Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy

Are you familiar with books like "The Science of Star Trek," "The Philosophy of Tolkien," and "The Science of Dune"?All of those are real books. They're generally lowbrow or middlebrow attempts to capitalize on a pop culture property, and they're usually pretty superficial.This book, "Reality+," should have been one of those. They should have called it "The Philosophy of the Matrix." Like many other books of this sort, it's a superficial and lowbrow piece of work.To begin with, the author assumes that you know nothing -- and I mean NOTHING -- of philosophy. I'm not exaggerating. He condescends to explain everything to you as though you were a mere toddler -- including hackneyed and much-repeated thought experiments like Plato's Cave and Zhuangzi's dream of the butterfly. This almost insultingly condescending approach is inexcusable; it's a terrible waste of the reader's time and patience.Another problem is that the author repeatedly references modern pop culture properties, to illustrate his points, or perhaps to borrow points from those other works. This really comes across as lame and childish, as are the really infantile illustrations the book contains. They all add to the impression that the author thinks you're a simpleton.An even more glaring problem is the book's lack of insight and original concepts. It reads, at times, like an oral history or a legal ruling! Here's a representative chapter, somewhat simplified:"[Greek Philosopher] said [A]. [Medieval Monk] said [B]. [Early Modern Philosopher] then said [C]. [Early Modern Philosopher 2] also said [C]. [Modern Philosopher] disagrees, said [D]. [Science Fiction Author] posited [E]. I think that the right answer to this particular philosophical problem is [C], and here's a very short paragraph to explain why. Also, in the TV show Black Mirror... And in The Matrix...."I get that Chalmers isn't exactly blazing his own trail here, that he's (a) writing about the oldest problems of metaphysics and (b) piggybacking onto a discussion that has been very active over these past 40 years, but still. It would be nice to see some insight, some rigor, some depth and complexity. We get, instead, thin gruel; easily 80% of the book is a recitation of precedent.This might actually a decent book if you're home-schooling a 10 year old and want to give your kid an introduction to very basic philosophical concepts. (And you can watch The Matrix with them afterwards, hah.) This book's peculiar brand of hand-holding, cartoons, and pop-culture references might make sense in that context. But in every other context, it's laughably bad. I refuse to believe that it was written for an adult audience.

Brilliantly conceived and elegantly executed, David Chalmer’s Reality + is a thought-provoking, mind-expanding adventure. Exploring many profound questions about the nature of reality, in the context of virtual reality innovations, and illustrating his provocative ideas with many intriguing cultural references and clever illustrations, Chalmers’ bold philosophical reflections and imaginative thought experiments will leave you wondering what is really real, what is simulation, and what’s the difference.

Unlike Jake G (Philosophy of the Matrix) I have great respect and admiration for David Chalmers. And like him, I find “the hard problem” of philosophy fascinating. (Actually, I would say “hard problems” because it includes many interrelated questions). Chalmers does use many references to movies and includes “cartoons” to illustrate some points. Perhaps this is an effort to make philosophy more accessible to people who do not want to slog through lengthy and complex arguments. What is wrong with that?One problem I had with this book is how qualified much of it is. Words like “may” and “could” are so common that the entire book strikes me as highly speculative. This was particularly evident in his discussion of the “it-from-bit” and the “simulation” hypotheses. Maybe one purpose of this book was to throw out a ton of ideas that others could follow-up with more careful analysis.One of Chalmers’ major theses is that we are very likely living in a simulation. Here he is referring to an advanced form of a traditional simulation created from software (probably including AI) running on an advanced computer system. Well, maybe/maybe not. But I am absolutely convinced that our experiences and subjective view of the world is a simulation that arises from our brain. Staying for the moment within our current level of reality where it makes sense to talk about “internal” and “external” all of our perceptions and knowledge of the external world are from our perspective as sapiens. Our perceptions and knowledge are limited by our biology, our senses, our neurology, and most of all our brain. These perceptions and knowledge are undoubtedly very different from that of bats, but who is to say that our view is better or more accurate? In a world where “internal” can be separated from “external” we can not know things in themselves in the external world. We must remain completely agnostic regarding external “reality”. What we perceive and know about the external world is experienced as a simulation. Even science does not get us to external reality. The scientific method is designed for specific purposes, primarily to explain data/observations and make accurate predictions, and it serves those purposes extremely well. But that is not a compelling claim that our scientific models are the same as capital R reality. Our scientific models are just that, models. So, yes, we actually live in a simulation not all that different from Chalmers’ vision of super AI software made of bits and running on a super-duper computer.I think most people interested in philosophical issues related to simulations will find this book worth reading. It may lead to more questions than answers, but maybe that was Chalmers’ intent.

It does not matter what particular subject matter you prefer to read - this book touches on all of it. The author explains reality, and everything that comes along with it, in a very easily-read manner. You'll finish the book questioning everything.

I could not finish this book50 pages (and not 500) would have been sufficientInstead we are bombarded with circular ramblings caught in a pseudo infinite loopThe idea that we are nothing but a simulation is utterly preposterousDo not waste your money with this

In truth I read very little of the book. Lots of talk little insight.

Book came damaged (see picture) but this says nothing of Chalmers' work.I haven't read all the book yet, but what I've read so far is great. Chalmers is adept at making hard-to-grasp ideas nicely palatable, even for the layman.There are also wonderful illustrations and pop-culture references throughout. I never thought a serious philosophy book would talk about Descartes and Fortnite within a page, but here we are.Tl;Dr, buy the book if you are even slightly interested but go elsewhere.

Challenging at times as philosophy is not my bread and butter but interesting to have such discussions. Reality is in the brain/simulator of the beholder/simulating generating machine.

Didn’t appeal to me