pm I don't mind if you are a follower of metaphysics. It is just that I am not.
As Gee said:
Gee wrote: October 27th, 2021, 11:11 pm I can not believe that you used the phrase "follower of metaphysics". I remember that the members of that science forum also could not tell the difference between religion and philosophy. Generally speaking religions have "followers", metaphysics does not.
There is no such thing as a "follower of metaphysics". It is not a belief system; it only gathers together a particular grouping of philosophical issues.
Well for those who advocate metaphysics it's obviously a belief system. And those who merely try to defend it against criticism without advocating it may do so because they still believe that metaphysics has something to say about an alleged "reality".
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Steve3007 »

stevie wrote:Well for those who advocate metaphysics it's obviously a belief system.
What kinds of activities would "advocating metaphysics" consist of, in your view? What is it that you think these advocates believe, as a system, that non-advocates don't believe? I think you're doing the same thing that a lot of people do in having the vague notion that metaphysics is a thing that religious/mystical/spiritual/humanities oriented people do, and non-metaphysics (physics? science?) is what people who don't believe in all that do. Correct me if I'm wrong there.

As discussed in this topic if we're using the term "metaphysics" in the sense in which it's used in philosophy (which would seem reasonable, given the forum in which we're talking) then understandings of what metaphysics entails have evolved over the years, but now, at any rate, it largely consists of ontology: consideration of what entities we deem to really exist. So, for example, a person who takes the ontological stance that matter is the only real existent is taking a metaphysical stance called materialism or physicalism. They may, of course, take that stance on the basis of what has been observed about the world and what appears to be coherent (i.e. that makes logical sense). So, in a sense, they'd be taking that stance on the basis of physics. So then we'd have a metaphysical stance/position/view which is based on the discoveries of physics (or the wider activity of observing the world and drawing logically consistent conclusions from those observations, of which physics is a specific, formal instance.)

Would you agree with the above?
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

stevie wrote:Well for those who advocate metaphysics it's obviously a belief system.
Steve3007 wrote: October 29th, 2021, 6:09 am What kinds of activities would "advocating metaphysics" consist of, in your view? What is it that you think these advocates believe, as a system, that non-advocates don't believe? I think you're doing the same thing that a lot of people do in having the vague notion that metaphysics is a thing that religious/mystical/spiritual/humanities oriented people do, and non-metaphysics (physics? science?) is what people who don't believe in all that do. Correct me if I'm wrong there.
I can only reiterate what Steve has just said. Personally, I love metaphysics, and metaphysical topics for discussion. But I do not "follow" metaphysics, I do not "advocate" metaphysics - how would one even DO that? - and it plays no part at all in my personal belief system. It's just an interesting area of philosophy.

Please describe for us, stevie, what a "follower" or "advocate" of metaphysics might be, and how we might recognise such a person. What would their advocation (?) look like?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
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