Why there is something rather than nothing

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
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Steve3007 »

Some psychology researchers allegedly once did an experiment where they got somebody to pose as a pollster/surveyor with a clipboard who stopped by-passers to ask them a series of questions. In the middle of the question, two more people posing as labourers carrying a door, or other large opaque object, walked between the pollster and his/her subject, momentarily blocking their view of each other. During this brief interval, the pollster was replaced with a completely different person and then carried on with the questions.

Allegedly, many people didn't notice the switch.

Maybe not strictly relevant here, but, if true, and interesting illustration of the fact that we create models of the world in our minds and then assume that the world will continue to conform to the model, especially if the alternative would be something that has rarely happened before and which we therefore have not modeled much.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Obvious Leo »

Steve3007 wrote:Some psychology researchers allegedly once did an experiment where they got somebody to pose as a pollster/surveyor with a clipboard who stopped by-passers to ask them a series of questions. In the middle of the question, two more people posing as labourers carrying a door, or other large opaque object, walked between the pollster and his/her subject, momentarily blocking their view of each other. During this brief interval, the pollster was replaced with a completely different person and then carried on with the questions.

Allegedly, many people didn't notice the switch.

Maybe not strictly relevant here, but, if true, and interesting illustration of the fact that we create models of the world in our minds and then assume that the world will continue to conform to the model, especially if the alternative would be something that has rarely happened before and which we therefore have not modeled much.
This is why eye-witness testimony is regarded as almost valueless in our criminal justice system. Check out the "gorilla"illusion or Uri Geller, the famous spoon-bender. We see what we want to see, or more precisely, we see what we expect to see.

Consider the human eye. The human retina receives only a minuscule amount of visual information from the outside world. If represented as a visual image it would look like an extremely grainy image with barely any distinguishable features. It is presented in only three primary colours, in 2 dimensions, upside down, with a bloody great hole in it. It is almost visual "noise" and is presented to the mind in this form via the optic nerve. The mind then processes this information into a 3D image of exquisite precision, the right way up in glorious technicolour. We do not see with our eyes. we see with our minds. It was once thought that human infants were born blind but this has now been shown not to be the case. They are born with an inability to see. Seeing must be learned.

I need hardly point out that the physics of human perception is not regarded as relevant in the spacetime paradigm of physics. Oy vey!!

Regards Leo

-- Updated March 4th, 2015, 5:22 am to add the following --

Atreyu. You are conflating two different concepts, namely the fundamental and the EMERGENT.

Leo is one Being, and I use this word deliberately because a state of being is a dynamic PROCESS. There is an emergent Leo, which I define as the self, and a fundamental Leo, which I define as the information which encodes for this self. This is monism most simply expressed in an informational paradigm of reality and for the purposes of this post I'll leave out all the nested causal domains between. The question then becomes: how quickly is this fundamental self changing? This is actually a no-brainer. I am composed of atoms and molecules no different from any other emergent entity except in the way that these emergent descriptors are organised. Pick whatever atom we like from the trillions which encode for me and ask: How quickly is this atom changing? Atoms are encoded for by sub-atomic particles so when we change one we change the atom. How quickly do sub-atomic particles change? This all depends on the particle but if we say that an electron has either absorbed or emitted a photon it is then no longer the same electron. Photons move at the speed of light. Therefore at the sub-atomic level I am changing at the speed of light.

I am in and of this universe and what goes for me goes for all entities composed of matter and energy, which is EVERYTHING. Physical reality changes at the speed of light and a far simpler way of thinking this is simply to say that physical reality is coming into existence at the speed of light or that reality is being MADE at the speed of light. Leo is a passenger on the Moving Finger ever being re-made anew.

Compare this with what we must conclude from Minkowski's claim. In every Instantiation of the Planck interval another copy of me is born. ( Everett invents a whole new universe for this to occur in!! ). This new copy of me doesn't replace the previous instantiation of me but simply adds another one to it. All the previous Leos who I am no longer are still presumed to exist somewhere in the physical universe, being steadily and continuously reproduced at the rate of 5.4 x 1044 new Leos per second, but it gets worse. All the future Leos who I am yet to become already exist also in the physical universe in this absurd Intelligent Design model.

