Reporting by XinZhiyuan
Author: sayonly
EDIT: Sleepy
Virtual reality is the real reality, or at least, it is one of the real realities. The virtual world does not have to be seen as a second-class reality. It could become our primary reality.
David Chalmer, a professor at the Australian National University, a professor at New York University, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a well-known philosopher, discovered the PDP-10 mainframe system at the medical center where his father worked, and taught himself BASIC programming, in which he discovered a game called "Adventure", in which Calmer, as a player in a forest, collects items such as food, water, keys, and lamps, enters underground caves, fights snakes, collects treasure, and roams the underground world in the text version of the game. This was Chalmer's first virtual reality and metacosmonic experience. It was 1976.
Over the next few years, Chalmer discovered video games. And play Blaster Comet and Pac-Man on the Apple II computer.
In the '90s, games such as Doom and Thor's Hammer pioneered the use of first-person perspectives. In the '00s, people began to spend a lot of time in multiplayer virtual worlds like Second Life and World of Warcraft. In the 2010s, there was the first wave of buzz in consumer-grade virtual reality headsets, such as the Oculus Rift. That decade also saw the first widespread use of augmented reality environments, which populated the physical world with virtual objects in games like Pokémon GO.
As the pandemic erupts and more and more of everyday life moves online, Chalmer meets once a week with a group of happy philosophers in the VR field. Try many different platforms and activities together: flying with angel wings in Altspace, cutting cubes to the rhythm in Beat Saber, talking about philosophy on a balcony in Bigscreen, playing paintball in the Rec Room, giving lectures in Spatial, chatting in virtual reality.
VR technology is far from perfect, but we already have the feeling of living in a common world. As we stood together after a brief speech, someone said, "It's like having coffee in a philosophy conference." ”
The virtual world is becoming more and more like the real world, and the metaverse will become part of everyday life.
Chalmer's guess is that within a century we will have virtual reality that is indistinguishable from non-virtual worlds. Maybe we'll plug into the machine through a brain-computer interface, bypassing our eyes, ears, and other sensory organs. These machines will contain extremely detailed simulations of physical reality, simulating the laws of physics to track the behavior of each object in that reality.
Chalmer's new book "Reality +" was published in January 2022, and online lectures on virtual reality and metaversms will be held in early February.
Is this real life?
In the opening remarks of the British rock band Queen's 1975 hit song "Bohemian Rhapsody", lead singer Freddie Mercury sang in a five-part harmony:
Is this real life?
Is this just fantasy?
These issues have a history. The three ancient civilizations of China, Greece, and India all proposed different versions of the Mercury problem. Their problems involve alternative versions of reality.
Is this real life, or is it just a dream?
Is this real life, or is it just an illusion?
Is this real life, or is it just a shadow of reality?
Today we may ask: Is this reality, or is it virtual reality? We can think of dreams, illusions, and shadows as counterparts to the ancient "virtual world"—just not the computers invented two thousand years later.
With or without computers, these scenarios raise some of the most philosophical questions. We can use them to introduce these questions and guide our thinking about the virtual world.
Zhuang Zhou Mengdi
The ancient Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi lived around 300 BC and was a central figure in Taoism. He recounted this famous fable: "Zhuang Zhou Mengdi".
One day, Zhuang Zhou dreamed that he was a butterfly, flying around, enjoying himself and doing whatever he wanted. He didn't know he was Zhuang Zhou. Suddenly he woke up, and he was there, solid and clear Zhuangzi. But he didn't know who he was, was he dreaming of Zhuang Zhou who dreamed of butterflies, or was he dreaming of Zhuang Zhou's butterflies?
Zhuang Zhou could not be sure that the life he experienced as Zhuang Zhou was real. Maybe butterflies are real, Zhuang Zhou is a dream.
A dream world is a virtual world without a computer. So Zhuang Zhou's hypothesis about him in the dream state is that he exists in a computerless version of the virtual world. The plot of the Wachowski sisters' 1999 film The Matrix provides a good example. The protagonist Neo lives an ordinary life until he eats a red pill and wakes up in another world, where he is told that the world he is in, The Matrix, is a simulated world. If Neo had thought deeply like Chuang Zhou, he might have thought, "Maybe my old life is reality and my new life is a simulation", a perfectly reasonable idea. Although he is an ordinary hacker in the Matrix, the New World he comes to is a world of adventure, where he is seen as a savior. Maybe the red pill knocked him out long enough to allow him to participate in this exciting simulation.
