Myrgard

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soo7Ea75-cA[/youtube]

Looks good, buddy

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXeojTQn3WQ[/youtube]

If you guys took Cosmology seriously you would have happier lives.

Keep deluding yourself crackpot. Do you always play the numbers from fortune cookies in the lottery as well?

Another instance of Pogue displaying his ignorance. I swear, it's the only reason I log on here anymore.

Shouldn't you be spending your time trying to find your way into Veronica's twat through all the hair and rolls of fat instead of thinking of me?

LOL

Quit perving my girlfriend on facebook or I'll have PK arrest you.

He should arrest you for being 30 and still looking like a 17 year old skater.

Quit perving my facebook.

How's that comic coming by the way? Did the publishers reject it because, "these drawings look like they're done by a nine-year-old?"

Thanks for trying.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBr4GkRnY04[/youtube]

That famous info-graphic of the WMAP satellite capturing the cosmic microwave background radiation after inflation should be updated to include the phase transition of the higgs field.

[youtube]http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=yout ... m7BxlWlvzc[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-TRXB1 ... rKyeIEv8-T[/youtube]

for those who think this thread is boring shite watch this.

The problem I have with the materialism / idealism dualism, as I've mentioned elsewhere, or at least the fashion by which it's presented by Bernardo Kastrup, Thomas Metzinger and others, is that the debate itself is metaphysical. Bernardo does address this in his video, but he argues that the precepts of idealism are less metaphysical than materialism's. Well this may be the case, or not, however it does not change that the debate itself is metaphysical. Setting up one side or the other and trying to expose the "fallacies" in each argument smacks of straw man because, as I've pointed out, this debate has been at the heart of philosophy for thousands of years and more importantly, I see no reason to assume that either argument represents a true description of reality when it is so apparent that reality is only ever partially observable and indeed cannot ever be fully described by any system of logic from within (for example, large parts of the universe are so far away they cannot be detected). I believe this is the essence of Godel's critique of Bertrand Russell and Whitehead's set theory.

I think Bernardo actually agrees with you. I think he wrote a book called Meaning in Absurdity that talks about what you describe.

switch you've approached what you have just spoken of in a very dualistic manner.