Where are all these blokes? I'd be rather keen to have a few words with them. If you still wish to claim that physics makes no sense to me simply because I'm too stupid to understand it then I wish you joy of your illusion. I continue to claim that physics makes no sense to me because it makes no **** sense.

I told you my paradigm was one of exquisite simplicity and it bloody well IS. Reality is a non-linear computation and the processing speed of this computation is the speed of light. Pathetically simple as this may be this in fact is the Theory of Everything.

Regards Leo

-- Updated March 4th, 2015, 5:51 am to add the following --

Steve. When I get home I propose to re-write this story and add it to my synopsis. It's actually based on quite an old essay on consciousness which somehow got overlooked. Do you regard it as elegantly explanatory of my model?
User avatar
Insanition
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: March 3rd, 2015, 11:02 am

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Insanition »

First thing, this has nothing to do with physics. We will never solve this problem with maths or physics. It is impossible, due to the concept of reality itself. We live in a universe with certain rules. Physicist try to find those rules, so do mathimaticians. But what they will never be able to find is why those rules exist. Why does one and two equal three? It's logical to us, but just to us living in the universe with those very rules. You cannot argue much about this, there is only one answere: Everything exists. Reality = everything, infinity and more. Everything we can imagine, everything that is possible and everything that is impossible. Everything. Why? Because if everything does not exist, there has to be a reason for why reality look like it does. If reality is not everything, why would there only be one universe? Why is something impossible? How can something be impossible? Is there a magical, superforce that decides "Reality, you are not allowed to do that!"? I think you know how ridicilous that sounds, which is why there is not much to argue about. Everything exists, without a doubt. You have to deliver evidence for something that is impossible, if you think reality is limited in the even slightest way. This is not physics, this is not math. This is why math and physics even exist.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Atreyu »

Obvious Leo wrote:Atreyu. Do you regard the "self" as a fixed and unchanging entity?
Not absolutely, but I don't view it (the "real self") as being as transient and dynamic as it appears to be.

Of course, you realize that "self" is an unknown quantity....
ObviousLeo wrote:I told you my paradigm was one of exquisite simplicity and it bloody well IS. Reality is a non-linear computation and the processing speed of this computation is the speed of light. Pathetically simple as this may be this in fact is the Theory of Everything.
How literally am I to take you on this? Reality is a "computation"?

That sounds very similar to my idea I posited recently that perhaps we can reduce reality to thought, or to some other psychological attribute like awareness. "Quanta" also seems to be a step in this direction as well....
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Obvious Leo »

Atreyu wrote: How literally am I to take you on this? Reality is a "computation"?
This statement can be taken absolutely literally. Reality IS a computation, which defines the universe as an entity which is continuously being MADE. Another aspect of this concept is that the nature of the cosmic computer has been specifically defined by Alan Turing. Reality is a Universal Turing Machine, the eternal and cyclical computer which programmes its own input. This must also be taken literally. Only a non-linear computer can programme itself so the cosmic computer is not to be compared with the Newtonian contraptions we have on our desktops. It is NOT an artefact of Intelligent Design.

Regards Leo
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Atreyu »

Obvious Leo wrote:This statement can be taken absolutely literally. Reality IS a computation, which defines the universe as an entity which is continuously being MADE. Another aspect of this concept is that the nature of the cosmic computer has been specifically defined by Alan Turing. Reality is a Universal Turing Machine, the eternal and cyclical computer which programmes its own input. This must also be taken literally. Only a non-linear computer can programme itself so the cosmic computer is not to be compared with the Newtonian contraptions we have on our desktops. It is NOT an artefact of Intelligent Design.
The view of the Universe as "a computation" but without any corresponding Mind or Awareness seems odd to me, although I know it is the contemporary view. To me, "computing" implies cognition of some kind, and therefore, some kind of "mind" or "awareness" or "thought". And to me, which of these two models you prefer is mostly based on the general "education" we get in Western society, and whether one thinks within it or outside of it. I myself have always opposed the view of the Universe as a sort of "big whirling mechanical toy of dead matter and energy" in which, somehow, the strange anomaly of life appeared on the Earth. I have always preferred a more organic model, in which life and awareness are the rule and not the exception. And I've always said that taking the former model over the latter is completely arbitrary and without any real foundation whatsoever. In Western society, we learn that the organic model is quite absurd and "faith based". But in reality both models are completely outside any scientific inquiry, and which one you prefer seems to mostly be a matter of personal preference.
Jklint
Posts: 1719
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Jklint »

