Nilesh Jasani's Reviews > Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy

Imagine a philosopher from a century ago who encounters the first motion pictures. Overwhelmed and captivated by this groundbreaking technology, the philosopher posited that we could be only three- or four-dimensional projections created by advanced beings from higher dimensions. "Reality+" can be seen as a contemporary parallel to this hypothetical philosopher's musings, where Chalmers replaces the concept of motion pictures with the more contemporary idea of virtual reality.

The book presents many innovative concepts and thought-provoking ideas, but its conclusions ultimately appear speculative and unsubstantiated hypotheses. These theories seem to emerge from the author's conviction that the primary task is to reframe our worldview in light of the most recent technological advancements without considering the potential for future refinements or modifications.

In concepts like "virtual could be unrecognizable from real" or "physical is different from digital," the book moves around in circles on axiomatic propositions seemingly conjured out of thin air, like Pascal's wager. We will use only one example - the utterly needless distinction in the book between physical and digital because of the author's preoccupation with it-from-bit-type concepts - to illuminate the limits imposed by extrapolating a set of latest technologies.

Arguably, as long as we are in a digital, rule-based world, the author's distinction between physical and digital becomes redundant, at the very least. Let's say our world comprises basic constituents - particles or forces - that come in n distinct forms, where n could be any number from 1. Each of these building blocks B1...Bn can be represented in a Cartesian form with quantum values (q1...qn) and multiple positions in an m-dimensional space-time, defining our world's entire existence. In some ways, this is nothing but an information string in a higher dimension, the same as those of the author's digital world except of higher complexity. In other words, even a purely physical world of the author, encompassing quarks, proteins, matter, life forms, or black holes, could be an information form as is or in some machine's image.

The crucial point is that for an advanced civilization, the resources required to construct our type of world - physically, as the author prefers to differentiate using building blocks - may not be resource-intensive at all. For the creationist theories that the book wishes to speculate on, most of its simulation-focused sections may prove to be unnecessary.

The author's creationist ideas rely on the same arguments made since time immemorial but in different garbs. Something from nothing is difficult for any one of us to accept. Creationist theories appear far more sound in our world of exquisitely finely tuned parameters as they provide a more straightforward point to stop questioning. The only thing we are asked to do in such cases is not to concern ourselves too much with these creators' identities, logic, or intentions and go on our merry ways!

By evoking the possibility of us being a simulation on an advanced society's computer, the book wonders if we could be a creation of a higher life or non-life form. The speculation is used to explain concepts as broad as the imperfections of our "gods" to free will, all non-provable and as whimsical as any wonderland of an Alice in any realm.

The author is the first to acknowledge that most of his theories are unverifiable if we live in a perfect simulation. He tries to make a virtue of the unverifiability by hypothesizing on the post-human reality of upcoming centuries. The discussions are often fascinating but still never far from fanciful.