3D Virtual Worlds and the Metaverse:

Current Status and Future Possibilities | #SecondLife

 

On December 1st, 2011 there arrived in my email quite astounding news from Dr. Dionisio and Dr. Gilbert that the Association for Computing Machinery had not only accepted our research paper 3D Virtual Worlds and the Metaverse: Current Status and Future Possibilities for publication in their next  journal, but that the reviewers had given the best praise of the paper that the editors had ever seen. As I read through the critiques from each reviewer, I was humbled by their responses.

 

As Dr. Gilbert succinctly put it:

 

After my recent return from the European Summit of the Immersive Education Initiative (I'm still jet lagged as you can see from the early hour I'm writing this!), Dondi sent me the news that ACM Computing Surveys had accepted our paper with relatively minor revisions.  Even more significantly, the impressions of the editors and individual reviewers of the paper were outstanding with all the reviewers suggesting that the work be considered for a best paper award, the main reviewer viewing the work as a  "seminal" contribution to the field, and the Associate Editor calling the first round reviews the best he's ever seen! 

 

What I've also learned is that ACM Computing Surveys is one of the most cited and respected journals in the field of computer science (I had no idea that Dondi had decided to reach so high in submitting the paper). To get accepted into this journal, especially with such high praise, is a great honor and once the article is published our work will be widely read and could have a real impact on the field.  After we submit the revisions in the next few weeks you can crank up all your social media expertise and begin to distribute the article as "in press." 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s definitely an honor, and quite humbling to receive that caliber of review from not one but four independent sources across the industry. My understanding of the process was that we should have expected multiple rounds of revisions before being considered for publication, so having it accepted immediately after the first round of peer review is astounding.

 

In the words of the Associate Editor at ACM:

 

These actually are the most positive first-round reviews of a journal article I have seen. If you revise this and include a document that explains how you did, and did not, address comments, I will not need to send this out for further review if it looks satisfactory to me.

 

Let’s put aside the banner waving for a moment, because despite how groundbreaking this all is, it is only a prelude to a bigger picture concerning the Metaverse as I usually provide in articles like this.

 

The Down Low

 

There is a lot of subject matter covered in the paper for ACM Journal, but the title says it all: Current Status and Future Possibilities.

 

Essentially, what we wrote was a comprehensive survey paper looking into the various areas of virtual environments, or immersive environments as some refer to it, and addressed the fundamental challenges and technologies that can further the progress. There is also discussion in the paper concerning what areas are deficient and in need of further research initiative in hopes that those areas will be focused on by some of the countless people reading and citing the paper.

 

Literary influences that led up to the current state of affairs are also outlined, in order to give a proper history of the subject while framing the further understandings as the paper continued on. As one reviewer put it, we presented the most comprehensive paper on the subject that we could short of writing an entire book about the subject.

 

As the message from Dr. Gilbert suggests, I will be making the entire paper available as a PDF when it is sent off to ACM for publication. While there are a lot of topics covered in the paper,  I’ll only be addressing one of them here in this blog.

 

The Take-Away

 

One of the biggest things that can be taken from the paper concerning the future direction of the Metaverse (in my opinion) is the implicit understanding that centralized networking is our Achilles Heel. It always has been, even before we really got into the hardcore 3D Immersive Environments like we see today. All the way back to Lessons from Habitat in 1991, Bandwidth being a scarce resource has always been a concern in something like this, and centralized networking was pegged as a culprit.

 

Yes, we can alleviate that stress by offloading across a datacenter, or buying more powerful servers. But the limitation is still there, and all we end up doing in the process is kicking the can down the road instead of actually trying to solve the problem at the root.

 

Whatever the future holds for immersive environments, it is likely that decentralized networking will be a major part of it in stark contrast to our massive datacenters today and centralized bandwidth.

 

To Boldly Go…

 

There is also a hint toward the data itself, in that the distribution of that data would likely not be the same as how we are accomplishing this task today. I’d like to say that in order for a powerful Metaverse to really evolve, the data has to be agnostic. The best way to understand this is to imagine the replicators in Star Trek and how they work.

 

When the captain walks up to a replicator and says “Tea. Earl Gray. Hot.” the replicator isn’t looking for a cup of tea in its inventory. Nowhere on the ship is there a room with thousands of cups of hot tea on a shelf waiting to be beamed to the replicator. Essentially, there is a holding tank of sorts on the ship which contains the raw molecular “soup” of materials, and the replicators are simply using a digital recipe to pull the components and “replicate” that molecular recipe.

