Old Version v0.1 Virtual Time Communication - Aim for Smooth Subjective Sharing in Subjective Reality

New Version: Polymorphic Reality - Towards a Smoothly Connected Subjective Metaverse

• TL;DR:

  • Human Communication can be understood as a partial sharing and collaborative editing of subjective reality.

    • Various forms of communication, such as face-to-face conversations, letters, chats, Slack, Zoom, Nico Nico Douga, Google Docs, VRChat, Cluster, etc., can be understood within this framework.

  • There are various elements of shared reality.

    • Sensations, perceptions, cognition, and other layers of elements can exist.
    • Concrete examples include:
      • Face-to-face conversations:
        • Sharing the surrounding space.
        • Collaborative editing of the space by overlapping voices or using body movements.
        • Recognizing the space from sensory data, such as vision, and sharing it.
      • Movie theaters:
        • Shutting out visual and auditory information other than the movie and sharing the visual and auditory experience with everyone.
        • Unless someone suddenly shouts in the theater, collaborative editing of the shared reality cannot be done.
      • Slack:
        • Sharing a reality called a channel and collaborating by writing messages there.
      • Google Docs:
        • Sharing the reality of a document page and collaborating on it.

  • I think this Subjective Perception of Reality is similar to the concept of Phenomenology.

    • In the context of Phenomenology/Phenomenological Sociology, it can be referred to as the inter-subjectivity of reality.

  • The way communication is mediated by computers has been developing.

    • Email, Slack, Zoom, Metaverse, VRChat, Cluster, etc.
    • Through Window Technology, various information can be exchanged.

  • In other words, the engineering of “the way of communication = the way of sharing reality” has become easier.

  • This raises the question of “what kind of communication should we aim for?”

    • It can also be rephrased as “what kind of subjective reality sharing should we aim for?”

  • One possible direction is to increase the “degree of reality sharing.”

    • Creating a metaverse that is indistinguishable from reality by creating the ultimate VR device, for example.

  • However, I want to say that this is a narrow-minded view trapped in the traditional concept of “objective reality.”

  • We should aim not only to increase the degree of reality sharing but also to have more control over the degree.

    • i.e., We should pursue not only means to increase the degree of reality sharing but also means to decrease it.
      • Each element should be able to increase or decrease the degree of sharing.
    • We should move away from the binary thinking of either completely sharing or not sharing at all and instead view it as a more continuous spectrum.
      • 
        • In the past, the world was like the one on the left, a binary world of either “completely shared” or “not shared at all.”
        • What I want to express on this page is a worldview like the one on the right.

  • I want to call this “smooth sharing of subjective reality.”

    • Inspired by Smooth Society and Its Enemies.

  • 🍛 Smooth sharing of “dining experience”

    • Situation:
      • Suppose there is a “metaverse where you can eat.”
      • A wants to eat pizza, but B wants Chinese food.
      • A and B want to go out for a meal together.
    • In this case:
      • If it appears to A that they are “sharing pizza together” and to B that they are “sharing Chinese food together,” both of them will be happy.
      • They are not sharing the element of “what they are eating” in reality.
      • However, they are sharing the experience of “sharing a meal together”!

  • 💬 Smooth sharing of “conversation content”

    • Situation:
      • Suppose two people are having a conversation.
      • A tends to use the adjective X frequently, but B is not comfortable with that expression.
    • In this case:
      • If A can filter or replace the word X before it reaches B, both of them will be happy.
      • I think it is possible to implement such a feature in chat or Zoom.- Smooth sharing of “space”

  • Here, “space” refers to the concept of space in human perception (including virtual spaces like Virtual Reality and platforms like Zoom and spatial.chat).

  • Smooth sharing of “space” is similar to the concept of Mixed Reality (MR).

  • The following diagram of “MR” represents the smooth sharing between “virtual space” and “physical space”:

    • 

  • This idea can be extended to the smooth sharing between “virtual space A” and “virtual space B”.

    • For example, in a VR experience, both people can see each other’s bodies, but each person can see the background scenery they want to see.

