This article was published in Dialectics of Nature Studies, 2023, No. 7, Vol. 39; it was written last April and has only just appeared in print.
Abstract: The concept of the “metaverse” contains two layers of meaning, “meta” and “verse.” The former is immersion, or rather transcendence; the latter is openness or connectivity. The metaverse has the characteristic of surpassing itself and referring back to itself, and this characteristic is embedded within the trend of the history of technology from cave paintings onward. The metaverse is not virtual reality, and one cannot confuse immersion with realism. The metaverse does not seek to approximate reality, but to transcend it. The reason people will migrate to the metaverse is, just as the reason people migrate to cities, not that the new and old environments are similar. The metaverse is a media environment, and media-environment studies break down the dichotomy between material and spirit; the media-technological environment in which human life unfolds has always been a weave of the real and the virtual. Through technological innovation, human beings continually remake their environment, just as in the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. The metaverse is the new environment created by the Information Revolution, and this new environment in turn reorders the old environment. Blockchain technology lays the foundation for the new order under the metaverse.
Keywords: metaverse; virtual reality; media environment; Information Revolution
Chinese Library Classification: NO31 Document Code: A
The term “metaverse” (Metaverse) became a buzzword in 2021, marked by Facebook’s renaming itself Meta on October 28, 2021. Many Chinese and foreign tech companies eagerly followed suit or hyped it up, folding the “metaverse” into their strategic plans. By early 2022, “metaverse” had even appeared in government work reports in various places across China.〔1〕
But the term “metaverse” has also always been accompanied by fierce controversy. Some people think the metaverse simply does not exist—“entirely fabricated,” “pure hype”; some think the metaverse is a harmful trend—“avoiding the real and pursuing the unreal,” “wasting one’s life on trifles”; some think the metaverse concept is nothing but a repetition of old terms such as cyberspace and virtual reality—“old leftovers served up again,” “new bottle, old wine” …
Even among those who promote the “metaverse,” there are many disagreements. For example, the crypto community generally dismisses the “metaverse” as understood by Zuckerberg; some even believe that the metaverse, like the failed “Libra” (the cryptocurrency system Facebook once tried to develop), is yet another unsuccessful act of plagiarism by Zuckerberg from the crypto community.
In fact, the concept of the “metaverse” has indeed also been popularized in the crypto community. In 2021, the blockchain-based NFT (non-fungible token) market boomed, and projects such as The Sandbox and Decentraland became especially popular by combining NFTs with the “metaverse.” The crypto community usually regards blockchain and the decentralization it provides as important features of the “metaverse,” and thus resents Zuckerberg’s centrally controlled vision of the metaverse.
“Metaverse” is a concept on which opinions differ widely, and there is no standard answer to “what is the metaverse.” But different interpretations reflect different ways of grasping the current technological trend. This article attempts, from the perspective of the history of technology, drawing on the theoretical resources of media-environment studies and the phenomenological philosophy of technology, to present my own views on “what is the metaverse.”
I. The definition of meta—verse
“Metaverse” is the translation of the English Metaverse, and this translation too has been much debated. For example, Zhao Tingyang believes that “the most realistic translation of metaverse can be ‘super-world’”〔2〕28.
Those who argue that the translation “metaverse” is inaccurate have, broadly speaking, only two reasons: first, “meta” is not accurate; second, “verse” is not accurate. For instance, Zhao Tingyang believes that “the original meaning of universe is the world as the unity of all things; since it is unified, it means there can only be one universe.”〔2〕27 Drawing on the concept of “possible worlds,” Zhao Tingyang argues that “world” can be plural. At the same time, Zhao Tingyang points out: “For example, in metalinguistics, metamath, metalogic, metatheorem, and so on, this ‘meta’ refers to a system’s overall capacity for reflexive interpretation of another system, thus becoming a ‘metasystem’ that reflexively interprets another system. If metaverse is a meta-world capable of reflecting on and explaining the real world as a whole, that is an astonishing empowerment indeed.”
