RU EN

Today: 22.11.2024

Home

Issues

2023 Year

Issue №3

VIRTUAL AND “REAL” WORLDS: THE PROBLEM OF CORRELATION AND PERCEPTION

Karpenko Ivan Aleksandrovich

DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2023-3-142-158

Information About Author:

Ivan A. Karpenko, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: gobzev@hse.ru

The most common definitions of virtual reality state it as created artificially (by technical means) and open for interactions with the subject (the one who perceives it) with the help of the sensory organs. That is, this artificially created reality acts for the subject as a certain sign, which is visually accessible and somehow interpreted — it has meaning and value for the subject. Thus, the key to understanding virtual reality is the aspect of its artificially created and interactive nature, which differs from ordinary, “real” reality. But this reality is non-authentic, artificial. What does “non-authentic” mean? Does this mean that it is false or illusory? That it does not “actually” exist? Reality is often understood as something external to the subject, which they perceive and where exist as a part at the same time. Thus, the real is the perceived. Further, the real can be material and abstract, created by nature or people (by itself in both cases). Fundamental reality is understood as some primary physical scene of actions, phenomena, and processes, which was not created by man and itself serves as a condition for the creation of everything else, including man. Virtual reality stands up to this primary reality. It is secondary, created artificially on the basis of the primary one (and, as they say, with the help of technical means). What does “artificially created with the help of technical means” mean? Obviously, it stands for commonly called cultural objects created by people as opposed to those created by nature itself. The question is what part of culture to separate from “real” reality and place in the realm of the virtual one. Based on the analysis of the many-worlds interpretation hypotheses and the simulation hypothesis, the article shows that any virtual (in the sense of possible) reality is real and even necessary. Furthermore, without resorting to such strong hypotheses, the universe as a space of information (as bits and logical operations on them) allows us to consider both potential and actual realities equally. In digital code, the whole possible reality (in this respect, it is virtual) is potentially presented to us, and, thus, it has already been realized (the same applies to the wave function). The interpreter— the one who gives meaning to signs and their sequences (both for oneself) – shares the final opinion of what is considered real . But some different realities talk is not relevant here — all are dual concerning each other.

Keywords: virtual reality, reality, simulation, universe, information, many-worlds interpretation

References:

‘t Hooft, G. (1993). Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity. httрs://arxiv.org/рdf/ gr-qc/9310026v2.рdf

Bostrom, N. (2003). Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? The Philosophical Quarterly, 53(211), 243–255.

Chalmers, D. (2022). Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy. W. W. Norton & Company.

Declos, A. (2020). Fact, Fiction and Virtual Worlds. In R. Pouivet, & V. Granata (Eds.),. Épistémologie de l’esthétique: perspectives et débats (pp. 195–219). Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

Everett, H. (1957). Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29(3), 454–462.

Gualeni, S. (2015). Virtual Worlds as Philosophical Tools – How to Philosophize with a Digital Hammer. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kiryanov, D. A. (2022). Features of the organization and classification of virtual reality interfaces. Software systems and Computational Methods, 2, 25–41. (In Russian).

Knyazeva, H. N. (2022). The idea of the multiverse: An interdisciplinary perspective. Philosophy of Science and Technology, 27(2), 121–135. : https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-2-121-135 (In Russian).

Lektorskiy, V. A. (Ed.). (2007). Poznaniye, ponimaniye, konstruirovaniye [Cognition, understanding, design]. Institute of Philosophy, RAS.

Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious Cerebral Initiative and the Role of Conscious Will in Voluntary Action. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4(8), 529–539.

Lloyd, S. (2012). The Universe as Quantum Computer. In H. Zenil (Ed.), A Computable Universe: Understanding and Exploring Nature as Computation (pp. 567–581). World Scientific Publishing Company.

Macleod, M. (2018). Programming Planck units from a virtual electron: a simulation hypothesis. The European Physical Journal Plus, 133(7), Article 278.

Maldacena, J. (1999). The Large N Limit of Suрerconformal Field Theories and Suрergravity. International Journal of Theoretical Рhysics, 38(4), 1113–1133.

Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V. (1997). Informatsionnye protsessy i real’nost’ [Information processes and reality]. Fizmatlit.

Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V. (2022). About One Geographical Metaphor. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 69, 27–31. https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863х/69/4 (In Russian).

Rolla, G., Vasconcelos, G., & Figueiredo, M. (2022). Virtual Reality, Embodiment, and Allusion: an Ecological-Enactive Approach. Philosophy and Technology, 35(4), 1–23.

Soon, S., Brass, M., Heinze, H.-J., & Haynes, J.-D. (2008). Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 543–545.

Susskind, L. (1995). The World as a Hologram. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 36(11), 6377–6396.

Taratuta, E. (2007). The philosophy of virtual reality. Saint Petersburg State University. (In Russian).

Vollmer, G. (2004). New arguments in evolutionary epistemology. Ludus Vitalis, 12 (21), 197–212.

Weatherson, B. (2003). Are You a Sim? The Philosophical Quarterly, 53(212), 425–431.

Zeh, H. (1970). On the Interpretation of Measurement in Quantum Theory. Foundations of Physics, 1, 69–76.