In one explanation, Zhuang Zhou Mengdi asked a question about knowledge: How do we know that we are not dreaming now? This is also the question we ask: how do we know we are not in the virtual world now? These questions beg a more fundamental question: How do we know that everything we experience is true?
The transformation of Naradha
Ancient Indian philosophers in the Hindu tradition were troubled by the question of fantasy and reality. A central theme appears in the folktales of the transformation of Naradha. In one version, Naradha says to god Vishnu, "I have conquered the illusion." Vishnu promised to show Naradha the true power of illusion (or Maya). Naradha woke up to a woman, Sushiro, who knew nothing of what had happened before. Sushila married a king, became pregnant, and eventually had eight sons and many grandchildren. One day, the enemy struck and all her sons and grandchildren were killed. When the queen was grieving, Vishnu appeared and said, "Why are you so upset?" It's just an illusion." Naradha soon found himself back in his original body. Naradha concluded that his whole life was an illusion, just like his life as Sushila.
Naradha's life as Susheila is similar to life in a virtual world – a simulation with Vishnu as a simulator. As a simulator, Vishnu actually implies that the ordinary world of Naradha is also a virtual world.
The metaphor of Naradha's transformation is revived in the animated series Rick and Morty, a cross-dimensional adventure of a powerful scientist, Rick and his grandson Morty. Morty puts on a virtual reality headset to play a video game called Roy: The Good Life. (It would have been better if Morty had played Sue: The Good Life, but you can't have it all). Morty lived Roy's entire 55 years: childhood, football star, carpet salesman, cancer patient, death. Moments later, when he emerges from the game as Morty, his grandfather suggests that he make the wrong life decision in the simulation. This is a recurring theme in the series. Its characters are in seemingly normal situations that turn out to be simulated, and are often led to ask if their current reality could also be a simulation.
Naradha's transformation raises deep questions about reality. Is Narata's life as Sushiro real, or is it an illusion? Vishnu said it was an illusion, but it was far from obvious. We can ask a similar question about virtual worlds, including the world of Roy: The Good Life. Are these worlds real or illusory? A more pressing issue looms. Vishnu said that our ordinary life is as illusory as the life of Naradha's transfiguration.
Is our own world real or illusory?
Plato's cave metaphor
Around the same time as Zhuangzi, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato proposed his cave metaphor. In the opening chapter of the seventh volume of the Republic of Dialogues, in the name of his teacher Socrates, the story of human beings imprisoned in caves is told. They can only see shadows that mimic the shadows projected on the walls by things in the sunlight world outside. Shadows are everything in the caves that people see, so they treat them as reality. One day, one of them escaped and discovered the real world outside the cave. Eventually he re-entered the cave and told the story of that world, but no one believed him.
The prisoners in Plato's cave are watching the shadows, which is reminiscent of the audience in the cinema. It was as if the prisoners had only seen the movies, or, in order to update the technology, they had only seen the movies on virtual reality devices.
At a mobile tech conference in 2016, a photo of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg walking through the audience aisles of the conference was released. In the dark hall, the audience, all wearing virtual reality headsets, did not notice Zuckerberg striding past. This is a contemporary illustration of Plato's cave metaphor.
Plato used his metaphor for many purposes. He is suggesting that our own imperfect reality is like a cave. He also uses it to help us think about what kind of life we want to live. In a crucial passage, Socrates raises the question of whether we should prefer life inside the cave or life outside the cave.
Socrates: Do you think the man who walks out of the cave will still envy the people in the cave and want to compete with those who are respected and powerful? Or would he, as Homer had said, prefer to live as a slave to the poor and suffer rather than have a common opinion with his prisoners and live their lives?
Glaucon: I think he would rather endure any suffering than live as a prisoner.
The cave metaphor raises deep questions about value: that is, about good and bad, or about better and worse. Life inside the cave or life outside the cave, which is better? Plato's answer is clear: life outside the cave, even the life of a laborer, is much better than life inside the cave. We can ask the same question about the virtual world. Which is better, life in the virtual world or life outside the virtual world? This begs the more fundamental question: What does it mean to live a good life?
