When we consider the nature of reality, most people immediately think of the tangible, physical world — the one we can touch, see, and measure. However, this common understanding is increasingly challenged by scientific inquiry, technological advancements, and even cultural developments, urging us to question whether what we perceive is truly real. Is the world of our sensory experience (or what I refer to as base physical reality) the ultimate reality, or are there layers beyond our perception that redefine what it means to be real? As unsettling as it may be for some readers, I would vote “no” on that question. And if that physical world of the senses is not the ultimate reality, is it any more real than so-called artificial realities that humans have become adept at conjuring, such as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR)?
If that base physical reality is not the ultimate reality, then what is it? As Professor of Cognitive Sciences Dr. Donald D. Hoffman convincingly posits in his book The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes, the physical reality we perceive is merely a “user interface” or a schema that our minds developed in the course of our evolution so that we could navigate reality and survive; it is not to be regarded as a faithful representation of the ultimate reality. In this view, our sensory perceptions of objects are like icons on a desktop — they help us navigate our environment effectively without revealing the complex underlying processes. In other words, like the shadows cast onto the cave in Plato’s The Republic, they represent elements of our reality, but are not those elements themselves. Thus, for example, we know that our reality is comprised of atoms, molecules, other particles, energy, and other components that we cannot perceive with our senses, at least as unaided by technological assistance. Nevertheless, we accept that base physical reality as our governing reality, and our ability to navigate it enables us to successfully survive and reproduce, thereby conferring an evolutionary advantage on us.
As Hoffman goes on to explain, from an evolutionary perspective, perceiving an accurate reality was never the priority; rather, it was the ability to make quick, survival-oriented decisions. For instance, our inability to perceive subatomic particles or electromagnetic waves like infrared radiation is a testament to the fact that our senses are tailored for survival, not for understanding the cosmos in its entirety. In other words, the ability to perceive atoms, particles, and molecules with our senses would bring us closer to what the real world looks like, but ironically make us less fit to navigate that reality. Thus, we cannot perceive infrared waves even though we know they exist in our reality, as such an ability is unnecessary and might even make us less capable of successfully navigating our reality. Consider also the phenomenon of optical illusions or the way different species perceive the world. A bat’s echolocation, a bee’s ultraviolet vision, or a dog’s acute sense of smell all present vastly different realities, suggesting that what we consider real is deeply subjective and limited by our biological constraints.
Now let’s turn to VR and AR, which technological advances are fast making indistinguishable from the physical reality of the senses and are raising profound philosophical questions. I can tell you from the VR devices I have used, that the reality that many of them project is remarkable, whether it is simulating our base physical reality or placing us in a reality that is very different, but seemingly real, nonetheless. Accordingly, the reality in which these devices immerse us is becoming no less real or valid than our base physical reality, and that will become increasingly the case as the technology evolves to provide us with a reality that is as convincingly real as that base physical reality. At that point, I would posit that we will find ourselves in a new reality that is every bit as authentic and valid as the base physical reality, so long as we remain immersed in that new reality. If a simulated reality can evoke the same emotions and responses as the physical world, can we still dismiss it as less real? This convergence challenges the dichotomy between reality and illusion, suggesting that our definition of reality may need to evolve.
VR and AR not only replicate our sensory experiences but also expand them in ways that physical reality cannot. They allow us to explore fantastical environments, historical epochs, and abstract spaces, enriching our understanding of what it means to exist. In this sense, they become extensions of our reality, rather than mere escapist illusions. However, this blending of realities comes with potential risks. As people spend more time in immersive virtual worlds, distinguishing between virtual and physical experiences could become increasingly difficult, leading to significant and unpredictable psychological and social consequences. Yet, it also offers opportunities for enhanced creativity, education, and even empathy, by allowing us to create and experience realities vastly different from our own.