 

 

A replicator works almost like magic. Just like the plot to every Star Trek series.

 

 

If we apply this understanding to purely digital files, the same process works. Let’s say that the replicator is a software program on your computer whose sole purpose is to reconstruct digital files based on digital fingerprints (keys) that you give it. Since we’re already talking about a decentralized network as our future, the “holding tank” full of agnostic data to be used for those reconstructions of files should be spread across every user of the network.

 

Why not? We all have a cache folder sitting on our computers from virtual environments and web browsers. What if that cache folder was simply agnostic data and available to the entire network of users in a P2P manner?

 

First off, it would mean that our cache’s are meaningless to human interpretation. Completely random data not representing anything in particular until we give it the fingerprint to reconstruct the file we need. Secondly, it would mean that the data becomes multi-use data.

 

That last point is very important. It means that 1GB of multi-use data represents or contains any file that is 1GB or less. We can say that Photoshop CS5 is under 1GB for the installer, correct? So that multi-use data would contain Photoshop CS5, and anything else that is 1GB or under. The key, so to speak, is that while such a system just about invalidates the premise of current copyright law, making it impossible to prosecute somebody using such a system, it brings up something even more interesting.

 

11 Herbs and Spices

 

It’s not the data that is really copyrightable, but the means by which such data can be arranged in a unique configuration as a representation of a work. What is really copyrightable happens to be the unique fingerprints which tell the system how to reconfigure multi-use data for a specific file output that is no longer multi-use, or in layman terms – it’s the digital recipe.

 

Another interesting side effect to multi-use data is that you’re not storing a 1:1 representation of anything. Since the data is multi-use, that means (for the most part) that you don’t need the storage equivalent for a copy of every single file in the system. All you really need at the very least is enough agnostic data available in order to cover the largest file on the network.

 

If the largest file you have on the network is about 50GB (and I’m being very generous here), then on a multi-use data system, you would need no more than 50GB of data total for everything you ever store into that network. That’s the bare minimum. Yes, at that level it would take longer to reconstruct the data, but it would still work. the more agnostic data you have in storage, the faster that reconstruction goes. Think of it like over unity…

 

Needless to say that a multi-use data structure in combination with decentralized networking would mean that, in example, the entirety of the Second Life asset servers could be housed in about 100 terabytes or less (for redundancy), and the reliability of that system would mean that the odds of anything in your inventory ever disappearing would be so close to nil as to make no odds.

 

And that, is how you solve the root of a problem instead of addressing only the symptoms.

 

 

 

Down With The Sickness

We live in a very sick world. Here’s how we fix it for real. #Zeitgeist #OWS

 

Usually I’m the sort of person who writes exceedingly lengthy articles about complex ideals or viewpoints, much of which I am fully aware the average person (aside from the most technically devout) essentially tune out in an age of Attention Deficit Media.

 

 

 

 

However, this post concerns something entirely different, and is my official position concerning Occupy Wall Street and the worldwide protests in solidarity. It includes a full video lecture that is likely one of the most important that you could ever watch on the subject, and I highly recommend, just this once, that you put aside your attention deficit and take the time to digest the information that will be presented in this post.

 

I’m an avid supporter of Occupy Wall Street but for entirely different reasons than the #OWS crowd are supporting it for. While the people are protesting inequality, corruption and greed, they are still at a phase of understanding where they believe working within a system that is inherently corrupt will bring them a solution.

 

There is literally no way to pay the mounting debts of this nation, or the world. Period. End of story. Every bank note in your hand is a representation of debt, with interest that can never be repaid. It is the representation for everything that is absolutely wrong in this world today.

 

Take a good look at it.

 

We cannot fix a system inherently designed by nature to deprive a majority of people on this planet in order to provide an excess for a few. A system designed for cyclical consumption and consumerism, infinite growth, in a world of very finite resource. It is a logical impossibility.

 

Nobody, not you nor I, will ever be able to vote these facts out of existence. There are no laws that we can possibly write and enact that will change these immutable laws of nature, or of the nature of this parasite we call money.