Three questions
Traditionally, philosophy is about knowledge (how do we understand the world?). ), reality (what is the nature of the world?) ) and value (what is the difference between good and bad?) ) research.
Our three stories raise questions in each area.
- Knowledge: How does Zhuang Zhou know if he is dreaming?
- Reality: Is The transformation of Naradha real or illusory?
- Value: Can a man live a good life in Plato's cave?
When we move the three stories from the original dream, transformation, and cave to the virtual realm, this raises three key questions about the virtual world.
The first question posed by Zhuang Zhou Mengdi was about knowledge. I call it the knowledge problem. Can we know if we are in the virtual world?
The second question, raised by the transformation of Naradha, is about reality. I call it a real problem. Is the virtual world real or illusory?
The third question posed by Plato's cave metaphor concerns value. I call it the value issue. Can you live a good life in the virtual world?
These three questions, in turn, lead us to three more general questions at the heart of philosophy:
- Can we understand the world around us?
- Is our world real or illusory?
- How can I live a good life?
These questions about knowledge, reality, and value will be at the heart of our exploration of the virtual world and our exploration philosophy.
Knowledge Question: Can We Know If We Are in the Virtual World?
In the 1990 film Total Memories (remade in 2012), viewers can never determine which parts of the film take place in the virtual world and which parts take place in the ordinary world. The protagonist is a construction worker named Douglas Quaid (Arnold Schwarzenegger) who undergoes many strange adventures on Earth and Mars. At the end of the film, Quaid looks out over the surface of Mars and begins to wonder (and so do we) whether his adventures take place in ordinary worlds or virtual reality. The film suggests that Quaid may indeed be in the virtual world. Virtual reality technology, ingrained with memories of adventure, plays a key role in the plot. Since heroic adventures on Mars may be more likely to occur in virtual worlds than in everyday life, Quaid, if he is good at reflection, would conclude that he may be in virtual reality.
What about you? Can you tell if you are in a virtual world or a non-virtual world? Your life may not be as wonderful as Quaid's. But the fact that you're reading a book about the virtual world should give you pause. (The fact that I'm writing about one should make me pause even more). Why? I suspect that as simulation technology evolves, simulators may be used to simulate people thinking about simulations, perhaps to see how close they are to realizing the truth of their lives. Even if we seem to live very ordinary lives, is there any way to know if those lives are virtual?
Of course, I don't know if we're in the virtual world. I don't think you know either. In fact, I don't think we'll ever know if we're in a virtual world or not. In principle, we can confirm that we are in a virtual world – for example, the simulator can choose to show us itself and show us how the simulation works. But if we're not outside the virtual world, we'll never be able to be sure of that.
We can never prove that we are not in computer simulations, because any evidence of ordinary reality—whether it's the magnificence of nature, the antics of your cat, or the behavior of other people—is likely to be simulated.
Over the centuries, many philosophers have provided strategies that can be used to show that we are not in the virtual world. They don't work. Beyond that, we should take seriously the possibility that we are in the virtual world. The Swedish-born philosopher Nick Bostrom, for statistical reasons, argues that under certain assumptions, there will be far more simulants in the universe than non-simmers. If that's correct, maybe we should consider that we might be in a simulation. All of these considerations mean that we have no way of knowing that we are not in the simulation.
This conclusion had a major impact on Descartes' question: How do we know anything about the outside world? If we don't know if we're in the virtual world, and if nothing in the virtual world is real, then it seems like we can't know if anything in the outside world is real. Then it seems that we know nothing about the outside world.
This is a shocking consequence. We don't know if Paris is in France? Don't you know I was born in Australia? I didn't know I had a table in front of me?
Many philosophers try to avoid this shocking consequence by arguing about positive answers to questions about knowledge: we can know we're not in a simulation. If we can know this, then we can know something about the outside world after all. Still, if I'm right, we can't get back to this comforting position. We have no way of knowing that we are not in the simulation. This makes the problem of knowledge in the outside world more difficult.
The real question: Is the virtual world real or illusory?
Whenever virtual reality is discussed, people hear the same repetition. Simulation is an illusion. The virtual world is not real. Virtual objects do not actually exist. Virtual reality is not real reality.
You can find this idea in The Matrix. In the waiting room of the Prophet in the Matrix, Neo saw a child apparently bending a spoon with his mind. They start talking:
Child: Do not try to bend the spoon. That's impossible. ... It just takes an effort to get to the bottom of it.