Obvious Leo wrote:
Atreyu wrote: How literally am I to take you on this? Reality is a "computation"?
This statement can be taken absolutely literally. Reality IS a computation, which defines the universe as an entity which is continuously being MADE. Another aspect of this concept is that the nature of the cosmic computer has been specifically defined by Alan Turing. Reality is a Universal Turing Machine, the eternal and cyclical computer which programmes its own input. This must also be taken literally. Only a non-linear computer can programme itself so the cosmic computer is not to be compared with the Newtonian contraptions we have on our desktops. It is NOT an artefact of Intelligent Design.

Regards Leo
Whether taken literally or even metaphorically what would initialize such a machine to enable it to supply its own input thereafter?

If that code were indeed recursive it would mean or imply - as far as logic will allow five minutes before hitting the sack - that it never was or required initialization and that Reality in all its manifestations is in the process of being eternally created which as I imagine could apply to any number of universes...a Turing machine with any number of parallel processors being the creator and supervisor of each in a manner of speaking.

What I imagine from what you describe is a cosmic perpetual motion machine...perpetual in the truest sense or until an input arrives which it cannot process. The inertia of the Reality creating Turing Machine could be compromised but I may be describing it in a too linear a manner since so-called errors may only be regarded as mutations in non-linear systems to keep on operating and remain balanced.

Gotta stop, getting weird! Just had a hideous thought that the Universe and a few others were actually created by H.P. Lovecraft who was anything but Linear!
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Obvious Leo »

Jklint wrote: Whether taken literally or even metaphorically what would initialize such a machine to enable it to supply its own input thereafter?
I presume this is a "first cause" question, in which case it is meaningless. A first cause is an oxymoron.
Jklint wrote:that it never was or required initialization and that Reality in all its manifestations is in the process of being eternally created which as I imagine could apply to any number of universes.
It would, but once again this is meaningless because we can only make meaningful statements about the universe we are privileged to inhabit.
Jklint wrote:What I imagine from what you describe is a cosmic perpetual motion machine...perpetual in the truest sense or until an input arrives which it cannot process. The inertia of the Reality creating Turing Machine could be compromised but I may be describing it in a too linear a manner since so-called errors may only be regarded as mutations in non-linear systems to keep on operating and remain balanced.
Basically yes, except that no input can arrive which it cannot process because it generates its own input. Non-linear dynamic systems are never balanced but self-organise towards achieving balance. This is how they evolve to become more complex and our biosphere is the most obvious example. Check out John von Neumann's self-replicating machines and John Conway's Game of Life which was derived from it and you'll see what I mean.

Regards Leo
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Steve3007 »

Leo:
As far as I'm concerned frame dragging is just aether theory by another name.
Yes, as I recall it looks somewhat like it.

But such things seem to be necessary in order to maintain the idea that an observer in an accelerating reference frame is entitled to regard himself as being in a non-accelerating reference frame but with a (extra) gravitational field. i.e. the equivalence principle.

It's easy enough to intuit the general idea with linear acceleration. You only need to experience being in an elevator. But with rotational acceleration - spin - you come to the conclusion that we on the surface of the Earth can regard ourselves as stationary and the rest of the universe as rotating around us once every 24 hours. Just like they thought in the good old days.

The most immediately obvious problem being that anything more than (1 / (2 * pi * 365)) = 0.000436 light years away (anything beyond Neptune, I think) would be travelling at faster than the speed of light. I can't remember how GR explains this, as well as more complex things like the Coriolis force (which obviously wouldn't exist in a reference frame that is stationary wrt the the Earth) but I guess frame dragging comes in somewhere.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Obvious Leo »

Steve3007 wrote:The most immediately obvious problem being that anything more than (1 / (2 * pi * 365)) = 0.000436 light years away (anything beyond Neptune, I think) would be travelling at faster than the speed of light. I can't remember how GR explains this, as well as more complex things like the Coriolis force (which obviously wouldn't exist in a reference frame that is stationary wrt the the Earth) but I guess frame dragging comes in somewhere.
Frame-dragging is just one of the many conceptual oddities which GR throws up and there truly is no explanation. I was in an online physics forum some years ago when this question was being discussed in great depth by some very knowledgeable physicists and there wasn't the slightest hint of a consensus of opinion. The arguments went backwards and forwards for months and a great time was had by all. There were plenty of impressive equations however, enough to make your eyes bleed. All you need to do is take your committed position and then devise the right equations to support it, but is this really science? How is this different from what the god-folk are doing by arguing backwards from their conclusions?