In my view, Zhao Tingyang’s position precisely reveals two aspects and two layers of interpretation of the “metaverse”: the metaverse contains the dual features of “meta” and “verse,” and each of these dual features can be interpreted in a weak or a strong sense. The weaker mode of interpretation can indeed be called a “super-world,” whereas the stronger mode comes closer to the literal meaning of “metaverse.”
It is generally believed that the term “metaverse” (Metaverse) comes from a science-fiction novel published in 1992, Snow Crash〔3〕. Because of its predictions about virtual reality, mobile computing, and other technologies, this novel has been much favored by the tech world in recent years. The “metaverse” depicted in Snow Crash is a fully immersive virtual space in which people can enter this world as various virtual images (avatars), escape the chaotic real world, and live and communicate across national and regional boundaries. Similar imaginings also appear later in literary and artistic works such as The Matrix and Ready Player One.
As a literary work, Snow Crash of course does not provide an exact definition, but it sketches the basic features of the “metaverse”: first, immersion, or rather transcendence; second, openness or connectivity.
The structure of “Meta-verse” also reflects these two characteristics. The prefix “Meta-” hints at transcendence: this world stands beyond the real world (rather than being a mere appendage to it or subordinate to it), and people seem to immerse themselves in, or leap into, another dimension. Verse, by contrast, clearly draws on the meaning of universe, a totality that embraces everything. This suggests openness, that is to say, this distinctive “space” is not like a small house—a closed little space in which only one or two people can hide away from reality—but rather an infinitely open huge platform, where everyone, regardless of region or national borders, can connect with one another and enter the same space.
Professor Deng Jianguo of Fudan University, in the 2021–2022 Metaverse Report〔4〕 he wrote for Tencent, also defined the two dimensions of the metaverse with a pair of axes: Hi-Fi and Open. The former means “realism, immersion,” and the latter “openness, collaboration.” Deng Jianguo uses these two dimensions to measure the “metaverse coefficient.” He believes that “the effort to create an imagined world outside the real world has existed since antiquity,” and that from prehistoric cave paintings to writing, drama, novels, and so on, all can be regarded as a certain proportion of “metaverse.”
Both murals and novels provide a way of “transcending” the real world, and both also provide a kind of open platform for connection between people. In this sense, the “metaverse” is indeed nothing new; rather, it reflects existing trends. People believe that if these trends converge and are pushed to the extreme, what is called the “metaverse” will be completed.
Much like the usage of the term “artificial intelligence,” the metaverse in its extreme form has not yet been realized today, but as a trend with a long history, the “metaverse” can also be said to always be in the process of realization. So, as Zhao Tingyang says, if “metaverse” is used to describe the various technological products that have already been realized today, it is obviously an exaggeration; but if “metaverse” describes some specific direction, goal, or trend in technological development, then this exaggerated term may well be fitting.
As Zhao Tingyang says, “meta” refers to “a system’s capacity for reflexive interpretation of another system as a whole.” In fact, more accurately speaking, the prefix “meta-” in English also usually implies a system’s reflexive interpretation of itself as a whole. For example, “meta-A” can be understood as “A about A.” Thus “metalanguage” is the language used to describe language, and “metadata” is data used to describe data. “Metaphysics” studies the principle of principles, the origin of origins. The reason that what is usually translated as “meta” can also be understood as “super” is precisely because we need to enter a transcendent dimension in order to refer back to ourselves; reflexive self-reference always requires entering a kind of “detached” perspective.
In short, “meta” is necessarily “super,” but “super” is not necessarily “meta.” The transcendence of reality implied by the “metaverse” is not to be severed from reality and sealed off in a place unrelated to it; rather, it is to embrace reality, explain reality, and even dominate reality, to “legislate” for reality.
In fact, this kind of thing that transcends reality and yet in turn embraces and explains reality is nothing new. Murals, language, symbols, and so on all provide such a dimension. The imaginative space they open up is not unrelated to reality; people try to use painting and writing to encompass all things in the universe, and even, in turn, to transform and control the real world according to imagination and ideals.
