X-Message-Number: 5288 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 23:50:47 -0500 From: "Keith F. Lynch" <> Subject: Virtual reality Several people on Cryonet have recently criticized "virtual reality" for the crime of not being real. This seems to be a popular and stylish pursuit in general these days. John Barlow, in an article in _Harpers_ about the net, boasts of "real-world" activities that he has participated in, such as cattle drives. Clifford Stoll recently wrote a whole book denouncing the net, and suggesting moonlit walks instead. It's almost as if these two people who are famous for their actions on the net were afraid that they would fade away into a cloud of virtuality if they didn't let lots of people know about their "real world" activities. It's almost like a teenaged male who is terrified of being thought effeminite, and who thus goes out of his way to do lots of things traditionally regarded as masculine. What is reality? What is fantasy? Which events are real, and which are not? Is this conversation a real conversation, or a simulated one? What about if we were conversing via the USPS, or via telephone? Or what if one or more of us were replaced by a computer simulation of ourselves? Which of these are real conversations, and which are virtual? Is a trip by car or plane a real trip, or is it a simulation of a real trip? What about on a bike? What about on a stationary exercise bike while watching a video of a trip? What about driving a car by remote control while you stay at home? Do computers do real arithmetic, or only simulated arithmetic? Is "synthetic division" real? What about math with "imaginary" numbers? What about computer programs that are run in "virtual memory" rather than in real physical memory? Or programs that are run on a virtual machine? What music is real? Sounds from human lungs and mouths? From instruments? From electronically amplified instruments? From analog phonograph records? From CDs? Composed by computer? Was Beethoven's Ninth symphony real music, if the composer was completely deaf when he wrote it? Was _Terminator II_ a real movie, or a simulated movie? Large parts of it were computer generated. Is playing chess real? Does it matter whether a real chessboard is used, or one on a computer screen? Is playing football real? Is watching football real? Does it matter whether it's watched in person or on TV? I spend much of my life on the net. Am I living in the real world, or in "cyberspace"? What if spent *all* my time on the net? What if it turned out that the universe that we know were entirely a simulation, and we were brains in a vat? What if it turned out that the universe that we know were entirely a simulation, and we were parts of it, with no phsyical existence outside the simulation? If most of my money exists only as computerized bank records, is it real? What if it was mostly green pieces of paper backed solely by the full faith and credit of the US government? What if it was mostly gold? Which diseases are real diseases? Measles? Obesity? Alcoholism? Homosexuality? Hypochondria? Factitious disorder by proxy? An illness faked by a reporter in order to do an expose on a treatment facility? Which kinds of work are real? The physiocrats said that only farming, fishing, and hunting were real. Marxists said that manual labor was real, but that management, investing, and office work were parasitic. Libertarians say that all of these are real, but that being a welfare queen, or the Queen of Great Britain, is not. People who have been in combat often say that nothing other than combat seems as real. Which of these are real, and which are virtual? Would all educated people answer these questions the same way? Would their answers tend to change with time, as technology develops, and as people become accustomed to interacting with the world and with each other in new and sometimes more abstract ways? My opinion is that the real world and cyberspace are the same place and always were. That the motion of electrons in silicon is just as real as the motion of cars on a highway. That the only sense in which it makes sense to ask if something is real is to ask what really happens, and whether it was what was desired. If the purpose of a trip is to physically move your body to a distant location, then a bike trip and a car trip are both real trips, but a stationary exercise bike trip is not. If the purpose of a trip is to get exercise, then a bike trip and a stationary exercise bike trip are both real, but a car trip is not. If the purpose of a flight is to learn how to fly, or to test the dynamics of a plane, then a simulator might fit the bill. But not if one wishes to physically get somewhere, or to test how realistic the dynamics programmed into the simulator are. Most people work and play in a highly abstract environment. Few people get much of their information from direct observation. I spend much of my time reading and writing messages on the net, reading books and magazines, listening to music, programming and debugging computers, assisting other computer users, training people in the use of various programs, solving math problems, and talking to people on the phone. All of these could be done entirely in "cyberspace," and I can't see that I would be any worse off for it, or that I would be unable to return to the "real world" at any time. I've done more than my share of direct observation and experiment. I've personally measured the speed of sound, the speed of light, the size of the earth, and the size of the solar system. I've measured my latitude at various locations from Cuba to Iceland. I've tasted several oceans and lakes. I've designed and built my own ham radio rig from scratch, and used it to communicate with people using similar rigs thousands of miles away. Physical bodies need physical exercise. I get more than most people, as I bike to work and back 11 miles each way (I've never had a car). Will a simulated exercise suffice? That depends. A stationary exercise bike will do nicely. A video game of one will not. Of course if one is a "brain in a vat," or exists entirely as software, one won't have a physical body to need exercise. We are able to communicate pretty well like this, even though I've never met most of you. There is much I don't know about the individuals on this list. Would I really know all that much more if we were to meet in person? In summary, I deny there is any meaningful distinction between "the real world" and "cyberspace," any more that there is between natural and artifical chemicals. The patterns and motions of electrons in a chip, and of magnetic domains on a disk, are just as real as the motion of papers on a desk, soldiers in battle, or goods and services in an economy. As for the risk of having one's body or CPU cluster in the real world, yes it's a risk, no matter what you do. However, there's no place else it can be, because there's no place else. How can it best be defended? Fighter pilots seem to think that highly abstract video-game-like heads-up displays are more useful than simply peering out the window. As for immortality and virtual reality being incompatible, I think the exact opposite is true. The universe is likely to be extremely different in the far future. So different that life as we know it would be impossible, and the senses we have now would perceive either total blackness, extreme cold, and complete silence, or else unimaginably great blue-white light, extreme heat, and enormous noise. But Dyson and Tipler have argued that our continued existance in these conditions should be possible for a time without end, given that we periodically re-engineer ourselves and our perceptions. I do not regard hallucinations, drug trips, or religious fantasies as being "virtual reality". At least not in the sense I'm using the term. -- Keith Lynch, http://www.access.digex.net/~kfl/ Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5288