Alan Watts is similar to Carl Sagan in teaching difficult stuff simply... Watts really brings the East to the West kind of stuff, but damn if Sagan didnt have to be a bit of philosopher himself
@@arealperona538 True but in this example, a 4th dimensional being might not know as much about the 3 dimensional universe as we do, because, like the apple, it cannot fully interact with only 3 dimensions. In the same way that, we know a lot about 2D but not everything.
@@sharpthingsinspace9721analogies are lossy compression of ideas. A completely unflawed analogy would imply that the two compared concepts are equivalent.
@@LordVader1094 I don't think you understand the flaw sharp is referring to. This analogy is flawed not only because two dimensional objects cannot interact with each other, three dimensional objects are not able to interact with them either. One and two dimensional objects or states are just as abstract as 4 or more. They only exist in mathematics. You cannot deduce a 4d plane can observe a 3d one as a 3d can observe a 2d, because a 2d plane is not even observable.
@@charleBerglund did he stutter? Its a dark knight reference “some people want to watch the world burn”, but changed it with learn and men. Men is used because carl sagan, who is the man in reference to “some men want to watch the world learn”, is in fact a man. Couldve kept it as people but both work.
..... Oh I don't Know.... The WOMBLE'S was a Decent Creation.... COSMOS Is the One To Beat Though I'll Agree There.... IT'S JUST SO BLOOMING GOOD..... 2:21
This was where Carl shined, taking complex scientific ideas and explaining them in such a way that you could grasp what he was going on about. He is missed! :)
Exactly. In this video, you can tell that he's excited to be sharing this knowledge, because he's excited about the knowledge too. I was so sad when Carl passed away. I had always wanted to meet him. He left a wonderful legacy.
I just love when he says "not that way, not that way, not that way...I can't show you what direction that is." He's inspirational in the true sense of the word, because he invites you to imagine with him
@@anusmcgee4150 a line is 1D. It has length but no height or width, so it doesn't exist. 2D has length and width but no height. So it doesn't exist. And since the entire universe is 3D; 4D doesn't exist. Lines are used in math to represent imaginary number lines. And 2D is used in math to represent imaginary areas.
@@eugene7518 He's not claiming that 4D exists. He is claiming that if it did exist, the 3D "shadow" of a 4D object may be something like a tesseract. He literally said it's impossible for us to see the 4th direction--the impossible direction that is somehow at a right angle to the x axis, the y axis, AND the z axis. It is an abstraction of the concept of dimensions. We live in a 3D world. That's true.
“There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.” - Rod Serling
@@BeinThatGuy FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO HAS EXPLAINED TIME DILATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROVING THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity: Consider what is E=MC2 ON BALANCE. Consider what is the Sun, AND the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. INDEED, consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!! I have CLEARLY proven and explained what is the fourth dimension. CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! INDEED, consider what is the man (AND THE EYE ON BALANCE) who IS standing on WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground !!! WHAT IS E=MC2 is WHAT IS GRAVITY as WHAT IS SPACE. Great. WHAT IS GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. Again, consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. (I have proven the fourth dimension.) TIME slows down as one approaches the speed of light, as less TIME passes. Great. Indeed, consider why and how it is that there is something instead of nothing ON BALANCE. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Magnificent. I have CLEARLY proven and explained (ON BALANCE) why and how a given PLANET (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal area in what is equal TIME. Magnificent. WHAT IS E=MC2 is WHAT IS GRAVITY as what is SPACE !!! Indeed, consider WHAT IS the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE !!! It IS the SAME SIZE as what is THE EYE !!! The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Magnificent. By Frank Martin DiMeglio
What I don't understand is why if we can't devise a formula to reverse engineer the shadow of a cube into an actual cube, we can't apply that same formula to the shadow of a tesseract and get an actual tesseract, (other than there, y'know not being a 4th dimension)
@@justatrashmonster4275 We are in 3rd dimension. Thats why we can reverse engineer all the lesser dimensional shadows. An actual tesseract exist in 4th dimension and we are not there. Its like 1D is small room, 2D is bigger room that contains the first one, and 3D is even bigger and contains the other two. The tesseract is in the 4th room but we are not there. Were stuck in the 3D room.
@@justatrashmonster4275 Mathematical and physical boundaries expand as we go up in dimensions. Kind of like an upside down pyramid. We dont know what laws/rules there are up there so we cant apply the 2D to 3D conversion to 3D to 4D
When I start thinking about 4th dimension...I feel like I m dumb, limited, innocent and I realise I know nothing and because of this mind automatically becomes disinterested with all this 3rd dimensional world....
Everything about the original Cosmos was just perfect. The cinematography, the visual effects (for its time), production and direction of Adrian Malone, the music of Vangelis and of course the Presenting of Carl Sagan.
The book ! I was in my early teens. Reading pop magazines. Studying the next fashion trend. Like everybody else my age. Then this guy appeared on tv. He changed my life around. I saved up my pocket money. Then bought THE BOOK. "Cosmos". It didn't make me a professor. It made me think. In other dimentions. How many are there ? If only I could use my brain's full capacity. Not just a small percentage... Will mankind ever evolve to that stage ? Or are we stupidly destroying ourselves.🙊 Turning our DNA into plastic...🙈 Are we just an other petri dish experiment to someone out there ? I think we might be. And I worry that we're failing big time... 🙉 Love from Norway 🇳🇴
I first saw this at the age of 9 or 10 and I remember it to this day in my mid-50s. It changed how I look at things and my perception of the universe. I also loved the music.
Carl Sagan was a true genius. He would always explain things to us in a way we could understand. Sucks that he died so young. I'd love to have met him.
Yeah I haven't looked it up but I would expect that his voice was based on Carl a bit. Although Carl Sagan also sounds a bit like Kermit the Frog, so there's that.
@@eugene7518 we all know every 3D object can be described using x;y;z coordinates... if 1D and 2D didn't exist... Then that would mean you are only consisted of 2 dimensions or a single dimension, in respecting cases, right now. Which in turn would be paradoxical and logically retarded statement coming from 3D creature.
@@eugene7518 imagine trying to explain to Mario in the first games that he doesn't have to jump over pipes, he can just walk around them. Try using a controller to make it happen. That's more or less how 3D works in 2D, and how 4D works in 3D. Just because you can't properly see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist
Andrey Shipilov Hy maybe he is smarter than you??? joke the triangle does not has house, he is only, what do you mean triangle gas a house you not have are you ok, he just making , how do i say,he is explaining, like you are a child, so you not get confused , he uses termes, that your brain finds it easy to andestend, if he used , tecnical cientist words, you would not andestend.ok by
Excellent explanation using Flatland and a Tesseract. A three-dimensional object moving through Flatland would be what H.P. Lovecraft described as "the crawling chaos" as chaotic shapes appear, disappear, reappear. Carl Sagan mentioned that the Flatlander was surprised but rational when an apple visited Flatland. I would say that most Flatlanders would be terrified with some going mad. Lovecraft said, "I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness." This is a mathematical explanation that Lovecraft's fictional alien entities like Cthulhu and Azathoth were multi-dimensional entities which appear as amorphous, shifting, shadowy, and chaotic volumetric shapes which our febrile minds perceive as pseudopods or tentacles, piercing our veil of reality.
So classic, so iconic. And it succeeds in making you wonder about all we could all be missing from our anthropocentric perspective with our constants and comfortable assumptions.
I was (am) so very fortunate to have come upon Carl Sagan-fortunate in that I wasn't born until the 90s. And although I did regularly watch educational documentaries of all sorts alongside my father from the start, I wasn't old enough to effectively seek it out on my own volition until the 2000s. "Cosmos" was decades old and Carl Sagan was not here anymore, at least not in physical form. I must have come upon it on PBS but I was enamored with Carl and with astronomy immediately. I was so young that the only way I had access to Cosmos was by regularly searching for it through the menu guide of our cable provider. It could only look not more than a few weeks ahead. So most of the time my search results for Cosmos would turn up nothing more than "not avaliable." But I always looked. And though very rarely, I would at times find an airing. And would set a reminder. This was my only available access. But I never stopped searching for airings. When I sat down to watch Cosmos, one that I had found and set a reminder for weeks prior, I was always so elated that I was moments away from the episode airing, one that I had been anxiously awaiting for weeks. "Weeks" is a very long time when you're 10 years old. Eventually I'd have immediate access once streaming became more accessible. We had a desktop PC and dial up by 2000 but my parents had 0 ability and 0 motivation to learn how to use one and therefore couldn't navigate it at all, whatsoever. I had to teach myself, which I did. I was fortunate in that my parents did not indulge in the purposely exaggerated, sometimes hysterical "stranger danger" narrative pushed by mainstream media in the days where internet use and access began to skyrocket in regularity in the homes of regular Americans. I was an elementary aged young girl but I had total and complete access to the world in this relatively brand new concept. I used it safely, and effectively. And I've never stopped using it for learning. I've never stopped having such profound gratitude and appreciation for our ability to have instantaneous access to anything and everything. Carl Sagan was my first "teacher" in the sense that he's the first I ever sought out on my own. My first vessel in independent, willful knowledge as an individual human being, separate from the teachers and teachings I encountered in the traditional way at the behest of forces outside myself. Through Carl Sagan I became enlightened to the concept of independent limitless learning.
