Holistic thinking - formulating a more complete physics

In summary, the author is proposing the development of a more complete understanding of physics and chemistry by collaborating with other specialists. The main obstacle to this is the majority approach of 'looking from outside' and the inherent limitations of formal systems. The proposed solution is to rely on a law of nature which governs the conceptuality in all mental processes. This system is more Comprehensive and secure than any that currently exist.
  • #36
In fact, I had thought somebody might speak up already about the above, but it seems the weekend has its effect. Since the last point (e) is the most critical, here I will add some elements concerning that, in two posts (there is more relevant material, but let's first have a look at this).

You might notice that I am aiming at a physics that does not have the effect of eliminating the princple of life, by its conceptual / categoreal choices. My idea is not a new idea; Aritstotle would have liked to do that, and did not succeed... but that is nearly 2500 years ago.

Einstein believed in 'separable' systems, while his opponent Bohr did not presuppose that, but still was thinking in terms of 'things'; so did de Broglie thinking in terms of 'waves'. Even deep 'rethinkers' like Dirac, transposing the problems into projective geometry, or Feynman, opening up new areas like QED, did not not leave behind the idea of 'things' of some sort. It is interesting that they all wanted to grasp the gist of reality by means of measurements. Presently, even very advanced and integrative approaches such as relativistic quantum field theory (which at least seeks to catch some of the creation / annihilation reality), do not transcend the myth of measurement as the path to knowledge. In my terminology, they remain within the 'language of manipulability' and do not seek a really viable 'language of intelligibility'.

The idea of measuring is part of a larger idea, which can be summed up under the title of 'Cartesian split': distinguishing, observing, describing, measuring, etc.. This is the operative basis of mainstream science these days. But which version of the split is used is finally irrelevant: the gesture is always one of comparing the subject matter with something else, alien to it. This gesture inevitably creates its blind spot (as proved by many logicians, such as Francisco Varela, Gotthard Guenther, Heinz von Foerster, Rudolf Kaehr, etc.) which then can only be shifted around, but not solved within the system. Remaining within such a system (way of thinking) finally suggests an arbitrary move for 'outgrowing' its drawback at the edge, which usually makes the problem reappear in a 'new' area (this is what led physics to ever smaller bits and pieces). Translations into digital languages (Boolean structures) miss the ultimately decisive point, because their basic distinction (eg. yes/no, true/false, dark/light, etc.) does not cover the principle of distinguishing as such — while any arbitrarity is not up to strictly complete reality. Higher order logics shift the distinctions into further dimensions, but must remain non-universally applicable.

There is another limit which shows that the idea that anything real must be measurable in some way is fallacious: This procedure can reveal features of the 'thing' but never its gist, because nature offers no ultimate unit of any kind, no basis for any metric. Measuring is always comparing and requires a unit or act of reference, which Man must posit. Even foundational units like Planck's constant or 'light speed' are no absolutes, but relative to the approach (measuring). For the physical part both constants (Planck's and the velocity of light) are obviously relevant, for measuring. But this aspect covers only the side of appearances, not the side of the overall law which determines that there is appearance / birth, existence, dissolution / death, and renewed appearance — as complete reality willy nilly is. The widely shared belief in measuring does not remedy the method's limitation; for instance the quantum measurement problem still is unsolved (about a dozen theories attempt an interpretation).

So much for a brief critique of the current mental habits. Now to my attempt to think things in a less compromised way. This is part of the mentioned PDF file, in which I expose the query of processuality and apply it, among others, to the object of physics: the intrinsic nature of matter. Note that here the term 'force' does not mean one of the four known ones, but simply and generally 'that which entails agency', since laws can not act as such (the concept of law is often used in mixed-up ways).

What appears in everyday experience as 'material matter' can be understood at its origin as the law of being at disposal, manifest in a concrete way. In terms of the concretizing forces, the only stable configuration is a force and its exact counter-force, or in other words a complex of two forces structured in an equilibrium, counterbalancing each other dynamically. It is, in fact, the material version of polarity, which appears -- depending on the specific case -- as duality, symmetry, complementarity, etc.. As such this primal oppositional structure cannot be observable, because observation implies a third instance, an influencing force structure. In quantum theory this is known and said to "perturb" the configuration; the process therefore is called "decoherence" and makes decidable in the macroscopic realm (through the many implied interactions) whether "SchrÚdinger's cat" is alive or dead, which is not decidable on the non-disturbed quantum level.