• Smooth sharing of “time”

  • It becomes more complex, but this specific example is currently my favorite (blu3mo)(blu3mo)(blu3mo)
    • The title “Communication of Virtual Time” mentioned above refers to the binary concept of most current communication: “synchronous = completely shared time” and “asynchronous = no shared time”.
    • I believe there is a continuous spectrum between these two extremes that can be explored.
  • Related pages on Pseudo-Synchronization, Elastic Synchronization, and Delusion of a Virtual Timeline can be found on the page Exploration of Virtual Time (blu3mo)(blu3mo)(blu3mo).
  • One specific application I am considering is ParallelTalk, which is described in Proposal for Non-Turn-Based Communication with Voice.

• Q. Is this a “dystopia”?

  • A. It depends on the definition, but I personally think a world where smooth sharing is possible is better than a world where it is not possible.
    • (Based on the belief that Having Many Options is Justice)
    • In a world with low freedom of control over the degree of “reality sharing”:
      • There are only two choices: strongly share everything or not share anything at all.
      • This results in the so-called Filter Bubble Phenomenon.
    • In a world with high freedom of control over the degree of “reality sharing”:
      • It is possible to smoothly control the degree of sharing and only share the parts that one wants to share.
      • I believe this leads to a world where people can connect with each other more easily.
        • As a result, connections between people may increase, although that is not the main objective.
  • If we are discussing Ethics, it may be better to talk about it in a more specific context.

That’s the abstract, but it became too long. §

---

The following is the main text. §

(Being written as of January 22, 2023) §

0. About the model of communication §

• There is a model that views communication as the transmission of signals between people.
  • Communication Theory
• When people live in the same world and share signals on that basis,
• However, this model assumes an objective reality.
• I want to capture the subjective experience that is shared during communication, based solely on subjectivity.
  • (This operation is called Transcendental Reduction in Phenomenology).
  • From this perspective, communication can be seen as the co-editing of subjective realities during that shared experience.
• The “reality” that is shared can take various forms of experiences.
  • There can be sharing of elements from various layers such as sensation, perception, and cognition.
  • Concrete examples include:
    • Face-to-face conversation
      • Sharing the space around oneself.
      • Co-editing that space by overlaying voices and using one’s body to edit “that” space.
        • Recognizing the space from sensory data like vision and sharing it.
    • Slack
      • Sharing the reality of a channel and co-editing it by writing messages there.
    • Google Docs
      • Sharing the reality of a document page and co-editing it.
  • Related: Window Technology
• In the context of Phenomenology/Phenomenological Sociology, this is a reality with Inter-subjectivity.

Communication media are evolving through computers.- Computers have evolved as interfaces through which humans interact with reality. §

- Considering the evolution from telephones to online meetings like Zoom to concepts like the Metaverse, computers are evolving towards a direction where reality is shared more completely.

• For example, in the layers of sensation and perception, there are concrete examples such as:
  • Input devices:
    • Keyboard -> GUI mouse -> Full tracking
  • Output devices:
    • Visual: Black and white TV -> Display -> VRHMD
    • Auditory: Speaker -> Earphones/Headphones -> Wireless with noise cancellation
• Similarly, the same can be said for more abstract layers.
  • Humans are interacting with the world through software on computers.
  • Examples include Zoom, Twitter, Slack, online news, etc.
• These are what is known as Computer Mediated Communication.

The ideal form of “good” communication is not complete reality sharing, but rather “loose reality sharing”. §

• “Complete reality sharing”: A state where reality is shared 100%.
  • For example, if a “metaverse” is created that is indistinguishable from traditional reality, it can be said to completely share reality.
• However,
• “Loose reality sharing”
  • 10
• It can also be seen as the process of increasing the abstraction level of the “shared reality”.

Concrete Example 1: Partial language sharing through language abstraction and machine translation. §

• For example, automatic translation in Zoom Webinars.
  • Although the actual audio reality is not shared, the meaning of words is shared at a more abstract level.

Concrete Example 2: Partial time sharing through time abstraction and virtual time experiences. §

• “Time” can also be seen as part of the elements of experience.

• There are two elements:

  • Where it is positioned in physical time.
    • (Assuming there is no relativity in physics)
    • This is the element of synchronicity.
  • The temporal order and duration of the experience.

• WIP

• => Proposal for Non-Turn-Based Communication with Voice

• Git vs Google Docs