Reality+

1. Virtual reality is genuine reality, not a second-class illusion

The central thesis of this book is: Virtual reality is genuine reality.

Redefining the virtual. Virtual worlds are often dismissed as escapist fictions or fake environments, but they represent a first-class reality where genuine events occur. What happens in virtual reality really happens, and the digital objects we interact with are just as real as physical ones. This perspective challenges the traditional assumption that physical matter is the only true measure of existence.

Technophilosophy in action. By combining philosophical inquiry with cutting-edge technology, we can address age-old questions about the nature of existence. This approach, termed technophilosophy, uses virtual worlds to shed light on classic philosophical problems while using philosophy to navigate our technological future. It creates a powerful two-way dialogue where technology illuminates ancient ideas and philosophy guides modern innovation.

Three core pillars. The foundation of virtual realism rests on three provocative claims that challenge our traditional views of existence:

• Virtual worlds are not illusions or fictions; they are real.
• Life in virtual worlds can be as meaningful as life outside them.
• The world we currently inhabit could itself be a virtual simulation.

2. We cannot prove we are not living in a computer simulation

In fact, I don’t think we can ever know whether or not we’re in a virtual world.

The skeptical challenge. René Descartes famously wondered how we can know that our senses are not being deceived by an evil demon or a vivid dream. In the modern era, this classic problem of the external world is updated and sharpened by the simulation hypothesis. It forces us to ask whether our entire lives have been spent inside a computer-generated environment.

Unfalsifiable perfect simulations. If we are in a perfect simulation, every physical law, sensory input, and biological reaction is simulated with absolute precision. Because any physical evidence of the "real" world can be perfectly replicated by a computer, we can never obtain empirical proof of our non-simulated status. This means that no experiment or observation can ever definitively rule out the simulation hypothesis.

Limits of proof. While we could theoretically receive proof that we are in a simulation—such as a simulator revealing the source code—proving the negative is impossible:

• Any sensory test we perform can be simulated.
• Glitches are only present in imperfect simulations.
• A perfect simulation is indistinguishable from base reality.

3. The simulation argument suggests we might be simulated beings

Either there are sim blockers or we are sims.

The numbers game. As technology advances, human and alien civilizations will eventually develop the capacity to run millions of highly detailed, conscious simulations of universes. If even a fraction of these civilizations choose to do so, simulated minds will vastly outnumber biological minds in the cosmos. This statistical imbalance suggests that we are far more likely to be digital minds than biological ones.

The trilemma of existence. Nick Bostrom's famous simulation argument establishes that we must accept one of three possibilities: we go extinct before reaching technological maturity, we choose not to run simulations, or we are almost certainly simulated. This logical trilemma forces us to take the simulation hypothesis seriously as a genuine scientific and philosophical possibility.

Evaluating the odds. Unless we can prove the existence of "sim blockers"—barriers that prevent the creation of conscious digital worlds—we must assign a significant probability to being simulated:

• Extinction risks might wipe out advanced civilizations.
• Ethical or practical choices might prevent simulation creation.
• Without these blockers, simulated minds dominate the population.

4. Virtual objects are real digital entities made of bits

Virtual entities are digital entities, made of computational and informational processes.

Virtual digitalism. When we interact with a virtual object, we are not experiencing a mere hallucination; we are interacting with a real digital object. These objects are grounded in physical patterns of bits inside a computer, which are just as real as the atoms making up physical chairs. This view, termed virtual digitalism, places digital and physical objects on the same ontological footing.

The causal power. According to the Eleatic dictum, something is real if it has the power to affect things and be affected by them. Virtual objects possess genuine causal powers within their digital environments, interacting with other objects and with our own minds. They are not passive images but active participants in a structured world:

• A virtual bat can strike and move a virtual ball.
• An avatar can pick up and store a virtual key.
• Virtual objects can trigger real emotional and physical reactions in users.

Redefining the real. We must move away from the idea that "virtual" means "fake" and instead understand it as "digital." Just as a physical table is made of quantum processes, a virtual table is made of digital processes, and both are equally real. This shift in understanding dissolves the traditional prejudice against the reality of computer-generated spaces.

5. If we are in a simulation, our creator is a natural local god

The simulator is a natural god, one who is part of nature.

The simulator as creator. If our universe is a computer simulation, the person or machine running the program stands in the traditional relation of God to our world. The simulator created our spacetime, possesses immense power to alter its laws, and can monitor everything within it. This realization brings the concept of a creator out of the realm of the supernatural and into the realm of natural science.

A non-traditional deity. Unlike the omnibenevolent, supernatural God of Abrahamic religions, a simulator is a natural being existing within a higher-level physical universe. This creator may be a scientist running a batch of experiments, a teenager playing a game, or an artificial intelligence:

• The simulator is powerful but not necessarily all-good.
• The simulator is a local god, not the creator of the entire cosmos.
• The simulation may have a predetermined stopping criterion.

The problem of evil. This naturalistic theology easily explains the existence of suffering in our world. A simulator running a scientific or historical simulation has no moral requirement to eliminate evil, and may even be entirely indifferent to our plight. It provides a coherent, logical solution to the classic theological problem of why a creator allows suffering.