By not being freely roaming forces any more, but impeded by the mutual opposition, the two primal forces acquire an additional vectorial quality, a concrete one that they can't have when no otherness is implied. Once forces are bound by being structured into a new equilibrium, their hindrance vector makes them into an energy structure and accounts for the arising aspect of 'resistance' that we can't avoid associating with material matter, since it is the palpable characteristic that it shows us even when we do not think in the least.

The reason for the seeming massiveness of material matter to senses is that the laws of the bodies, also of organisms ('desires'), are an 'otherness' for whatever force structure comes along. Transcending otherness is possible through overcoming consciously the difference, i.e. in a mental act, where 'form' and 'matter' can coincide [discussed in a previous section].

The fact that all material reactions imply and cause some other ones, and reveal a closedness of causalities in the realm of inert matter -- 'actio = reactio', and any cause has another one, as Kant already noted -- means that the inert domain as a whole constitutes one 'organism' ('interacting parts'). In the perspective of the tetrad, this specific type of organicity is rooted in the coherence of 'materia prima' as the 'substance' that entails the many-facetted energy flux of weaving and unweaving material matter.

Two forces can be united in mutual opposition in other ways than under the auspices of the idea (law) of something that is at disposal: two forces can be combined for example in the idea of annihilation, i.e. pure nothingness. The first view offers existentiality to structures of othernesses, while the latter does not. This explains why a universe based on anti-matter can exist for a short while, but can't subsist durably: matter, the structure of 'something-atdisposal', engenders continuity in the interactive process of othernesses, while anti-matter alone, offering no existentiality, can't avoid producing discontinuity. Structures that agglutinate under the law of discontinuity cannot last, they are self-annihilating. Today's physics has no criterion for this difference.

When viewed only instrumentally (not in its own essentiality), material matter looks like a 'something', a 'thing'. We have it already in the "energy quanta" which Max Planck discovered in black body radiation, and those of light that Einstein has postulated for the "photoelectric effect": where an 'otherness' is implied, the primal continuity is necessarily broken and must give rise to discontinuous 'entitites'. This is correct within the language of separability (manipulability), and it will be confirmed again in every situation or experiment that is interpreted in that language. Nevertheless it is not absolutely true, but only in a relativity to this language. Through the newly proposed basic categories we can see that in its core, i.e. its intrinsic nature, material matter is not a cause, but an effect — of forces. This view explains as much the energy density of the 'vacuum', which baffles cosmologists because their concepts can't reach there, as it clarifies the phenomena of coherence appearing in the double-slit experiment and those that Alain Aspect's experiments have demonstrated so clearly. On the level of biological theory, it clarifies the belief that material matter can be the ultimate cause of life: it is not, it is only a necessary condition for existing. Nobody doubts that forms of life can be manipulated by manipulating their necessary condition, for instance on the genetic level. But nothing is gained by believing that this knowledge of manipulability is already all the knowledge of what life is all about.

In the complexifications beyond "materia prima", with every additional 'otherness' introduced, with every new force interfering, material matter becomes more complex. At each one of those thresholds some further disequilibrium is introduced (by an additional force vector), leading to a new form of equilibrium and its respective disequilibriability. These processes induce the set of variations that lead in nucleosynthesis to the types of equilibria, called 'particles' and 'atoms', that are known in the Mendelejew table of the chemical elements, and their isotopes, etc. By their patterns of dis- and re-equilibriability these force structures entail the factual transmutational processuality that we know in chemistry. Material matter can be synthesized only in some sort of short-lived mimickry as long as the creation process does not arise out of its basic law: absolute equilibrium of two mutually counterbalancing forces.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
The essence of material matter is thus a basic equilibrium of forces that allows for all structurations by additional forces. The actualization of a higher-level equilibrium makes a structure of fluxes perceivable as a singled-out entity. In inert matter, all equilibria are a result of external influences — eg. objects follow gravity; when iron is near oxygen, it will oxydate; etc. Alive material structures incorporate an overall coordination that allows specific reactions to its environment (e.g. chemotaxis). To the degree that the coordinating instance of such an entity becomes really equilibrated in its own condition, i.e. 'forcelessly united' with its context (in other more human words: relaxed), the flux through it becomes unimpeded. This opens the door to actualized unification with the environment and thereby to new structurations. Thus the most interesting energetic interactions occur in the points where an equilibrium is actualized, freeing the path for the shared flux. That is the point of innovation out of which new 'particles' arise in physics and in biology eg. the symbioses which Lynn Margulis made into her central theme. The idea of units in competition, as offered by physical mechanics, adopted by the Malthusian and Darwinian stance, is conceptually too narrow to grasp this point which fills the gaps that Darwinism alone must leave open. Life is more than mechanics. In a view of the strict whole in interactive development, today's trend to make Darwinism absolute is justified only for some aspects, and mainly a result of the appeal of power indeologies. The basic 'invitation' aspect of real life — not only bare survival — must escape its view.