Painting, writing, mathematics, photography, and so on—these technologies can all realize what Zhao Tingyang calls “astonishing empowerment,” that is, as an overall system, to reflect upon or project the entire real world. As the extreme convergence of various technologies, it is hardly surprising that the “metaverse” should carry this astonishing meaning. The question is: on which technologies does the metaverse ultimately depend, and by what means does it realize its overall transcendence and openness?
II. The metaverse is not virtual reality
Many people believe that virtual reality (VR) technology is the core of the “metaverse,” and that the two can even be regarded as synonyms.
If murals, novels, drama, and the like can also all be counted as “virtual reality,” then “virtual reality” and “metaverse” do indeed refer to the same trend. However, today “virtual reality” usually refers to a more specific object: namely, a series of technological products that have already been commercialized, represented by “VR headsets” from brands such as Vive and Oculus. If “virtual reality” refers to these technological products and the direction of their iteration, then conflating it with the concept of the “metaverse” may be misleading.
First, there is the misleading nature of the literal meaning: so-called “virtual reality,” literally speaking, is always measured against “reality”; it is meant to follow, imitate, and approach reality. No matter how “realistic” the “virtual” may be, it can only approach the real, not transcend it. In this sense, “virtual” means exactly the opposite of “meta/super/transcendence.” The “metaverse” emphasizes transcendence of reality; it is no longer about taking reality as the target to be followed, but instead becoming the target that reality follows.
Against the prejudice that “virtual reality” is inferior to “reality,” the philosopher of science Chalmers, in his newly published book Reality+, has put forward a rebuttal. The core claim of the book is: “Virtual realities need not be second-class realities; they can be first-class realities”〔5〕6. Chalmers offers three arguments: first, what is experienced in virtual reality is not false or illusory; it is genuine experience; second, life in virtual reality can be complete and meaningful; third, the so-called real world may itself be a virtual reality at a higher dimension (at least logically, this possibility cannot be ruled out), and therefore if the real world is meaningful, virtual reality is equally meaningful.
In actual technological development, the construction of VR worlds давно no longer aims at imitating reality. In a VR game, players are often able to fly through the sky and burrow through the earth, and the scenes are often bizarre and fantastical.
Second, even if we recognize that “virtual reality” is no worse than “reality,” the technologies related to “virtual reality” can still produce another kind of misunderstanding: namely, treating the core technologies of the “metaverse” as an all-around stimulation of the senses.
The development of VR technology is often imagined as mobilizing all the senses to create immersion, trying to become an “ultimate medium” (ultimate medium)〔6〕. In Deng Jianguo’s report, “immersion” and “realism” are also set side by side.
The prejudice here is that many people think that to sink into, or rise into, a transcendent and independent world, one needs “realistic,” “comprehensive” sensory stimulation.
In fact, that is not necessarily so. For instance, a few sheets of white paper, with some neat, square characters written on them, can already let a person immerse himself in them. When a person reads a novel and becomes immersed in the story, it is not because all of his senses have been mobilized; on the contrary, his ears need to be quiet, his body needs to be still, and his sense of smell and taste need not be mobilized either. When a master plays chess, he is deeply immersed not because the “horse” feels fluffy to the touch or the “cannon” rumbles when it moves; on the contrary, the sensory experience provided by the board and pieces should be as clean and simple as possible.
The comprehensiveness and richness of sensory stimulation do not necessarily bring about immersion; on the contrary, “immersion” often coexists with “focus,” and precisely requires certain sensory experiences to be properly cut off or filtered.
What attracts people into the “metaverse” is less “realism” than “distortion” — it is precisely the difference from reality that constitutes the charm of the “metaverse.” Of course, sensory experience also cannot be completely severed from reality; after all, an environment that is too unfamiliar will also leave people at a loss. But in any case, realistic experiences across all the senses do not attract people into immersion.
At the beginning of Reality+, Chalmers offers an analogy. He says: “In the past few centuries, families have often faced the following choice: ‘Should we immigrate to a new country and start a new life?’ In the centuries to come, we may face a similar choice: ‘Should we transfer our lives to a virtual world?’ As with immigration, the reasonable answer is often yes.”〔5〕4
So what is the motivation that attracts immigrants? When migration takes place between similar living environments, we can measure it with some quantitative indicators. For example, moving from Shanghai to Beijing, from New York to Philadelphia, and so on. But when migration takes place between two utterly different living environments, the standard of measurement may well be “incommensurable.” For example, moving from a rural pastoral setting to a metropolis.