In flatland shapes can not be seen. Only imaginary lines can be seen. To see a shape one must stand over it. That is possible only in 3D. So Carl Sagan is wrong.
This explanation, (dubbed in spanish) is one of the most vivid memories of my childhood. It made so much sense, I've lived my life not taking anything at face value and looking for the possibility naked to our eyes. Thanks MR. Sagan, your spirit carries on.
The first time I seen Carl Sagan I was incredibly impressed by his vast intelligence. but then he was on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. again I was impressed by his vast intelligence. but when he was having a conversation with Johnny Carson. I realized that he had another incredible ability. and that was he could educate anyone including me. and from then on I was inspired by him. he was one of the most brilliant minds in modern time's. he is definitely missed.
Algo a lo que se negaban científicos como Feynman, cuando decían que eso sería engañar. O era la explicación especializada,tras años de estudio, como los suyos, o no valía la pena explicar las cosas.
A student of his, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, also has such ability. I'm sure Carl rubbed off on him for sure, as he was just a child when 'meeting' Carl for the first time. I read he also met his idol at some point in person. What an amazing time they lived in... when intelligence and learning was first and foremost, and not this social media instant gratification crap we have now. Ahhh, how I long for the old times.
I watched this video years ago knowing NOTHING about Carl Sagan. I come back to it now, and with knowing so much more about this marvelous man, it almost brings a tear to my eye.
@@eugene7518 Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to KILL him! So we don’t have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things.
There should be a free worldwide channel where Cosmos runs indefinitely. I would come back ever so often to be embraced in his immense wisdom and his astounding ability to share that wisdom.
Listening to Carl Sagan is just so soothing. Just something so paternal about his voice, almost like he is talking one to one with you and cares so deeply that you understand the material he is presenting. Such a shame he had to leave us clearly far before he should have. Thankfully we have people like michio kaku and one of sagan's own pupils, neil degrasse tyson.
Wow! This man just blew my mind! The hypercubes shadow or tesseract is what he is holding in his hand. What he is holding IS the shadow of the 4th dimensional cube. He is only able to display the shadow it creates because there is no way of actually displaying anything in the 4th dimension. You can only imagine it. Why? Because we are trapped in a 3D world (what we see). We are incapable of projecting any 4D image. Brilliant!
A 2D flatland environment is literally a "piece of paper" in a 3D world where paper is used to create, learn, and have fun with. The next world up from us owns this 3D world. Our 3D world's mysteries could be a project in the next realm? Could the next world above us be conscious, mental, and spiritual? "I hold it entirely possible that a technology exists, which encompasses both the physical and the psychic, the material and the mental. There are stars that are millions of years older than the sun. There may be a civilization that is millions of years more advanced than man's. We have gone from Kitty Hawk to the moon in some seventy years, but it's possible that a million-year-old civilization may know something that we don't ... I hypothesize an 'M&M' technology encompassing the mental and material realms. The psychic realms, so mysterious to us today, may be an ordinary part of an advanced technology." -J.Allen Hynek Allen Hynek worked for the US Government's Project Bluebook in the 50's and 60's. His job was to interview witnesses, debunk reports, and discourage public interest in UFOs making witnesses look foolish. By the 1970s however he had admitted that the purpose of the Bluebook project was not to investigate, but to create public doubt. For 20 years Hynek conducted these interviews with witnesses right after the report was made. After conducting years of interviews he noticed the witnesses gave peculiar common details of their experiences. Things are changing with regard to public disclosure of UFO phenomena. Sightings are becoming more and more common. As Earth technology continues to advance the evidence points to the only answer that checks all the boxes.
I watched the Cosmos series on PBS when I was about 20. It was broadcast on Sunday evenings and I had to watch it on our old black and white TV on the back porch. This while the living room TV, with everyone else, had either football on, the news or 60 Minutes. I eagerly devoured this series. Bought the book and the record music album. I had an interest in Astronomy since the age of 12 and this series just reenforced that. I took Astronomy 150 at Ohio State (5 credits) and I got a grade of A-. Most of this course in college I self learned prior. That was the best I good do in this subject because the Calculus and the Physics series humbled me.
I'm eternally grateful to this man for taking such complex things, things that maybe only someone with a great education could understand, and explaining them in a way where someone who was 7 or 8 years old at the time could understand. Still amazes me to this day
CARL SAGAN F**KED UP ! = a one dimensional being could not see anything = it would be a part of its own environment because two objects can not occupy one dimension and an eye needs three dimensions to function + a two dimensional being , if it could see, would only see itself occupying both dimensions with no room for a second object just as above. DID NO ONE TELL HIM "2 OBJECTS CAN NOT OCCUPY THE SAME SPACE AT THE SAME TIME"? DEAR SCIENCE: The universe is three dimensional = in order to make a fourth dimension you would need to fold the universe back on itself creating two parts of the same object occupying the same space at the same time. the idea of other dimensions is pure FANTASY.
He was such an incredible genius, and this illustration really proves that about Carl Sagan. and his AWESOME ability to educate everyone with his fantastic knowledge. it's what made me so inspired by him. it's incredible to have such knowledge. but it's even more incredible to be able to communicate it as he did. he is definitely missed.
Flatlanders have only a side view. They can't notice where length and width meet. Therefore everything appears as an imaginary line. Cause they can't stand over a shape, to see the shape. That's only possible in 3D.
I literally can’t stop crying when I watch Carl. The nostalgia mixed with the tragedy of his death and the societal death of the love and pursuit of knowledge simply for its sake is very overwhelming for me!
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 :) :)
ive watched this clip more times than i would like to admit and now i can recite every line with carl. "...as the apple were to desceeend through, sliiiither by.."
I would have been great to have had Carl Sagan as a teacher. what a great teacher indeed. oh wait a minute, I just got to have him as a teacher in this lesson. Thank you Carl Sagan
In flatland shapes can not be seen. Only lines can be seen. To see a shape one must stand over it. That is only possible in 3D. So Carl Sagan is wrong.
Carl Sagan had such a profound impact on my life, how I perceived the world, superstition, my love of everything in literature non fiction. I’ve admired many great men in history and in every field of science, but his death was so painful I cried at the knowledge of what the world had lost. A man for all seasons.
Well, let's make it *really* interesting then! Sagan, during his discussion, is apparently alluding to 5D cosmology. That's been a thing for a while (just do a search on "5D Cosmology" on the arXiv preprint server at the arxiv.org site). As we all know, Einstein's math professor, Dr. Minkowski, laid forth a 4D geometric framework (over the objections of Einstein) in late 1907 and early 1908 for Relativity and electromagnetism - that's 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension; or 3+1 dimensional. What most people don't know however is that tucked away in the appendix of that very paper, which launched 3+1 dimensional Minkowski geometry, was an attempt to expand the geometric picture yet further to be able to more consistently reconcile Newton's physics with Relativity. He added *a fourth spatial dimension* (calling it "virtual displacement") and devised the groundwork for a 4+1 dimensional geometric unified formulation of both relativity and non-relativistic theory, and then started to try and to fit gravity into it at the very end of the appendix. His work was cut short: he keeled over in 1909. It *is* doable (as we found out by the 1980's ... several years *after* this episode aired) and Minkowski was on the verge of finding out how to do it, in 1907. Today, we know it as Bargmann geometry (the natural playing field for Newtonian Physics) and it is *directly* connected to the 5D geometries used in Cosmology, which may be likened to as the relativistic versions of Bargmann geometry. None of that came about until after the 1950's; while Minkowski's appendix was published just before Bargmann himself *was even born* ! That's how far ahead of its time it was.
In flatland shapes can not be seen. Only imaginary lines can be seen. To see a shape one must stand over it. That is possible only in 3D. So Carl Sagan is wrong.
I am sure everone for a second was like "Oh shit here it comes fourth dimension..." and then Carl was like "No you can't see it." I thought for a second what this was going to be the coolest thing on youtube. Still I loved the feeling I got thinking about it.
Wanna "see" the fourth dimension? Ok, take a laser pen and shine it onto your wall, if you look at the centre of that laser dot you will perceive depth in that dot, that *depth* is the fourth dimension. A glimpse of it. I can't take credit for having discovered / seen this though. I got help from someone.
Carl was a beacon of intellectual hope in a benighted age. He made learning not just interesting but fun. This generation needs more men and women like Carl Sagan to reignite the desire to actually learn and discover new facts about the world not hide behind fear and ignorance as we see today. The world is a much smaller place without people like Carl Sagan and Alan Watts to inspire us to look into the void with cautious optimism and not negative skepticism.
This helped me to understand so much and also reaffirms my beliefs of ghost being inter-dimensional beings. Also, I just love the way vintage men carried themselves. So masculine and classy.
Carl was weak and hated reality. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Damn right I did. But the fact that people (who may normally have 0 interest in science) are being inspired to watch videos like this by Interstellar is extremely uplifting.
"His only conclusion can be, that he's gone bonkers" such a comical way to speak on such an ideological concept. Grateful to witness the simplified explanations of such a genius.