For the othernesses, the living beings which use material matter for constituting their bodies, material matter is a necessary but not yet sufficient condition for making possible life processes; the sufficient condition is given only when the organized and organizing agency, the respective law-&-force aspect, is included too. No change is possible without a force; but subsistence is possible for any pure orderliness as such, in a Platonic sense. A mind can reach there when willing the required 'listening'. Already at the relatively gross state of formulation presented in this essay, this set of concepts allows many predictions, right down to the existential principles on the level of 'particles' and what they constitute, the atoms and isotopes and their properties.

The utility of the basic concepts proposed through the tetrad can easily be seen in considering a chart of the nuclides. The horizontal lines show the isotopes, i.e. atoms in which the number of electrons depart from the number of the stable state. We can see that the further away this number is from the number warranting stability, the shorter the halflife period is of that atom (isotope), or in other words its 'life cycle'. This fact shows that on the level of material matter already there is indeed a force aspect which re-equilibrates disequilibrations. Where certain isotopes display a longer half-life period than their offcenter position would allow, a relative sub-equilibrium arises through the implied forces, analog to the less relative equilibrium of forces found in a more stable chemical element.

The tetrad can open interesting doors also to understanding phenomena that are named 'mass' and 'energy' — whose conceptualizations remain unclear in physics to this day. For an introduction into the problems of 'mass' see e.g. Max Jammer [1961]. In the light of the tetrad, 'materia prima', the primal opposition of forces, has no mass in the sense of 'inertia'; it is the constance of balanced force opposition at the very foundation of all secondary material structures. The intervention of 'third party forces' makes 'energy' arise, spatio-temporally organized force, as the compensatory flux that must permeate the rest of the universe. Such "decoherences" cause, in new equilibria, the structures that store energy and thus have 'mass'. The tetrad allows a detailed analysis of these, and thus allows a clarification of many otherwise still controversial concepts around 'mass' and 'energy'. [...]

The approach proposed here permits also to grasp that for instance the phenomena of electromagnetism and radioactivity show nature's way of reacting to disequilibration. Not only in natura naturans (the cosmos as causative principle, pure law & force), but also in natura naturata (the cosmos as concretely manifested principle, law & force & matter) all types of radioactivity are gradually absorbed and tend towards zero, inoffensive to all forms of life. In the same way, the equilibrium of electricity is adjusted (electron-protonbalance) to a degree that looks incredibly exact when setting out from the 'modern' supposition that some parts must dominate the whole. The sheer facts show that the overall law of necessary equilibration of arising disequilibria, the central concept of the matter aspect as proposed in this essay, is indeed fundamental. It explains also why nature has no need to provide for a sensory system that is sensitive to electromagnetic or radioactive events. If human beings disrupt those equilibria, measuring what they do is of their responsibility.

This new approach helps also explain why symmetries are important in physics, and, by revealing the link between force structures and forces, it allows a better understanding of the entangled dis-equilibrations and re-equilibrations between 'mass', 'acceleration', and 'material transformation', and therefore between physics and chemistry. For its results, no semi-clear "anthropic reasoning", or any other belief or religious faith, is required (by dint of its constant disequilibrating mental bias, no belief system can reach full universality). Clarity and completeness in the conceptual grasp is sufficient. The additional merit of this approach is that it covers in one single continuum all the existential structures, as much the living as the non-living ones. In this approach the non-living existential structures can reveal themselves conceptually as mere special cases of the more general living structures. Seen in this way, complexity suddenly looks a lot less complex, as the consequences of having to set out from parts does not arise here at all, and yet the conceptual situation is not airy-fairy at all: the foundation is an awareness of the nature of full conceptualization itself, in which there is no hidden or metaphysical assumption, but only the sheer logic of the implied content, clear when grasping what pure concepts 'do': they mirror laws.