The reason that attracts me to move from Shanghai to Beijing may be that “Beijing is more or less like Shanghai,” but the reason that attracts people to move from the countryside to the city is often not “the city and the countryside are more or less the same.” The sensory experience and way of life of urban living cannot correspond one-to-one with rural life. In many cases, migrant workers who move to the city face more cramped housing, more monotonous scenery, and more exhausting work. People may go to the city for countless reasons, but in any case, the appeal of city life never includes “approaching the countryside.” The appeal of the “metaverse” may have many aspects, especially the pursuit of an open communicative space, but in any case “approaching reality” is certainly the least important one.
Chalmers believes that the appeal of the metaverse depends on the maturity of VR technology, but in my view, even coarse sensations filled with pixel blocks may not necessarily prevent people from entering the metaverse.
Can someone who has long been used to living in a thatched hut adapt to moving into a modern reinforced-concrete apartment? Of course not. Even after getting used to it, it may not be comfortable. Residents in urban slums do not think the environment is beautiful, and even the rich in the city hope to live in pastoral, sun-and-sand kinds of settings. It is not that the urban environment brings good experiences, and therefore people flock to it. On the contrary, first people gather in the city, and only then do they hope to build the city environment into something more comfortable. The metaverse will of course promote the development of VR technology, but the development of VR technology is less a precondition for entering the metaverse than a result of the metaverse’s development.
III. The Metaverse Is a Media Environment
Perhaps some people will object to Chalmers’ and my above analogy, because the countryside and the city, China and the United States — these are all so-called “real” environments. They are material and concrete, whereas the virtual world is an artificial, immaterial environment. How can they be compared?
What is involved here is a dualistic prejudice: so-called “reality” is often equated with the “material world,” while the “virtual world” is taken to be “immaterial,” but this kind of dichotomy is itself dubious. The human lifeworld is always interwoven with what are called the material and the immaterial; for example, banknotes are “material,” but what gives banknotes value is not only the paper as a material carrier.
What is “reality”? “Reality” is not the infinitely transparent world of ideas seen from God’s perspective; “reality” is always human reality, the real living environment of human beings. And real life has always been mixed with so-called “virtual” things. For example, in the morning I attend class and do problems, doing mathematical calculations that include fictitious objects such as infinitely long lines and infinitesimal quantities; I do Chinese reading exercises that include fictional stories such as Yugong moves the mountains and Ye Gong likes dragons; at noon I chat with classmates about everything under the sun, speaking in hypothetical moods about what I would do if I won the lottery; in the afternoon I do research, drawing up blueprints for a machine that has not yet been produced; at night I go online, ordering tomorrow’s food through cyberspace, and then communicating with colleagues all over the world through a virtual conference room… We find that throughout “real life,” the so-called “virtual” elements are interwoven into every link of life. In face-to-face conversation, we talk about virtual things; in virtual settings, we are busy with real affairs. The so-called “reality” and “virtuality” can sometimes be distinguished, but in actual lived experience we cannot draw a sharp boundary, making one side entirely “real” and the other entirely “virtual.”
More importantly, if “reality” refers to this objective material world, then it has never naturally occupied the summit of meaning or value. For example, a “national flag” is meaningful, but as far as “reality” is concerned, it is nothing more than a piece of cloth painted with dye; “banknotes” are valuable, but as far as “reality” is concerned, they are nothing more than a piece of paper printed with patterns. Human beings are after all not animals; human meaning has always been entrusted to some dimension “above reality.”
To understand the “materiality” of the “metaverse,” one cannot rely on physics to prescribe the boundary of “matter,” and one must also clarify the confusion in the everyday concept of “material.” The so-called material world is not a monolith, not a sheet of canvas that can be taken in at a glance from God’s perspective. “Matter” is the base of the world, but it is not flat; it is layered.