"Mathematics can be used to prove anything".....Albert Einstein

( you must have known I'd find a way to squeeze that quote in!)

Even more illuminating in such forums are arguments about SR. In SR absolutely EVERYBODY gets to make up their own story about how co-ordinate time can or cannot be used and all these stories are perfectly mathematically consistent whilst not one is ever consistent with the other. I just love it, Steve, when I see such things forever going on amongst the illuminati because I know it means I'm onto something. It surely must mean that the underlying paradigm itself is crap. This is just Ptolemy all over again. This argy-bargy has been going on for a hundred years between the sharpest minds a modern society could possibly produce. I'm a simple country lad with a meat and potatoes philosophy but I'm not a bloody idiot. I know ******** when I see it.

Regards Leo
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Steve3007 »

I don't think your emphasis on the fact that mathematics was used in support of their arguments makes much more sense than if you'd said that language was used in support of their arguments.

If I witnessed an argument going on in French which I didn't understand, I wouldn't conclude:

"you can prove anything with French".

Sure, in French, English and Mathematics it's possible to make all kinds of errors. But that isn't necessarily a reflection of the language being used.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Obvious Leo »

Steve3007 wrote:I don't think your emphasis on the fact that mathematics was used in support of their arguments makes much more sense than if you'd said that language was used in support of their arguments.

If I witnessed an argument going on in French which I didn't understand, I wouldn't conclude:

"you can prove anything with French".

Sure, in French, English and Mathematics it's possible to make all kinds of errors. But that isn't necessarily a reflection of the language being used.
You'll get no argument from me on this point because this is the exact point I'm making. Mathematics is only a language which can be used to formulate a pre-conceived idea. The language imposes no truth value on the idea being expressed. Surely you can see that physics fails to accommodate this fact. It is an unlovely spectacle when the layman has to confront the paradoxical twins in 26 dimensions scattered throughout an infinity of universes operating randomly, don't you think? Thank Christ god invented recreational pharmaceuticals and red wine.

Regards Leo
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Steve3007 »

There were plenty of impressive equations however, enough to make your eyes bleed.
Do you think this is equivalent to saying: "There were plenty of impressive sentences, enough to make your eyes bleed". If not, how is it different?
All you need to do is take your committed position and then devise the right equations to support it,
If you have made no logical errors in those equations, then isn't that just the same as saying: "all you need to do is take your committed position and then use deductive logical arguments to work out what the consequences would be if that position were correct"?
but is this really science?
Using deductive logic to work out the consequences of your propositions is certainly part of science, yes.
How is this different from what the god-folk are doing by arguing backwards from their conclusions?
I'd have to see an example of a god-folk doing this, but there are various logical errors that it is possible for both god-folk and godless folk to make. But I don't think that working out the logical conclusions of your propositions is in itself one of them.
The language imposes no truth value on the idea being expressed. Surely you can see that physics fails to accommodate this fact.
Absolutely. It elucidates the truth value that may or may not already be present. I think you're unfair on physics to state that it fails to realize this and I didn't think that was your central point anyway. I thought your central point was advocating using this same deductive logic to elucidate the truth value of principles that you regard as self-evidently true.
It is an unlovely spectacle when the layman has to confront the paradoxical twins in 26 dimensions scattered throughout an infinity of universes operating randomly, don't you think?
Possibly, but as I've said a few times, I don't share your apparent belief that the Universe must be understandable by the entire subset of the sentient world known as homo sapiens. It would be nice if it was. But I don't think it's forced to be.
Thank Christ god invented recreational pharmaceuticals and red wine.
Amen to that. Get some sleep though! It must be about 2am in NZ! I've gotta go and pick up the kids from school soon. (It's strange to think that in order to look in your direction I have to look almost straight down through the ground.)
Obvious Leo
Posts: 2501
Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
Location: Australia

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Obvious Leo »