 

I support Occupy Wall Street because they are a catalyst to realization, if not still premature. They know something is terribly wrong with the world and this country, and have a vague idea what the root of that problem is. However the solutions they propose at this time are nothing more than addressing the symptoms of the problem, and are doomed to failure on the whole.

 

I still support them, because they are a much needed catalyst, and I am patient enough to wait for those protesters to truly have a revelation as to what the root of the problem is and how we can truly fix it. They, and you, will inevitably realize this immutable fact sooner or later.

 

If you realize this immutable fact later, you will likely be fighting for water, food and basic resources. Wars, famine and disease running rampant in what used to be a 1st World Country.

 

The choice is ours.

 

You can take an hour and forty-five minutes of your day to change your mind and help change the world through education, or you can spend that time looking for pictures of cats on the internet.

 

Weigh it out for yourself. Life is short, use it wisely.

 

 

 

Social Pathology – Full Lecture | The Zeitgeist Movement

 

Moving Forward

It’s time to dream bigger, because we’re all in this together.

 

We are one people, on one planet. This tiny speck of dirt we call Earth is of finite resources, yet we act as though it will never end. We are divided, and pitted against each other at every single level of the social and economic ladder. We fight for resources, we fight each other, and those who fight the most and break all of the rules set into place in order to level a playing field for all of us are obviously the winners.

 

Yet the price we pay is global. No person will escape the costs of this broken global society.

 

 

 

 

When we have nothing left. When all the things we take for granted today as having worth simply collapse and leave us with nothing. That is when we will begin to understand the things which truly matter as a society.

 

A global society.

 

Until that time, we will likely remain in denial… because change is too hard to accept when we have no incentive to do so. But there will come a time soon, when all of those superficial worths will be stripped from you and I, and we will have no choice but to accept change, or die. There will be no other choice, no more excuses or tomorrows.

 

That time is coming quickly, and we’ve already far surpassed the point of no-return. If you believe that multi-trillion dollar debts that continue to accumulate based on money that has no meaning, let alone do not exist until called into existence as further debt and interest are somehow repayable, then you fail to understand the magnitude of the situation we lay under today.

 

This is no longer about countries, and this is far past the point of redemption or bailouts. While Wall Street, Banks and Corporations received bailout money in the hundreds of billions of dollars, they alone are posting record profits while unemployment remains stagnant at a total of zero… zero jobs created.

 

Nothing has changed from 2008… but soon it will, and we will have no choice but to change with it.

 

It’s time to think like a global species for the benefit of everything and everyone that calls this magnificent planet home. It’s the only way to move forward.

 

We cannot live without this planet, but this planet can surely live without us. It’s time we take responsibility and step up to the plate as a global entity, united as one, for the betterment of all.

 

 

 

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward | 2011 Release

 

 

 

Download the DVD Torrent here: http://zeitgeistmovie.com/torrents.html

Divide By Zero

This blog will now implode.

 

Mathematically it is said that dividing by zero is a logical impossibility. When you try to do the calculation on a calculator, it usually gives you an error or NaN (Not a Number) which is a result of the IEEE floating point standard. Furthermore, in the unlikely event you decide to divide by zero on paper or manually, you always end up with logical impossibility such as the idea that 1 = 0 or that any number can logically equal any other number.

 

In classical mathematics this isn’t possible. If we say that 1 equals 0 then what meaning does any number actually have if they are all equal to each other? Clearly two of something cannot equal one of something. However, I’d like to attempt a thought experiment.

 

In classical mathematics we say that 1 does not equal 2 because we treat them as unconnected entities with no common underlying basis. Let us demonstrate with two apples -

 

O O

 

O

 

So we have two apples and then underneath we have one apple (represented by the crude use of a capital O)

 

So how does one apple O equal two apples O O or vice versa?

 

I like to think of this in terms of quantum proofs instead of classical proofs. Just as in classical physics, things work very differently than on the quantum level where the same rules do not apply, we see a bit of clarity in a division by zero in this case when looked at through classical mathematics versus what I will call hyper-mathematics.

