The Infiniteness of Time

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: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Steve3007 »

Scott wrote:...However, there are important reasons that the time-and-space model of classical physics must be replaced with timeless spacetime.
I agree that the model which uses the concept of spacetime works for a larger set of possible observations than the Newtonian model of separate space and universal time, but I think it's the interpretation of this model that we disagree on.
A better analogy would be the difference between using a 2D map versus a 3D globe to make a map of the Earth.

Using a 2D map to map the Earth is analogous to using a non-block-model to map spacetime. It just doesn't work.
I think this is a slightly different issue in that it's about the concept of the curvature of spacetime, not about the replacement of space and time with spacetime. So it's about the way that gravity is represented in the GR model.
RJG wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:Essentially, yes. If we have a model, e.g. General Relativity/The Block Universe, and if we think that model is telling us something like "change doesn't happen" then since change clearly does happen either it's not an accurate model or we've misinterpreted it.
GR isn't saying that per se.

As I was using the words, "change" means violating determinism, at least in terms of the actual physics, ignoring anything going on 'consciously in consciousnesses' whatever that would mean.
Apologies if you've explained this already, and I've forgotten or missed it, but I don't really know what you mean when you say you use the word "change" to mean "violating determinism". But I guess, as a result of viewing the entire history of the universe as a spacetime block which, in the world in which that model exists (as opposed to the world which that model models), is static, you perhaps see a relationship to the subject of determinism versus free will. I think that's a whole different issue which would probably have to be discussed separately. I don't use the word "change" like that at all. To me it simply means stuff happening over time:

If we use the terminology "event" to denote a point in spacetime and "worldline" to denote the string of events which constitute the history of an object or system of objects, then the changes in that/those objects(s) are represented by the path of that worldline.
Those statements I made to RJG about "happening" were based on two assumption with which I don't necessarily agree but I assumed for the sake of argument:

(1) that if there is no "change" (i.e. violations to physical determinism in terms of the physics of 4D spacetime) then there is no "happening" at all in any conceivable sense word
(2) the assumption that consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful
I don't really know what it means to violate physical determinism so don't really know how to comment on the above. As I say, I think the whole notion of determinism deserves a separate discussion.
I don't necessarily agree with or even precisely undestanding those two statements, but I temporarily accepted them as assumptions for the sake of argument, and so my other comments and replies in this topic were made in the context of those two assumptions.

I would certainly recommend throwing out those two assumptions long before throwing out Einsteinian physics, namely SR and GR.
I don't understand them either. Generally, when discussing subjects like this, I'm quite a big fan of being able to define the terminology we use as precisely as possible by tying it to possible observations. I think failing to do that often results in people thinking they disagree with each other because they use words vaguely or differently.
In this topic, I was making statements in the context of assumptions I don't actually agree but simply stated I would temporarily accept for the sake of argument. It's possible that caused some confusion. Regardless, I have written down my views on time in a more structured independent and complete way without the aforementioned assumptions, which hopefully make it more clear:

Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

I would of course love your feedback on that. :)
OK. I'll check it out.


One more thing to note: I understand how the model of spacetime provided by General Relativity leads to such conclusions as: For events that are separated by a spacelike interval the question of whether the event are simultaneous, or whether one of them happened before the other, is reference frame dependant. And, for such events, it is not possible for one of the events to be causally connected to the other. But, to me, conclusions like that do not imply that time doesn't pass, that time doesn't exist, that change (at least as I understand that word) doesn't happen, etc.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Steve3007 »

Scott wrote:To refuse the reduction of space and time into timeless spacetime is as counter-science, and in my opinion as absurd, as refusing to accept the reduction of electricity and magnetism into electromagnetism.
The existence of the concept of spacetime doesn't mean that time doesn't exist. The existence of the concept of electromagnetism doesn't mean that electricity and magnetism don't exist. Spacetime isn't timeless. Electromagnetism isn't magnetism-less. Just because two aspects of nature are best understood as being intimately related to each other, or because one can be seen as the other from a different reference frame, doesn't mean they don't exist. That's a basic point of interpretation on which I disagree with you.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Steve3007 »

Terrapin Station wrote:It's fine as an instrumentalist approach to doing equations where time doesn't matter, but it shouldn't be reified into anything more.
It's not an instrumentalist approach to doing equations where time doesn't matter. It's not some kind of model of a particular subset of cases where time can be neglected. It does include time. In my view, in that respect, it's Scott's interpretation of the model (and the interpretations of others who think the same way) that is wrong, not the model.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Atla »

Steve3007 wrote: April 26th, 2021, 5:16 am
Scott wrote:...However, there are important reasons that the time-and-space model of classical physics must be replaced with timeless spacetime.
I agree that the model which uses the concept of spacetime works for a larger set of possible observations than the Newtonian model of separate space and universal time, but I think it's the interpretation of this model that we disagree on.
A better analogy would be the difference between using a 2D map versus a 3D globe to make a map of the Earth.