Neo: What is the truth?
Child: No spoons.
This is a profound truth. No spoons. The spoon inside the matrix is not real, just an illusion. This means that everything one experiences in the matrix is an illusion.
In his review of The Matrix, American philosopher Cornell West took this line of thought further as the Western Councilor of Zion in The Matrix: Reloaded and The Matrix: Revolution. Speaking about awakening from the matrix, he said, "What you think you're awakening could actually be another illusion. It's an illusion from start to finish." Here is the echo of Vishnu: simulation is an illusion, and ordinary reality can also be an illusion.
The same line of thinking is repeated in the TV series Atlanta. The three characters sit by the pool late at night discussing simulation assumptions. Nadine was convinced: "We are nothing. This is a simulation. We are all fake.". She takes it for granted that if we live in simulation, we are not real.
I think these claims are wrong. That's what I think: simulation is not an illusion, nor is it an illusion. The virtual world is real. Virtual objects do exist. It seems to me that the kid in the Matrix should say, "Try to get the truth." There's a spoon — a digital spoon." Neo's Matrix World is completely real. The same is true of Nadine's world, even when she's in the simulation.
The same is true of our world. Even if we are in the simulation, our world is real. There are still tables, chairs and people. There are cities, mountains, and seas. Of course, our world can have a lot of fantasies. We may be deceived by our senses and others. But the ordinary objects around us are real.
What do I mean by "true"? It's complicated — the word "true" doesn't have a single, fixed meaning. I would argue that even if we are in a simulation, what we perceive meets all these realistic criteria.
What about ordinary virtual reality experienced through VR devices? This sometimes involves illusions. If you don't know you're in VR and treat virtual objects as ordinary physical objects, you're wrong. But for experienced VR users, they know they are using VR and do not need to have the illusion. They experience real virtual objects in virtual reality.
Virtual reality is different from non-virtual reality. Virtual furniture is different from non-virtual furniture. Virtual entities are one way, and non-virtual entities are another. Virtual entities are digital entities that consist of computational and information processes. More succinctly, they are made up of bits. They are completely real objects, based on bit patterns in computers. When you interact with the virtual couch, you are interacting with bit mode. The pattern of the bits is completely real, as is the virtual sofa.
"Virtual reality" is sometimes understood as "false reality." If I'm right, that's the wrong way to define it. Rather, it means something closer to "digital reality." A virtual chair or table is generated by a digital process, just as a physical chair or table is made up of atoms and quarks, which are ultimately generated by a quantum process. Virtual objects are different from non-virtual objects, but both are real.
If I'm right, then Naradha's life as a woman is not entirely an illusion. Nor is Morty's life as a soccer star and carpet salesman. The process they went through really happened. Naradha really lived the life of Sushila. Morty really lives Roy's life, albeit in a virtual world.
This view has had a major impact on the problems of the outside world. If I'm right, then even if I don't know if we're in the simulation, it can't be said that I don't know if the objects around us are real. If we are in the simulation, the tables are real (they are bit mode), and if we are not in the simulation, the tables are also real (they are something else). Either way, the table is real. This provides a new way of solving the problems of the outside world.
Value Question: Can you live a good life in the virtual world?
In James Gunn's 1954 science fiction novel The Unfortunate Man, a company called Hedonics, Inc. of companies use the new "science of happiness" to improve people's lives. People sign contracts to move life into a "sensory system", a virtual world where everything is perfect:
We take care of everything; we arrange your life so that you never have to worry again. In this age of anxiety, you never have to be anxious. In this age of fear, you never need to be afraid. You will always receive food, clothing, shelter and happiness. You will love and be loved. Life will be a pure joy for you.
Gunn's protagonist rejects an offer to give his life to the company.
The American philosopher Robert Nozick, in his 1974 book Anarchy, The State, and Utopia, offers readers a similar choice:
Let's say there's a machine that can give you any experience you want. Super cheater neuropsychologists can stimulate your brain and make you feel like you're writing a great novel, or making friends, or reading a fun book. All the while, you'll float in a tank of water with electrodes connected to your brain. Should you plug this machine in for life, pre-programming your life experience?
