From: portal!cup.portal.com!Tagi@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Re: PHIL: VR and RL: Beginning a Philosophical Consortium
Originator: hlab@stein.u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:03:44 GMT


9212.16 e.v.

John Costella (quoting and answering me) writes:

> *** 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. ;)


Response:

Defining them with respect to one another without additional information
is not very helpful.  Your responses imply exactly what is being
challenged by the context of the questions.  Unless you offer something
in defense of your position all it looks like is dogmatic attachment.
 

John:

> 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.


Response:

Fascinating.  You have apparently resolved the philosophical dilemma
with which countless ancient geniuses have struggled.  Please elaborate
on your methods to determine what for you seems to be certain knowledge.



John:

> 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.


Response:

Exactly where does the 'virtual' leave off and the 'real' begin?  How
can you distinguish between the two?  How do the two influence one
another if they meet?  If they don't meet, what is between them?

You'll note that I think this entire dilemma is the same as what
has been called the 'mind-body problem' for centuries.
 

John:

> 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.


Response:

I agree that labels are good for communications.

What are the problems with confusing the two ('real' and 'virtual')?
Might there be any benefits from such a confusion?

Please provide your evidence or reference for your assertion that
'there is one, objective, physical universe out there'.  If you
cannot offer evidence, then why do you assume this?  Please be aware 
that the fanaticism of your words reminds me very strongly of the
dogmatic theist who tells me 'there is one and only one God (often
Jehovah or Jesus Christ)'.  All I do in such cases is say: 'Proof?' 



John:

> 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.


Response:

I've never heard of 'hippie/moonie/greenie bullshit' and really don't
understand your comments here.  I only attached your name because
you commented about the 'real world', as I remember.  I figured you
would be a good person to include since you seem to represent some
sort of authority (even if just yourself).  Don't post here and you
don't have to worry about your words being used in my posts. ;>


John:

[some omitted]

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.


Response:

There seems to be a bit of controversy on this subject of the 'real',
I'm afraid.  As I said, people have been arguing about it for many many
years.  Even 'physicists' (names?) differ regarding the exact nature
of reality and how this relates to the material realm in which they
work.  Perhaps you can help me here by citing some sources?  


John:

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. 



Response:

I'm glad to hear you say this.  No, I'm not 'on the acid'.  Nor am I
reading any 'golly-gee-whiz' books on quantum mechanics (I gave that
up a while back ;>).  I am interested in hearing people like you tell
me PRECISELY where the 'real world' ends and the 'virtual world'
begins.  If you cannot, then please stop making such claims.



John:

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.


Response:

Good.  I'm glad that you refer me to someone who can explain more
about what you are saying.  I'm not interested in simulating the
whole universe, however.  I'm wondering exactly how we can determine
what is reality and what is virtuality.  You seem to know very much
about this, so I ask you to explain it for me.  If you can't, perhaps
you can get 'Shannon' to do it.



John:

> I don't expect that anyone will have 'the' answer, but some speculation
> and/or train-of-thought responses would be welcomed.  Thanks.

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. 

..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.


Response:

Interesting that the 'angels on the head...' always come up when I
begin to challenge people's dogmatic assumptions.  I'm listening to
you, and I heard your argument, but I didn't hear anything
convincing in it, except perhaps that you believe it very strongly.

Not all of us who question consensus reality are in nonordinary,
chemically-induced states of awareness, John.  In fact, some of
us just like to point out where our knowledge is and isn't.  I hope
you can show me some more persuasive material than the post you've
made so far.  Thanks.


Thyagi
--------------------------------- 
"At its root all language has the character of metaphor,
because no matter what it intends to be about
it remains language, and remains absolutely unlike
whatever it is about."

James P. Carse, _Finite and Infinite Games_