As said in 1.4, the only content (idea) that amplifies itself in being applied to itself (self-reference) is the principle of fully aware openness, or in other words of cognizing. Any force associated to this principle (idea, law) fosters in whichever way some activity of cognizing. This law for ensuring structural existentiality, combined with the dialectics of continuity and discontinuity ("death") implied in material existentiality, shows why 'forms' (structures of law-plus-force or "desires"; see section 6.1) that combine existentiality with some openness to othernesses, are "life", and must display the characteristic trajectories of a rhythmic to-and-fro between becoming and vanishing, births and deaths.

5.3 Viewing the other sciences through this new lens
True completeness, based on the concept of force, permits us now to understand why processes that do not modify the material structure (physical processes) do not cover all of those processes in which the material structure is modified (chemical processes). At each stage of complexification, new structures of law-plus-force (i.e. 'form') must necessarily be operative, because larger overall material structures maintain their existence beyond what the previous elementary ones can warrant. This feature of larger material structures displaying new properties is usually handled conceptually in terms of "self-organization" and "emergence" ("supervenience", "fulguration", etc.). But this is not a real solution (Heil [1998]); it is mere naming, not a strict explanation in the sense of tracing back phenomena to structures of law and force — which can be achieved, however, by using the proposed tetrad of universally applicable concepts that mirror universal laws.

These allow thus a grasp of the law of the existential entity — which is at present in a haze, in physics between corpuscular and wavelike aspects, while moreover the question of causality is not unambiguously clarified. In the tetrad the existential entity denotes that which can exist in itself by actual self-referentiality. In other words these are processes where the 'matter' aspect is equilibrated. In inert structures the equilibration is effected by an external law-plus-force ('form') aspect, in living structures it is internal. Its regulatory equilibration is what keeps a material structure (from the corpuscular viewpoint: a cluster of material elements) from disintegrating into its parts, as is the case at the turning point of death, where the influence affects the structure as a whole. We should take note of the crucial difference between dying out of self-fulfilment (complete self-equilibration; in cells known as 'apoptosis') and dying by external influence (complete dis-equilibration; in cells known as 'necrosis'). We might then grasp that 'death' occurs where a 'form' leaves its 'matter' with the generic laws, by full equilibration or by an incapacity to do so — while 'birth' is the inverse, arising where a 'form' desires to expand into 'matter' for equilibrating fully anew again its own formal disequilibria ('form': laws that are willed), needing thus the universal material context and starting its new existential cycle. Languages are also 'bodies', namely of signs — or, inversely, aware bodies are in fact 'languages'.
 
  • #38
Holistic thinking

Recently I finished reading a work in GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY by Aurthur S. Iberall published in 1972 entitled TOWARDS A GENERAL THEORY OF VIABLE SYSTEMS.
The author was trained as a physicist but proposed a general systems approach to transdisciplinary research.
Would this work be somewhat along the lines of what you are discussing?
In what ways do you view physics as incomplete?
 
  • #39
Hi laserblue,
Dynamical systems theory and complexity theory is an advanced complex of scientific knowledge where the state of the art is being accumulated and intermeshed. Iberall was part of this complex. There certainly is some potential of transdisciplinarity in this approach. But it cannot claim giving an access to strict completeness, because it remains in the traditions of shifting the conceptual crux ever further into 'new' (i.e. smaller) dimensions of what-is (instead of solving the conceptual riddle, which is self-made by dint of the basic assumtions). The inherent coercion that drives to this shifting process is in the 'blind spot' of the approach (as outlined in my past posts).