Gunn's "sensory system" and Nozick's experience machine are a virtual reality device. They're asking, "If you had the choice, would you spend your life in this engineering reality?" ”
Like Gunn's protagonist, Nozick says no, and he wants his readers to do the same. His view seems to be that experiencing machines is a secondary reality. Inside the machine, a person isn't actually doing what he seems to be doing. A person is not a truly autonomous person. For Nozick, the life in the experience machine doesn't have much meaning or value.
Many would agree with Nozick. In a 2020 survey of professional philosophers, 13 percent said they would go into an experiential machine, and 77 percent said they wouldn't. In the broader survey, most also turned down the opportunity — though the number of people saying they'll join is increasing as virtual worlds become more and more part of our lives.
We can ask the same VR question more generally. If you had the opportunity to spend your life in VR, would you do it? Could this be a reasonable choice? Or we can ask the value question directly: Can you live a valuable and meaningful life in VR?
Ordinary VR differs from Nozick's experience machine in some ways. You know when you're in VR and a lot of people can go into the same VR environment at the same time. Also, ordinary VR is not fully pre-programmed. In an interactive virtual world, you make real choices instead of simply living according to the script.
Still, in a 2000 article in Forbes magazine, Nozick extended his negative evaluation of the experience machine to ordinary VR. "Even if everyone is connected to the same virtual reality, it's not enough to make its content truly authentic," he says. He also said of virtual reality: "The fun can be so great that many people will choose to spend most of their days and nights in this way. At the same time, the rest of us may find this choice deeply troubling. ”
Regarding VR, I would argue that Nozick's answer is the wrong one. In 360-degree full immersion virtual reality, users will build their lives based on their choices, interact sincerely with those around them, and live meaningful and rewarding lives. Virtual reality doesn't have to be a second-class reality.
Even existing virtual worlds — like Second Life, which may have been the leading virtual world in building everyday life since its inception in 2003 — can be of high value. Many people have meaningful relationships and activities in today's virtual world, although many important things are missing: proper body, touch, diet, birth and death, and so on. However, the future of fully immersive VR will overcome many of these limitations. In principle, life in VR can be as good or as bad as life in the corresponding non-virtual reality.
Many of us have spent a lot of time in the virtual world. In the future, we are likely to be faced with the choice of spending more time there, or even most of it. If I'm right, it would be a reasonable choice.
Many would consider this a dystopia. I would say no. Of course, virtual worlds can be dystopian, just like physical worlds, but they don't become dystopian just because they're virtual. As with most technologies, VR is entirely good or bad depending on how it's used.
Conclusion: A review of core philosophical questions
To recap, our three main questions about the virtual world are as follows.
- Reality question: Is the virtual world real? (My answer: Yes.) ）
- Knowledge question: Can we know if we are in the virtual world? (My answer: No.) ）
- Value question: Can you live a good life in a virtual world? (My answer: Yes.) ）
The question of reality, knowledge, and value matches the three central parts of philosophy.
- Metaphysics, the study of reality. Metaphysics asks questions such as "What is the nature of reality?" " and other questions.
- Epistemology, the study of knowledge. Epistemology proposes questions such as "How do we understand the world?" " and other questions.
- Axiology, the study of values. The theory of value asks questions such as "What is the difference between good and bad?" ”
Or, for simplicity: what is it? That's metaphysics. How do you know? This is epistemology. Are there any benefits? This is the axiology.
When we ask questions of reality, knowledge, and value, we are studying the metaphysics, epistemology, and value theory of the virtual world.
Other philosophical questions we will ask about the virtual world include:
- Mind Question: What is the position of the mind in the virtual world?
- God's Question: If we were in the simulation, was there a God?
- Ethical questions: How should we act in a virtual world?
- Political questions: How should we build a virtual society?
- Scientific question: Is the simulation hypothesis a scientific hypothesis?
- Language question: What does language mean in a virtual world?
Like our three main problems, each of these six further questions corresponds to a philosophical field: philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion, ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of science, and philosophy of language.
The traditional question in these areas is more general: What is the place of ideas in reality? Is there a God? How should we treat others? How should society be organized? What does science tell us about reality? What is the meaning of language?
In this way, our answers will not only help us understand the role of the virtual world in our lives.
They will also help us to understand reality itself more clearly.
"Illustrated Metacosm" and "Design Metacosm" discuss with us the core problems of reality, knowledge and value of the three core philosophical issues.
Bookmarks are included.
Book Links: