3 ms·

I don't agree that "Augmented reality" is the weak form for "Virtual reality". They are two different concepts. Augmented reality is all about augmenting the r

I don't agree that "Augmented reality" is the weak form for "Virtual reality". They are two different concepts. Augmented reality is all about augmenting the real, physical world you live in. Virtual reality is about stepping into another world that (usually) has nothing to do with your real, physical surroundings.

purplethinking 8y ago
Maybe the real world is the weak reality? You can do anything in virtual reality, while the real world has tons of limitations. Thinking (very) long term, I don't see a reason for why we should prefer the physical reality made of atoms arranged in an arbitrary way and with laws we can't control or change, rather than the reality made of bits of information with limitless possibilities. It's sort of the difference between theatre and motion pictures. Theatre plays are great, but they are limited by what can be physically done on stage with real world objects and flesh and blood actors. Motion pictures with CGI has no such limitations.
- comex 8y ago
  In the far future, maybe. But as long as we remain trapped in physical bodies that fundamentally need to spend a lot of time out and about in the real world, augmented reality will fill a niche that virtual reality cannot. It’s just that the technology isn’t ready yet. Once you can buy glasses that do things like, say, labeling people with their names, or giving walking directions by visually highlighting the path you need to take… then AR will really take off. (VR also has a long way to go before it reaches its potential; it’s just that for various reasons its current state is more “demoable”.)
- zapzupnz 8y ago
  > It's sort of the difference between theatre and motion pictures. Theatre plays are great, but they are limited by what can be physically done on stage with real world objects and flesh and blood actors. Motion pictures with CGI has no such limitations. By the same token, the experience of going to the theatre, seeing the actors live in person, being impressed by someone belting out a song (if it's a musical) for the umpteenth time that week and it still sounding amazing, feeling like a part of the action thanks to things like audience participation — things that you can't always get in CGI. Every time I watch a play, I always come away with a bizarre sense in my gut that I associate with disappointment that the experience is over; I don't feel the same thing with movies. Same thing with AR and VR. Yes, you might be able to do many more impressive things immersed in VR space — but there's a certain quality associated with the real world, what's directly in front of your eyes rather than a picture, that cannot and should not be ignored. There's nothing like a live performance and there's nothing like the real world (not even a simulation of it).

purplethinking 8y ago

Maybe the real world is the weak reality? You can do anything in virtual reality, while the real world has tons of limitations. Thinking (very) long term, I don't see a reason for why we should prefer the physical reality made of atoms arranged in an arbitrary way and with laws we can't control or change, rather than the reality made of bits of information with limitless possibilities. It's sort of the difference between theatre and motion pictures. Theatre plays are great, but they are limited by what can be physically done on stage with real world objects and flesh and blood actors. Motion pictures with CGI has no such limitations.

comex 8y ago
In the far future, maybe. But as long as we remain trapped in physical bodies that fundamentally need to spend a lot of time out and about in the real world, augmented reality will fill a niche that virtual reality cannot. It’s just that the technology isn’t ready yet. Once you can buy glasses that do things like, say, labeling people with their names, or giving walking directions by visually highlighting the path you need to take… then AR will really take off. (VR also has a long way to go before it reaches its potential; it’s just that for various reasons its current state is more “demoable”.)
zapzupnz 8y ago
> It's sort of the difference between theatre and motion pictures. Theatre plays are great, but they are limited by what can be physically done on stage with real world objects and flesh and blood actors. Motion pictures with CGI has no such limitations. By the same token, the experience of going to the theatre, seeing the actors live in person, being impressed by someone belting out a song (if it's a musical) for the umpteenth time that week and it still sounding amazing, feeling like a part of the action thanks to things like audience participation — things that you can't always get in CGI. Every time I watch a play, I always come away with a bizarre sense in my gut that I associate with disappointment that the experience is over; I don't feel the same thing with movies. Same thing with AR and VR. Yes, you might be able to do many more impressive things immersed in VR space — but there's a certain quality associated with the real world, what's directly in front of your eyes rather than a picture, that cannot and should not be ignored. There's nothing like a live performance and there's nothing like the real world (not even a simulation of it).