Using a 2D map to map the Earth is analogous to using a non-block-model to map spacetime. It just doesn't work.
I think this is a slightly different issue in that it's about the concept of the curvature of spacetime, not about the replacement of space and time with spacetime. So it's about the way that gravity is represented in the GR model.
RJG wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:Essentially, yes. If we have a model, e.g. General Relativity/The Block Universe, and if we think that model is telling us something like "change doesn't happen" then since change clearly does happen either it's not an accurate model or we've misinterpreted it.
GR isn't saying that per se.

As I was using the words, "change" means violating determinism, at least in terms of the actual physics, ignoring anything going on 'consciously in consciousnesses' whatever that would mean.
Apologies if you've explained this already, and I've forgotten or missed it, but I don't really know what you mean when you say you use the word "change" to mean "violating determinism". But I guess, as a result of viewing the entire history of the universe as a spacetime block which, in the world in which that model exists (as opposed to the world which that model models), is static, you perhaps see a relationship to the subject of determinism versus free will. I think that's a whole different issue which would probably have to be discussed separately. I don't use the word "change" like that at all. To me it simply means stuff happening over time:

If we use the terminology "event" to denote a point in spacetime and "worldline" to denote the string of events which constitute the history of an object or system of objects, then the changes in that/those objects(s) are represented by the path of that worldline.
Those statements I made to RJG about "happening" were based on two assumption with which I don't necessarily agree but I assumed for the sake of argument:

(1) that if there is no "change" (i.e. violations to physical determinism in terms of the physics of 4D spacetime) then there is no "happening" at all in any conceivable sense word
(2) the assumption that consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful
I don't really know what it means to violate physical determinism so don't really know how to comment on the above. As I say, I think the whole notion of determinism deserves a separate discussion.
I don't necessarily agree with or even precisely undestanding those two statements, but I temporarily accepted them as assumptions for the sake of argument, and so my other comments and replies in this topic were made in the context of those two assumptions.

I would certainly recommend throwing out those two assumptions long before throwing out Einsteinian physics, namely SR and GR.
I don't understand them either. Generally, when discussing subjects like this, I'm quite a big fan of being able to define the terminology we use as precisely as possible by tying it to possible observations. I think failing to do that often results in people thinking they disagree with each other because they use words vaguely or differently.
In this topic, I was making statements in the context of assumptions I don't actually agree but simply stated I would temporarily accept for the sake of argument. It's possible that caused some confusion. Regardless, I have written down my views on time in a more structured independent and complete way without the aforementioned assumptions, which hopefully make it more clear:

Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

I would of course love your feedback on that. :)
OK. I'll check it out.


One more thing to note: I understand how the model of spacetime provided by General Relativity leads to such conclusions as: For events that are separated by a spacelike interval the question of whether the event are simultaneous, or whether one of them happened before the other, is reference frame dependant. And, for such events, it is not possible for one of the events to be causally connected to the other. But, to me, conclusions like that do not imply that time doesn't pass, that time doesn't exist, that change (at least as I understand that word) doesn't happen, etc.
How can you never step outside instrumentalist thinking? Can't wrap my head around it.

Bob shows Steve a room with a table in it.

Bob: Is there a table in the room?
Steve: If it's useful to think that there is a room with a table in it, then we should consider going with that idea.
Bob: Yeah, but I mean, is there a table in this room then?
Steve: We can use the model that there is a room with a table in it, if it fits well with other models of other things, it fits better than most other models most of the time.
Bob: Yeah, but is there a table in this room now, like, literally? Is there or isn't there one?
Steve: I honestly don't understand the question.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Terrapin Station »

Atla wrote: April 25th, 2021, 11:43 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: April 25th, 2021, 6:28 pm
Atla wrote: April 25th, 2021, 3:26 pm
Scott wrote: April 23rd, 2021, 7:01 pm @Steve3007, regarding your points with the 2D graph and block time model, if Einstein hand never come up with SR and GR, and if the empirical evidence instead indicated that Newtonian Mechanics were correct, meaning if simultaneity was objective instead of relative and if time-ness and space-ness were fundamentally real and distinguishable., then I would agree with you totally.

However, there are important reasons that the time-and-space model of classical physics must be replaced with timeless spacetime.

A better analogy would be the difference between using a 2D map versus a 3D globe to make a map of the Earth.

Using a 2D map to map the Earth is analogous to using a non-block-model to map spacetime. It just doesn't work.