A note from a very thoughtful Student! I was thinking about the concept of a three dimensional being taking a two dimensional flat lander and lifting him out of his plane of existence. As he came fluttering down, he would be “above” all of his flat lander friends, and he would be able to see them in their entirety. However, I find that there are two things wrong with this. One, there is the assumption that the flat lander suddenly gains two dimensional vision. I believe the case for a true flatlander oblivious to existence outside the two dimensions to which he is confined to is that he can only see in one dimension, a line. Objects farther away would appear as smaller line segments. As they approached, the line segment would span a greater portion of the flatlander's field of vision. Having two dimensional vision would mean being able to see a two dimensional shape in all of its entirety. The sides, and the interior of a two dimensional object can be seen by a being with two dimensional vision, but to a two dimensional being, its one dimensional vision prevents it from directly viewing the interior or the behind of another two dimensional being. So if a flatlander was fluttering “down” back to its own plane of existence, its line segment field of vision would be rapidly changing, with objects jumping into and out of its vision. One moment it would see a line cross section of the inside of a circular two dimension rock, the next second, the direction the flatlander is looking in could change entirely, suddenly looking into a line cross section of a hexagonal berry bush. Our vision is two dimensional in nature, in that we cannot see in three dimensions. We can see two dimensional objects in their entirety (provided we zoom out enough) but we cannot see three dimensional objects in their entirety. We cannot see the inside or the behind of three dimensional objects. Objects that are far away appear as small two dimensional shapes. As they approach, they appear as larger and larger two dimensional shapes. Our sense of touch and parallax allows us to perceive things as having volume. If a three dimensional being like ourselves was suddenly whisked away from his space of existence, (for a two dimensional being, it would be his plane of existence) we would not be able to see the entire universe in its entirety. We wouldn't suddenly be granted three dimensional vision, allowing us to view inside and behind all objects at once. However, much like the two dimensional being fluttering back to its plane of existence, what we see would also be rapidly changing as we wildly changed directions whilst fluttering down to our space of existence. One moment we would be looking from a distance at Neptune, the next, we would be swallowed by an immense brightness as we briefly witnessed the interior of the Sun, the next, a darkness broken only by a swath of bright dots as we peer into interstellar space. But even this isn't totally correct, because Two, there is the assumption that there is only one plane of existence. In reality, there are an infinite number of infinitely thin stacked planes, each one with their own flatlanders. Actually, it depends on which dimension you go in, since you actually have a variety of choices. So these planes are actually stacked in multiple axial dimensions. If you have a line in the x direction, you can either decide to go in the y direction or the z direction. With the flatland 2D world, you can choose to go in a temporal direction, so that flatlands in one direction of the stack would be flatlands of the past while flatlands in the other direction of the stack would be flatlands of the future, sort of like travelling in a y axis. However, if you stayed in the same moment of time, you can also go in another direction and traverse parallel universes, sort of like travelling in a z direction. A plane in one direction could contain an existence where a flatlander decided not to go to work today while a plane in another direction could contain an existence where a flatlander did decide to go to work. Within that scenario, I actually described four dimensions: the two spatial dimensions of the flatland, one time dimensions, and one dimension would cross into parallel universes of the same period of time after the Big Bang, a probability space. This flatlander experience is different from what you and I experience in that it lacks a third spatial dimension. It could still experience time and probability leading to parallel universes. Actually, I haven't yet described what I think would happen if you traversed along a stack of flatlands along a third spatial dimension. I don't know. I guess you'd experience slightly different but at the same time very different versions of reality. Perhaps you can imagine a field of square brick pyramids. One plane would contain these pyramids, but they'd appear as squares of bricks in that cross section. Go along a third spatial dimension onto another plane and the square shrinks. The square however is still made of bricks. Go instead along a time dimension and the square might not be there, since the pyramid in the three dimensional world has been eroded away by weather, or has not yet been built. Go instead along a dimension crossing into parallel universes (universes which originated at the same Big Bang) and things could suddenly get dimmer: maybe something occurred long ago that caused less hydrogen gas to coalesce into a star, causing the “Sun” to be a red dwarf instead. No life was created to build the pyramids and you end up with a dark plane flooded in red light. No square. So going back to what a flatlander would experience, it depends on which dimension you pull the flatlander in, and to what degree. So what is the flatlander's displacement? I guess you could represent that as a crazy more than three or four dimensional vector, . All I know is that for a flatlander and a three dimensional being, if they were whisked suddenly from their usual existence, things in their vision would change very rapidly. Objects would pop into and out of existence. Things could get very bright and very dark very quickly. Both would experience a psychedelic firework array of rapidly changing colors, shapes, and bright nesses. A flatlander would traverse infinitely many planes of existence, and thus wouldn't be able to see his own plane of existence until it settled back down there. That is, assuming there was an attractive force pulling it to its plane of existence in the first place, in this case, what we call “gravity.” And for us, we would be traversing potentially infinitely many universes in a short period of “time” (what is time anymore even? Couldn't we potentially travel through crazy lengths of time, or no time at all?). Then I'd have to take back everything I said about “rapid” and “quick” since those are words denoting a large number of actions or experiences in a short period of “time.” Also, another somewhat unrelated thought. Projections of higher dimensional shapes onto lower dimensions. The Carl Sagan video showed us a projection of a hypercube onto the third dimension, as a sort of tesseract. However, the hypercube could be further projected into the second dimension. Easy examples to find are images of tesseracts shown online. However, things get weird when you attempt to project such an object into the first dimension. Suddenly, the hypercube loses so much of its depth, length, etc. At least we could visualize it to a limited degree when the hypercube was projected onto the third and second dimensions. So then begs the question. how much of higher dimensions hypercubes, like fifth and sixth dimensional hypercubes, are we actually missing out on? How much is hidden from us at a given moment in time when we view such a hypercube in a certain “orientation?” Thanks for showing us the Carl Sagan video in class. I remember you showing us that video while I was in your pre-calc research class and it had profoundly changed the way I view dimensions. A lot of what I mentioned in this email today is heavily influenced by my currently limited understanding of string theory. 10 Dimensions Visualization Video: ruclips.net/video/gg85IH3vghA/видео.html [tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=WN.7W8Thu0ZOqwQzcRSqbSUbw&w=250&h=140&c=7&pid=Api] Imagining 10 Dimensions - the Movie Here are all 11 “Imagining” videos I've published. You can click on the buttons along the top to jump to any particular dimension whenever you want, or if you've got … Read more… How to walk through walls using the 4th Dimension … An explanation of how walking through walls would actually look like if you could move in 4D, using the 4D video-game Miegakure (miegakure.com) For more … Read more… Thanks!
I love watching these kind of people. They test my comprehension skills. Sometimes I get it and sometimes not but I’m so proud of myself when I do get it. It all depends on who is speaking. With Carl I stand a much better chance of getting it.
It always makes me sad to find out about Carl Sagan so late in my late. i mean man, if there ever was a person i would like to meet in real life. it was him. We really need more people like him.
In flatland shapes can not be seen. Only lines can be seen. To see a shape one must stand over it. That is only possible in 3D. So Carl Sagan is wrong.
Going by the tesseract logic, couldn't all of 3D space just be a projection of the fourth dimension? I can imagine that's why the fourth dimension has been theorised to be time, since if assuming that time is indeed a real thing and not just a concept, the third dimension is essentially our present being continually projected out of time into the third dimension. But if that's the case, why aren't we seeing more abstract shapes like the tesseract occur naturally? It it that there just aren't any objects that are complex enough to cast a theoretically abstract shadow, or can we not perceive them with the naked eye? Are three-dimensional shadows tangible, or are they like holograms? If a 4D object is projected directly onto a 2D surface, would that just be the same as casting a shadow of the theoretical representation of the shadow of the tesseract onto a 2D surface? Jeepers, this is quite a trip, isn't it?
@@eugene7518 I'm not sure what you mean. Another word for dimension is "degree of freedom", meaning some property that can be changed independent of other properties. So each dimension in this case represent a separate property which we group into "space", with time being a kind of spatial dimension. Whether you consider parts of something to "exist" or whether it's just the whole something that exists is rather metaphysical.
That’s awesome you think so. Existence is more interesting if you listen to other fields of mathematics and science. If you like your world that’s great. Me appreciating science and mathematical theories takes nothing from you. So long and have a great existence!
This is a great way to explain why some folks believe they hear from God, when it could simply be a being from another dimension we have yet to experience or see😊
This was the clip (and looking at the upload date, perhaps the exact video) that introduced me to Carl Sagan back in Spring 2009 when I was a teenager. I would end up watching all of Cosmos, followed by reading The God Delusion by Dawkins, both of which led me to becoming an Atheist and a lifelong aficionado of Popular Science. Carl Sagan literally changed my life.
I scrolled down to the comments to see thoughtful insights and the occasional appreciation of Carl's life, but instead I see religious assholes using this as a chance to spew ignorance, and people comparing his voice to Kermit the frog. (The latter isn't that bad). Carl Sagan was a brilliant man who did incredible things to advance humanity, his life had as much meaning and value as anyone could hope for, and certainly more than a fictional character out of a mythological tale.
Well, I'd like to propose then that ghost, as we see or experience them, are 4 dimensional beings passing though our dimension. The descriptions of 3D to 2D visitations applies. Voices from within, mysteriously appears from nowhere, and sometimes makes contact and send the flatlander/us to a plane where we have no idea what's happening (out of body experience). Watching him explain he flatlanders experience sounds alot like the people here on Earth that we call crazy.
