In this article, we will discuss the distinction and superiority of real and virtual reality through the story of “Phalaenopsis Orchid Dream” from “Zhuangzi”. There is no standard for distinguishing between the real and the fake, and the superiority of a choice depends on an individual’s subjective value judgment. This is similar to the conflict of Neo in the movie The Matrix.
In the “The Art of Sacrifice” chapter of the Analects of Zhuangzi, there is the story of the “Dream of Hokkien. It’s a story about how Chuang Tzu was turned into a butterfly in a dream, but when he woke up, he couldn’t tell if the butterfly was Chuang Tzu or Chuang Tzu was the butterfly. This story, also known as a “phalaenopsis dream,” is reminiscent of the movie The Matrix. The protagonist Neo, who is torn between real and virtual reality, is like the firstborn child who cannot distinguish himself from a butterfly. Can we distinguish between real and virtual reality, real and fake? And if we can, can we say which one is superior?
The question starts with “can we distinguish between the real and the fake” – that is, can what people call “real” really be called real? First, it is said that the real has an “essence” that the fake does not. If this essence refers to the physical characteristics of an object, then it cannot be said to be absent in a fake. There are plenty of “fakes” whose physical characteristics completely match the so-called “real” ones. A wristwatch, a specialty of Switzerland, is worth a lot of money just because it is made in Switzerland. A “fake” watch that is an exact replica of a Swiss watch is sometimes of such high quality that it tells the time more accurately than a Swiss watch, but it is not called a genuine Swiss wristwatch. In other words, the physical characteristics do not distinguish the real thing from the fake, nor does it really matter.
Some argue for the “independence” of the real: “There is no fake without the real,” meaning that the fake can only exist in the presence of the real, and cannot precede the real in physical time or logical sequence. However, the same applies to the real: for something to be “real,” there must be a fake. Something without a fake is neither real nor fake. Just as you wouldn’t look at a piece of paper on the street without a fake and say, “That’s a real piece of paper,” the same is true of the real: there is no real without a fake. Whatever exists qualifies as “real” the moment the fake comes into existence, which means that the real and the fake come into existence simultaneously, without any physical time or logical sequence preceding each other. In other words, “independence” is not a criterion for distinguishing between the real and the fake.
Someone claims that “the real is the only real”. There is only one real thing in the world. Real things are said to have “uniqueness” or “scarcity,” but are they really unique? There are tons of “cookies” in a hypermarket. Which ones are real and which ones are fake, even if they look and taste the same? If we say that all of them are fake, then the real thing does not exist. In other words, the only thing that can be said to be a real cookie is an individual’s concept of a cookie, which cannot be said to be unique or rare. This is because the concept of “cookie” exists in the minds of all individuals who are aware of it. Conversely, if we say that all cookies are real, then real cookies are neither unique nor scarce. Therefore, we cannot conclude that “real is scarce.” In other words, neither scarcity nor uniqueness can be a criterion for distinguishing between real and fake.
Furthermore, scarcity or uniqueness is a contextual value. Something that is scarce or unique can be superior or inferior. The tsetse fly that carries sleeping sickness in Africa is extremely rare in Asia. However, the rarity of the tsetse fly in Asia does not make it superior at all. On the contrary, even common things can be valuable in certain situations. For example, in the middle of a desert where water is scarce, a drop of water can be worth more than gold. In other words, even if you can convince people that the real thing is scarce, the scarcity of the real thing doesn’t make it superior.
In the end, there is no standard that can distinguish between real and fake. We can’t say what’s real and what’s fake. It’s pointless to choose one or the other just because they’re labeled “real reality” and “virtual reality.” Even if we could somehow distinguish between them, there’s no way to say that the real is superior to the fake.
What we call “real” is mostly a mental construct that comes from our experiences and education, and we separate the real from the fake based on material characteristics or scarcity that we’ve built up in our minds through experience. However, as mentioned above, this is not actually real. In the end, it is only the individual’s subjectivity that determines the distinction between the real and the fake, and determines its dominance. By choosing real or virtual reality based on an individual’s subjective value judgment, it is impossible to determine the absolute superiority of real or virtual reality.
In the end, the question of “which to choose between real and virtual reality” is meaningless, and the choice cannot be rationalized. Real reality and virtual reality are like the dream of the firstborn. You can’t tell if the firstborn dreamed of a butterfly or if the butterfly dreamed of the firstborn. Neither is real in the end. Just as there is no absolute superiority in a choice where the distinction is meaningless, there is no superiority in the reality of the firstborn or the reality of the butterfly. Choosing between the two lives is a subjective value judgment, not a rational decision based on objective criteria.
“The same is true for Neo in The Matrix. The red pill or the blue pill, it’s a meaningless choice. Neo’s teacher, Morpheus, only holds the blue pill in his hands because neither is real. He asks Neo to choose between an imaginary reality and a real reality, but he’s subtly implying that there is no real reality to choose from. What Neo must choose is merely an experience, and whether this choice makes any essential difference to his life depends only on his subjective value judgment.