Does that mean you would be foolish to use a fundamentally 2D map for practical purposes even though you know the Earth is not flat like the map falsely indicates? Of course not, especially at certain very narrow scales and in certain very narrow, where experienced reality matches our intuitions, which is not a coincidence but a matter of evolution. We evolved over millions of years to picture the Earth as flat and the physics as classical, but both are wrong.







GR isn't saying that per se.

As I was using the words, "change" means violating determinism, at least in terms of the actual physics, ignoring anything going on 'consciously in consciousnesses' whatever that would mean.

Those statements I made to RJG about "happening" were based on two assumption with which I don't necessarily agree but I assumed for the sake of argument:

(1) that if there is no "change" (i.e. violations to physical determinism in terms of the physics of 4D spacetime) then there is no "happening" at all in any conceivable sense word
(2) the assumption that consciousness is neither fundamental, nor transcendental, nor physically forceful

I don't necessarily agree with or even precisely undestanding those two statements, but I temporarily accepted them as assumptions for the sake of argument, and so my other comments and replies in this topic were made in the context of those two assumptions.

I would certainly recommend throwing out those two assumptions long before throwing out Einsteinian physics, namely SR and GR.


In this topic, I was making statements in the context of assumptions I don't actually agree but simply stated I would temporarily accept for the sake of argument. It's possible that caused some confusion. Regardless, I have written down my views on time in a more structured independent and complete way without the aforementioned assumptions, which hopefully make it more clear:

Neither time, time-ness, unconscious here-ness, unconscious now-ness, nor any unconscious presence exist.

I would of course love your feedback on that. :)
Change is probably impossible, this should be the logical default view. Change is probably just an everyday convention, but fundamentally a supernatural idea. All spatiotemporal past, present, and future exist within the block universe all at once. And the dimensions of this block universe are probably circular, if you could go in a straight line long enough, not only would you end up where you started in space, but also in time.

It's simply a fact of life that humans are organisms that need to exist in a direction of (at least locally) increasing entropy, that's how we can evolve, grow, learn, form memories etc. Humans are bound to a direction within the 4D block universe, these moments stitched together may create the appearance of change.
You can't have an appearance of change without there actually being change. You can't "go in a straight line" or evolve or grow or learn, etc. without change.
Of course you can, but there is no "you" that remains constant while traveling through an apparently changing world.
"You" are changing, in other words? Yet there's no change? Yeah, that's the ticket.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Atla »

Terrapin Station wrote: April 26th, 2021, 7:48 am "You" are changing, in other words? Yet there's no change? Yeah, that's the ticket.
It means there's no change in the objective, absolute sense. You rejected the usage of the objective view, even though it's necessary in scientific and philosphical discourse.
True philosophy points to the Moon
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Steve3007 »

Bob shows Steve a room with a table in it.
Bob: Is there a table in the room?
Steve: Yes.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Terrapin Station »

Atla wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:01 am
Terrapin Station wrote: April 26th, 2021, 7:48 am "You" are changing, in other words? Yet there's no change? Yeah, that's the ticket.
It means there's no change in the objective, absolute sense. You rejected the usage of the objective view, even though it's necessary in scientific and philosphical discourse.
Whatever "sense" it's in, if there's change in some aspect of what there is, then the block time model is wrong, unless the block time model isn't supposed to be capturing what the world is like overall.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Atla »

Terrapin Station wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:23 am
Atla wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:01 am
Terrapin Station wrote: April 26th, 2021, 7:48 am "You" are changing, in other words? Yet there's no change? Yeah, that's the ticket.
It means there's no change in the objective, absolute sense. You rejected the usage of the objective view, even though it's necessary in scientific and philosphical discourse.
Whatever "sense" it's in, if there's change in some aspect of what there is, then the block time model is wrong, unless the block time model isn't supposed to be capturing what the world is like overall.
You are unable/unwilling to use an important perspective, therefore this perfectly valid model is invalid. Right.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Terrapin Station »

Atla wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:32 am
Terrapin Station wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:23 am
Atla wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:01 am
Terrapin Station wrote: April 26th, 2021, 7:48 am "You" are changing, in other words? Yet there's no change? Yeah, that's the ticket.
It means there's no change in the objective, absolute sense. You rejected the usage of the objective view, even though it's necessary in scientific and philosphical discourse.
Whatever "sense" it's in, if there's change in some aspect of what there is, then the block time model is wrong, unless the block time model isn't supposed to be capturing what the world is like overall.
You are unable/unwilling to use an important perspective, therefore this perfectly valid model is invalid. Right.
Could you be more sketchy?

Is it supposed to be capturing what the world is like overall or not?

