Man, myth and metaverse

[ad_1]
Although Mark Zuckerberg Speaking for 87 minutes last month about the virtues of world-changing metaberse, he came to a note that appeared before he started talking about the most true and telling moment of his Connect 2021 keys. “Actual results may differ significantly from those stated or implied in our future statements,” it reads. “We do not undertake to review or publicly publish the results of the revisions to these future statements.”
The fine print was no excuse for anyone who was unable to distinguish between design fiction and product presentations under the pretext of responsibility (sorry to everyone who was dusting the chessboard, to everyone who was preparing to play with a holographic opponent). It was also a warning of the intentions claimed by Zuckerberg during his presentation on Facebook, today Meta,. He suggested that Meta be a teammate, bent on the language of openness and interoperability; that he would be his company a metabertso company, merging with previous Facebook. But the actual results, the note reminds us, may be different. Similarly, while Zuckerberg described the metaverse as a “next platform” in a neat lineage from the desktop computer to the mobile network, we should be concerned that the metaverse he wants is his “last platform”. Zuckerberg has the power of the metaverse narrative as a pinnacle of information technology because it reinforces a greater myth of progress; a myth that stretches back to the 19th century and shapes Silicon Valley’s self-understanding. This is also a myth of domination, elimination and violence. Ironically, the conceptualization of the metaverse as the ultimate platform suddenly ends the myth of progress, so powerful because of its open ending. Inadvertently, Zuckerberg has allowed both critics and fans to create new narratives.
VR, and the metaverse that it enables today, has been portrayed as the ultimate or ultimate destination in the evolution of computing. It was first predicted in 1965 that Ivan Sutherland, an avant-garde computer scientist, depicted what he called “The Ultimate Display” in a short but memorable article. It was “a mirror for the admirable mathematical erlandism” that cultivated all the senses of the body. Users who pass through this mirror “would be immersed in a room where the computer can control the existence of matter. It would be enough to sit in a chair shown in a room like this … a bullet shown in that room would be deadly. ”By 1968, Sutherland had built the Sword of Damocles, a giant screen mounted on the head by many, many being the first prototype of VR.
A few decades later, at a 2015 TED conference Within VR’s founder, Chris Milk, echoed VR’s “last” when myths described VR as the “ultimate empathy machine,” capable of making the West rich to feel deeper for those with fewer advantages. In one blog post a year later, Milk called VR the “ultimate medium” because it removes the external frame (limited screen) and moves the mediation experience within us – the “embodied internet,” as Zuck describes in his speech. It’s a VR platform, Milk wrote, “to share our inner self, our humanity itself”. In October 2021, Meta announced that it had purchased Within, not because of its VR humanitarian experience, but because of the popular pandemic fitness application Supernatural.
Inside is the latest conquest of Facebook to believe in the “ultimate” level of VR. Facebook acquired Oculus in 2014 for $ 2 billion 2015 Time superficial story About Palmer Luckey Oculus founder, Neal Stephenson described as lovable Snow Accident, A novel that creates a “metaverse”. However, according to Luckey, a book is inherently limited in the “stimulus it provides”. VR, on the other hand, is the “ultimate platform,” as its sensory experiences will one day be unlimited.
[ad_2]
Source link