While I can see where this idea comes from, it seems a bit... self-defeating in a way? At least pragmatically speaking, there's an obvious difference between yo

While I can see where this idea comes from, it seems a bit... self-defeating in a way? At least pragmatically speaking, there's an obvious difference between your point of view and that of the universe: if it's all a big illusion, then presumably there's no point in pursuing anything since it's all inconsequential anyways. And yet here we are clacking on keyboards sending electrons into a mesh of wires and circuitry for some reason. The universe may not care about you, but the implication is that you don't necessarily care about what "it" thinks either, but you definitely care about what you as an individual think. And in a similarly clinical view of the universe, it doesn't even make sense to anthropomorphize it in the first place, since there's no evidence that the universe has the capability or inclination of empathizing with a human. That leaves us with things that actually are anthropomorphic (other people), and I'd posit that societies are a pretty good example of a complex interaction between many things that are presumably on autorun, and yet are able to work together towards some commonly aligned purpose that has collective meaning on some level higher than just chemicals interacting in particular ways.