From: jpc@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au (John Costella) Subject: Re: PHIL: VR and RL: Beginning a Philosophical Consortium Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 9:33:12 EST > Hello. I've been watching this newgroup for a week or so and think > it is time for me to contribute toward an aspect of VR (+) that I'd > like to see discussed here. Well, since my name is taken in vain here, > In another thread (VPL alive/dead), John Costella writes (some omitted): > There's a bit of a problem with fundamental physics here. Either [JPC junk deleted ... I use the term 'virtual world'] then I'll offer my opinion. (I didn't say you'd like my opinion.) > I understand, from the FAQ (the REAL FAQ ;>), that you mean by the > phrase 'virtual world' a rather specific thing. > > I wish to ask some questions that I've been thinking about for quite > some time. I have speculation of my own to compare and invite discussion > on the following: > > *** Taking the literal definition of terms (NOT the specialized ones), *** > > A) What makes a computer world 'virtual'? It's not real. > B) What makes the world of our everyday noncomputerworld life 'real'? It's not virtual. ;) > C) Are there some ways in which computer worlds are 'real'? Nope. Mathematicians fall into this trap all the time. There is ONE real world, full stop. You can have theoretical / virtual worlds if you like, but they are created with equipment made *from* atoms and the physics of Real Reality. > D) Are there some ways in which noncomputer worlds are 'virtual'? Er .. yes, my opinion is that various technologies, not just computers, can be used to make virtual worlds, to various extents. But none of the real world is virtual. > E) Where do the virtual and real meet? How do they do so? At the interface device. :) The gadgets send signals into our senses that simulate the physical characteristics of the virtual world. > F) What is the value of assigning rigid definitions and labels to > either computer or noncomputer worlds? How do we benefit from them? So I can tell you if I mean something happening in the real universe or in a computer simulation. Physicists call their virtual worlds `models'. So what. Whatever word is easiest. As long as the theoreticians never start to think that their theories *are* the real world. There is one, objective, physical universe out there: I want to give it a label. > G) What is the problem with assigning such rigid definitions? None. > Obviously this really involves the formulation of some concepts of > 'virtual' and 'real' which transcend the simple realm of modern > 'VR' headsets and gloves. It extends into the realm of MUDs and > applies to philosophical concepts as broad in range as Psychology, > Mysticism and Philosophy, East and West. Crap. Look, I, for one, am pretty tired of this hippie / moonie / greenie bullshit. [Flames to NUL: ...:] Please don't attach my name to such threads. There is a real universe (or, if you like, maybe others that we haven't seen yet :), and that's it. You can set up computers, abacuses or whatever you like inside that universe, and do what you like with them. If you create a "world" or "universe" in there, then it's virtual (or "theoretical" or a "model" et cetera). Physicists know exactly what is the real world and what is not. Sure, there are plenty of things we don't understand exactly. There may be all sorts of weird new particles, dimensions, or whatever else you like out there, that we don't know about. But if they're there, they're part of the real world too. If you're on the acid, then you can believe whatever you like; good luck to you. It won't change anything. There is no `blurry line' between the real world and virtual ones, despite how many gee-whiz-golly-gosh books on quantum mechanics by Paul Davies you may read. You can even go believing in the Bible for all I care; no amount of fiction will change the fact. You can believe what your physical senses tell you, or you can wander around in never-never land. Of course, our *senses* may perhaps, one day, be completely fooled into thinking we're in the real world when we're not. So we're imperfect beasts. But you cannot simulate the *whole* universe using material from that same universe ... Shannon will tell you why. So sufficiently intelligent / capable beings can ALWAYS tell the difference between the real and virtual. One day we might not be sufficiently intelligent or capable. Oh well, that's life. > I don't expect that anyone will have 'the' answer, but some speculation > and/or train-of-thought responses would be welcomed. Thanks. > > Thyagi Yes, the answer is above. Sorry Thyagi, I think `angel on the head of a pin' type arguments like the (old) one you raise are the sorts of thing responsible for giving Philosophy such a bad name. Flames to my e-mail please. You are allowed to believe what you want: it's a free country. (Er .. most of the Net is located in free countries :). But please allow those of us without too many hallucinogens flowing through our veins to have a word for distinguishing the real world from Fantasyland: that's all we ask. > [Disclaimer (Co-mod): The definitions provided in the ancient FAQ are not mea > to be *the* definitions, accepted by the entire VR community. > (If I could do *that*, I'd probably be famous :) ) Instead, they > are merely provided as a jumping-off point for discussion. > To that end, they appear to have been successful, which I am glad for > ---Mark (comments to deloura@cs.unc.edu) I think they are too. Thanks for them Mark! :) I'd hate to think the archives were going to be read like a Bible. (OK, we have a Mark and a John ... how about a Matthew and a Luke? .) John ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- John P. Costella School of Physics, The University of Melbourne jpc@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au Tel: +61 3 543-7795, Fax: +61 3 347-4783 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------