I feel like taking an object from one simulation to another and having different simulations are oposites. Either you have the same simulations and thus objects share behavior, or the simulations are different and the objects are just 3D things.
not really, we just have to get into some semiotics here and consider the difference between the signifier and the signified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signified_and_signifier). In semiotics, a signifier is a physical artifact; the manifestation of something. A physical stop sign, for example. The signified is the concept embodied by a signifier. All of the stop signs in the world correspond to (roughly) the same concept of stopping, but they are separate instances of that concept. Separate signifiers (instances of "stop sign"), all with the same thing signified (the idea that you should stop).
Now in games, we have the notion of the signifier and the signified, too. Let's take an example item from WoW. I'm using this as an example because it's a game I'm familiar with. An item like Staff of Westfall (https://classic.wowhead.com/item=2042/staff-of-westfall) expresses several things. The first thing that it expresses is that it's a weapon so it uses your weapon slot to equip it, and the stat bonus of +5 intellect that gives you additional mana and +11 spirit that gives you mana regeneration. Great, that's nice. Those things can be taken to be the content of the item: its in-simulation properties and effects. But what does the existence of this item signify? The Staff of Westfall can only be obtained by each player exactly once, cannot be traded between players, and can only be obtained by going to The Deadmines, a particular dungeon, and defeating the final boss. Equipping the Staff of Westfall has the effect that it gives you mana and mana regen, but it also communicates something non-mechanical: that the player carrying the Staff of Westfall has gone to the Deadmines and fought and beaten Edwin VanCleef.
Now, can the Staff of Westfall be transferred to another simulation? Yes and no. The signifier, the physical (virtual?) staff can be transferred to another game in some sense. The 3D model can be transferred, the physical appearance of the item can be transferred. But that was always on your computer all along; it's not particularly meaningful. The effects of the item may or may not be transferable; if a game is not the exact simulation that WoW is, what does +5 intellect and +11 spirit mean? The game operator may elect to translate that to some other concept in their game, or they may not. I think this notion of "transfer" is what you're eluding to: the transfer of the signifier. This concept is probably very useless. It's also the concept that people are generally talking about when they talk about the transfer of items between games. I think it has no merit at all.
But there's something else that can be transferred: the thing that ownership of the Staff of Westfall signifies: the concept that the person holding that item has slayed Edwin VanCleef (in WoW). Transferring the Staff of Westfall may not mean transferring the physical model or its attributes, but it may mean something more along the lines of transferring the meaning of what the player has accomplished. Admittedly, I'm not sure why this would be useful or what the applications of such a system would be; what I'm getting at instead is the idea that transferring an asset may mean many things, and that transferring an asset from one simulation to another is not necessarily the opposite.
> But there's something else that can be transferred: the thing that ownership of the Staff of Westfall signifies: the concept that the person holding that item has slayed Edwin VanCleef (in WoW). Transferring the Staff of Westfall may not mean transferring the physical model or its attributes, but it may mean something more along the lines of transferring the meaning of what the player has accomplished. Admittedly, I'm not sure why this would be useful or what the applications of such a system would be; what I'm getting at instead is the idea that transferring an asset may mean many things, and that transferring an asset from one simulation to another is not necessarily the opposite.
What the "ownership of the Staff of Westfall signifies" is a relatively easy problem to solve. In a way, it's a list of achievements. So the only thing you need to do is to link that list of achievements (or facts if you want to be more general) to a centralized or federated identity. That's easy to do. The 3D object is already harder: not all engines render 3D objects the same way. Maybe there's a "3D object standard" like SVG and you could use that. That's maybe not easy, but not the hardest.
You're hinting at the hard part when saying "it's a weapon so it uses your weapon slot to equip it, and the stat bonus of +5 intellect that gives you additional mana and +11 spirit that gives you mana regeneration". If we remove that part, the "usefulness" of the item, the only thing that's left is appearance and signaling. There's no substance. What's a pen without the ability to write? What's a computer without the ability to run programs? What's a car without the ability of moving? This is why I say that taking an object from one simulation to another is not compatible (at the same effort level) with having different simulations.
> "Yes, everything is possible with enough engineering time. My point is that you can easily do horizontal integration (lots of simulations, mostly cosmetic, almost no behavior) or vertical integration (lots of behavior, few simulation). Both of those have a small surface. But if you want the two at the same time, your surface begins to grow rapidly. You have to implement N behaviours for M simulations. That's not impossible of course. But it's hard."
but the more I think about it, the more I think it's wrong. It's not hard, it is impossible, depending on your definition of different simulations.