Neil Postman uses “substance” as an analogy for “medium”: “The definition of a medium is a substance in a Petri dish, a substance that can make the cultured microorganisms grow. If you replace the word technology for this substance, this definition can become a basic principle of media ecology: a medium is the technology in which culture can grow”〔7〕44. We may also reverse the relation and understand materiality through mediality — the “media environment” that enables a certain kind of growth to occur is a culture’s “materiality.”
For media-ecology scholars, media or technology is an extension of human beings, and also their environment. Human beings do not live in a purely objective material environment, but in an environment continuously shaped by media or technology. McLuhan also said: “Any technology tends to create a new human environment. … Movable type created a new environment, the ‘public.’ ” 〔8〕 In Levinson’s view, “the conflict between spirit and matter has already been resolved in technology.”〔9〕83: Spirit and matter are linked through technology; spirit is externalized into matter through technology, and in this process gains self-confirmation and self-transformation.
It should be noted that such an “environment” is always a “surrounding environment,” not a Cartesian absolute space. For example, the growth environment of microorganisms is “the substance in the Petri dish,” not “outer space.” These “cultivation substances” are enclosed within the “Petri dish,” and the Petri dish is in turn borne by the laboratory bench; the laboratory bench takes the academy of sciences as its environment, and the academy of sciences in turn takes a certain city as its environment… Ultimately, the earth’s atmosphere, as the “environment” of the biosphere, exists within the galaxy and outer space.
The substance carrying substance is still substance, the environment beyond the environment is still environment, reality above reality is still reality — this layered, nested mode is precisely the phenomenon pointed to by the “meta-” in “metaverse.”
Of course, the “metaverse” as a “universe” is unlike a “work environment,” “teaching environment,” or “restaurant environment,” which are scattered embellishments within real life; rather, it tries to build, within the living environment of reality as a whole, a relatively complete and self-sufficient space — a new “Petri dish” in which culture can grow.
So although any technology tends to create new environments, technological innovation on the level of the “metaverse” is not common. But viewed from the whole of human history or technological history, such major transformations have occurred many times — from hunting and gathering to settlement, from gathering to agriculture, from agriculture to industry. In fact, human history from the first cave painting onward is a history of continuously carrying out environmental “matryoshka dolls.”
IV. The Metaverse Is a Product of the Information Revolution
Murals and gardens mark the point at which human beings began consciously shaping their own living environment. Human beings were no longer endlessly wandering in the environment of nature, but gradually building a survival environment for themselves. Sedentary life appeared alongside primitive religious and aesthetic activities, and then came the rise of agriculture. Agriculture was the first circle of “protective film” established between human beings and nature; from then on, human beings no longer dealt directly with the “wild environment,” but with a relatively controllable agricultural environment,
Within this layer of protective film, a new layer appeared — the “city.” Industrial civilization strengthened the city and further reduced the status of agriculture. In the pre-industrial era, although cities were safe and independent, the laws that sustained the entire human world were still based on agriculture. Land and cultivation were the center of all commercial and political systems. But in the industrial era, the industrial world established a new set of laws that in turn governed the operation of the agricultural sphere.
Agriculture still depends on the natural environment, but it tries to make the fickle forces of nature stable and safe. Industry still depends on the sustenance of agriculture, but replaces the seasonal rhythms of agriculture with its own assembly-line regularity and precision. What many people nowadays take such delight in calling the “real world” is no longer that wild jungle world, nor the agrarian life of men plowing and women weaving, but the modern urban life already wrapped in the new environment of industrial technology.
Industry is not imitating agriculture; rather, it has established a new order that controls agriculture in reverse. In a similar sense, if there is still to be an “information revolution,” then this “information world” is not an imitation of urban life in the industrial age, but the establishment of a new world order within a newer, smaller, safer protective film, and in turn influencing the operation of the industrial world.
From the perspective of technological history, it is very easy for us to avoid some simplistic ways of commenting, for example, belittling the significance of the “metaverse” by saying “people always have to eat.” This line of thought can equally be used to look down on the significance of the Industrial Revolution — because people always have to eat, and without agriculture no one could survive, so industry is after all a secondary matter, and the industrial system could never have any independence. But the fact is obviously not so. What the Industrial Revolution overturned was precisely the relationship of status between industry and agriculture; under the new order of the industrial age, the countryside in fact became dependent on the city rather than the other way around.