Well the Flat Earth Society has been around for quite a while, although initially they were more of a debate group using a ridiculous premise as a base for creative debate. None of them actually believed it, it was just a tool. It was only later that the lunatics annexed it to fortify their religious dogma.
To all the people saying "zomg, this proves ghosts/gods/flying spaghetti monsters": Sagan was himself unimpressed by such claims. He was using this segment to clear up the actual theory behind this - later going on to dispel the ad hoc/post hoc rationalisations that people make to reify superstitious nonsense.
John That's fine, but it's a grey zone, that science-the-establishment wants to keep things within certain bounds... yet it has no full answer for it. It comes down to bias, when the reality is so unclear, like they're protecting an orthodoxy. Are a lot of the claims unlikely, foolish, irrational, superstition, etc? Sure, but, are ALL of them? We don't know! Will more science clear it up? Maybe. Or maybe even that continued scientific effort will lead us into places even stranger, turn everything upside down. Or never find out, maybe one day we'll all be psychic and stuff, and find out through other means the true basis for the universe, and science will be a laughed-at idea/method, quaint and primitive as a voodoo doll. The world is bigger than any of us and our ideas. Even great ones like science. That's the magic and beauty of it, the sense of discovery and knowing that that discovery will never end if we keep our wits about us.
"We don't know!" is exactly why it is foolish to make such bold claims - presuppositional beliefs are something I believe we should discourage. As for: "science-the-establishment wants to keep things within certain bounds"? Are you implying some kind of conspiracy in science? The scientific method is pretty reasonable and fair for determining what is true - it's also the only system we have that has any consistent efficacy (medicine heals, planes fly, etc).
John no, not as such. Only that scientists are humans, with human bias and narrowmindedness, and their institutions do have a certain point of view (at the most general, positive materialism) which necessarily excludes all others. I don't want to mislead you, I'm a huge fan of the scientific method, the pure concept of science in that respect is sound, but because humans are flawed, that is where my, let's say caution, comes in. I don't like to see anyone trying to constrict the bounds of a discussion or hypothesis making (and especially not basic wondering) just because they think things have to conform to a viewpoint; that is decidedly unscientific. Lots of things that once seemed foolish are now accepted fact, and whole paradigms have been abandoned before. That's all I was trying to say.
Brandon McGinnity Humans are flawed and even the best of us succumb to cognitive biases on a regular basis, yes. However, the beauty about science is that it is *self-correcting*. If I try to repeat your results or try to test the efficacy of your claims (that have suffered from such systematic distortions), it will reveal your ineptitude. As a scientist, it would benefit my career greatly to expose you for poor science and offer a scathing rebuke of your paper (a counter-thesis) - a wonderful opportunity to set things right in the subject at question.
Carl in my mind is the ultimate teacher of very difficult concepts. Every time I look at the stars I always remember we are all made of 'star stuff'
Every time I watch his videos I think about the fact that likely in some distant civilization an average 5th grader knows more about physics than him
@whatevergoogle
And your religious beliefs have no basis in science.
Alan Watts is similar to Carl Sagan in teaching difficult stuff simply...
Watts really brings the East to the West kind of stuff, but damn if Sagan didnt have to be a bit of philosopher himself
@markporter3522
You are very fearful of religion, because you refuse to understand that the soul resides in a higher dimension.
You are very childish.
@@arealperona538 True but in this example, a 4th dimensional being might not know as much about the 3 dimensional universe as we do, because, like the apple, it cannot fully interact with only 3 dimensions. In the same way that, we know a lot about 2D but not everything.
How do you know if someone is very intelligent?
When someone explains something so good that you yourself feel intelligent.
This guy was a gem.
But in real two dimensions you can’t even think or see or do anything so this analogy is intriguing but absolutely flawed.
Facts. It takes an extremely intelligent person to be able to break things down the way Carl does. It shows a true understanding.
@@sharpthingsinspace9721analogies are lossy compression of ideas. A completely unflawed analogy would imply that the two compared concepts are equivalent.
@@sharpthingsinspace9721You have no idea what an analogy is, then
@@LordVader1094 I don't think you understand the flaw sharp is referring to. This analogy is flawed not only because two dimensional objects cannot interact with each other, three dimensional objects are not able to interact with them either. One and two dimensional objects or states are just as abstract as 4 or more. They only exist in mathematics. You cannot deduce a 4d plane can observe a 3d one as a 3d can observe a 2d, because a 2d plane is not even observable.
Some men just want to watch the world learn.
By god...that is a..profound statement.
Both amusing and brilliant.
I applaud you for this.
Why so queryous ?
Im putting this on a tshirt
Think of apple as extraterrestrials, U.F.O. and Flat-ers as humans.
@@charleBerglund did he stutter? Its a dark knight reference “some people want to watch the world burn”, but changed it with learn and men. Men is used because carl sagan, who is the man in reference to “some men want to watch the world learn”, is in fact a man. Couldve kept it as people but both work.
The original Cosmos was one the greatest television shows ever created.
..... Oh I don't Know.... The WOMBLE'S was a Decent Creation.... COSMOS Is the One To Beat Though I'll Agree There.... IT'S JUST SO BLOOMING GOOD..... 2:21
Still love it! Saw it when it first aired, I was about 11 / 12 years old.
Carl's voice is like classical music, I listen sometimes before I go to sleep.
😂😂🎉
yay i’m not the only one lol
me too
Yes, it’s like melting warm chocolate- 5 minutes & I am zzzz zzzzzzz. But I love his books & wisdom; I don’t want to sleep, I want to learn!
It couldn't be more true good sir😊
"We all scurry about and we can go into our houses and do our flat business."
That makes me smile from ear to ear every time :)
1D, 2D, 4D do not exist.
Mostly, that is what we do. :(
Our 3d business 🤣
@@eugene7518 proof?
@@xxdricxxx3466 proof of what...? Are you nuts
This was where Carl shined, taking complex scientific ideas and explaining them in such a way that you could grasp what he was going on about. He is missed! :)
Shone, but yeah
Shone. Not "shined" 🫣
@@tobybarker6808 - thanks for the grammar lesson, I've been shone something new 🙃
@@bitphr3ak Sagan was a pathetic piece of 💩 Charles Ginenthal wrote on a book on the grub
Well said. He is indeed missed.
Carl Sagan had incredible communication skills. And he was genuinely engaged in life. A treasure to humankind.
Exactly. In this video, you can tell that he's excited to be sharing this knowledge, because he's excited about the knowledge too. I was so sad when Carl passed away. I had always wanted to meet him. He left a wonderful legacy.
He is an excellent speaker.
I just love when he says "not that way, not that way, not that way...I can't show you what direction that is." He's inspirational in the true sense of the word, because he invites you to imagine with him
1D, 2D, 4D do not exist.
@@eugene7518 Prove it
@@anusmcgee4150 a line is 1D. It has length but no height or width, so it doesn't exist. 2D has length and width but no height. So it doesn't exist. And since the entire universe is 3D; 4D doesn't exist. Lines are used in math to represent imaginary number lines. And 2D is used in math to represent imaginary areas.
Eugene I see what ur saying, please expand more?
@@eugene7518 He's not claiming that 4D exists. He is claiming that if it did exist, the 3D "shadow" of a 4D object may be something like a tesseract. He literally said it's impossible for us to see the 4th direction--the impossible direction that is somehow at a right angle to the x axis, the y axis, AND the z axis. It is an abstraction of the concept of dimensions. We live in a 3D world. That's true.
Surely, Mr Sagan, if everyone is living in Flatland, they wouldn't live in houses...they'd live in flats.
😂
That's what I was thinking! 😆👍
🤣
Touché! 😆
Some girls have 3D breasts, some are just flat.
“There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.” - Rod Serling
Consciousness
Damn!! Did you quote that from memory? If so..spot on! Twilight zone was one of my favorites growing up
🎉
😅
@@BeinThatGuy FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO HAS EXPLAINED TIME DILATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROVING THAT ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity:
Consider what is E=MC2 ON BALANCE. Consider what is the Sun, AND the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. INDEED, consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE !!! I have CLEARLY proven and explained what is the fourth dimension.
CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE) !!! INDEED, consider what is the man (AND THE EYE ON BALANCE) who IS standing on WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground !!! WHAT IS E=MC2 is WHAT IS GRAVITY as WHAT IS SPACE. Great.
WHAT IS GRAVITY is, ON BALANCE, an INTERACTION that cannot be shielded or blocked. Again, consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE; AS the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. (I have proven the fourth dimension.) TIME slows down as one approaches the speed of light, as less TIME passes. Great.
Indeed, consider why and how it is that there is something instead of nothing ON BALANCE. BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. Magnificent.
I have CLEARLY proven and explained (ON BALANCE) why and how a given PLANET (including WHAT IS THE EARTH) sweeps out equal area in what is equal TIME. Magnificent.
WHAT IS E=MC2 is WHAT IS GRAVITY as what is SPACE !!! Indeed, consider WHAT IS the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE !!! It IS the SAME SIZE as what is THE EYE !!! The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Magnificent.
