From: kgg@mv.MV.COM (Kenn Goutal)
Subject: Re: PHIL: Is VR a science?
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 92 12:15:25 -0400
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.



In article <1992Sep18.065644.23752@u.washington.edu>
rac@lorelei.ece.drexel.edu (Robert A. Conn) writes:

>        I am a doctoral student in the ECE Dept at Drexel Univ.  I've
>        read a good bit of Gibson's work, and have been impressed 
>        by what I've read here on the current state of VR technology.

The moderator adds the following:
>[ (...)  There's a vital
>difference between the generation and experience of virtual environ-
>ments and the technology that makes this possible.  The former is
>definitely on the verge of becoming a true science as we understand
>the nature of the phenomenon.  The latter is a tool. -- Bob Jacobson]

Eh?  I certainly see a difference between the experience of VR and the
tools that generate it.  Not sure I see much difference between "the
generation" of VR and the tools that do the generating.  Also not
clear to me that there's a significant difference between VR and VW; I
might say that VR is the set of all possible VW's.  (Pun on VW makes
this an entertaining definition. ;-) ) BUT!

I see nothing about "the generation and experience of virtual environ-
ments" that qualifies as science or as *a* science.  Mebbe I just
haven't read the right journals, but I haven't read/seen/heard anyone
propose any axioms, hypotheses, theories, or proofs about this stuff.
E.g. "The difference between perceived distance and actual distance is
proportional to the time spent in the particular VW and to the time
spent in VR in general."  or "It is [or is not] possible to generate
VW's of greater than N dimensions that can be experienced as such."

A basic question is, what is the definition of science, or of *a*
science?  It's been a while since I've been involved in science proper
(physics, versus programming), but nothing I recall qualifies VR as a
science.  imho.


-- Kenn Goutal
kenn@mv.mv.com