 

The underlying issue with zero is that in a function like [ y = 1/x ] as x approaches 0, y approaches negative infinity. This is a problem in and of itself because we really don’t like to think about the nature of infinity either. So in my mind, I believe the understanding comes specifically from the special set of numbers such as defining +∞ and –∞ respectively and also the duality of the opposing nature of +0 and –0

 

Is there such thing as a positive zero and a negative zero? Well, I suppose it would depend on whether we’re talking about the nature of zero to begin with. Zero is a representation of ∞ nothing or in this case –∞ , so I’d say that 0 whether it is +0 or –0 is inconsequential because it’s still 0 and 0 is interchangeable with -∞, while ∞ is an infinite positive of something. I suppose then we are talking about probabilities of something or nothing in infinite amounts and that the probability is actually both something and nothing at the same time, and thus leads us to declarations of 1 = 2, but moreover that anything is actually anything else and nothing at all in ∞ abundance.

 

The only thing I know about that exists and doesn’t simultaneously is in the realm of quantum physics where we have decoherence or the collapsing of dual wave into a single upon conscious observation. In this manner we say there are quantum computers where normal 1 and 0 become both simultaneous in a qubit configuration. Here is an inkling of something equaling something else at the same time in a manner that says it is both, and the determining factor is simply conscious observation. I’d say, then, that it’s not entirely impossible for 1 = 2 in the same manner that in a qubit 1 = 0 in a quantum state.

 

 

 

 

But what does this really mean in the end?

 

For practicality reasons, just like we use classical physics (Newtonian and Einstein) for the large stuff, when we get down to the building blocks themselves, that no longer applies and we switch to quantum physics where 1 = 0 in some sort of dual existence. I’d say that classical mathematics is for counting apples, while hyper-math is for counting infinities and probabilities within each construct.

 

But, you may say that infinity is simply that… there cannot be more than one infinity, can there? Again, I suppose this depends entirely on our understanding of infinity and reality itself. For instance, we can say that reality is infinite because it extends forever, but then we’re talking about a dimensional plane of existence which is infinite but only a level, wherein other levels are separate infinities and may not intersect our own layer of reality which is itself an infinite plane. So we get an idea of having multiple infinities in the greater construct of reality, which in itself comprises infinity when taken together.

 

I suppose then that ∞ + ∞ = ∞(2) which can still be represented as merely ∞

 

The devil is in the context.

 

If we wanted to demonstrate the notion of multiple ∞ we simple grab four mirrors. Face two mirrors toward each other and do the same with the other two side by side with the first set. What we have, then is a demonstration of ∞(2) where two spaces are separately infinite. This is a basic demonstration just to get the gist of the concept.

 

Let’s take this a step further and look at holography.

 

A holographic plate contains a three dimensional information construct of the item that was effectively imaged, but if we cut the holographic plate in half, we do not have half of the image, but two complete sets of the information, and no matter how much we divide the holographic plate we will always end up with a complete informational scene, as if holography captures the information in an ∞ state and no matter how much we divide ∞(x) we end up with many infinities all intact. In effect, we aren’t dividing the information, but only our available viewport of that information. This is a lot like understanding the difference between ∞ and ∞(x) in context.

 

Information about any given point in the scene is recorded across the entire medium, rather than one fixed area as in a photograph. Cutting a hologram in half results in two complete representations of the original scene, each merely having a more limited viewport. Think of viewing a street outside your house through a 4ft x 4ft window, and then through a 2ft x 2ft window; You can see nearly all the same things through the 2ft window, but you can see more at once through the 4ft window.

 

This is where the application of dividing by zero and the many natures of ∞ make sense.

 

Zero, in this case is the complimentary opposite of an infinite. Where ∞ is taken as a positive something in infinite capacity while zero is an infinite nothing in capacity.

 

When we say that 1=X where X is every possible number to ∞ and even infinite nothing (zero) we can represent this with holography where the plate can be divided ∞ and still retain the information of the whole in each division. But I suspect this goes deeper because then we start to ask what happens when we divide all the way down to atomic, subatomic, or quantum level?

 

I suspect then that we begin to understand the nature of ∞ and zero a lot better than we do right now, and the overall implications for what we call an understanding of reality and multiple realities.

 

It would mean, then, that the very stuff everything is made of contains an infinite amount of information. It is a probabilistic infinity, and that brings us back to 1=2. Everything equals everything else and is based on fundamental configurations to attain a specific probability at a higher level, but even at a higher level all things contain the infinite information to comprise infinite anything else including itself. While we can divide the apple infinitely, and we get fractional apples in classical mathematics, in hyper-math we end up with multiple infinite instances of informational constructs, just like the holographic plate – and the slices of said apple represent the limited viewport effect of the whole.

