Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nevermark | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it is as simple as that.

Mathematicians have long lived in a useful non-physical reality. So have many artists and writers.

Certainly improving physical reality remains valuable, but the non-physical world will likely grow in real as well as ephemeral value at a higher rate.

From a purely functional angle, the physical world does not include many affordances that the digital world provides for our minds, ability to communicate, learn, discover, etc. Virtual worlds will adapt to our minds, being the ultimate mental tools. And our minds will co-adapt.

Where that goes, nobody knows. But along with AI its likely to be the story of this century.

View on HN

> Certainly improving physical reality remains valuable, but the non-physical world will likely grow in real as well as ephemeral value at a higher rate.

Value requires purpose, so the question is: from what is each individual's purpose derived in the virtual world, where we can leave the physical behind? And is there a purpose to our physical being that we do harm by neglecting?

To me our physical world has much purpose, and the virtual world, in whatever form it takes, is only valuable to the extent it allows me to fulfill my purpose in the physical.

The biggest value is in making physical space cheap if not entirely free. The people that will be served by this are the bulk of the population who can't afford to live or work in spaces that provide enough room to pursue their interests or ambitions. The fidelity of those spaces will start off fairly far away from reality but will steadily approach it over time.

With the right feedback and props almost any pursuit could be closely simulated. VR could transform practical education and training and make it so easily available that anyone wanting to learn any skill could progress through the most difficult and expensive stages of learning for essentially free and then go on to complete their training in real life if they so choose.

The ability to meet with people from anywhere on earth instantly with all the nuances of physical presence properly simulated would provide the equivalent network effects of living in a vibrant urban centre, again for practically no cost.

The benefits of really well executed VR are almost identical to the invention of a sci-fi teleporter and replicator. The places you could visit and activities you could perform would probably provide 80% of the value of the real thing. For people who can afford to do these things in real life it's a pale imitation but for those who can't it's revolutionary.

Value only requires that somebody is willing to pay for it. Any other measure of value is just moral relativism.

What purpose does The Simpsons fulfill in the physical world?

This is just a step further than what already exists. And it's already happening; nobody can stop it, no matter how many pearls you clutch.

> And it's already happening; nobody can stop it, no matter how many pearls you clutch.

Sure we can. It’s not an act of god. Nothing about technology is inevitable or emergent. If it happens, it will happen because people chose to make it so.

And there’s nothing binding us to that choice, even if it is “just a step further than what already exists”. We can choose something else.

Yup nothing binds us to that choice.

Just like nobody was forced to buy a model T. Nobody was forced to plug their phone line into their computer. Nobody was forced to get a streaming box.

This is happening because people desire it on the margin. And the network effects will make it more attractive each time somebody adopts it.

> Value only requires that somebody is willing to pay for it.

And they will only be willing to pay if they want or need to do something with it. Wants and needs require some purpose, some intention, to drive them.

The Simpsons gives the viewer a break for a short time, during which they can recharge. Or maybe it gives them a viewpoint with which to understand the world that they find useful. Or maybe the viewer has decided that life's purpose is to watch everything on tv.

I'm not asking anyone to stop anything, I only gave my own viewpoint that my purpose comes from the physical world. I have no problem with others finding theirs elsewhere.

the physical world does not include many affordances that the digital world provides

Except it does provide many things that are necessary (e.g. food, clean water) whereas the digital world is not necessary for anything, really.

At this point the digital world is necessary to maintain efficiencies and progress that keep civilization running on the resources we have.

So it is necessary.

We could survive without it, in some sense, but not without a global catastrophe. Coordination, communication, efficient finance and logistics, etc. provide huge leverage on our physical resources.

Come on, do you expect me to believe that this sort of activity would occur in a Facebook branded world? You’d be lucky to get anything done the rest of your life. Political arguments with 3 meter tall taking porpoises would occupy any time left as you dodge walking ads.

Your free to live in a Facebook world if you choose in which case good luck! As you point out you will need it.

My view of Facebook is just as dim as yours.

> So have many artists and writers.

A site like this is bound to have naive views of arts like this. But it's not correct.

Art lives within the world of physical reality - otherwise, we would not be able to perceive it. Art is the enhancement of some aspect to reality, not a departure from it.

I don’t have naive views on art. I did not claim the physical world is unnecessary for anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com