Hello, are in my matrix--virtual and realistic myth

The day before yesterday received a bitter wait for a long time Oculus Rift DK2, feel like countless times the impulse to unpack new toys, went to the developer platform, put a high score of all applications play again.

I spent the last one hours in a program called Penthouse. To be exact, it was on a summer afternoon, walking back and forth in a wooden hut in Austria somewhere. If you stare at any object in the room for more than 10 seconds, you will feel special fake-no anti-aliasing, Polygon plus resolution the poor display will make you sick. However, if the whole house--or even the house itself--is such a poor model, especially if you start to accept that if your eye resolution is only 960 * 1080, you might even feel like you should "go" and enjoy the music for a while. Just now, I took off the one-hour Oculus and returned to the real world.

If there is only one way in front of us, if we are to go, then we will resolutely stride forward, and now the problem is, the road before us, there are two.

In fact, the appearance of Oculus and Google Glass just represents the next technology era of two games-whether to give up (abandon) our body, embrace the pure virtual world, or continue to strengthen (enhance) our bodies, to transform the existing world? Turn yourself into Iron Man, and think of yourself as Iron Man, which one would you choose?

I am not in a hurry to jump to conclusions, but to leave all thinking to these two questions:

is existence objective? Can real and virtual boundaries be defined? In other words, Plain said: Is there anything real? Fake things simulation really, really to what extent do you take it seriously?

My current thinking:

If we do not deviate from our physical limitations, then our understanding of the world is through our facial features, which are not very good in the biological general category, that is, the eye-ear nose and mouth. The resulting visual, auditory, taste, smell, and touch are the channels (sensor) for receiving information, transforming external information into neurons and uploading them to the brain (server) for processing. The brain is more likely to have the same instinct (boot load) or whether there is a history log. If the instinct conditions, it will trigger a conditioned reflex, such as touch fire to stop hand. If you conform to history (log), you will automatically request an memory archive (experience) response strategy. If the relevant history is not found, the learning mechanism (learn) is enabled. It can be said that, from the cognitive level, the world consists of three parts: biological instincts, experience (including book experience) and learning.

I throw two questions for you to think about.

First: "Symphony V in C minor" (Destiny Symphony) exists/existed? If so, where is it now?

Second: We three people think a dish is very delicious, I think the delicious, and they think the delicious, is the same kind of/the same degree of delicious?

As we all know, "Symphony Five in C minor" is one of Beethoven's most famous works, the Symphony of Destiny. I believe you can say without hesitation, I know, I have heard. However, should it be "heard"? From the physical point of view, the real "C minor Symphony Five" should be a few pieces of paper, that is, the final version of the music. However, we all know that the purpose of the music is to play out, with the ear to enjoy, and this process, as the "Symphony V in C minor," The objective of its own concept has been carried out on the sensory transfer and substitution. It is difficult to judge the process of Beethoven's creation of this symphony, is to start writing score pen, or at random on the piano to try a melody (of course, he was completely deaf, he said he bit the metal stick to the box through the bone conduction hearing, but too unreliable), or the mind of the simulation of the melody. In fact, these three different ways to produce the "Symphony Five in C minor", is three different objective! (not even in existence, as in the third in the mind of the simulation). It can be said that if you answer: "Symphony V in C minor", is a symphony/Symphony/music, then from the real objective dimension, it is wrong! Even I can have this arbitrary inference: for music, there is no objective existence. Because the only objective (score) is not acquired by hearing, and the sound of the spectrum is not played either by playing the spectrum or by any medium, but by the objective existence of the auditory expression. For audio, under different environmental conditions, the band is always not exactly the same, that is to say, only the old boy in the studio through his voice, without a microphone or effect device or recorder, do not repeat, there is no later the lyrics of those who sing the voice of the first time the "small apple" is the existence of this song. Each of us heard, by any means played the "Little Apple", is not "small apple", but the "small apple" virtual reality. So don't think we're listening to the same song, amplification tens of thousands of times times without any audio band is exactly the same. The reason why we think these songs are small apples is simply because our ears ' resolution is not high enough. When we first listened to "The Little Apple", our brain initiates a learning mechanism that records the melody and Melody of the song (log), but because our senses (sensor) are limited in sensitivity, we can only blur the ambiguity of a brain capable of distinguishing the resolution of any other song, The Rough " When we listen for the second time, the brain initiates an empirical mechanism, as long as the band is still a true subset of the historical record (history log) "Set", we will force this to be the "little Apple". And say, "I've heard it!" "But did you really hear the little Apple?" Does "Little Apple" still exist? Has "little Apple" ever existed?

The second question, or leave it to everyone to think about it!

I remember writing an essay in high school, which probably means:

Assuming that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct (in fact many people are beginning to refute it), then there is an obvious trend in human evolution: the Physical degeneration (or "degenerate evolution"), the brain evolves. For example, now that we do not need so much body hair, our muscles are not as big as before, the stomach can not digest raw meat. And we have a lot more brain capacity than Yuanmou. It can be imagined that if a Yuanmou person out of a long trip, ask him every few days, dude, that land son what kind of time, perhaps because of the limits of brain capacity, he can not describe the precise. But at the moment I'm sitting in the Silicon Valley house, you ask me what the bell tower looks like, and I can almost redraw the whole area. If you agree with this trend, then we try to lengthen the time long and long enough. The following inference follows:

Will one day, when we want to go from the United States to Xi ' an, because our brain is very developed, can simulate the whole city of Xian Street a scene, one thing, so close your eyes, body is not moving, heart is far-I will feel already to Xi ' an! When we are hungry, are we sufficiently developed to "think" of a banquet, enjoy it slowly, and then "convince ourselves" that we are full? I just had a good taste of the roast duck, which I think is possible.

If all these things happen, then unfortunately, humans will be extinct, because-we will create a world with great brainpower, and each person will create a world of their own. For those groupies, the eyes closed, trying to think, your idol is around you. Isn't it nice to think about it? But unfortunately, my "world" in Andy Lau, and your "world" of Andy Lau, and Andy Lau, is three unrelated existence! Simply put, everyone fled the present world, created their own world, and the world between you and me there is no objective intersection, also disagree (or even the need to identify). The most important social attributes of mankind have been completely fragmented, ending as the matrix has become to the individual in the nutrient solution.

See so much, whether have forgotten that we have set a condition manually, that is to pull the time long long enough? Okay, so here's the question, see:

How can we judge you and me now (at this moment) that you and I are real, or that someone who has developed to that stage has created you and me?

At the end of the essay, I thought I understood why so many great scientists went to study theology in their later years. Because of all the religions in the world, no matter who the Lord God is, in the framework of the world view, is "creationism", that is, a particularly great "human" (God) created the whole world, essentially, the answer to the above question, the side reflects the unity of religion, philosophy and science ternary.

You might say it's too early to find out. But I want to say, when you enjoy an hour symphony in a Oculus in an Austrian cabin, and then pick it up, back to the waste paper, rubbish, the so-called "reality", which is piled up in a pile of coke, You'll think about where you choose to live. It doesn't matter where you live, it's the truth that counts. But what is real? Where is the boundary between real and virtual? Oculus Rift will launch a consumer version next year. Is it too early for that?

Red pill, you are in the Matrix.

Blue pill, Hell you e.g. in the Matrix.

Welcome to the real world.