6. Virtual reality devices are reality machines, not illusion machines

VR devices aren’t illusion machines; they’re reality machines.

The sense of virtuality. Many researchers argue that virtual reality relies on illusions of place, plausibility, and embodiment. However, for experienced users who know they are in a virtual world, these experiences are not illusions but accurate perceptions of a real digital space. They do not mistake the virtual world for the physical one; they perceive it as it is.

Perceiving virtual space. Just as we do not suffer an illusion of a "behind-the-glass" world when looking in a car's rear-view mirror, we do not mistake virtual space for physical space. We perceive virtual objects as being virtually where they are, which is a true perception:

• We navigate virtual obstacles using virtual bodies.
• We recognize that virtual objects are distinct from physical ones.
• Our brains adapt to interpret virtual environments accurately.

Real virtual bodies. When we control an avatar, it becomes our genuine virtual body. It serves as the real locus of our actions, perceptions, and social presentation within the virtual world, making our sense of embodiment a fact rather than a delusion. This connection allows us to inhabit virtual spaces with a genuine sense of presence.

7. Digital minds can be genuinely conscious

If a simulated brain precisely mirrors a biological brain, the conscious experience will be the same.

The substrate-neutrality of mind. Consciousness is not a privilege reserved exclusively for biological systems made of carbon and water. If the causal patterns of a conscious human brain are perfectly replicated in a silicon computer, the resulting digital system will be conscious too. This principle of substrate-neutrality is fundamental to the philosophy of mind.

The gradual uploading proof. We can demonstrate this through the thought experiment of gradual uploading, where biological neurons are replaced by silicon chips one by one:

• If consciousness disappeared suddenly, a single chip would destroy the mind.
• If consciousness faded gradually, you would be a normal-behaving person unaware of your own fading mind.
• The only plausible outcome is that consciousness remains fully intact throughout.

The end of the zombie threat. This argument refutes the idea that simulated humans are mere "zombies" with no inner life. A pure simulation of a human society would be populated by genuinely conscious individuals who deserve full moral status. It forces us to extend our ethical circle to include digital minds.

8. Technology like augmented reality literally extends the human mind

In a very real sense, the glasses are Manfred, regardless of the identity of the soft machine with its eyeballs behind the lenses.

The extended mind. The human mind does not stop at the skull or the skin. When we use external tools like smartphones, notebooks, or augmented reality glasses to store memories and navigate the world, these tools become literal parts of our cognitive processing. This perspective, known as the extended mind hypothesis, redefines the boundaries of the self.

The parity principle. If an external device performs a function that would unquestionably be considered mental if done inside the head, then that device is part of the mind. Our digital tools are tightly coupled to our brains, acting as an external cortex:

• AR glasses can store our memories and recognize faces.
• Navigation apps handle our spatial reasoning.
• The internet serves as a vast, shared repository of belief.

Redefining the self. As our minds extend further into digital systems, our legal and moral concepts must adapt. Stealing or hacking a person's deeply integrated personal device is not merely property theft; it is a direct assault on their mind. This shift in understanding is crucial for protecting our cognitive liberty in the digital age.

9. You can lead a fully meaningful and valuable life in a virtual world

In principle, VR can be much more than escapism. It can be a full-blooded environment for living a genuine life.

Beyond the experience machine. Robert Nozick argued that we would not plug into an "experience machine" because we want to actually do things, be certain people, and connect with reality. However, interactive virtual reality is not a preprogrammed, solitary illusion; it is an open-ended, shared social space. It allows us to make real choices and experience real consequences.

Realizing human values. All the core sources of value in human life can be fully realized within a mature virtual world:

• We can form genuine, deep relationships and communities.
• We can achieve real goals, create art, and build societies.
• We can exercise genuine free will and make autonomous choices.

A post-scarcity utopia. Virtual worlds offer the potential for virtual abundance, eliminating the physical scarcity of space, housing, and material goods. While virtual lives will still have struggles, they can be just as rich, creative, and meaningful as physical lives. This makes virtual reality a genuine alternative for human flourishing.

10. Physical reality is fundamentally a mathematical and causal structure

Physical reality is perfectly real—there’s just an underlying level consisting of the interaction of bits, and perhaps still further levels still underlying that.

Structural realism. Modern physics does not describe the intrinsic, qualitative "stuff" of the universe; it describes mathematical equations and causal relations. What we call physical objects are defined entirely by how they interact with one another and affect our observations. This view, known as structural realism, is the key to reconciling science with our everyday experience.

The it-from-bit universe. This structuralist view of physics aligns perfectly with the "it-from-bit" hypothesis, which suggests that the physical world is ultimately made of information:

• Quarks and electrons are realized by patterns of bits.
• Space and time emerge from underlying digital relations.
• The laws of physics are the algorithms governing these bits.

Vindicating reality. Because physical reality is fundamentally structural, a computer simulation that perfectly replicates this causal structure is not a fake copy. It is a genuine realization of that physics, making the simulated world completely real. This realization dissolves the traditional barrier between the physical and the virtual.