 

In the end, the question remains: Is it mathematically possible to divide by zero in a logical manner? The answer, I suspect, depends entirely on whether you want to deal with the nature of reality and subdivisions of infinity in the process. For all practical applications, the answer is no for the same reasons we don’t teach quantum mechanics to our middle school children. However, for a more inclusive answer, we can say that yes it’s not only possible but gives us an incredibly deeper understanding of everything by doing so.

 

After all, wouldn’t the division of ∞ into ∞(x) really mean the same thing as dividing a holographic plate? In both instances, we end up with all the information and just a smaller viewport to each individually. I think that sums up our understanding of reality at the moment. We see a smaller viewport of the full ∞ represented as ∞(1) or if we take a multiverse theory into account ∞(x) where our viewport on reality is simply narrowed. Our notion of “real” numbers are actually the abstract concept in the grand scheme of things, because numbers represent fractional viewports of the infinite information as a whole.

 

Do we need to calculate that on our calculators? Probably not, because we’re dealing with abstract concepts that fly in the face of traditional mathematics. Will dividing by zero create some sort of rip in reality?

 

I don’t think so… this blog is still here, and so are you. I’d say then it’s pretty safe.

 

But don’t attempt it on a calculator… because it will likely break its tiny mind.

 

 

 

 

 

The Distributed Self

Virtual Worlds and the Future of Human Identity #SecondLife





There has been a great deal of discussion recently concerning the merit of social media networks and their increasing insistence on “authentic” identity usage as of late. In example, we can see how something like Facebook or Google+ may be misinterpreting what it is that actually makes up an authentic identity in the digital age. I’ve written on this before in prior articles, but more under the auspices of the most extreme case of what would happen if the trend for “authentic” identities continued to persist, in that there is an increasingly higher probability that such will be challenged legally the more it is insisted upon.

When we talk about an identity that people most likely know us by, this name isn’t always a birth name, and this is why the idea of pseudonymous identity reigns supreme in the digital age. It is likely that many people around the world know us as our nicknames, handles or virtual avatar identities and really aren’t associating us with our real names – whether this is by default or by design is entirely up to circumstance and how we, as individuals, portray ourselves to different interest groups.

How we portray ourselves among different circles of influence can, and often does, vary wildly. In a business setting we may portray ourselves as an authentic identity, that is to say our real name (or root identity), but this is an exception to the rule in the digital age because quite often our root identities are accessible to only the closest of people such as family or very close friends or direct contact. This leaves us with the other 99% of the world with which we participate socially, and quite often these interactions are under a pseudonym.



In SecondLife we are free to engage under any pseudonymous representation we wish, and I believe this is a more realistic application of multiplicity of identity than what social media is providing today, with the exception of possibly Diaspora. While we can use our pseudonyms on Facebook, Google+ and others, it is not expressly permitted to do so, and the only reason people get away with it is simply a matter of hiding in a crowd. It is no wonder that those pseudonymous profiles are essentially on borrowed time, and should have no expectation of existing into the future. 

I really do believe that this sort of social black-listing is not going to last too long, nor under most circumstances is it justified.  There are plenty of legal reasons why a pseudonym is a perfectly acceptable alternative to a root identity, there are moral reasons, personal safety reasons, and even the reason that companies should be paying attention to the most – because it multiplies the population, and that is good for business. But most of all, the only reason that matters is simply because there is nothing you or I can do to actually stop the proliferation of distributed identity. That’s why so many pseudonyms exist as profiles on social media networks, despite their terms of service forbidding it. While it does give them the right to delete profiles and suspend services at will, this isn’t necessarily the correct path to the future.

As a counterpoint, I also happen to use Diaspora and actually believe that it represents a closer approximation of what needs to happen in technology and social media in order to appreciate and accommodate the multiplicity of identity, as well as what manner of control the individual should have over that identity. When I write about Google+ or Facebook, I like to point out that they do a lot of things correct, yet manage to foul up when it comes to the most important part of understanding the future of human identity, but with Diaspora, there seems to be an entirely different take on the matter.