For example, what would the Staff of Westfall be in a virtual coworking space? Could you beat up people with it? That would make sense, although I'm not sure it would be suited to a virtual coworking space. Let's just hope your colleague doesn't play shooters. Would it make you "smarter" in a way, by increasing the speed of your computer for example? That is starting to be a bit weird. You could have a badge, or title to say that you've slain the boss, this could work. But how about all the generic equipment? The consumable? How would you express a mana potion in your coworking space? Stimulants maybe? But what would they do? WoW is a game where you (can) try to make your virtual character stronger than the others players/NPC. But that's not really how real life works. That's not how a virtual coworking space would work. "mana" doesn't even exists in your virtual coworking space.
And if your solution to that is to establish some base rules that all simulations follow (physics, capable of executing code contained in an object), then at this point all simulations start becoming the same.
A good analogy for that: how would you reconcile the world in people's dream and the real world? The more you want to bring things from one to the other, the more they lose their distinction. I think the key point here is that a "simulation" is not a name you give to something, but a bag of behaviours, expectations, things. When you bring those things from one simulation to the other, they start being the same. Thus my initial point, having diverse simulations and bringing objects between them are two opposing wishes.
You go in a lot of detail about the "Staff of Westfall" topic which rises some very hard problems, but not all of them need to be solved for a "minimum viable metaverse" (and perhaps not all of them should be solved - likely the optimal spot is somewhere in the middle between those two opposing wishes) - however, there's nothing metaverse-like until we do at least the basics of such connections e.g. ability to link and/or transfers of users, names/identities/aliases and at least some aspects of avatars; and in the case if two simulations are sufficiently similar and want to interoperate, then developing common standards to enable that avatar/item transfer.
Like, it's okay for a particular simulation to have a rule "custom hats are okay, but magic staffs have to stay outside" - but then it needs a protocol that allows them to separate different "accessories" of incoming avatars. And it's okay for a particular simulation (e.g. a virtual conference setup) to have a rule "magic staffs are only decorative items here", but then it needs a technical process to obtain the visual aspects of that staff so that it can properly display it with the new avatar - the simulation might be very different (VR, different styles of 3d vs 2d environment vs perhaps textual representation), so such standards are nontrivial but necessary to have a connected metaverse. (If we want to have it. Myself, I'm not so sure, but some people definitely do)
And if a simulation wants to allow the items inside but have a transformation to fit their specific mechanics - or even transform meaningful items to fit their theme (e.g. a space opera rpg representing the "Staff of Westfall" as a lightsaber) then there should be a standard for that "receiving simulation" to obtain the relevant attributes of that staff so that it can make that transformation, then they should not have to implement a different technical integration for every other simulation, that should be part of the metaverse standards.
You’re still limiting the question to the plane of content: the object’s physical (virtual) characteristics.
Consider the staff as it exists in the plane of expression: what is the person expressing by displaying the item? It would express that you play WoW, are an Alliance player, and play a caster of some sort. That might be a valuable ice breaker or conversation starter; a thing that helps people identify a shared experience or facet of their shared identity.
You have to see through the object’s simulated characteristics and into what the object’s existence means for it to have value. If the object doesn’t mean anything, then there’s not much point in moving it from space to space.
Again, that's if you consider that the only value that exists is showing and signaling. That's, in my opinion, a really limited view of things. Objets are not just here to mean something, but also to do something. In fact, that's the main point of most objects. If your objects are only here because they mean something, they could very well just be a list of facts. Linking a list of facts to your identity, even if it's decentralized, is trivial. But it's not the everything you can do. I have a pickaxe in Minecraft. If I could use it to break rock in <cool metaverse stuff>, that would be great. If I can just show a pickaxe, what's the point of the pickaxe?
The only way you can have separate simulations is if a person can define their own simulation. If you can't define "I won't let you bonk your coworkers on the head with a stick" then you're not in control of your simulation; you're not defining your own simulation, you're just running another instance of some agreed-upon single simulation. At that point, those are the same simulation. So a person setting up a space has to be free to define the behaviors of the objects in that space, otherwise it's not really their simulation.
If you take an object from one simulation to another, and it does not behave the same way in the two simulations, they're still the same object.
> Objets are not just here to mean something, but also to do something.
The fact that they do something does not identify them as objects. A pickaxe in Minecraft doesn't truly break anything. It plays a sound and deletes a cube. If you're in creative mode in Minecraft, it doesn't even increment your inventory. You can also delete a cube in a voxel editor like Magica Voxel. Is the pickaxe in your Minecraft game the same object as the delete button in Magica Voxel? Is the pickaxe in your Minecraft game the same object as the pickaxe in my Minecraft game? Obviously no. They all do the same thing, but they're not the same object.
The only thing necessary to satisfy "moving an object from one simulation to another" is that they be provably of one distinct identity and not be duplicable.
That would mean that you don't have money. Many objects are fungible. If our two pickaxes have the same properties (same name, enchantements, durability, material), then they are the same. A big part of our experience in the world is fungible. Most of the time when I want a pen I only want to be able to write on paper. I don't care if it's your pen or my pen or anything like this.