Realness: Metaphysical Considerations of Virtual Reality

The blending of virtual reality (VR) with our grasp of the tangible world opens up rich avenues for philosophical inquiry, urging us to reconsider what we deem to be real. This merging is forcing us to navigate the complexities between our physical existence and the digital ones created by VR, sparking a deep philosophical discourse on perception, consciousness, and the essence of being.

Central to this dialogue is the contrast between the concrete world, existing beyond our sensory experiences, and the virtual or experienced reality, molded by our interactions with VR technologies. When users don VR gear, they step into worlds fashioned by intricate software and hardware, simulating environments that range from the lifelike to the fantastical. These virtual experiences, growing ever more convincing with technological progress with Apple’s new Vision Pro, significantly enrich the immersive aspect of digital universes.

Philosophically speaking, the realms within VR are considered “simulated realities.” Although they may not be real in a physical sense, they will influence users’ perceptions, feelings, and even bodily responses. Philosopher Daniel Dennett has explored how our brains construct reality based on received information, suggesting that our experience of reality is essentially a mental interpretation.

The metaphysical debate often revolves around what constitutes “realness.” If realness is confined to physical existence, then VR worlds might seem lacking. However, if reality is understood as a blend of sensory input and interpreted meanings, VR could be seen as a form of reality, separate from the physical one.

The notion of “presence” in VR, or the feeling of being immersed in a virtual environment, challenges conventional ideas about location and experience, indicating that reality might include not just physical spaces but also states of consciousness. As VR technology advances, it increasingly blurs the line between virtual and physical realities, leading to new philosophical, psychological, and ethical questions.

A look back through history at how reality and perception have been conceptualized—from Plato’s allegory of the cave to modern discussions on the philosophy of mind and technology—provides context for this debate. Meta, then Oculus, spent a F8 one year outlining the level of detail required to have a more realistic experience.

Technical enhancements in VR, like spatial audio, haptic feedback, and visual accuracy, play a crucial role in making these simulated experiences feel real. Understanding these technical aspects helps illuminate why virtual experiences can seem so authentic. A large part is the visual aspect with glasses and goggles with hand tracking, feedback to hands will help add to the feel of objects.

Drawing on psychology and neuroscience gives further insight into VR’s impact on the brain and behavior, with studies highlighting its applications in therapy, education, and training to demonstrate the concrete effects of virtual experiences on human thought and action. Will the single user be negatively impacted by a further step in loneliness, or will communities in a virtually world replace the physical get togethers. 

The emergence of immersive VR technology also prompts ethical and societal reflections, including concerns over escapism, the digital divide, and the influence of VR on perception, behavior, and social standards.

Looking ahead to the future of VR and augmented reality (AR), it’s evident that these technologies will continue to merge virtual and physical realities, inviting an array of philosophical questions about human experience and prompting us to rethink the limits of reality. AR is limited with the amount of information that can be provided visually when in the physical world without interrupting the joys of being out in the world, limited also by the need to power via battery packs wired to glasses.

The discussion and our understanding of the challenges has just started. Outside of the challenges of the tech, are the pros and cons based on comparing the experience to what we know, instead of reimagining new processes. Technologies are coming out to help the human creative mind to explore what we may not be doing today, similar to spreadsheet software for the PC and the printer for the Mac many years ago. 

Please note that if you purchase from clicking on a link, it may result in my getting a tiny bit of that sale to help keep this site going. If you enjoy my work, perhaps you would consider donating to my daily cup of coffee, thank you.

Virtual Worlds and AI: Exploring the Boundaries of Reality

There has been talk for several years that the VR and AR goggles will become glasses and even contact lenses or implants. The dream that a virtual reality of the real world could be all around the wearers. 

A limitation has been how much info a person can carry with them without being tethered to a computer, as well battery life and the speed to access the information. The last two years has brought about hardware and software making a large jump forward. Smaller compact chips that are less power hungry and able to run LLMs of data and information presentation. 

While many point back to early helmets and a world in a person’s imagination, technology is showing the imagination component is the creative part and not what is needed to step into a visual sensory environment to explore. These worlds are starting to move quicker to being overlaid in the world around a user so information and gaming is around every corner. 

For about as long as there have been computers, there has been a need to use those computers to explore the limits of the world as we know it. Generally, users frame the box they can work within to be within what they can understand. Part of the ‘what if’ is the thought that the world as we know it is actually a free running game or software test. A line of thinking that wasn’t accepted since a computer needs guidance for what an environment and its inhabitants are. Recently there have been more examples of opening the box a bit for a computer AI to build on the knowledge of the world. It is assumed that humans will keep advancing the AI technology to the point it will start exploring it’s own experiments, outside of what a human is asking for. The concern is that the AI will find humans to be a virus or will want to protect it’s creators but ends up destroying them since the system doesn’t understand a part of the human race. 

What if, instead, the AI chooses the right path to serve and protect the human race and is successful at it. To explore its thoughts on the many scenarios of its tests, the system will create use cases with human-like actors and environments similar to that which are challenged now. Trying different possible solutions, some will fail and the actors will not live a long happy life, helping the system to learn. The system can create many of these worlds to test with, each living many years in seconds of time for the computer, where the actors make decisions based on what they have to use. The system is only worried about the immediate scope of reach for the actors so it doesn’t have to build all the details of the galaxy. Some use case tests will start reaching out to the stars so that the system will expand as the actors explore and the system randomizes what could be found. With many environments, running at the same time, actors will make different decisions with different results. Some tests will fail quickly for the actors, perhaps the program lets the environment continue to run to see what can happen. There will be an almost uncountable environment tests running, all with similar starting points, to see how each will end. 

Perhaps, when people talk about the human race we know around us now, it isn’t a game simulation, rather one of near unlimited tests going on to see possible results for an outside viewer to help them decide how best to serve and protect their world.