Where is the boundary between the physical and the virtual world?
Where is the boundary between the physical and the virtual world? That is a question that on first glance seems to have a straight-forward answer: once you sit down at a computer and start seeing things on a monitor, that's when physical ends and virtual begins. But is it really that simple? There's many angles one can examine this topic from. Let's start with the most obvious one, the literal definition of "virtual".
"not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so"
Sounds convincing, but upon closer inspection does not make a lot of sense. The software in question runs on physical hardware, and it's also presented to our physical eyes by a physical screen. It doesn't just "appear to be physically existing", it has a very clear physical presence. All software does, in this context, is manipulate a grid of pixels on a screen to make you see something on a monitor. But you could achieve a simplified version with a hot air balloon and some people frantically re-arranging a grid of 2560 by 1440 rocks on a field. If you were to play a video game in that scenario by shouting your input down at the hard-working rock-rearrangers, would it be considered virtual? Probably not. So why is it considered common sense that when the same thing happens, but with electricity and some lights, it is virtual?
Is it because you cannot touch things in a monitor? You cannot touch animals in a zoo either. You are theoretically able to, but you are banned from it, and most people presumably never do. Yet I have not heard of a single account describing a visit to a zoo as a "virtual experience". You are merely observing the animals from afar, without any sensation of touch, the same way you do on a computer screen.
There is a very real argument to be made that human communication is different when conducted online (virtually), rather than face-to-face. You cannot read the other person's body language and facial expressions, and points tend to not get across so well. Long chatting over the internet falls flat compared to a real life physical conversation, and doesn't leave you nearly as satisfied. Even video calls don't remedy this issue, presumably because the 2D render of the other person's face lacks depth and the quality of the video call often leaves much to be desired. But these are just technological limitations. If we could stand inside a booth that scans our face and body in real time and projects it to the person on the other end using VR in life-like quality, would it cease to be virtual? You could even use a suit of sorts, that could read your position in the VR space, and make you feel a touch when you get close to the VR avatar of whoever you are in call with. Is that really still virtual? Where do you draw a line?
This is where I want to take a detour into the world of video games. First off, what is a game? That is a whole another topic that game designers and linguists all around the world have a hard time agreeing on, but I like Jesse Schell's definition the most.
"a problem-solving activity, approached with a playful attitude"
Most video games fall into that definition nicely, with the addition that the activity happens through the use of an interface to a computer program. What exactly is the difference between Minecraft and Lego? Why would a parent tell you to "get off the computer" if you were playing Minecraft, but would be perfectly happy if you were to play with Lego? What is the difference between playing soccer and playing a hypothetical 1st person version of FIFA on a treadmill with a VR headset and a sensory suit? What makes one virtual and the other one physical?
Furthermore, what is the difference between collecting things in the physical world such as rare post stamps, pricy whiskey bottles, rocks, cups, designer shoes, perfumes, paintings or old computers and collecting rare loot in an MMORPG? Neither collection has a practical use, they both usually require effort and knowledge, both can be shown off to your friends and both presumably bring joy and a sense of accomplishment to the collector. You could say a "virtual" collection can be wiped out by data loss or the servers shutting down, but a natural disaster hitting your house is also a possibility.
Graphical technology, even now, in 2025, is so advanced that visiting a vista in the latest action-adventure title can leave you just as stunned and in awe at the beauty as visiting a physical vista. Is it too far fetched to claim that "travelling" into a cinematic video game with realistic graphics and taking in the views is not that different from going on a vacation to enjoy the views there? What exactly is the difference between "vacation screenshots" and vacation photos? How much would your opinion on that topic change given sufficient technological advancement? Given sufficient technological advancement, and the axioms we established earlier, is visiting a vista physically and visiting it on Google Earth the same?
I apologize in advance for posing more questions than answers. This topic has always fascinated me, as someone who has been interested in game development since early childhood, but I never arrived at a satisfying conclusion. I believe that now more than ever, this topic is raising in importance, given the advancements in AI and VR.