I wrote a small snippet last year concerning Diaspora, entitled Why Diaspora Will Win that didn’t get much attention, but it did weigh out some of my thoughts about such a system and why I think that sort of model going forward is the best model for social media interaction. It is decentralized and focuses mainly on every conceivable manner by which you may control your identity, whether that means a pseudonym or a root identity is of little consequence to Diaspora because, and I believe this to be true, they are all the same and should be treated with equal weight.

The issue of human identity in a modern age is a complex topic, and I admit there is no easy answer. However, there are some very excellent signposts for this future which we can begin to really follow and understand going forward. To this end, I’d like to toss in a small section of a research paper that is currently unpublished, but describes the situation very concisely, taken from “The Distributed Self: Virtual Worlds and the Future of Human Identity”, by Richard L. Gilbert, PhD and Andrew Forney

The rise of 3D virtual worlds and the introduction of avatar-mediated forms of expression and interaction has the potential to once again reshape humanity’s conception and experience of the self and usher in a fourth stage of identity, one which can be termed “The Distributed Self” (Gilbert, Foss, & Murphy, in press). In this conception, consciousness and aspects of the self will be increasingly externalized and distributed into 3-dimensional digital forms (i.e. avatars) reflecting any number of combinations of age, gender, body type, race, ethnicity, style, personality, and physical health. Several studies have shown, for instance, that participants in 3D virtual environments such as Second Life often create avatars that, relative to their physical self, are younger, have a better body or physical appearance, and are ascribed a more positive or idealized personality (Au, 2007; Bessiere, Seay, & Kiesler, 2007; Gilbert, Foss, & Murphy, in press). Less frequently, they choose avatars with a different gender, ethnicity, or skin color (Wallace & Marryott, 2009, Duchenaut, Wen, Yee, & Wadley. 2009). Moreover, Gilbert, Foss, & Murphy (in press) estimate that among the overall user base of Second Life, 18% have a single “alt” (i.e. a secondary or alternative avatar) in addition to their primary avatar; 32% operate two or more alts; and that in approximately 70% of these cases one function of the alt or alts is to experiment with different aspects of identity or personality.

Taken as a whole these data indicate that about a half of active users of Second Life are coordinating a multiple personality system consisting of a physical self plus two virtual identities (a primary avatar and one alt) and about a third are coordinating an identity system involving 4 or more components (a physical self and three or more virtual identities). When the allocation of consciousness to non-immersive digital forms such as email, Facebook, Twitter, or Linked In is added to the physical and 3D virtual components of the overall identity system, the structure of the self becomes more like an organizational flowchart rather than the singular entity in modernist conceptions, or the diverse, but device constrained, model of post-modernism.

Multiplicity of Persona, or in this case manifest persona, is more like a conglomeration of multiple identities which comprise a single encompassing identity than a single root identity that ignores the digital pseudonyms as “fake”. It is this point that most social media outlets completely gloss over, and in fact insist erroneously that a root identity (birth name) is the only authentic identity that matters or exists. Unfortunately, this mentality of discounting the multiplicity of identity is incorrect and can be shown to be not just mildly inaccurate but wildly inaccurate for the assumption of the roles that digital identity will play in the future of social interaction.

The research paper is quite interesting to read, as it goes through all the phases of human identity over the course of generations leading up to this post-modern understanding of multiplicity. When it is published, I’ll see about getting permission to repost or link to it in full if anyone is interested.

Social Networks + Me

While there is a lot of issues concerning current social media networks, I do still use them. Unlike many, I have no issues with using my real name in public scenarios simply because I already am in the public limelight between my academic contributions, research, and interviews. This doesn’t mean that I am against the right to privacy or an individual’s right to withhold personally identifiable information in managing their own distributed self. If anything, this should be the very foundation of a social network – the right to choose which part of a persona we wish to put forward as our digital self.

It doesn’t matter if that digital self is a furry, robot, trans-gender, or adheres to ideals that are indistinguishable from what the root identity portrays. The simple fact of the matter is that they are all real people and should be treated as such – even if they require the basic right to privacy in using pseudonymous aspects of their distributed self.

As for me, I use Google+, Facebook, Twitter, and other social media networks under my root identity. Even in SecondLife, my Display Name is set as my real name and not a pseudonym. However, more people know me as Aeonix Aeon or Darian Knight than Will Burns, and in this light we can easily see how our distributed identities truly matter in the grand scheme of things.