By Frank Martin DiMeglio
From a pedagogical standpoint, this is a perfect lesson (for a physics class). What a brilliant teacher Carl Sagan is!
To think we can actually see a 3-dimension shadow of an actual object in 4-dimensions is just mind blowing.
I..... agree sir
What I don't understand is why if we can't devise a formula to reverse engineer the shadow of a cube into an actual cube, we can't apply that same formula to the shadow of a tesseract and get an actual tesseract, (other than there, y'know not being a 4th dimension)
@@justatrashmonster4275 We are in 3rd dimension. Thats why we can reverse engineer all the lesser dimensional shadows. An actual tesseract exist in 4th dimension and we are not there. Its like 1D is small room, 2D is bigger room that contains the first one, and 3D is even bigger and contains the other two. The tesseract is in the 4th room but we are not there. Were stuck in the 3D room.
@@justatrashmonster4275 Mathematical and physical boundaries expand as we go up in dimensions. Kind of like an upside down pyramid. We dont know what laws/rules there are up there so we cant apply the 2D to 3D conversion to 3D to 4D
When I start thinking about 4th dimension...I feel like I m dumb, limited, innocent and I realise I know nothing and because of this mind automatically becomes disinterested with all this 3rd dimensional world....
Everything about the original Cosmos was just perfect. The cinematography, the visual effects (for its time), production and direction of Adrian Malone, the music of Vangelis and of course the Presenting of Carl Sagan.
The book !
I was in my early teens.
Reading pop magazines.
Studying the next fashion trend.
Like everybody else my age.
Then this guy appeared on tv.
He changed my life around.
I saved up my pocket money.
Then bought THE BOOK.
"Cosmos".
It didn't make me a professor.
It made me think.
In other dimentions.
How many are there ?
If only I could use my brain's full capacity.
Not just a small percentage...
Will mankind ever evolve to that stage ?
Or are we stupidly destroying ourselves.🙊
Turning our DNA into plastic...🙈
Are we just an other petri dish experiment to someone out there ?
I think we might be.
And I worry that we're failing big time... 🙉
Love from Norway 🇳🇴
I first saw this at the age of 9 or 10 and I remember it to this day in my mid-50s. It changed how I look at things and my perception of the universe. I also loved the music.
What a wonderful man, and brilliant....he was my mentor...I miss him❤
Carl Sagan was a true genius. He would always explain things to us in a way we could understand. Sucks that he died so young. I'd love to have met him.
Yes, but he never had an answer for how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
What did he die from?
He was killed when a 4th-dimensional watermelon intersected his head.
@@TransoceanicOutreach Very funny but not true. LOL
He wasn't that young when he died.
I never realized how much Carl Sagan sounds like Agent Smith.
Or perhaps: vice-versa - jus' sayin...
Yeah I haven't looked it up but I would expect that his voice was based on Carl a bit. Although Carl Sagan also sounds a bit like Kermit the Frog, so there's that.
Mind blown I couldn't put my finger on it. That's so funny
Of course Mr.Sagan!
That's great Mr. Sagan, please do not put me back in the Matrix
"So, while we cannot imagine the world of four dimensions we can perfectly well think about it."
We sure need Dr Sagan more today than ever before.
yes, we do
I would love to see him illustrate quantum physics. 😏
This is the best explanation for dimensions and the fourth dimension I have ever heard and seen. Carl sagan is awesome!
Indeed , he always was
I have a better explanation. 1D, 2D, 4D do not exist.
@@eugene7518 we all know every 3D object can be described using x;y;z coordinates... if 1D and 2D didn't exist... Then that would mean you are only consisted of 2 dimensions or a single dimension, in respecting cases, right now. Which in turn would be paradoxical and logically retarded statement coming from 3D creature.
@@ruslankazimov622 it's not possible to make something in 1D, 2D, or 4D
@@eugene7518 imagine trying to explain to Mario in the first games that he doesn't have to jump over pipes, he can just walk around them. Try using a controller to make it happen. That's more or less how 3D works in 2D, and how 4D works in 3D. Just because you can't properly see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist
How the fuck a flat triangle has a house and I don't.
Andrey Shipilov A quick judgement of your grammar would suffice the reasoning of you not able to obtain land of your own.
Stewart Griffin *not being able *a land
My sentence is perfectly fine.
Haha
Andrey Shipilov thats the best comment i've seen for years. haha :)
Andrey Shipilov
Hy maybe he is smarter than you??? joke the triangle does not has house, he is only, what do you mean triangle gas a house you not have are you ok, he just making , how do i say,he is explaining, like you are a child, so you not get confused , he uses termes, that your brain finds it easy to andestend, if he used , tecnical cientist words, you would not andestend.ok by
"His only conclusion can be, that he's gone bonkers" :D
Gary Bates
wwhat you mean by that???? he is nit bunkers.-- excelent persom in all aspects
ok . ksse
@@CeciliaAbreuTeixeira um. What.
yes because does not nows the purpuse of it, get it
@@CeciliaAbreuTeixeira lol what? Gary was quoting Carl Sagan, not describing him.
Think of apple as extraterrestrials, U.F.O. and Flat-ers as humans.
Excellent explanation using Flatland and a Tesseract. A three-dimensional object moving through Flatland would be what H.P. Lovecraft described as "the crawling chaos" as chaotic shapes appear, disappear, reappear. Carl Sagan mentioned that the Flatlander was surprised but rational when an apple visited Flatland. I would say that most Flatlanders would be terrified with some going mad. Lovecraft said, "I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness." This is a mathematical explanation that Lovecraft's fictional alien entities like Cthulhu and Azathoth were multi-dimensional entities which appear as amorphous, shifting, shadowy, and chaotic volumetric shapes which our febrile minds perceive as pseudopods or tentacles, piercing our veil of reality.
So classic, so iconic. And it succeeds in making you wonder about all we could all be missing from our anthropocentric perspective with our constants and comfortable assumptions.
Absolutely
Now I'm thinking outside the box
Literally.. lol
How's it going?
1D, 2D, 4D do not exist.
@@eugene7518 it because you live in 3D lmao
Looks like a square
Cosmos is an absolutely amazing voyage through the world of science.
Everyone should watch this show - its timeless.
I was addicted to this series when it first aired. A couple of years ago I purchased the DVD set and became addicted to it again...🤓
Did this video give us insight into the UFOs pilots are seeing?
I was (am) so very fortunate to have come upon Carl Sagan-fortunate in that I wasn't born until the 90s. And although I did regularly watch educational documentaries of all sorts alongside my father from the start, I wasn't old enough to effectively seek it out on my own volition until the 2000s. "Cosmos" was decades old and Carl Sagan was not here anymore, at least not in physical form. I must have come upon it on PBS but I was enamored with Carl and with astronomy immediately. I was so young that the only way I had access to Cosmos was by regularly searching for it through the menu guide of our cable provider. It could only look not more than a few weeks ahead. So most of the time my search results for Cosmos would turn up nothing more than "not avaliable." But I always looked. And though very rarely, I would at times find an airing. And would set a reminder. This was my only available access. But I never stopped searching for airings. When I sat down to watch Cosmos, one that I had found and set a reminder for weeks prior, I was always so elated that I was moments away from the episode airing, one that I had been anxiously awaiting for weeks. "Weeks" is a very long time when you're 10 years old.
Eventually I'd have immediate access once streaming became more accessible. We had a desktop PC and dial up by 2000 but my parents had 0 ability and 0 motivation to learn how to use one and therefore couldn't navigate it at all, whatsoever. I had to teach myself, which I did. I was fortunate in that my parents did not indulge in the purposely exaggerated, sometimes hysterical "stranger danger" narrative pushed by mainstream media in the days where internet use and access began to skyrocket in regularity in the homes of regular Americans. I was an elementary aged young girl but I had total and complete access to the world in this relatively brand new concept. I used it safely, and effectively. And I've never stopped using it for learning. I've never stopped having such profound gratitude and appreciation for our ability to have instantaneous access to anything and everything.
Carl Sagan was my first "teacher" in the sense that he's the first I ever sought out on my own. My first vessel in independent, willful knowledge as an individual human being, separate from the teachers and teachings I encountered in the traditional way at the behest of forces outside myself. Through Carl Sagan I became enlightened to the concept of independent limitless learning.
Great story, thanks for sharing!
Carl Sagan is so good at explaining things so an idiot like me can understand!!!
Carl Sagan was good at explaining things to stupid people. 1D, 2D, 4D do not exist.
If you got it you're not an idiot,and it sounds like you did,lol
1D, 2D, 4D do not exist
And fools like me 😬❣️
In flatland shapes can not be seen. Only imaginary lines can be seen. To see a shape one must stand over it. That is possible only in 3D. So Carl Sagan is wrong.
Dr.Carl Sagan's talks remain positively fascinating and hypnotic even today
1D, 2D, 4D do not exist.
@@eugene7518 it does. How about a drawing on the paper. Not the whole paper, just the drawing?
@@studywithshubhamsemwal ink is 3D.
@@eugene7518 Yeah bro but an approximation can be made.
“1D, 2D, 4D do not exist”
Why did you feel the need to copy/paste this everywhere?
This explanation, (dubbed in spanish) is one of the most vivid memories of my childhood.