A less technologically-oriented approach to creating, or morphing, reality are TV shows such as Bridgerton or The Crown, which, each in their own way, create a reality or partial reality which never existed until the producers of those shows created them. (Of course, all works of fiction create their own realities, though, with the exception of certain science fiction and fantasy works, they take place in a physical world that is just like our base physical reality.) In addition to scholarly works, popular culture plays a crucial role in creating historical reality. Films, television shows, and novels often dramatize historical events, prioritizing compelling storytelling over strict accuracy. While these works can inspire interest in history and entertain audiences, they also shape public perception, sometimes blurring the lines between fact and fiction. For example, shows like The Crown or Bridgerton reinterpret historical settings and characters, blending factual events with creative liberties to craft narratives that resonate with contemporary audiences. But these shows do more than entertain; they shape our collective memory and influence how we perceive historical events and social norms, redefining our understanding of the past in ways that coincide with contemporary values and perspectives.
Bridgerton does this by taking place in a multi-racial Regency-era England, where black and Indian characters are prominent and powerful, when that was not the case when the show is supposed to have taken place. Likewise, the show accords female characters a degree of agency that they did not actually possess back then. Interestingly, the show uses reorchestrations of contemporary music, rather than period music, for their ball scenes (of which there are many). Why does Bridgerton do this? Well, there is of course the worthy goal of giving actors of color more roles. But the departures from historical accuracy are refreshing and create an alternative reality of the period, where people of color and women have power and interact with white people more as equals. However, viewers may very well come to see the reality portrayed in the program as true, and it may come to replace the reality portrayed in history books as an accurate portrait of life in that era.
The Crown, in a different way, frequently and perhaps by necessity, augments historical reality. Thus, the show has been criticized for creating scenes and dialog that never actually took place and for reinterpreting events in ways that historians have objected to. The show also reinterprets events and characters; for example, Prince Charles’s character is made much more sympathetic compared to how he had theretofore been portrayed in the media and popular culture. However, in the show’s defense, it is not possible to know exactly what took place behind closed doors, and so a degree of flexibility and imagination are necessary if there is to be a show. And there is no denying that these controversial aspects of the show are very believable and make the show more entertaining for the audience than would be the case if they were left out. As in the case with Bridgerton, such departures from historical accuracy are very likely to augment or even replace the reality of our history books. But, as strange as this question may sound, is that morphed history any less real or accurate than the reality handed down to us by history books and historical artifacts?
Historical reality is often perceived as a straightforward recounting of past events, but in truth, it is a complex construct shaped by various factors such as interpretation, perspective, and cultural context. Historians, authors, filmmakers, and even political figures play a role in crafting the narrative that we come to understand as history. In this regard, we should not ignore the role of power in determining who will tell the stories of the past and what they will say. This process involves selecting, emphasizing, and sometimes omitting details, which means that our perception of history is not simply about facts, but also about how those facts are framed and interpreted.
Moreover, the way these events are interpreted can significantly alter the historical narrative. For instance, the same event, such as a war or a revolution, can be portrayed as either a struggle for freedom or an act of aggression, depending on the historian’s viewpoint. This interpretive lens influences how future generations understand and internalize these events. Ultimately, historical reality is a dynamic and ever-evolving construct. It is shaped by those who tell the stories, those who interpret them, and the societies that choose to remember or forget certain parts of the past. Understanding this process helps us to engage critically with history, recognizing it not as a static record of what once was, but as a living narrative that reflects our collective values, beliefs, and aspirations, as well as our prejudices.
[Note: For those readers interested in exploring more about how reality is created, please see the following pieces on Prometheus-Speaks: https://prometheus-speaks.org/my-friend-cecils-take-on-reality-and-the-mind/ and https://prometheus-speaks.org/my-friend-cecils-take-on-reality-and-the-mind-part-ii-the-game/. For those interested in the search for the ultimate reality, please see the following piece: https://prometheus-speaks.org/diary-of-a-psychonaut/.]