Moreover, Homeokinetics (of which Iberall was the founder) is not the most elaborate development of dynamical systems theory and complexity theory. People like George Spencer-Brown, Francisco Varela, Heinz von Foerster, Gotthard Guenther, Rudolf Kaehr, Joachim Castella, or Niklas Luhmann (in an application to social theory), went further in the conceptual and thus theoretical work. In contrast to the mainstream of dynamical systems theory and complexity theory, they acknowldge the problem of the 'blind spot' and deal explicitly with it -- albeit also in ways which only shifts it around until it seems to be consumed by having reached the 'rock bottom' distinction, which needs to be believed in. In case you are curious about this line of thought, here are some links to it:

http://www.vordenker.de/gunther_web/gunther_web.htm
http://www.techno.net/pkl/media-pool.htm [Broken]

The issue is thus still the 'rock bottom' distinction, which can only be believed in (because it is an assumption). Every shool of thought has its pet idea. This is the postmodern situation: to believe in an allegedly fundamental conceptual distinction, difference, paradox, etc.. You have for example Derrida's "differance", Lyotard's "differend", but also complementarity in the quantum approach, etc., which are widely discussed. Some physicists base their thinking on the distinction of 'physical' or 'material' versus 'non-physical' or 'immaterial'. But all of these basic distinctions have their corresponding troubles when it comes to strict totality.

The problem of completeness is way beyond all completeness theorems in formal logical systems. The problem appears when applying such theorems to strictly all of reality: in the very end there is always something bizarre somewhere.

This is why I think we can and in fact should not remain at the stage of setting out from any alleged fundamental distinction, which leads to the question 'why just this one?', but go back one step more and set out from the systematic knowledge of what querying is all about. If you re-read my posts, you will see that this can be done without relying on any assumption at all (which is always anthropocentric), but on the law of nature that governs all mental processes: any query leads in the very end to a polarized conceptual space, as required for grasping fully the query's content.

In this approach, the origin of 'rock bottom' distinctions is demonstrated -- by revealing the law of nature that generates them. That's quite a difference against the above, where one is led by the nose (by some 'intuitive' or 'plausible' 'rock bottom' difference).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
Greetings Sascha !

I'm sorry it took me a while, this is something I had to
read in one peace. Hmm... This is very impressive. I'm not
entirely at peace with the way you reject aspects of
science which are necessary for your ideas in the
first place. In a methaphor: a blind man uses his mind
to realize how a person looks but he still needs his
hands to probe him. But, beyond that I can only wish
you luck and advise to also visit the Philosophy Forums
where there are a number of philosophy experts.
I'm wondering why Another God didn't respond to this in
any way so far, he's a phislosopher after all. Maybe you
should ask him. As for myself, I'll keep following if you
post more on this, but I don't think I can contribute
now at this level.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #41
How are holons created?

Sascha,

I believe the essential problem is that there was never a mechanism given for the holistic approach. I have such system. Please check my webpage: http://www.mu6.com/pdf.html and click on the eight pdf-file: The development of holons.

An holistic approach need hierarchic intergrity. It is explained by locally doubled spacetime layers which interact.

dirk
 
  • #42
Hi Dirk,
first I must say that I did not get through to your website: technically something does not work. But this is maybe not really a problem. After all, there are lots of other websites on this line of thought you propose.

Contrary to you, I do not think the crucial problem is solved by imagining a mechanism of the generation of holons. My point is that the idea of holons requires basic assumptions, a set of fundamental beliefs, which entail -- as I expose in my argumentation -- the corresponding drawbacks. Even if empirically you were to obtain a very high correlation in experiments, this would still not be sufficient for positing holons as a universal truth. Take QT, which is always correct -- but remains stuck in indeterminism. No system based on beliefs can ever be strictly universal.

But I want to believe in nothing at all. Strictly nothing. Zero. Nada. Niente. This is why, in contrast to your approach, the one I propose sets out from no belief at all. The choice is to find complete clarity as to the means with which thinking operates in approaching the world. This allows to reconcile perspectivity and universality in a complete way. In what you say, I miss precisely this quality.
 
  • #43
Originally posted by sascha
Hi Dirk,
first I must say that I did not get through to your website: technically something does not work. But this is maybe not really a problem. After all, there are lots of other websites on this line of thought you propose.
Sascha,

my server was down for some time, propably when you checked. Now you can check if you want. There are no websites in that line of engineering concept.