It made so much sense, I've lived my life not taking anything at face value and looking for the possibility naked to our eyes.
Thanks MR. Sagan, your spirit carries on.
The best science popularizer ever. Thank you. Dr Sagan RIP.
Apples are real jerks.
Tasty jerks.. lol
@@MrTwhispers Think of apple as extraterrestrials, U.F.O. and Flat-ers as humans.
They're given by jerks for somebody
Carl Sagan has a way of breaking down such complex subjects into concepts we can grasp..
Anyone being able to grasp what is being discussed
Comes from someone who truly understands what they are talking about
Generally speaking
The first time I seen Carl Sagan I was incredibly impressed by his vast intelligence. but then he was on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. again I was impressed by his vast intelligence. but when he was having a conversation with Johnny Carson. I realized that he had another incredible ability. and that was he could educate anyone including me. and from then on I was inspired by him. he was one of the most brilliant minds in modern time's.
he is definitely missed.
Algo a lo que se negaban científicos como Feynman, cuando decían que eso sería engañar. O era la explicación especializada,tras años de estudio, como los suyos, o no valía la pena explicar las cosas.
A student of his, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, also has such ability. I'm sure Carl rubbed off on him for sure, as he was just a child when 'meeting' Carl for the first time. I read he also met his idol at some point in person. What an amazing time they lived in... when intelligence and learning was first and foremost, and not this social media instant gratification crap we have now. Ahhh, how I long for the old times.
he is one of those people I wish I could've spoken to for a moment. He just has this calm about him, that seems soothing.
I watched this video years ago knowing NOTHING about Carl Sagan. I come back to it now, and with knowing so much more about this marvelous man, it almost brings a tear to my eye.
1D, 2D, 4D do not exist.
@Tessmage Tessera reply to tessmaga tessera: I'm 3D.
He's opening our minds to new ideas... Get him!
Let me open your mind 1D, 2D, 4D do not exist.
@@eugene7518 Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to KILL him! So we don’t have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things.
There should be a free worldwide channel where Cosmos runs indefinitely.
I would come back ever so often to be embraced in his immense wisdom and his astounding ability to share that wisdom.
It's amazing how much you learn when you aren't being forced to
Listening to Carl Sagan is just so soothing. Just something so paternal about his voice, almost like he is talking one to one with you and cares so deeply that you understand the material he is presenting. Such a shame he had to leave us clearly far before he should have. Thankfully we have people like michio kaku and one of sagan's own pupils, neil degrasse tyson.
Except they are political hacks.
An astoundingly complex yet simple concept laid out so well by Abbott Abbott almost 150 years ago and perfectly encapsulated by Sagan.
Wow! This man just blew my mind! The hypercubes shadow or tesseract is what he is holding in his hand. What he is holding IS the shadow of the 4th dimensional cube. He is only able to display the shadow it creates because there is no way of actually displaying anything in the 4th dimension. You can only imagine it. Why? Because we are trapped in a 3D world (what we see). We are incapable of projecting any 4D image. Brilliant!
Wow you just repeated what he said. 😄
But don't you that think even our imagination would be just a projection of the 4d world?
@@clockworkNate It wasn't word for word. They were just showing they understood it. Let others have their moment ffs
A 2D flatland environment is literally a "piece of paper" in a 3D world where paper is used to create, learn, and have fun with. The next world up from us owns this
3D world. Our 3D world's mysteries could be a project in the next realm? Could the next world above us be conscious, mental, and spiritual?
"I hold it entirely possible that a technology exists, which encompasses both the physical and the psychic, the material and the mental. There are stars that are millions of years older than the sun. There may be a civilization that is millions of years more advanced than man's. We have gone from Kitty Hawk to the moon in some seventy years, but it's possible that a million-year-old civilization may know something that we don't ... I hypothesize an 'M&M' technology encompassing the mental and material realms. The psychic realms, so mysterious to us today, may be an ordinary part of an advanced technology." -J.Allen Hynek
Allen Hynek worked for the US Government's Project Bluebook in the 50's and 60's. His job was to interview witnesses, debunk reports, and discourage public interest in UFOs making witnesses look foolish. By the 1970s however he had admitted that the purpose of the Bluebook project was not to investigate, but to create public doubt. For 20 years Hynek conducted these interviews with witnesses right after the report was made. After conducting years of interviews he noticed the witnesses gave peculiar common details of their experiences.
Things are changing with regard to public disclosure of UFO phenomena. Sightings are becoming more and more common. As Earth technology continues to advance the evidence points to the only answer that checks all the boxes.
Fascinating, clear, well explained and a joy to learn from. Carl Sagan is a LEGEND
Didn't realize thinking & imagining were so different from each other.
1D, 2D, 4D do not exist
I'd LOVE to have Carl Sagan as my science teacher!
1D, 2D, 4D do not exist.
Me, too!
I wouldn't even be able to focus on the lessons....hehe
"They will pat him on his side." LOL. Always loved that line.
Which side though?
I watched the Cosmos series on PBS when I was about 20. It was broadcast on Sunday evenings and I had to watch it on our old black and white TV on the back porch. This while the living room TV, with everyone else, had either football on, the news or 60 Minutes. I eagerly devoured this series. Bought the book and the record music album. I had an interest in Astronomy since the age of 12 and this series just reenforced that. I took Astronomy 150 at Ohio State (5 credits) and I got a grade of A-. Most of this course in college I self learned prior. That was the best I good do in this subject because the Calculus and the Physics series humbled me.
Should be billions and billions of likes.
This man is the Mr Rogers for adults, I have learned more listening to him speak than I ever did at school.
I'm eternally grateful to this man for taking such complex things, things that maybe only someone with a great education could understand, and explaining them in a way where someone who was 7 or 8 years old at the time could understand. Still amazes me to this day
CARL SAGAN F**KED UP !
= a one dimensional being could not see anything = it would be a part of its own environment because two objects can not occupy one dimension and an eye needs three dimensions to function
+ a two dimensional being , if it could see, would only see itself occupying both dimensions with no room for a second object just as above.
DID NO ONE TELL HIM "2 OBJECTS CAN NOT OCCUPY THE SAME SPACE AT THE SAME TIME"?
DEAR SCIENCE: The universe is three dimensional = in order to make a fourth dimension you would need to fold the universe back on itself creating two parts of the same object occupying the same space at the same time. the idea of other dimensions is pure FANTASY.
He was such an incredible genius, and this illustration really proves that about Carl Sagan. and his AWESOME ability to educate everyone with his fantastic knowledge. it's what made me so inspired by him. it's incredible to have such knowledge. but it's even more incredible to be able to communicate it as he did. he is definitely missed.
Carl Sagan opened my mind to understanding the cosmos n the universe we live in..what a great scientist he was..RIP Sagan ..you are truly missed..
"Whatever the reason you're on Mars is, I'm glad you're there, and I wish I was with you."
- Carl Sagan
Flatlanders have only a side view. They can't notice where length and width meet. Therefore everything appears as an imaginary line. Cause they can't stand over a shape, to see the shape. That's only possible in 3D.
And maybe you were, you just don't remember.
Even a child can understand this... the way how he explains things is so great
I literally can’t stop crying when I watch Carl. The nostalgia mixed with the tragedy of his death and the societal death of the love and pursuit of knowledge simply for its sake is very overwhelming for me!
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
:)
@@GirolamoZanchi_is_coolHail Satan
@@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool appreciate the sentiment but you are definitely “barking up the wrong tree”
Carl Sagan has endowed me with an appreciation for the world like almost no other. Thank you, Mr. Sagan. RIP.
Yes, he explained the Cosmos to me in terms I could understand & it is such a gift. What a wonderful man
Hector the well-endowed
This is probably one of the best explanations ever to be made of a truly brilliant human being. RIP C.S. P.S. C.U 🙏✨
ive watched this clip more times than i would like to admit and now i can recite every line with carl. "...as the apple were to desceeend through, sliiiither by.."
I would have been great to have had Carl Sagan as a teacher. what a great teacher indeed. oh wait a minute, I just got to have him as a teacher in this lesson. Thank you Carl Sagan
I could rewatch his videos over and over. This man is brilliant.
2:59 He killed the interdimensional being!!!! D:
And became the square root of the 2nd dimension.
I have watched this dozens of times and I love it everytime.
1D, 2D, 4D do not exist.
@@eugene7518 I believe him over you.
In flatland shapes can not be seen. Only lines can be seen. To see a shape one must stand over it. That is only possible in 3D. So Carl Sagan is wrong.
Carl Sagan had such a profound impact on my life, how I perceived the world, superstition, my love of everything in literature non fiction. I’ve admired many great men in history and in every field of science, but his death was so painful I cried at the knowledge of what the world had lost. A man for all seasons.
Perhaps each one of us and all we see, is only a shadow of a far more intricate and complex world.
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more"
--Macbeth (Shakespeare).
aaarrgghhh-----just as he is getting to the interesting part, it cuts off
watch?v=A37xDlhQCbw
30:10 to continue watching.
Maddolis
Thank you so much, it's just what I was looking for into the comments!
Maddolis Blocked in my country :( FUCK YOU COPY RIGHT!
Well, let's make it *really* interesting then! Sagan, during his discussion, is apparently alluding to 5D cosmology. That's been a thing for a while (just do a search on "5D Cosmology" on the arXiv preprint server at the arxiv.org site).
As we all know, Einstein's math professor, Dr. Minkowski, laid forth a 4D geometric framework (over the objections of Einstein) in late 1907 and early 1908 for Relativity and electromagnetism - that's 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension; or 3+1 dimensional.
What most people don't know however is that tucked away in the appendix of that very paper, which launched 3+1 dimensional Minkowski geometry, was an attempt to expand the geometric picture yet further to be able to more consistently reconcile Newton's physics with Relativity. He added *a fourth spatial dimension* (calling it "virtual displacement") and devised the groundwork for a 4+1 dimensional geometric unified formulation of both relativity and non-relativistic theory, and then started to try and to fit gravity into it at the very end of the appendix. His work was cut short: he keeled over in 1909. It *is* doable (as we found out by the 1980's ... several years *after* this episode aired) and Minkowski was on the verge of finding out how to do it, in 1907.
Today, we know it as Bargmann geometry (the natural playing field for Newtonian Physics) and it is *directly* connected to the 5D geometries used in Cosmology, which may be likened to as the relativistic versions of Bargmann geometry. None of that came about until after the 1950's; while Minkowski's appendix was published just before Bargmann himself *was even born* ! That's how far ahead of its time it was.
In flatland shapes can not be seen. Only imaginary lines can be seen. To see a shape one must stand over it. That is possible only in 3D. So Carl Sagan is wrong.
I am sure everone for a second was like "Oh shit here it comes fourth dimension..." and then Carl was like "No you can't see it." I thought for a second what this was going to be the coolest thing on youtube. Still I loved the feeling I got thinking about it.
Wanna "see" the fourth dimension? Ok, take a laser pen and shine it onto your wall, if you look at the centre of that laser dot you will perceive depth in that dot, that *depth* is the fourth dimension. A glimpse of it.
I can't take credit for having discovered / seen this though. I got help from someone.
***** Depth in a dot? Yes, as for the other part of your post...lol...expected yet a major laugh. No offence buddy. :)
I think this is the closest your going to get...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract#mediaviewer/File:8-cell-simple.gif
DMT.
@@fredsk8x Do you actually believe this? I'd love to hear more if you still use this account. Thanks.
his voice is so calming and he is really easy to understand how he explains things
This man was absolutely fascinating, truly a national treasure.
it's amazing how a man so intelligent is able to convey such complex concepts in a way that everyone can understand
1D 2D 4D do not exist.
His voice reminds me of Agent Smith
+The Stranger LOL
If you watch the actor playing roles, he's always playing a gatekeeper role. Something I noticed. Make of it as you wish
Carl was a beacon of intellectual hope in a benighted age. He made learning not just interesting but fun. This generation needs more men and women like Carl Sagan to reignite the desire to actually learn and discover new facts about the world not hide behind fear and ignorance as we see today. The world is a much smaller place without people like Carl Sagan and Alan Watts to inspire us to look into the void with cautious optimism and not negative skepticism.
This helped me to understand so much and also reaffirms my beliefs of ghost being inter-dimensional beings. Also, I just love the way vintage men carried themselves. So masculine and classy.
Carl was weak and hated reality.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Who else watched this long before _Interstellar_?
Me
Damn right I did. But the fact that people (who may normally have 0 interest in science) are being inspired to watch videos like this by Interstellar is extremely uplifting.
Sounds like i have to see Interstellar now
EDyrby Det borde du göra! ;)
det vil jeg så gøre;)
He was so gifted to convey difficult topics! Thanks for having shared this :)
"His only conclusion can be, that he's gone bonkers" such a comical way to speak on such an ideological concept. Grateful to witness the simplified explanations of such a genius.
One of the great minds of the 20th century. A teacher and example to many.
A note from a very thoughtful Student!
I was thinking about the concept of a three dimensional being taking a two dimensional flat lander and lifting him out of his plane of existence.
As he came fluttering down, he would be “above” all of his flat lander friends, and he would be able to see them in their entirety.
However, I find that there are two things wrong with this.
One, there is the assumption that the flat lander suddenly gains two dimensional vision.
I believe the case for a true flatlander oblivious to existence outside the two dimensions to which he is confined to is that he can only see in one dimension, a line. Objects farther away would appear as smaller line segments. As they approached, the line segment would span a greater portion of the flatlander's field of vision.
Having two dimensional vision would mean being able to see a two dimensional shape in all of its entirety. The sides, and the interior of a two dimensional object can be seen by a being with two dimensional vision, but to a two dimensional being, its one dimensional vision prevents it from directly viewing the interior or the behind of another two dimensional being.
So if a flatlander was fluttering “down” back to its own plane of existence, its line segment field of vision would be rapidly changing, with objects jumping into and out of its vision. One moment it would see a line cross section of the inside of a circular two dimension rock, the next second, the direction the flatlander is looking in could change entirely, suddenly looking into a line cross section of a hexagonal berry bush.
Our vision is two dimensional in nature, in that we cannot see in three dimensions. We can see two dimensional objects in their entirety (provided we zoom out enough) but we cannot see three dimensional objects in their entirety. We cannot see the inside or the behind of three dimensional objects.
Objects that are far away appear as small two dimensional shapes. As they approach, they appear as larger and larger two dimensional shapes. Our sense of touch and parallax allows us to perceive things as having volume.
If a three dimensional being like ourselves was suddenly whisked away from his space of existence, (for a two dimensional being, it would be his plane of existence) we would not be able to see the entire universe in its entirety. We wouldn't suddenly be granted three dimensional vision, allowing us to view inside and behind all objects at once. However, much like the two dimensional being fluttering back to its plane of existence, what we see would also be rapidly changing as we wildly changed directions whilst fluttering down to our space of existence. One moment we would be looking from a distance at Neptune, the next, we would be swallowed by an immense brightness as we briefly witnessed the interior of the Sun, the next, a darkness broken only by a swath of bright dots as we peer into interstellar space.
But even this isn't totally correct, because
Two, there is the assumption that there is only one plane of existence.
In reality, there are an infinite number of infinitely thin stacked planes, each one with their own flatlanders. Actually, it depends on which dimension you go in, since you actually have a variety of choices. So these planes are actually stacked in multiple axial dimensions.
If you have a line in the x direction, you can either decide to go in the y direction or the z direction.
With the flatland 2D world, you can choose to go in a temporal direction, so that flatlands in one direction of the stack would be flatlands of the past while flatlands in the other direction of the stack would be flatlands of the future, sort of like travelling in a y axis. However, if you stayed in the same moment of time, you can also go in another direction and traverse parallel universes, sort of like travelling in a z direction. A plane in one direction could contain an existence where a flatlander decided not to go to work today while a plane in another direction could contain an existence where a flatlander did decide to go to work.
Within that scenario, I actually described four dimensions: the two spatial dimensions of the flatland, one time dimensions, and one dimension would cross into parallel universes of the same period of time after the Big Bang, a probability space. This flatlander experience is different from what you and I experience in that it lacks a third spatial dimension. It could still experience time and probability leading to parallel universes.
Actually, I haven't yet described what I think would happen if you traversed along a stack of flatlands along a third spatial dimension. I don't know. I guess you'd experience slightly different but at the same time very different versions of reality. Perhaps you can imagine a field of square brick pyramids. One plane would contain these pyramids, but they'd appear as squares of bricks in that cross section. Go along a third spatial dimension onto another plane and the square shrinks. The square however is still made of bricks.
Go instead along a time dimension and the square might not be there, since the pyramid in the three dimensional world has been eroded away by weather, or has not yet been built. Go instead along a dimension crossing into parallel universes (universes which originated at the same Big Bang) and things could suddenly get dimmer: maybe something occurred long ago that caused less hydrogen gas to coalesce into a star, causing the “Sun” to be a red dwarf instead. No life was created to build the pyramids and you end up with a dark plane flooded in red light. No square.
So going back to what a flatlander would experience, it depends on which dimension you pull the flatlander in, and to what degree. So what is the flatlander's displacement? I guess you could represent that as a crazy more than three or four dimensional vector, . All I know is that for a flatlander and a three dimensional being, if they were whisked suddenly from their usual existence, things in their vision would change very rapidly. Objects would pop into and out of existence. Things could get very bright and very dark very quickly. Both would experience a psychedelic firework array of rapidly changing colors, shapes, and bright nesses. A flatlander would traverse infinitely many planes of existence, and thus wouldn't be able to see his own plane of existence until it settled back down there. That is, assuming there was an attractive force pulling it to its plane of existence in the first place, in this case, what we call “gravity.” And for us, we would be traversing potentially infinitely many universes in a short period of “time” (what is time anymore even? Couldn't we potentially travel through crazy lengths of time, or no time at all?). Then I'd have to take back everything I said about “rapid” and “quick” since those are words denoting a large number of actions or experiences in a short period of “time.”
