The Metaverse: Our New Playground?

From the editors

THE METAVERSE: OUR NEW PLAYGROUND?

WordsSaartje Nibbering ImagesBrian Ye

The connection to the real world has become distinct with the emergence of artificial intelligence. In addition to the progressive advances that can be made with technology, the possibility for fantasy, gates, and transitions to other realities is highlighted by A.I.. With a single click, it is now possible to enter a world where regulations and boundaries are relative, therefore it is logical that individuals flee from the limited physical world to discover their identity and ideas in a questionable existing reality. What difficulties and opportunities occur when the relationship between the real world (RW) and virtual world(s) (VW) is strengthened by incorporating real-life processes into digital communication? And with the rise of the digitalization of urban spaces and surrealistic architecture resembling dreamscapes, what will be the effects on the new age architects when they can build in a world where everything is possible?

This article will be an introduction to the concept of virtual reality. It will make an attempt to put a difficult concept into words by exploring different perspectives on the Metaverse (Meta, previously Facebook) in its manifestation to a VW. The fundamental question revolves around the benefits and concerns of architecture in a virtual reality from a philosophical perspective.

According to architect Nicholas Negroponte VW's are in broad sense still assigned as fiction, however, we should get familiar with the fact that it may already be a part of the present.1 Speaking from personal experience, the idea of using a VW as a means in our daily life seems very distant, and in some ways, surrealistic. Nevertheless, Meta claims it to be an excellent tool for the future, and humanity is bound to utilize it in some way or another. If you, like me, love the feel of pen and paper and occasionally feel disconnected due to the vast amount of technology in today's society (or disconnect on purpose), then let's take a look into the advantages of a VW as a tool with a healthy dose of skepticism. The term "Metaverse" refers to a VW in which people can interact with one another online. It is a network of virtual 3D environments where users may do various tasks using an avatar, or digital doppelgänger. Contrary to popular belief, the phrase was first used in a science fiction novel in 1992. Last year, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg revived the concept by renaming Facebook into Meta and investing billions in the creation of a metaverse. Although, for the time being, this is largely speculative. Small metaverses such as Fortnite, Roblox, Minecraft, The Sandbox, and Horizon Workrooms exist, but they are not yet linked into a larger virtual environment. The superpower and attractive features of the metaverse relies on the following: in theory, everything is virtually possible.

TAG-3 by Bryan Ye through VR glasses. > < Axonometric projection, hyper perspective and render.

The position of the Metaverse

With a background in philosophy, I view the concept of a VW to be problematic. To eliminate the untouchable element of the VW paradigm, we must navigate its placement in reference to the physical world.We can debate if the objects in the VW are merely counterparts of substantial creatures, or if they define themselves as entities as is. Begin by asking, 'Where is the virtual world?'. We briefly touch on the philosophical theory of Metaphysics in our analysis of computer-generated objects, where we define reality and address the question, "What is our position in the universe?". Concerning the Metaverse, I want to start a thought experiment in which we consider the following question: "What is our place in the universe when the Metaverse exists alongside our world?". It is essential to study the Metaverse's position, whether we are talking about a new world within our world, a new world next to our world, or a new world apart from our world. In the next section, I used both early (Magermans, 2004) and recent (Moneta, 2020) literature to study this subject as a notion that has circulated over time (and surprisingly shares the same principles).