If not, as I said above, the model works fine when we're focusing on things like equations where time isn't a factor. It's important in this, though, that we don't take it to be or to imply an ontological claim about what the world is like outside of that usage. It's important that we don't take it to be a statement about the ontological nature of time in general.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Atla »

Terrapin Station wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:52 am
Atla wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:32 am
Terrapin Station wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:23 am
Atla wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:01 am
It means there's no change in the objective, absolute sense. You rejected the usage of the objective view, even though it's necessary in scientific and philosphical discourse.
Whatever "sense" it's in, if there's change in some aspect of what there is, then the block time model is wrong, unless the block time model isn't supposed to be capturing what the world is like overall.
You are unable/unwilling to use an important perspective, therefore this perfectly valid model is invalid. Right.
Could you be more sketchy?

Is it supposed to be capturing what the world is like overall or not?

If not, as I said above, the model works fine when we're focusing on things like equations where time isn't a factor. It's important in this, though, that we don't take it to be or to imply an ontological claim about what the world is like outside of that usage. It's important that we don't take it to be a statement about the ontological nature of time in general.
I'm not being sketchy, apparently you fail to comprehend what the block universe even means.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:But "data" (of the movie scene) is not the same as the movie scene itself. How does the "data" change into a movie scene if change does not exist?
Scott wrote:If I understand the question, you are asking how the 4D physical data that is the entirety of timeless spacetime turns into your/RJG's own alleged unique conscious experience and/or your/RJG's own alleged unique conscious present; is that what you are asking?
Yes, how do my conscious experiences change if change can't happen/exist?

Scott wrote:I would argue that the word "turn into" (or 'change') is a misnomer in that context. To go back to the analogy, a DVD player does not (necessarily) change the DVD by playing a would-be scene from it. It doesn't turn the DVD into a movie, per se, but generates a playing movie/scene that exists in addition to and separate from the DVD, and each DVD player generates its own separate movie/scenes even if they are all playing the same unchanging DVD.
But according to your model, the DVD player (and the generated movie/scene) also exist in this 4D block universe as just "unchanging data".

There can be NO "exists in addition to and separate from" this DVD if this DVD (4D block universe) is ALL there is. You seem to be implying that the DVD player (and the generated movie scenes) somehow magically exist "outside" or separate from this DVD (4D universe).

And even if this (outside or separate from the universe) were somehow possible (which it isn't), then this only just "kicks-the-can-down-the-road". The 'location' of this change (whether inside or outside of this universe) is wholly irrelevant to its existence/happening.

My changing conscious experiences are proof that change happens/exists. Again, it is logically impossible to deny the existence of "change" (and therefore of Time).
Last edited by RJG on April 26th, 2021, 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Terrapin Station »

Atla wrote: April 26th, 2021, 9:27 am
Terrapin Station wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:52 am
Atla wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:32 am
Terrapin Station wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:23 am
Whatever "sense" it's in, if there's change in some aspect of what there is, then the block time model is wrong, unless the block time model isn't supposed to be capturing what the world is like overall.
You are unable/unwilling to use an important perspective, therefore this perfectly valid model is invalid. Right.
Could you be more sketchy?

Is it supposed to be capturing what the world is like overall or not?

If not, as I said above, the model works fine when we're focusing on things like equations where time isn't a factor. It's important in this, though, that we don't take it to be or to imply an ontological claim about what the world is like outside of that usage. It's important that we don't take it to be a statement about the ontological nature of time in general.
I'm not being sketchy, apparently you fail to comprehend what the block universe even means.
Well you're certainly giving a non-sketchy explanation of it contra what you're taking to be my misunderstanding.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Atla »

Terrapin Station wrote: April 26th, 2021, 9:32 am
Atla wrote: April 26th, 2021, 9:27 am
Terrapin Station wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:52 am
Atla wrote: April 26th, 2021, 8:32 am
You are unable/unwilling to use an important perspective, therefore this perfectly valid model is invalid. Right.
Could you be more sketchy?

Is it supposed to be capturing what the world is like overall or not?

If not, as I said above, the model works fine when we're focusing on things like equations where time isn't a factor. It's important in this, though, that we don't take it to be or to imply an ontological claim about what the world is like outside of that usage. It's important that we don't take it to be a statement about the ontological nature of time in general.
I'm not being sketchy, apparently you fail to comprehend what the block universe even means.
Well you're certainly giving a non-sketchy explanation of it contra what you're taking to be my misunderstanding.
Whatever, use Google
True philosophy points to the Moon
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Infiniteness of Time

Post by Steve3007 »

The Beast wrote:I am also against the idea of a human consciousness recycling into a neighbor’s pet.
When you say you're against it, do you mean that you protest whenever you see it happening?
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