I made note of my objections as I was reading the book, and here they are:
In the augmentation reality chapter, he heavily centers on what the Internet can do for us, totally ignoring that the Internet is full of ignorant malevolence, and fake news. It’s like he’s an egghead only reflecting on the subject matter, avoiding what we already know about the Internet.
He states that in a post-apocalyptic world, most of us would choose to enter a virtual world where the “pods” are heavily protected. This is completely divorced from what we already know of a kind of VR - the Internet where people often behave very differently than they would in the real world. What’s to stop a VR denizen from killing people for fun?
He argues that elements from VR are real. But what about our typical appreciation of real objects, that they’re things that only exist truly in the real world? Or things that we can only believe about the confidence that objects that are represented by sources we trust, such as telescopes.
In the subsection about equality in virtual worlds, he seems to say that virtual worlds will enhance equality. Yet how does this square that in many existing virtual worlds, you have to use real-world money to pay for certain crucial capabilities. The author is blind to this.
He says he’s an atheist, which makes me question his most important tenet: that we’re likely living in a virtual reality simulation. If that was true then he’d have to acknowledge that we have a creator, who, to us, would have the attributes of a god.
His postulate is that most civilizations will reach a point where the creation of artificial universes will be routine. But what about the counterargument that most civilizations won’t last beyond global warming or nuclear devastation? Again, sticking his head in the sand.
Douglas C. Smith
David J. Brown