A tool versus a space

Magermans raises a fundamental challenge in how we should address virtual reality. In the first case, it could be viewed as a tool that allows us to experiment in an infinite setting. In architecture, for example, it solves the difficulty of visualizing a notion into a three-dimensional representation for the client. There is an indisputable power in seeing a space before it is completed to identify architectural errors, validate theories, and serve as an effective means of transmitting the architect's ideas. Yet, in the first case, we consider virtual reality to be a fictitious world in comparison to the physical world. There are no big operations that have a direct impact on our reality. The second case implies virtual reality as a space. When considering virtual reality as a space, we must believe that telepresence is only conceivable when the body and mind are separated; transferring the mind to a virtual environment while the body remains in the physical world, we basically gain access to exist in both the physical and virtual world at the same time. This lends support to the idea of virtual reality not being isolated from, but rather existing alongside, physical reality. In terms of architecture, should virtual environment be an identical duplicate of the real world? or may it be an opportunity to create something new? However, treating virtual reality as a space raises the following concern by Magermans: ‘’When virtual reality started, the tendency was to imitate and simulate the ‘’real’’ in the ‘’virtual’’ space. I very much believe that soon the tendency will be to try to imitate and simulate (actualize) the ‘’virtual’’ in the ‘’real’’ space.’’. Will our existence in the physical world be satisfied within the constraints of reality if our imagination has access to such complex and spectacular virtual reality forms and spaces?

''It is essential to study the Metaverse's position,

whether we are talking about a new world within

our world, a new world next to our world, or a new world apart from our world. ''

The role of the architect

This concern also arises in more recent literature. Andrea Moneta states in her academic research on the Metaverse the following: ‘’Designing architecture on the Metaverse is a challenging task even for experienced architects, let alone for those who do not have their cultural and technical background. Freed from spatial, economic and technical limitations, without a natural environment and an anthropic history, designers of architectures could be easily lost in the digital magic domain where everything is possible and potentially huge.’’ In addition she also claims the VW is not isolated from the RW anymore and we need to extend the role of the architect into the VW. Having said that, a following problem arises when we consider architects are trained to analyze and understand the environment in which they design, including its history and natural environment, all of which doesn’t exist in the VW.

Losing touch with reality

I'd like to address one final point raised in both Magermans and Moneta's articles: a critique of control and virtuality technology. Magermans cites architect and philosopher Paul Virilio, who claims that "after the seduction of simulation comes the disappointment of substitution," i.e. preferring a virtual being over a real being is problematic.2 Additionally, Moneta quotes a prediction made by philosopher Guy Debord , stating that ‘’Our society is replacing authentic social life with its representation. Being the built environment an aspect of social life, we need to acknowledge that VW’s are becoming a wider expression of our personal and collective space, an interactive spatial dimension where, in the very same moment we shape its shape, it shapes us.’’.3 Both citations indicate concerns about losing a sense of reality and eroding our authenticity as a result of digitalization. Should we be worried?

1. In his best-selling book from 1995, Beyond Digital, Nicholas Negroponte claims that we live in a post-digital society. 2. Open Sky is a passionate and quite radical critique of information technology and global media by architect and philosopher Paul Virilio. 3. The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord is a critique of contemporary consumer culture and commodity fetishism, dealing with issues such as class alienation, cultural homogenization and mass media. In conclusion, I feel the perspectives presented above provide us with a glimpse of what thoughts revolve around the concept of a virtual world. However, the amount of literature, perspectives, and ideas available is immense, and I personally believe I fell short of providing a thorough introduction to the philosophy of architecture in a virtual reality. In brief, the concept is too vast to grasp in a single article, so I would like to invite you to start thinking about the potentials and concerns around this topic.

To give you a headstart, think about the following: Do you agree that architecture in a virtual environment will be the solution to many problems as well as a fantastic tool for design? Or are you convinced that if we get too hasty with the overwhelming freedom of the virtual world, we would forever live under a false pretense of reality?

Negroponte, Nicholas. 1995. Being Digital. New York: Alfred

A. Knopf, Inc. Magermans, Audra. 2004. Architecture and Cyberspace. Moneta, Andrea. 2020. Architecture, Heritage and

Metaverse: new approaches and methods for the digital built environment. California: International

Association for the Study of Traditional Environments (IASTE) Virilio, Paul. 1997. Open Sky. London: Verso Books. Debord, Guy. 1967. La Société du Spectacle. France:

Buchet-Chastel.