Dirk
 
  • #44
Hi Dirk,
So now I looked at your 8 pages. But the troubles I mentioned are not done with there. Your axiom seems to be "The initial membrane is almost infinite[ly] elastic and unbreakable". But, as already the Schloastics knew, setting out from a fallacious premiss allows to deduce, given enough twists, anything one may fancy (expressed in Latin: "ex falso quodlibet"). A modern version is the Duhem-Quine-Thesis, saying roughly the same.
 
  • #45
Originally posted by sascha
In contrast to assumptions, the law of nature governing mental processes constitutes a secure philosophical foundation, by dint of its universal validity.

Sascha, how do you know 'nature' exists? I can say: " But, as already the Schloastics knew, setting out from a fallacious premiss allows to deduce, given enough twists, anything one may fancy (expressed in Latin: "ex falso quodlibet")".
 
  • #46
Originally posted by sascha
But I want to believe in nothing at all. Strictly nothing. Zero. Nada. Niente.

Sascha,

do you believe in your own existence?
 
  • #47
Hi pelastration,
in what you ask (which is typical for many people these days), you mix up the material conditions for setting up a theory with the content that is systematically necessary for setting up that theory. It is obvious that I must exist for doing that, but it is not a content that needs to be inserted into the theory. For the theory as a theory, my existence is a contingent fact (i.e. a haphazard element). I hope this clarifies something for you.
 
  • #48
Greetings !
Originally posted by sascha
in what you ask (which is typical for many people these days), you mix up the material conditions for setting up a theory with the content that is systematically necessary for setting up that theory.
It is obvious that I must exist for doing that, but it is not a content that needs to be inserted into the theory. For the theory as a theory, my existence is a contingent fact (i.e. a haphazard element). I hope this clarifies something for you.
That may perhaps be the case if we follow the
verbal definitions. But I do not see any fundumental
philosophical obligations - truths that apparently
lead you to claim the above.

Pelastration will probably correct me if I'm wrong,
but I believe that what he's getting at is what
I suggested sometime earlier - that the subject of
your quest has a profound connection if not equivalence
to the PoE (paradox of existence), since any attempt
to formulate hollistic thinking can not, seemingly,
succeed when layed upon the foundations of current
philosophies and all their constituents.

I could of course, in this great unknown, be wrong.
However, for the moment and from what I've read
in your messages I see that the first step, indeed,
has to be the abandoning of any previous foundations.

So, basicly that's why I did not like your answer
to Pelastration - the conditions and the system here
would all have to be totally new, and one without
the other does not seem to be possible, for now.

Doubt or shout !

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #49
Hi Drag! -- maybe you should state the PoE in a precise way so that I can see more clearly just what you see in it. The foundations of the current philosophies and all their constituents is indeed the problem -- also of physics these days, I think. This is what I am trying to get at on this thread. My question is whether the PoE is not the result of similar assumptions.
 
  • #50
Originally posted by sascha
Hi Drag! -- maybe you should state the PoE in a precise way so that I can see more clearly just what you see in it. The foundations of the current philosophies and all their constituents is indeed the problem -- also of physics these days, I think. This is what I am trying to get at on this thread. My question is whether the PoE is not the result of similar assumptions.
Hmm... The PoE is the result of assumptions. But not
of any specific assumptions, rather al assumptions,
at least of those we had so far.

What is it ? I guess you could call it - most of the points
where any reasoning systems we are aware of so far fail.
(Some failures can be dealt with by other reasoning, but
eventually, so far, they all fail.)

In light of this discussion, I guess I should mention
that often the problem appears when we reach the "hollistic
stage" in a reasoning system.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #51
Maybe you remember my posting (09-28-2003 07:14 PM) some hints at the problem of the 'Cartesian split': categoreally looking at the object only 'from outside', i.e. distinguishing, observing, describing, discussing, measuring, etc.. This position inevitably ends in paradoxes that can only be shifted around -- sometimes into invisibility, out of the sphere defined by the chosen categories; then some believe the problem is done with, but of course sooner or later full reality calls back to order; this is probably what you call "when we reach the 'holistic stage' in a reasoning system". The attitude of the 'Cartesian split' is extremely widespread these days, it really constitutes the mainstream. -- But, as I try to show all along, this path and its result is not compulsory.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
855
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
664
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
6
Replies
190
Views
9K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
6
Views
163
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
Back
Top