Steve3007 wrote: Do you think this is equivalent to saying: "There were plenty of impressive sentences, enough to make your eyes bleed". If not, how is it different?
Pretty much equivalent. I'm paying this one, Love -15
Steve3007 wrote: If you have made no logical errors in those equations, then isn't that just the same as saying: "all you need to do is take your committed position and then use deductive logical arguments to work out what the consequences would be if that position were correct"?
I'm not paying this one. Not all foundational principles have equal sense value. Our intuitive comprehension of the world around us has evolved by natural selection. It must be pretty good because if it were that far wrong we would be out of the gene pool. We are in fact as smart as we think we are (if not smarter) , but because of this we run the risk of outsmarting ourselves. I am aware of this potential flaw in my own reasoning but see it all too prevalent in others. 15 -all.
Steve3007 wrote:I'd have to see an example of a god-folk doing this, but there are various logical errors that it is possible for both god-folk and godless folk to make. But I don't think that working out the logical conclusions of your propositions is in itself one of them.
Double fault, Steve. Working backwards from an equation is no different from drawing conclusions from a belief. We have to start at the bottom and work up or else we become victims of our own hubris. Physics has done this over and over again and reached a different conclusion every time. 15-all
Steve3007 wrote: Absolutely. It elucidates the truth value that may or may not already be present. I think you're unfair on physics to state that it fails to realize this and I didn't think that was your central point anyway. I thought your central point was advocating using this same deductive logic to elucidate the truth value of principles that you regard as self-evidently true.
Physics and I start from equivalent baselines but from opposite sides of the net. This cannot be otherwise because we all have to serve from somewhere. However the a priori principles we adopt are unequal in their logical sustainability. Leibniz aced Newton from the very beginning and the physical space was never valid. Michelson and Morley were the umpires and wouldn't call the result. Einstein went with Newton but he made an error of judgement. Time and space are not interwoven but mutually exclusive. These are two entirely different ways of thinking the world and can't both be right. Space makes no sense with a constant speed of light so Albert made a bad call. 30-15.
Steve3007 wrote:Using deductive logic to work out the consequences of your propositions is certainly part of science, yes.
I see no evidence of deduction from first principles in physics. All I see is induction from observation and a succession of unreachable lobs from me and others. . My opponent isn't even trying to hit them. 40-15.
Steve3007 wrote: Get some sleep though! It must be about 2am in NZ!
I'll take the game because I can see you've had to concede with an injury. However the match is not over yet and I stand ready to receive. It's your serve and it's actually now nearly 10am in NZ and I have other matters to attend to. Listen to Arnie. I'll be back but I reckon your serve is for pussies.

Regards Leo
Jklint
Posts: 1719
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: Why there is something rather than nothing

Post by Jklint »

Obvious Leo wrote:
I presume this is a "first cause" question, in which case it is meaningless. A first cause is an oxymoron.
It is less of a "first cause" question which reeks more of sour metaphysics than an "initialization" question. Correct me if I'm wrong but Everything has to be "seeded" in some manner in order to develop. Don't fractals also require that kind of initialization to generate their subsequent complexities both natural and artifical?
It would, but once again this is meaningless because we can only make meaningful statements about the universe we are privileged to inhabit.
That is true. But contained within your representation is a methodology of Universe creation where only the "Reality Portraits" may differ but the design approach is the same. You can put a lot of eggs in one incubator.
Basically yes, except that no input can arrive which it cannot process because it generates its own input.
It can only generate input based on preceding conditions. Inputs I would imagine to be a compound of those events much like a simple fractal can yield ongoing complexities in design.
Non-linear dynamic systems are never balanced but self-organise towards achieving balance. This is how they evolve to become more complex and our biosphere is the most obvious example.
Makes sense to me. What I meant was "balance through equilbrium" without subsuming an unconditional proportionality. Even if, as an example only, planet Earth were to turn into planet Venus that process would still self-organise towards achieving balance while changing the planet irrevocably into a dead one.

If there is ONE thing I am certain of and stated many times before is that the Universe is under no obligation to be comprehensible to any life form within it. It is not our creation and we can only aspire to understand it as best we can. We're at the point where it's evermore difficult to tell whether any existing theory or one in the making shines brilliantly through probabilities, rarely by certainties, or subsequently defined as fool's gold. What makes the Universe comprehensible to one by whatever means does not in the least confer or define its veracity by any means.
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