Also, another somewhat unrelated thought. Projections of higher dimensional shapes onto lower dimensions. The Carl Sagan video showed us a projection of a hypercube onto the third dimension, as a sort of tesseract. However, the hypercube could be further projected into the second dimension. Easy examples to find are images of tesseracts shown online. However, things get weird when you attempt to project such an object into the first dimension. Suddenly, the hypercube loses so much of its depth, length, etc. At least we could visualize it to a limited degree when the hypercube was projected onto the third and second dimensions. So then begs the question. how much of higher dimensions hypercubes, like fifth and sixth dimensional hypercubes, are we actually missing out on? How much is hidden from us at a given moment in time when we view such a hypercube in a certain “orientation?”
Thanks for showing us the Carl Sagan video in class. I remember you showing us that video while I was in your pre-calc research class and it had profoundly changed the way I view dimensions. A lot of what I mentioned in this email today is heavily influenced by my currently limited understanding of string theory.
10 Dimensions Visualization Video: ruclips.net/video/gg85IH3vghA/видео.html
[tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=WN.7W8Thu0ZOqwQzcRSqbSUbw&w=250&h=140&c=7&pid=Api]
Imagining 10 Dimensions - the Movie Here are all 11 “Imagining” videos I've published. You can click on the buttons along the top to jump to any particular dimension whenever you want, or if you've got … Read more…
How to walk through walls using the 4th Dimension … An explanation of how walking through walls would actually look like if you could move in 4D, using the 4D video-game Miegakure (miegakure.com) For more … Read more…
Thanks!
So true I agree so much!
I agree
Speak your truth.
👍👍👍
Slay ❤
I love watching these kind of people. They test my comprehension skills. Sometimes I get it and sometimes not but I’m so proud of myself when I do get it. It all depends on who is speaking. With Carl I stand a much better chance of getting it.
Yeah, being able to explain technical information to laymans is a true talent and an aspect of genius
The best teacher to ever explain science so simple your kid would understand it.
I fucking love Carl Sagan
1D,2D, 4D do not exist
@@eugene7518 what are you on, gimme summa that
It always makes me sad to find out about Carl Sagan so late in my late. i mean man, if there ever was a person i would like to meet in real life. it was him.
We really need more people like him.
What’s your age? Just need to check whether you found him late or me ?
In flatland shapes can not be seen. Only lines can be seen. To see a shape one must stand over it. That is only possible in 3D. So Carl Sagan is wrong.
That just blew my mind. I'm gonna go watch the entirety of Cosmos now.
What a perfect person to explain anything in a perfect way.... and the voice to match...🤙🤣😄🤙👍👍
So am i right in thinking that the "shadow" of the hyper cube is 3D then, as the shadow of a normal cube is 2D?
yes you are
That's exactly what he said.
ruclips.net/video/0t4aKJuKP0Q/видео.html
That's exactly what the 3D tesseract portrays is the shadow
1D, 2D, 4D do not exist.
Going by the tesseract logic, couldn't all of 3D space just be a projection of the fourth dimension? I can imagine that's why the fourth dimension has been theorised to be time, since if assuming that time is indeed a real thing and not just a concept, the third dimension is essentially our present being continually projected out of time into the third dimension.
But if that's the case, why aren't we seeing more abstract shapes like the tesseract occur naturally? It it that there just aren't any objects that are complex enough to cast a theoretically abstract shadow, or can we not perceive them with the naked eye?
Are three-dimensional shadows tangible, or are they like holograms? If a 4D object is projected directly onto a 2D surface, would that just be the same as casting a shadow of the theoretical representation of the shadow of the tesseract onto a 2D surface?
Jeepers, this is quite a trip, isn't it?
1D, 2D, 4D do not exist
@@eugene7518 I'm not sure what you mean. Another word for dimension is "degree of freedom", meaning some property that can be changed independent of other properties.
So each dimension in this case represent a separate property which we group into "space", with time being a kind of spatial dimension.
Whether you consider parts of something to "exist" or whether it's just the whole something that exists is rather metaphysical.
I used to think that when 4tg dimension object appears into our 3rd dimension they are everywhere where your eyes set on
101 people are flat.
Those damn flatlanders. lol.
The shadow of the 4th dimensional cube in our 3rd dimensions always blows me away.
This will blow you away. 1D, 2D, 4D do not exist.
@@eugene7518 not in our universe. But probably in other dimensions. These are all theories of course. It’s also very fun to think about.
@@NoNameBrandR4 there is only one universe. Universe is defined: everything that exists.
That’s awesome you think so. Existence is more interesting if you listen to other fields of mathematics and science. If you like your world that’s great. Me appreciating science and mathematical theories takes nothing from you. So long and have a great existence!
4:40 "pat him on his side" lol, very precise comment
he murdered the 3 dimensional Apple creature!!
Can you prove it?
You mean U.F.O. of flatlanders!
@@XtreeM_FaiL 2:57
@@lordbaiter6997 Science is not always nice.
@@XtreeM_FaiL lol
This is a great way to explain why some folks believe they hear from God, when it could simply be a being from another dimension we have yet to experience or see😊
Yeah... God ❤
Muuiitoo bom! Carl Sagan era foda mesmo!
This was the clip (and looking at the upload date, perhaps the exact video) that introduced me to Carl Sagan back in Spring 2009 when I was a teenager. I would end up watching all of Cosmos, followed by reading The God Delusion by Dawkins, both of which led me to becoming an Atheist and a lifelong aficionado of Popular Science. Carl Sagan literally changed my life.
I scrolled down to the comments to see thoughtful insights and the occasional appreciation of Carl's life, but instead I see religious assholes using this as a chance to spew ignorance, and people comparing his voice to Kermit the frog. (The latter isn't that bad). Carl Sagan was a brilliant man who did incredible things to advance humanity, his life had as much meaning and value as anyone could hope for, and certainly more than a fictional character out of a mythological tale.
Higher dimensions from a non-espiritual approach are probably one of my favorite subjects in maths. The importance of a clear explanation.
For me, it provides a clearer understanding of God and the mind of.
Well, I'd like to propose then that ghost, as we see or experience them, are 4 dimensional beings passing though our dimension. The descriptions of 3D to 2D visitations applies. Voices from within, mysteriously appears from nowhere, and sometimes makes contact and send the flatlander/us to a plane where we have no idea what's happening (out of body experience). Watching him explain he flatlanders experience sounds alot like the people here on Earth that we call crazy.
Same thought
1D, 2D, 4D do not exist
Mr. Anderson !
Sagan was trolling flat-earthers before they were even a thing.
Well the Flat Earth Society has been around for quite a while, although initially they were more of a debate group using a ridiculous premise as a base for creative debate. None of them actually believed it, it was just a tool. It was only later that the lunatics annexed it to fortify their religious dogma.
Buncha squares ⬛⬜
Flat Earthers been around since the beginning of humanity.
"So what what brilliant insight have you gleaned from watching the video?
Duh flat earthers ars losers lol let's laugh at flat earthers lol
One of the best videos ever made. Blew my mind as a kid.
To all the people saying "zomg, this proves ghosts/gods/flying spaghetti monsters": Sagan was himself unimpressed by such claims. He was using this segment to clear up the actual theory behind this - later going on to dispel the ad hoc/post hoc rationalisations that people make to reify superstitious nonsense.
John That's fine, but it's a grey zone, that science-the-establishment wants to keep things within certain bounds... yet it has no full answer for it. It comes down to bias, when the reality is so unclear, like they're protecting an orthodoxy. Are a lot of the claims unlikely, foolish, irrational, superstition, etc? Sure, but, are ALL of them? We don't know! Will more science clear it up? Maybe. Or maybe even that continued scientific effort will lead us into places even stranger, turn everything upside down. Or never find out, maybe one day we'll all be psychic and stuff, and find out through other means the true basis for the universe, and science will be a laughed-at idea/method, quaint and primitive as a voodoo doll.
The world is bigger than any of us and our ideas. Even great ones like science. That's the magic and beauty of it, the sense of discovery and knowing that that discovery will never end if we keep our wits about us.
"We don't know!" is exactly why it is foolish to make such bold claims - presuppositional beliefs are something I believe we should discourage.
As for: "science-the-establishment wants to keep things within certain bounds"?
Are you implying some kind of conspiracy in science? The scientific method is pretty reasonable and fair for determining what is true - it's also the only system we have that has any consistent efficacy (medicine heals, planes fly, etc).
John no, not as such. Only that scientists are humans, with human bias and narrowmindedness, and their institutions do have a certain point of view (at the most general, positive materialism) which necessarily excludes all others.
I don't want to mislead you, I'm a huge fan of the scientific method, the pure concept of science in that respect is sound, but because humans are flawed, that is where my, let's say caution, comes in. I don't like to see anyone trying to constrict the bounds of a discussion or hypothesis making (and especially not basic wondering) just because they think things have to conform to a viewpoint; that is decidedly unscientific. Lots of things that once seemed foolish are now accepted fact, and whole paradigms have been abandoned before. That's all I was trying to say.
Brandon McGinnity Humans are flawed and even the best of us succumb to cognitive biases on a regular basis, yes. However, the beauty about science is that it is *self-correcting*. If I try to repeat your results or try to test the efficacy of your claims (that have suffered from such systematic distortions), it will reveal your ineptitude. As a scientist, it would benefit my career greatly to expose you for poor science and offer a scathing rebuke of your paper (a counter-thesis) - a wonderful opportunity to set things right in the subject at question.
Brandon McGinnity ... plus... cognitive biases that significantly compromise results rarely pass the peer review process.