The Metaverse

نحن مقيمون على الإنترنت، نرسم معالم دنيانا التي نبتغيها من خلاله، ونُمارس تمثيل شخصياتٍ أبعد ما تكون عنا؛ نحقق زيفًا أحلامًا قد تكون بعيدة المنال، ويُصدق بضعنا البعض فيما نسوقه من أكاذيب ومثاليات؛ ننعم بأقوالٍ بلا أفعال، وقلوبٍ بلا عواطف، وجناتٍ بلا نعيم، وألسنة في ظلمات الأفواه المُغلقة تنطق بحركات الأصابع، وحريةٍ مُحاطة بأسيجة الوهم؛ ومن غير إنترنت سيبدو أكثر الناس قطعًا بحجمهم الطبيعي الذي لا نعرفه، او بالأحرى نعرفه ونتجاهله! لا شك أن ظهور الإنترنت واتساع نطاق استخداماته يُمثل حدثًا (...) فريدًا متناميًا في مسيرة الإنسان الحضارية وتغيير الطريقة التي يعيش بها البشر حياتهم. ومع ذلك، لا ينطوي أي تعريف للإنترنت حتى الآن على إشارة للواقع الافتراضي، رغم تعايشنا معه وفيه بالفعل؛ فنحن نتفاعل ونتبادل المعلومات، ونشتري ونبيع، ونلعب ونضحك ونبكي، ونمارس أدق تفاصيل حياتنا عبر الإنترنت؛ وكل ما كنا نقوم به من قبل بالحركات الجسدية المكانية أوكلنا مهمة القيام به إلى عقولنا! ولعل هذا ما تفعله كلمة «ميتافيرس»، وهي كلمة استخدمها لأول مرة كاتب الخيال العلمي الأمريكي «نيل ستيفنسون» في روايته «تحطم الثلج» (1992)، للدلالة على تفاعل البشر مع بعضهم البعض ومع البرمجيات في فضاء افتراضي ثلاثي الأبعاد مشابه للعالم الفعلي. (shrink)

This paper attempts to contextualize a philosophy of curation that is object-oriented or toward a “return to the object.” In the museum, three interrelated philosophical problems pervade curation practices that prevent access to the object as it is. Here, the subject-object relations or idealism-realism issues are reconsidered as a specific niche of the philosophy of curation. To address these issues, this paper claims that Jean-Paul Martinon and Graham Harman's philosophical return to the Heideggerian fourfold (das Geviert) can introduce creative pathways (...) for the curated object that is riddled with excess and tensions. Later, with some caveats, the paper addresses the issues and suggests a possible avenue for further research. (shrink)

The study of the ontology of virtual actions is essentially an examination of the nature of actions in virtual environments directly. This article first examined traditional research on the subject and then showed that these researches ignored findings about the nature of virtual actions. Previous studies have dealt with virtual action mostly from an ethical, psychological, or legal framework and focused on the individual or social effects of virtual action. In addition, these studies discuss not the virtual action itself, but (...) its effect or consequences. Based on these findings, in this study, it was emphasized that a virtual action should be investigated through two different types at a minimum, and an alternative method was developed for studies on virtual actions. According to this method, which is called the Sophisticated Action Model, it has been argued that in virtual action research, firstly the subject performing the action and then the environment in which the action takes place should be analyzed. It is claimed that the difference of virtual subject and environment will also differentiate the ontology of virtual action. In this context, the focus of the article is on the fact that an action augmented by any virtual action has completely different ontologies. The status of augmented actions within virtual actions is considered superior to other virtual actions. The fact that augmented actions, which have such an important status among virtual actions, were ignored in previous studies makes these studies on virtual actions incomplete and flawed. The nature of augmented actions takes virtual actions to a completely different atmosphere. The article concludes by emphasizing this distinctive nature of augmented actions, the ontological separation of virtual actions, and the importance of the Sophisticated Action Model for further studies. (shrink)