The information revolution, of course, will not eliminate industry and agriculture; on the contrary, it will ultimately promote their development. But if it truly is a revolution, then we should expect the restructuring of this order and the reversal of status.
Although the trend of the information revolution has long since emerged, the fact that the metaverse only began to heat up last year is no accident. Because every revolution ultimately requires a major transfer of wealth and power. Capitalists and industrialists must first master wealth, then control power, and only then can they overturn the old order controlled by monarchs and landlords. If power is still measured by land rather than capital, then industrialists will never be able to overturn the power of landlords. Correspondingly, the information revolution also ultimately needs to establish a measure of wealth and power that can be controlled by the forces within the new protective film. And with blockchain technology (from Bitcoin to NFTs), this new order has finally found a substrate to which it can adhere.
Virtual currencies supported by blockchain make it possible for people to establish a benchmark for measuring wealth within the metaverse, while NFTs make it possible for people to establish an independent “identity” in the metaverse.
The most revolutionary—and at the same time the most headache-inducing for managers—feature brought by blockchain technology is that it is difficult to control. If a virtual identity holds some virtual currency, under whose jurisdiction does it fall? For example, if my money is deposited in the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, then the bank can control my money; if my money is deposited in Alipay, then Alibaba can control my money. But if my money is on the blockchain, then no company or country can control it, or at least one could say that all countries have equal control over this money. Of course, if I want to exchange digital assets for traditional currency, then I will of course be subject to control; this is just like when a navigator in the Age of Geographic Discovery brings treasures obtained in the New World back to the homeland, and can then at any time come under the jurisdiction of the homeland. What we are saying now is that, insofar as this new space or “New World” is concerned, it has indeed broken away from the traditional sphere of jurisdiction. Second, it is generating a great deal of wealth, wealth that not only spills over into the old world, but crucially can form a circulation within the new world. And where it becomes connected to the old world, of course it is easy to control; but the circulation of wealth within the new world is difficult to control.
The disorder and chaos of the blockchain industry is temporary. It is not that order cannot be established there, but rather that it is difficult to fit it into the old order. For example, if people wanted to manage a city-state in the manner of a hunting tribe, or manage factories and capitalists in the manner of landlords and feudal lords, it would be hard to avoid losing control and becoming disconnected. Like the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, the information revolution is shaping an independent new environment—the metaverse. This new environment is nurturing a new order and, in turn, renewing the order of the old world.
References
〔1〕Hu Yu. “Racing Ahead to Lay Out the ‘Metaverse’ Has Been Written into Government Work Reports in Many Places” [N]. China Securities Journal, January 15, 2022 (A02)
〔2〕Zhao Tingyang. “If the Metaverse Became an Ontological Event” [J]. Jianghai Academic Journal, 2022(1):27-37.
〔3〕[US] Stephenson. Snow Crash [M]. Translated by Guo Ze. Chengdu: Sichuan Science and Technology Press, 2009.
〔4〕Deng Jianguo, Liu Bo. 2021-2022 Metaverse Report EB/OL]. (Accessed January 13, 2022 / March 17, 2022).https://view.inews.qq.com/a/TEC2022011200674900 .
〔5〕Chalmers, D. Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy[M]. New York, NY : W. W. Norton & Company, 2022.
〔6〕Biocca, F. & Levy, M. R.. Communication in the age of virtual reality[M].Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1995.
〔7〕[US] Postman. “The Humanistic Concern of Media Ecology” [C]//Lin Wengang, ed. Media Ecology: Intellectual Development and Multidimensional Perspectives. Translated by He Daokuan. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2007.
〔8〕McLuhan, M. The Gutenberg Galaxy: the making of typographic man[M]，Toronto:University of Toronto Press, 1962.
〔9〕[US] Levinson. The Unbound Mind [M]. Translated by He Daokuan. Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2007.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply