What if we invented boundless virtual augmented reality?

[WestAir]

Imagine if you could wake up, and enter a world of your own design. You could completely simulate any world - any universe - with 100% accuracy. The world you create is entirely indistinguishable from reality; smells, touch, everything. Now imagine this augmented virtual reality directly interfaces with your neural network so that there is no "edge" or "boundary" because the entire world is "in your head." Let's also pretend that the technology allows nearly instantaneous processing of introduced stimuli and thought. For example, if the speed of thought could be increased a million-fold, a subjective year would pass in 30 physical seconds.

Essentially we've imagined a technology that allows us to:

1.] Live out our most impressive dreams - our greatest desires - in a manner indistinguishable from reality.

2.] Allows us to simulate, manipulate, and dissect an infinite amount of what-ifs, worlds, and situations on the fly like a dream - with no further infrastructure or design necessary.

3.] Do the above at a speed so impressive it makes reality a lesser source of happiness.

What effect would such an augmented reality have on the future of mankind? If a man could live a hundred years in his version of heaven, or rule the world and millions like it, or bring back the joys of his childhood - why would he ever willingly chose to return to a cruel and less impressive reality? Would reality become mute in the wake of such a technology?

....Would you use it? To what extent? What would you simulate - and when would you stop, if ever?

[KOCOUR]

Humanyty would die out as nobody would have motivation to do anything. People would be isolated in theyr "dreamworlds" So no work, no industry, no governments, no science, no prpgres. End of humanity.

[Thaniel]

Humanyty would die out as nobody would have motivation to do anything. People would be isolated in theyr "dreamworlds" So no work, no industry, no governments, no science, no prpgres. End of humanity.

No, because such a "system", asuming that at the very least some kind of surgery is needed, at the most, it´s actualy equipment connected to the body, would not only have to be produced in the billions, and some kind of servicing would allways be needed. Or else it would fall into disrepair, and grind to a halt after a few years. The logistics for this to be a species killer would be insane. For all practical reasons, it would only be an option, and when considering the possible result of people not wanting to go back, it would most likely be outlawed and forbidden, on basis that it would possibly affect national/global economy.

[Winter Man]

I'd probably end up killing myself, Mal from Inception style.

[Moon Goddess]

Lets just say I hope this is out of my reach, cuz it would be very bad for me.

Full on Holodeck Addiction

Edited August 29, 2013 by Moon Goddess

[Psycix]

Live a year in my mind in 24 hours? I'd get rich from developing software in my dreams.

[WestAir]

No, because such a "system", asuming that at the very least some kind of surgery is needed, at the most, it´s actualy equipment connected to the body, would not only have to be produced in the billions, and some kind of servicing would allways be needed. Or else it would fall into disrepair, and grind to a halt after a few years. The logistics for this to be a species killer would be insane. For all practical reasons, it would only be an option, and when considering the possible result of people not wanting to go back, it would most likely be outlawed and forbidden, on basis that it would possibly affect national/global economy.

Well, maybe at first. But remember, 40 years ago a calculator needed an entire room to build. You needed massive infrastructure, round-clock teams of PHD skilled professionals. Now a days a 2 year old can play with a calculator the size of a watch.

The very same can be said for certain medical advances. Brain surgery was so complex when it first started there were literally a dozen professionals in Europe even capable of successfully removing a bullet from your skull without killing you. The fact is, as technology is built, it becomes easier to repeat and mastermind. If that technology is very eagerly wanted, sought out, or beneficial - its creation skyrockets into mainstream. In the early 90's the idea of having a touch screen cell phone that can play 3d games was so farfetched you'd laugh it off. You'd tell me it would cost $100,000+ and only be for the super rich. Now, not so much.

[magnemoe]

Well, maybe at first. But remember, 40 years ago a calculator needed an entire room to build. You needed massive infrastructure, round-clock teams of PHD skilled professionals. Now a days a 2 year old can play with a calculator the size of a watch.

The very same can be said for certain medical advances. Brain surgery was so complex when it first started there were literally a dozen professionals in Europe even capable of successfully removing a bullet from your skull without killing you. The fact is, as technology is built, it becomes easier to repeat and mastermind. If that technology is very eagerly wanted, sought out, or beneficial - its creation skyrockets into mainstream. In the early 90's the idea of having a touch screen cell phone that can play 3d games was so farfetched you'd laugh it off. You'd tell me it would cost $100,000+ and only be for the super rich. Now, not so much.

Yes electronic is usually pretty cheap, electronic only for the rich don't exits with the exception of overpriced luxury products with good design materials and the first items produced, first 80" tv vas very expensive, the next year the price was reasonable.

Unit price is low but the development and startup costs are high so they don't make sense outside an mass marked.

The other option is very expensive stuff for industrial and military use but here the price is high as its an small marked who is willing to pay anything.

An brain interface will have lots of other uses, its plenty of work with it.

I wonder if this part of the answer to the Drake equation.

Not necessarily that the civilizations necessarily end but that very few has any other interests outside of the VR.

[lajoswinkler]

Technological problems aside, this would probably mean and end to humanity as we know it. As KOCOUR said, nobody would want to do anything anymore, and why would they? You could spend your entire life in neverending happiness.

Fringe groups could form, advocating for the real life, denying to live in a simulation. Some of them would work on destroying the system. Many, many problems would arise. Psychological, sociological, not to mention physiological. It would essentially destroy the civilization because it depends on interactions and transfer of matter and information. That's not only part of our society, but also part of our species.

But all these problems also prevent us from ever reaching such state.

What could happen is voluntary living in a simulated society, either entirely in the form of a program (similar to Matrix) or something like Surrogates. In both scenarios people are still connected together.

People don't function alone because the need for society is embedded in our genome.

There was this episode of Start Trek, IIRC, where some problematic species were stored in huge memory bank, never actually knowing what happened. It's claustrophobic and relieving at the same time. All your life and everyone else's, and everything you are and know, all that is stored in a device. You've got incredible freedom and safety, yet you're in a small device on someone's desk. Such thoughts make me pretty uncomfortable.