This paper argues that there are value and design-based problems in current ambitions for the Metaverse. With the Metaverse deepening longstanding commercial surveillance practices, the paper focuses on data protection harms from biometric and emotion data, the gauging of first-person perspectives, and sensitivities around profiling of avatars. The paper advances two notions to address harms and data protection: _surveillant physics_ and _virtual realist governance_. _Surveillant physics_ refers to surveillance informing the laws of how that reality operates: this is a useful (...) concept given the granular control that platforms have over virtual worlds and the laws by which they function. _Virtual realist governance_ builds on the longstanding principle of virtual realism and David Chalmer’s recent theorising of Reality+ that demands that the virtual is taken to be real, meaning that experiences of virtual objects and what occurs in-world are treated as meaningful. The paper progresses to further consider governance questions, both around technical and ethical standards, but also data protection ideas such as personal data stores, and data trusts, that were not conceived as Metaverse-based ideas, but have greater chance of being realised as basic premises of the Metaverse are being designed. Although this paper is regretfully pessimistic, finding that a root problem of current ambitions for the Metaverse is that the public good and the commons are missing, it sees virtual realist scope for modes of resistance unseen in other digital realms. (shrink)

In this paper, we assess the impact of extended reality technologies as they relate to sexual forms of harassment. We begin with a brief history of the nature of sexual harassment itself. We then offer an account of extended reality technologies focusing specifically on psychological and hardware elements most likely to comprise what has been referred to as “the metaverse”. Although different forms of virtual spaces exist (i.e., private, semi-private, and public), we focus on public social metaverse spaces. We do (...) this to better explain how the concept of sexual harassment must be adjusted to such spaces and how approaches aimed at mitigating harassment must be sensitive to the type of metaverse spaces users utilize. We then offer a typology of sexual harassment for the metaverse focusing on three distinct forms of sexual harassment: (1) invariant (2) mixed variance or modified and (3) unique or metaverse specific. Although existing normative and legal frameworks may function well with respect to the first and, possibly, second forms of harassment, we argue such frameworks will not helpfully address metaverse-specific harassment. Ultimately, the changing nature of privately owned public spaces (POPS) which metaverses are likely to represent pose distinct ethical and regulatory challenges. (shrink)

In his article ‘The Metaverse: Surveillant Physics, Virtual Realist Governance, and the Missing Commons,’ Andrew McStay addresses an entwinement of ethical, political, and metaphysical concerns surrounding the Metaverse, arguing that the Metaverse is not being designed to further the public good but is instead being created to serve the plutocratic ends of technology corporations. He advances the notion of ‘surveillant physics’ to capture this insight and introduces the concept of ‘virtual realist governance’ as a theoretical framework that ought to guide (...) Metaverse design and regulation. This commentary article primarily serves as a supplementary piece rather than a direct critique of McStay’s work. First, I flag certain understated or overlooked nuances in McStay’s discussion. Then, I extend McStay’s discussion by juxtaposing a Lockean inspired argument supporting the property rights of Metaverse creators with an opposing argument advocating for a Metaverse user's ‘right to virtual abundance,’ informed by the potential of virtual reality technology to eliminate scarcity in virtual worlds. Contrasting these arguments highlights the tension between corporate rights and social justice in the governance of virtual worlds and bears directly on McStay’s assertion that there is a problem of the missing commons in the early design of the Metaverse. (shrink)

The ‘genesis’ of ‘information’ (conservation of an uber-simple circle) solves the ‘universal’ grounding problem.

A leading philosopher takes a mind-bending journey through virtual worlds, illuminating the nature of reality and our place within it. Virtual reality is genuine reality; that's the central thesis of Reality+. In a highly original work of "technophilosophy," David J. Chalmers gives a compelling analysis of our technological future. He argues that virtual worlds are not second-class worlds, and that we can live a meaningful life in virtual reality. We may even be in a virtual world already. Along the way, (...) Chalmers conducts a grand tour of big ideas in philosophy and science. He uses virtual reality technology to offer a new perspective on long-established philosophical questions. How do we know that there's an external world? Is there a god? What is the nature of reality? What's the relation between mind and body? How can we lead a good life? All of these questions are illuminated or transformed by Chalmers' mind-bending analysis. Studded with illustrations that bring philosophical issues to life, Reality+ is a major statement that will shape discussion of philosophy, science, and technology for years to come. (shrink)

Examples of extended cognition typically involve the use of technologically low-grade bio-external resources (e.g., the use of pen and paper to solve long multiplication problems). The present paper describes a putative case of extended cognizing based around a technologically advanced mixed reality device, namely, the Microsoft HoloLens. The case is evaluated from the standpoint of a mechanistic perspective. In particular, it is suggested that a combination of organismic (e.g., the human individual) and extra-organismic (e.g., the HoloLens) resources form part of (...) a common mechanism that realizes a bona fide cognitive routine. In addition to demonstrating how the theoretical resources of neo-mechanical philosophy might be used to evaluate extended cognitive systems, the present paper illustrates one of the ways in which mixed reality devices, virtual objects (i.e., holograms), and online (Internet-accessible) computational routines might be incorporated into human cognitive processes. This, it is suggested, speaks to the recent interest in mixed/virtual reality technologies across a number of disciplines. It also introduces us to issues that cross-cut disparate fields of philosophical research, such as the philosophy of science and the philosophy of technology. (shrink)

Information, and, thus, technology (any and every system and-or discipline), depends upon the tokenization (and, thus, the conservation) of a circle (one zero and one one) (one circumference and one diameter). Explaining the human mind, the ‘abstract object,’ and the cryptic universe. Where any (and every) ‘universe’ (think: unit) is totally dependent on the circular-linear relationship between abstract and concrete reality (which is fully accessible (and, thus, only, understandable)) via the Circular Theory diagram (a cryptic, concrete, fully tokenized, abstraction) (for (...) an uber-simple circle). (shrink)

IOP is, always, the tokenization of a naturally conserved circle. Meaning no information, no reality, no nothing. Observation always gets us the wrong answer (no such thing as a question, technically) (all questions are already answered) (the human imagines there are problems to solve) (because solving problems conserves an already-conserved circle) (everything is already 'answered') (else how could we ascertain the 'correct' answer?). Tokenization may appear as a transformation. But digging deeper we can observe (when we're ready) there is no (...) such thing as a transformation. Tokenization (the correct word for transformation) is the conservation of a circle, explaining IOP (what humans perceive as 'transformation' 'representation' 'tokenization' a 'process' of any kind' (nouns and verbs in general) etc). (shrink)

The human lives in two universes. One inside. The other outside. One completely abstract. The other concrete. Telling all of us something important about Nature and ‘reality.’.

There is a conserved circular-linear relationship between an individual and a group (a part and a whole) (half and whole) (whole and half). Explaining mereology and producing the 'singularity' (a universal theory of everything, all disciplines) (which may be impossible for humans to accept).

The conservation of a circle produces the universal system architecture of Nature, and, therefore, the architecture for a quantum information system. There is a mandatory circle (a circular-linear relationship) between mind and matter (abstract and concrete 'reality') explaining (and exposing) both (you need both in order to have either) (complementarity is required (another word) for 'identity').

Nothing new here. Really. The identification (and correct representation) of space.

It’s all about ‘The Singularity’… (Self-Referential Recursion)….

Space joins (and separates) any X and-or Y. X and-or Y is, necessarily, 0 and-or 1. 0 and-or 1 is, necessarily, circumference and-or diameter. Explaining (what humans think of as) gravity (general relativity) (the 'self' in all systems). Thereby, and, therein, explaining the relationship between mind and matter. Integrating philosophy and physics (abstract and concrete reality) (where you need both in order to have either). Thereby, and, therein, explaining everything in psychology (a completely tokenized ‘reality’). You can think of this (...) as philosophical, physical, and psychological fusion (absolute relativity). (shrink)

The 'singularity' in Nature is a concrete-abstraction (think: tokenization) of the circular-linear relationship between 'me' and 'you.' Also, known as, 'me' and 'me' ('you' and 'you'). (Any and every 'me.') (Any and every 'you'.) Explaining the ontology, and, thus, the epistemology, of technology and finance (physics and psychology) (biology and philosophy). The abstract 'object.' The notion of 'self.' Any NFT (non-fungible and-or fungible token). The 'genetics of information.' The 'tokenized' state.

A thought is not possible without the conservation of a circle. Thus, the representation of a thought is, also, not possible without (the conservation of) a circle.

It is essential to analyze the state, significance, and issues of the Metaverse as a possible world from an ontological perspective. The Metaverse is an on going ontological event. Despite its status as a possible world beyond the real world, its actors are still human beings from the real world. It is thus impossible for the Metaverse to transcend the fundamental problems of human life, as the issues of politics, capital, and ideology still take place in a recursive manner. Therefore, (...) the Metaverse does not have its own independent ontology, but shares the ontology of the real world. To conclude, the Metaverse may change people's lives, but not ontology. (shrink)

The integration of biomimetics and memetics produces non-fungible tokens. Proving the Conservation of a Circle is the core, and, thus the only, dynamic in Nature, resulting in the tokenization of reality. Explaining the notion of 'self.' Across all disciplines.

Technology is answering our deepest questions about ‘reality.’ This is because Nature continually tokenizes an underlying, omnipresent, continually conserved, circular-linear relationship. Thus, zero and one (modern) is yin and yang (ancient) tying modern and ancient ideas about 'reality' together, and proving tokenization produces a cryptic 'reality.' Explaining science, and the 'search' for answers (perpetually).

X and X articulate, and, therefore, conserve, an uber-simple, circle. Providing the background (and the foreground) for everything (Nature) (reality).

Cryptocurrency is just the tip of a never-melting iceberg…because everything in Nature is connected to everything else by an always-conserved (and uber-simple) circle. Giving us, finally, an explanation (and, technically, a use-case, and proof) for a 'self.'.

Why Mathematics Can Never ‘Explain’ Reality: Well, for one thing, as everybody knows, there is no ‘Reality.’ All symbolic systems require the conservation of a circle, which is the core, and, thus, the only, dynamic in Nature. It is not possible to have X without Y (X without one other X) because it is not possible to have a circumference (a zero) without a diameter (a one). So, this proves the token for 'tokenization' that is necessary for general relativity (more (...) technically, universal relativity) (what humans call 'reality') requires duplication (which is, technically, another word for negation). This explains why identity is another word for 'representation' and, always, vice versa. Where everything in Nature is a token for (what humans know as) the arithmetic number 'two.' (Because it is impossible to have a half without a whole, and, again, always, vice versa.) Technically, negating all of the 'numbers' (all of the symbolic representations) humans assume are 'realities' in Nature. (shrink)

Duality explains everything. Language unnecessary, and, actually, superfluous.

Reality at any scale (a singularity of singularities) involves the conservation of a circle. This is because zero and one (modern) (yin and yang) (ancient) are, technically, and, thus 'realistically' (literally), circumference and diameter. This means we are, always, tokenizing space, explaining 'the matrix,' 'information,' 'information systems,' and algorithms (mathematics and technology). This is because, what humans label, 'mind' and 'matter,' like any X and X (X and Y) (X and X') articulate, and, thus, conserve an always-present (totally prescient) circular-linear (...) relationship. Also known as 'tokenization.' Conservation of the Circle. (shrink)

Why the metaverse is taking over technology. And, physics. (And, therefore, philosophy.) It’s all about the meme.

Circular Thinking is essential (required) in order to understand ‘reality’ (Nature in general)… including the relationship between mind and matter (abstraction and representation).

Yin and Yang (ancient) is Zero and One (modern).

Relative identity produces, because it is produced by, an uber-simple, always-conserved, circle. Zero, and one, is circumference, and diameter, literally, and figuratively. Explaining the metaphor. And, Nature. Also, Self-referential reality. Quantum Entanglement. Philosophical, Psychological, Physical Fusion. (0(1)0).

Zero and one is circumference and diameter. Literally. And, figuratively.

Zero and one is circumference and diameter. Literally. And, figuratively.

Complementarity is the basis for identity because duplicity is the basis for a unit. Proving we already have a ‘theory of everything’ at our disposal: Conservation of the Circle.

The line connecting everything to everything is both diameter and circumference of a circle. Thus, complementarity is the basis for identity (duplicity is the basis for a unit). See, also, The Singularity and Obejct-Oriented Reality (also on PhilPapers).