Of course, I also have a Diaspora account, and if I had to weigh in concerning which social media network will reign supreme, it wouldn’t be Google+ or Facebook in the end… it’ll be something like Diaspora. I will say, however, that the social media system that Linden Lab is building seems to be getting at least some of the points made here – if only they would stop thinking like traditional social media networks and start thinking like something better from the future.

It’s a good start, nonetheless, and time will sort these issues of identity out.

For now, I embrace the distributed self model of thinking. To borrow a quote from Ferris Beuller:

Loyola Marymount University in #SecondLife

When: Thursday, December 2nd @ 7:45PM EST

Where: Loyola Marymount University SLURL

Why: I’ll be attending as a guest speaker

Notice: The following post is quite long. If you’re not into reading today, then feel free to stop at the first question marker in the post and call it a day. Pictures for this post were taken at LMU Psychology Island in Second Life using Kirstens S20 (42), all shaders enabled except Global Illumination. (Depth of Field is also enabled)

Sometimes the future is a scary thing to think about. Especially when we take into consideration that this Thursday I’ll be the guest speaker at Loyola Marymount University in Second Life. Just imagine a room full of college students from various disciplines, all eagerly awaiting their turn to ask me questions about various technology topics and virtual environments.

Yeah, I had to stop and think about that too. Is it really a good idea to let somebody like me play a part in shaping young minds? I really thought about this when writing the book chapter as well, and the best answer I could muster was “As long as these students have the idea to think for themselves”. As an aside, the book seems to have finally been released (I noticed it available on Amazon recently).

It’s one thing to be an academic for a class at a university or giving lectures for business, but something always made me uneasy about the prospect of influencing future generations of young minds. Nobody really knows the future, and the best we can ever hope for is an educated guess. This is why I sincerely hope that the students attending on Thursday do not take all that I say as gospel and are willing to challenge and push further on their own.

Dr. Richard Gilbert (Professor of Psychology at LMU) is a really interesting guy to say the least. He’s the head of the P.R.O.S.E. Project at LMU (Psychological Research on Synthetic Environments) but even more interesting is that this man has a Grammy Award for co-writing a song in the movie Flashdance (1984). Naturally, this is the same guy behind the SLAnthem.com contest and I can only sit and wonder what sort of life this guy has led to bring him through such accomplishments.

This is the man who approached me about being a guest speaker for one of his classes, and I gladly accepted (as a bonus the college is offering an honorarium for the time).

The prospect of speaking for this class didn’t seem too out of sorts when I accepted, but then I began to really think about it. Being the professor of the class, Dr. gilbert would naturally assign homework and some research to the class prior to Thursday in order that they prepare questions and topics to converse with me about. That alone is what got me…

Trying to wrap my head around the fact that a class full of students from various related subjects are busy, as I speak, doing homework related assignments centered around my being the guest speaker on Thursday. I can imagine twenty or more students (maybe) sitting in their dorm rooms tonight and researching ideas and questions with me on their mind.

Maybe it’s a bit of empathy to be putting myself in their shoes?

This is, after all, college. So chances are that most of those students are probably drunk and partying right now. (laughs).

Dr. Gilbert has, thankfully, provided me with a list of expected topics that will be covered over the course of the two hour class. As an addition, the class will break for a short recess about halfway through (at least that is what I was told). I don’t know how well I’d hold up with two hours straight of students barraging me with questions and conversation, but to be honest I seemed to handle well at Friday Night Talk Show (which went on for nearly 4 hours of audience conversation).

Let’s take a moment to go over the topics presented to me for Thursday nights class:

1. Issues of Server architecture, so you can address the cascading structure you advocate.

This topic stems from my advocating of a hybrid decentralized server structure in order to properly handle load and bandwidth through massive, parallel fabric computing. On the surface, it sounds a lot like I’m suggesting everything to be done on the Cloud, but it’s a bit more than that.

With Cloud Computing (as we’d normally expect) there is still a centralized datacenter someplace. The only thing that’s really changed is the hardware and how it is utilized, in so much as that the software is entirely executed server side and streamed to the user via a client. Cascading Architecture is like an evolution of Cloud Computing, because it assumes that not only is the central data center involved, but each individual user in the system is also a repository and relay.

