Proposing an eighth rule of the Metaverse

Disclaimer: While the views in this article are mine, please be aware that I work on metaverse things for Microsoft.

Tom Acland linked a great article by Tony Parisi about The Seven Rules of the Metaverse. In it, Tony stated seven rules about the Metaverse, or as he put it: “hypotheses, distilled from decades of experience and insights from many practitioners.”

I really liked the article because the rules were based on clear driving forces. They may still be hypotheses, but they are based on evidence, thinking and reason that others can examine, evaluate and agree or disagree with.

I also think the rules accelerate and reinforce themselves, meaning that they leverage and elevate another, creating a stronger set of relationships and thus increased likelihood of becoming true.

I think it’s great work. 👏🙌

And yet… the article sparked something in me. It created an itch I didn’t know how to scratch. There was something missing and that I couldn’t put my finger on. This of course is the best kind of article — the one that makes you think.

I read the article over and over. I might have lost some sleep. Some passages eventually stuck out:

“A framework for the coming immersive reality..”

“..enabled by major innovations in hardware, human-computer interface, network infrastructure..”

“..a global network of spatially organized..”

Yes, there it is. (Imagine off-camera scratching noises and a relieved sigh)

The article talks about humans — the human experience in the Metaverse and the interactions between humans, and the technology to enable them. It left out the physical as the third actor.

Towards the eighth rule

As soon as we created digital dimensions, we had defined interfaces for interacting with them. We then created defined interfaces how the digital dimensions could interact with the physical world:

• People use some form of computer to access digital dimensions, something (perceived) not real
• Then there are endpoints where digital dimensions can influence (perceived) physical “reality”, for example a computer at your bank with an interface to shuffle around real money

As time went on, both evolved: Computers became smaller (PC), portable (laptop), mobile (smartphones) and eventually somewhat immersive (headsets). And the interfaces became more numerous (adding more interfaces to reality endpoints) and ubiquitous (eventually adding private endpoints).

Remember Walt Mossberg’s amazing last column for The Verge: “The Disappearing Computer”?

“This is ambient computing, the transformation of the environment all around us with intelligence and capabilities that don’t seem to be there at all.”
— Walt Mossberg

This has nothing to do with Augmented Reality. It’s not about headsets, it’s about how we interact with an environment where everything that can be digital, will be digital:

• User sees a digitally augmented physical object
• User can directly reach out into a digital dimension
• User can initiate a change at the digital representation of the physical object
• This immediately changes (states of) the physical object

Over time, we removed more and more intermediaries, detours, “servers” and “hubs”. It suggests that the distance between changing reality through digital approaches zero. Eventually it will feel as if the user can reach a physical object through a digital dimension directly (from a conceptual point of view).

Those digital dimensions will largely be subsumed into the Metaverse (see rules #1 through #7).

And interestingly, the same rules that are suggested for the Metaverse also apple to digitally augmented environments: They are for everyone, open, hardware-independent and so on. So they share the same drivers.

You might argue that ambient computing (the Internet of Things, Digital Twins, whatever name you prefer) and the Metaverse are viewed as distinct paradigms and trends — and many analysts would agree. But from a user and systems point of view it doesn’t matter. The “”Internet of Things” and the “Internet-Metaverse” won’t care about that distinction. Rule #7: It’s the Internet. All the way down.

So the Metaverse will also connect to reality. And as the connection will approach immediacy, the Metaverse will be a perceived part of reality.

#8

So I even more humbly suggest an addition to the 7 rules of the Metaverse:

Rule #8. The Metaverse is part of reality

And with this an addition to the capabilities outlined in Rule #6:

To affect our surrounding virtual [and linked physical] environment, as appropriate, given sufficient permissions by the owner;

What do you think?

Some more thoughts

1. If you haven’t yet, read the original article. It’s amazing in it’s simplicity and clarity, making a case for how things might be: The Seven Rules of the Metaverse
2. I repeat my disclaimer: I work for Microsoft on things that I could also describe as “bringing together IoT and Mixed Reality”, so my proposed 8th rule might just be me applying the Law of the instrument
3. There will be weird dimensional shifts as we have infinite digital dimensions linked to one physical reality, but that’s another article I guess. This might have potential for more predictions and maybe rules extending #6.
4. Looking at Social Virtual Worlds, things will automatically happen once you link data spatially and let people interact with it. This is true for fully virtual, digital + physical or fully physical systems. That might allow for even more predictions and maybe rules for the Metaverse.
5. Stay safe and healthy everyone! 💙