Revisiting Our Conception of Value
We have been using physical objects as stored tokens of varying value both individually and collectively throughout history. However, our system of value is rapidly changing!
So, what are physical objects? I can write an entire book on this question. However, in broad Hobbesian terms, a physical object is an object that exists in time and space. Therefore, numbers would not be considered physical objects, but photographs would because of their spatial location.
What is unique about physical objects is their traceable ownership. This is true for both individual and collective objects. However, what distinguishes the two is their origin of value.
The value of an object on the individual level is formed through subjective experiences and interactions. Hence, one may view an item as precious while another may view it as worthless (e.g., a photo of my grandma).
While, historically, the value of an object on the collective level reflects the scarcity of the local commodity (cowrie, salt, spices, gold, etc.). Hence, people recognize the extrinsic value of the given object. However, today, we use bills, which aren’t scarce commodities, in our bartering system as we rely on the government’s confidence to retain the value of the bills. Without that confidence, the bills would be virtually worthless.
As we can see, both on the individual and collective level, the object’s value is in the object itself. However, this value structure has changed. We have added an additional layer to particular physical objects: digitizing their value. Therefore, a physical object such as an iPhone or a computer now functions as an agent in accessing its immaterial value (e.g., digital money, music, relationships, apps).
If you are having difficulty wrapping your head around this thought, ask yourself this: “do I value my phone as an object?” Or, “do I value my phone as an object that allows me to access information or connections?” Chances are your answer would be the latter.
We shifted to digitalized value a while ago, and we are simply experiencing the remains of this transition. Therefore, our experience of value has changed. We watch movies, listen to music, and speak to people all online. We no longer store our precious memories on the wall. We store them on the phone. And, soon enough, we won’t have any physical money in our pockets. It will all be digitized. The irony is that we have long ago accepted digital value. The difference rests in who controls it.
This is why I have a love-hate relationship with crypto. Crypto is an exciting opportunity because it cuts out the middleman. For instance, Facebook, a profit-making-oriented company, controls our digital assets through our phones (e.g., personal photos). But what if Facebook permanently crashes as it did a few weeks ago? Our world of stored value would perish. So, if you replace the middleman with a decentralized ecosystem, you won’t face that obstacle. However, you do face a consequential problem: an urge to fully transition into complete digital.
We are already a form of cyborg. We have a machine extension of ourselves in the form of a phone, computer, or application. If you have an internet connection, you have an oracle of wisdom and can communicate with millions of people worldwide. However, with the exacerbation of blockchain technology, we soon won’t need material objects such as phones to access digital value. We will become the “physical object” itself.
This is the age we are entering. An age where our value is accessed through our simulated minds (metaverse). Therefore, it seems René Descartes was not that far off in his Brain in a Vat thought experiment a few hundred years ago. So, my question to you is, “is the metaverse a fancier word for a simulation?” And, if so, “do we need to revisit our definition of physical objects stored in the metaverse?”
Follow me here for more thought-provoking articles!