Each virtual environment user has redundant information, called Cache. This information can be readily passed along to others nearby in a virtual space without the need to ask a central server for that redundant information. There is also the idea of telling a central server that you have moved, in order that the server can tell 50 other users near you that you’ve moved (which to be honest seems silly).

Could we not connect via a cascading architecture in virtual peer clusters, thus informing each other of actions which do not need authorization? Surely 100 simultaneous users in an area are capable of relaying this information to each other, not to mention sharing their redundant cache data as well.

Better yet, why do we construct simulation systems in a manner that requires brute force and a lot of bandwidth centrally? Surely by now we would have realized this will ultimately fail to scale.

2. A status report on the quest for a universal format for 3D, ala HTML and JavaScript for 2D

Being part of the IEEE Virtual Worlds Standards Group, I can say that the closest thing that has been agreed on for a universal 3D Format has been Collada files. Past that, I have yet to see anything else solidly proposed.

My younger brother (who is in college) proposed once that files like Collada can be reduced algorithmically to a single number and decimal, to be decoded and expanded with resolution via reversing the algorithm. While this would require brute force computation on the part of the user in order to utilize those files, it does offer an interesting glimpse into procedural methodologies for indefinite fidelity.

We see today such things with Allegorithmic.com and their procedural textures system. 2MB of texture data in 2KB. I’ve seen some interesting things from DirectX 11 and Tessellation algorithms to increase the fidelity of 3D models farther than what the model data had stored. I really think these procedural methods for fidelity are the future.

3. Graphical Developments and progress toward photorealism

Which, of course, leads us into this topic. As I had said, I truly believe that procedural methods will win out in the end. Interesting enough, shortly after I had mentioned the push for photo realism in Second Life, I saw a video post by @oobscure on twitter about the Depth of Field viewer in the development channel. It looks really nice in the video, and first hand it’s just as stunning when combined with the shadows, lighting, SSAO, and Mesh abilities, as seen in the snapshots in this post from Kistens S20(42).

However, there is still quite a lot of progress to be made in the photo realism department. I will obviously cite that higher realism requires more computational power, and this doesn’t change. I believe, though, that we are quickly reaching a point whereby older methodologies for graphical abilities must be approached in a more intelligent manner.

Static images aren’t as good for fidelity as procedural dynamic textures, and what we think is high definition today at 1024x1024 or 2048x2048 resolution in a PNG or TGA is really very low resolution comparatively. I do understand that graphics cards aren’t really meant to handle 10,000x10,000 resolution textures, but who is to say that they actually have to handle the entire image all at once?

.debris Procedural Demo | 177kb Executable Size

Therein is why I believe Procedural methods will work in the end. You can essentially have a 32,000x32,000 resolution texture in 10kb seamless, but the algorithm involved knows only to show you the highest resolution you can comfortably see on your graphics card, and only the area you can actually see (as in, not trying to load the entire grass texture for the State of California all at once).

It’s all about intelligently streaming only the information we need at any given moment.

4. Developments in shared media and integrating 2D applications into immersive settings

I’ll be leaving this one to answer in class, but you can assume I’ll talk a bit about the developments with the koios media center in Second Life.

5. Current Comparisons between SL and other platforms

I’d say Second Life is a median system. Kind of like choosing Mario in SMB2 when you have Luigi, Princess and Toad at your disposal. Graphically it’s starting to catch up to things like BlueMars without having to go into graphical overkill. It’s fairly powerful as a platform, open enough to do many things, and it has average strengths. For the time being, Second Life is the all around solution I’d recommend for virtual environments.

However, this doesn’t mean I’d split hairs and differentiate between SecondLife and OpenSim, InWorldz, SpotOn3D, etc. It’s all essentially based on the same underlying technology despite the bells, whistles and pinstripes painted on the sides.

Other technologies I’ll cover in class.

6. Your projections for the near and moderate term future for SL and the wider field of 3D worlds.

Concerning Second Life, I’d say I believe that the open source community will probably make many more strides to push the technology forward than Linden Lab will. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as I really do like Open Source software and crowd sourcing. As for the wider field of 3D Worlds… I’ll cover that in class.

I will say, however, that I don’t believe that virtual worlds on their own have a future. Like any good technology, it matures and becomes ubiquitous. What the future is, concerning virtual worlds, is not virtual worlds in the sense that we know of them today.