Right. And Carl Sagan didn’t suffer an existential crisis over it, nor did he bother anyone with endless navel gazing and obsessive doubt on the matter. Move on.
Carl Sagan was also a noted pothead.
Perhaps our erstwhile and obsessive friend could move to Colorado.
That explains, “Billions and Billions…”… too high to sit down and actually count them, I suppose.
Take a glass hologram of a racecar and break it in two halves. What do you expect to see? The front half of the car on one glass half and the back half on the other glass half? Nope. You receive two fully-functional and smaller holograms of the racecar. Break it in smaller pieces and each piece becomes a full but smaller hologram of the original car. How is that possible? Clearly, every smallest part of the hologram contains all the information necessary to recreate the entire hologram. In effect, the front half of the car IS the entire racecar.
Leonard Susskind talks about how any arrangement in 3D space is completely analogous to another arrangement spread out on a larger 2D surface. Long story short, our universe could be the 3D hologram that is created from a 2D surface of information; every bit of that 2D surface containing everything needed to reconstruct the entire 3D universe. Thus, if the world is a hologram, you are the ENTIRE thing that contains you.
As if that wasn’t wild speculation enough, here’s both feet into the land of misquoted science…
When a 3D star in our universe collapses into a black hole, it produces a 2D event horizon. When a star collapses in a universe of 4 spatial dimensions, the result would be a 4D black hole with a 3D event horizon. Could we live in such a 3D event horizon? Could the expansion of our own universe be the result of 4D matter falling into a 4D black hole and increasing its size? The period of hyper-inflation following the big bang could be explained by the initial feeding frenzy of nearby 4D matter after critical black-hole mass had been reached.
Where’s my lava lamp at anyways?
Okay, now take an actual racecar and break it into two halves; possibly you expect to see two fully-functional and smaller racecars? So break it into even smaller pieces; does each piece become a full racecar? Does every smallest part of that actual racecar contain all that’s needed to recreate an entire racecar?
Nope. In effect, each piece of the car ISN’T the entire racecar.
And if the world isn’t, then maybe you’re — not? Am I getting this right? If the world is like that glass hologram of a racecar, then okay; but if it’s like the racecar itself, well, then, uh, in a word, nope?
I doubt he fully grasped it.
Though the people who claim this to be so don’t provide and explanation for it.
And I doubt that there was one single topic that Carl Sagan didn’t have a much better grasp on than you.
In this case he did.
Even though they don’t explain it the metaphor they often use is an ocean. That the wave is not separate from the ocean but is connected to it and part of the ocean and then it dies out. They see the universe as that and the apparent “separateness” of things around us as an illusion, that everything is connected and dependent on each other.
Another point is talking about how individual consciousness is an illusion and that it is universal consciousness, but that’s more sketchy to me, especially since there isn’t evidence to suggest that anything but animals are conscious.
And this quora page: https://www.quora.com/Are-we-simply-the-universe-experiencing-itself-Is-the-universe-compelled-to-do-so-when-it-happens-to-create-life-with-the-emergent-properties-of-consciousness
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
No, wait, you’re serious?
Uh, yeah; an ocean, and a wave that doesn’t happen to be separate from that ocean, sure can be a metaphor. Likewise: the shirt I’m now wearing, and a rock on a planet that’s circling a distant star? That can also be a metaphor! Because, see, they’re separate, is my point, so you can use them as a metaphor for things that happen to be separate from each other!
Say I show you a gold cup full of delicious and nourishing milk, and an iron cup full of foul-tasting poison; are they like a wave and the ocean? I ask because there are times when that’s a good metaphor; maybe this is one of those times! But — and stay with me, here; there’s another possibility — are they like a shirt that’s here, and a rock that’s all the way over there, in that they happen to be separate from one another? Like, is this a time for Metaphor #1, or Metaphor #2?
The links phrase it better than I do. Saying that you are the universe experiencing itself, similar to what Sagan said by us being a way for the cosmos to know itself.
The link you posted phrases it with a key word: “part”. Maybe you should try phrasing it with that word? I’ll try it, here, and then you can try it likewise?
Here goes.
Ahem.
You are a “part” of the universe: experiencing some parts of the universe — but, of course, not experiencing various other parts. Now consider somebody else: someone you don’t know, someone who could drop dead tomorrow and you may never find out. That person is also a part of the universe: experiencing some parts of the universe, but not others. To quote my favorite superhero movie: “the people only see the part I play in public; only a few select friends know my private parts.”
Turns out Sagan got high, a lot. Are you high?
If the whole thing is just a flowery way to say that everything is connected then sure I can admit that “everything is the universe”.
But I don’t think that is what they mean: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CR0HhIcUYAAHKh-.jpg
To me the universe isn’t one thing it’s many things, which is why the analogy of the ocean doesn’t seem right.
Somethings things that sound stupid and wrong are, in fact, stupid and wrong.
And really, a lot of this junk is just changing the framing of the problem, usually in ways analogous to a broken analogy. Like your little picture, there, it’s basically saying that if intelligence is housed in something, then that thing is intelligent. My brain has a mind in it, so my brain is intelligence. The building I’m in has my brain (and thus my mind) in it, and thus the building has a mind too! Actually about fifty different minds, which means the building has multiple personality syndrome and needs therapy, hyuk hyuk! Until the end of the workday when we all leave and the building gradually loses more and more intelligence until it’s positively mindless, hyuk hyuk!
Seriously, it sounds like they’re trying to make a bad joke, but suck at comedy.
I don’t think that what it means.
I think they are referring to the universe as some monolithic “one thing” and that everything we see is just it. But the universe isn’t one thing it many things.
The other thing they say is that we just have the “experience of being a human” somewhat saying that we are the universe having a human experience, though that sounds like nonsense to me.
They say that we are really the universe and not a body and that we are just attached to the form or the body. But consciousness and senses and mind are all tied to the body and don’t seem to be separate from it so I would have to say no. We are a body.
315 posts ago this is the answer you got.:smack:
(6 months ago)