??原题：in “the metaverse”, matthew ball explains where the idea came from and where it might be going
?
do you remember?the information superhighway? in the early 1990s pundits predicted that high-speed data networks would soon connect millions of people, letting them exchange information and linking them to “movies and television shows, shopping services, electronic mail and huge collections of data”, as the?new york times?put it. yet today millions use netflix and amazon, gmail and wikipedia, and no one talks of “cruising the information superhighway”—or ever did. the vision was prescient, but the jargon died.你还记住信息高速公路吗？上世纪90年代初，专家曾猜测高速数据网络很快就能连通数百万人，我们可以（经过数据网络）交流信息，而且依照《纽约时报》的说法，我们还可以“观看影片和电视节目、享受购物效能、收发电子邮件并获取海量的数据”。尽管如今稀有百万人都在运用网飞、亚马逊、谷歌邮箱和维基百科，但没人会（把造访大数据库）说成是“畅游信息高速公路”——或许历来没人这么说过。当年的想象颇有先见之明，但“信息高速公路”这一术语却消亡了。
something similar may now be happening with the term “metaverse”. it is also the subject of feverish speculation—this time about the possibilities of 3d?virtual worlds, and a sense that video-game technology and online communication are converging in interesting ways. but its definition is elusive, and none of the multitudes who congregate in virtual worlds today, such as players of the game “fortnite”, actually use the word.现如今，“元世界”这一术语或许正阅历和“信息高速公路”较为类似的境遇。与之前相同，我们热切地对元世界打开各种想象，不过这一次是环绕着3d虚拟世界的无限可以，以及视频游戏技能和在线交流的风趣交融。可是关于元世界的界说仍然很迷糊，如今虚拟世界中的群众，例如《堡垒之夜》游戏的玩家等，实践没有一自个运用“元世界”这个术语。
it broke into public consciousness in october 2021, when facebook renamed itself meta, signalling its ambitions in this new arena. people who had not previously heard the word “metaverse” assumed it was a new facebook product. but the term has been used in tech circles for years, and other companies, including microsoft and roblox, had in fact already staked their own claims to be metaverse merchants.2021年10月，脸书更名为meta，宏愿勃勃地要在元世界领域大展拳脚，致使了大众对“元世界”的重视。此前从未传闻过“元世界”的人还认为这是脸书旗下的新产品。可是这个术语现已在科技圈撒播多年，微柔和罗布乐思等公司实践上早就现已为进入元世界规划了。
metaverse is a relatively new name for an old idea, explains matthew ball, a technology analyst (and occasional contributor tothe economist), in his survey of the topic. the word was coined in 1992 by neal stephenson in his novel “snow crash”. mr ball traces the concept of a parallel, synthetic reality back to “pygmalion’s spectacles”, a short story of 1935 by stanley weinbaum, and later tales by ray bradbury, philip k. dick, isaac asimov and william gibson. strikingly, all their synthetic worlds are dystopias—a detail modern tech bosses have failed to notice, or chosen to ignore.技能分析专家马修·鲍尔在他关于元世界的分析中说到，元世界这个概念就是新瓶装旧酒。1992年，尼尔·斯蒂芬森在小说《雪崩》中创造了元世界一词。鲍尔先生把人工平行实际的概念追溯到斯坦利·温鲍姆1935年的短篇小说《皮格马利翁的眼镜》，以及后来雷·布拉德伯里，菲利普·k·迪克，阿西莫夫·艾萨克和威廉·吉布森所写的故事。令人吃惊的是，这些作家笔下的平行世界都是反乌托邦式的——这个细节现代科技大佬们不曾发觉，抑或故意忽略。
mr ball’s summary of the history of virtual worlds, in both fiction and computer science, provides helpful context. but his book’s most valuable contribution may prove to be his definition of the metaverse: an interoperable network of 3dvirtual worlds that can be accessed simultaneously by millions of users, who can exert property rights over virtual items.鲍尔先生对虚拟小说和真实电脑科技中的虚拟世界进行了总结，供给了有用的布景信息。可是鲍尔书中最可贵的奉献可以在于他对元世界的界说：几百万用户可以一起造访协同互通的3d虚拟世界网络，而且用户在其间可以行使对虚拟物品的物权。
this definition is interesting as much for what it leaves out as for what it includes. it is not simply a rebranding of virtual reality: headsets are optional, and today virtual worlds are mostly accessed using flat screens. nor are blockchains or non-fungible tokens mentioned, though mr ball concedes they may have a role. he insists that, just as there is only one internet, made up of many different networks and services that have more value for being connected, there should be only one metaverse, made up of many virtual worlds.该界说非常有意思，包括的内容许多，但相同留白的空间也很大。这并非只是简略地将虚拟实际从头包装：头戴式设备并非必需品，现如今我们大多是经过平面屏进入虚拟世界。书中也未提及区块链和非同质化代币，尽管鲍尔先生招认这两者都在原世界中有所体现。他坚称，正如因特网只需一个，可是却包括了许多不一样的网络和
效能，而且这些网络经过互联发生了更大的价值，相同，元世界也应只需一个，只不过是由许多个虚拟世界构成。
given that virtual worlds already exist, the next steps will include scaling them up to support more users (online games carefully limit their numbers), making them more realistic and accessible, and devising new hardware to allow greater immersion. progress is being made on all those fronts. but by far the biggest challenge will be to make connections between what are currently separate worlds. for example, it is not yet possible to take an item of virtual clothing from “fortnite” into “minecraft”.鉴于许多虚拟世界业已存在，接下来要做的就是拓宽规划，以承载更多用户（网游严肃捆绑玩家人数）；前进虚拟世界的真实感，使其更便于用户造访；方案新的硬件设备，为用户带来更佳的沉溺领会。这些方面均持续获得发展。可是，迄今中止面临的最大应战是如何在彼此分隔的世界间构建互联。例如，用户在网游《堡垒之夜》上收购的虚拟服装暂时还无法到《我的世界》中运用。
mr ball is optimistic that “economic gravity” will drive companies to co-operate in devising and adopting open standards, because the market that this will unlock will be much bigger than any of them could create alone. he adduces the so-called protocol wars of the 1970s-90s, when rival computer-networking standards vied for supremacy. ultimately an open standard prevailed, the internet protocol, because a common format created a bigger market.不过，鲍尔旷达地认为，“经济引力”将促进公司一起方案并选用翻开的标准，因为这样创造的商场规划远胜于单打独斗。他援引上世纪70-90年代的“网络协议之战”为例子。其时，各核算机网络标准都想一家独大。究竟，《网际互连协议》这一翻开标准为世人采用，因为共同格局可创造更大的商场。
?
9-similarly it makes economic sense, mr ball argues, for virtual worlds to share data and interoperate. today people buy fewer objects inside games and other virtual worlds than they might if ownership rights were firmer and items more portable. tackle those problems, and more people might be willing to fork out. economics, mr ball says, “will drive standardisation and interoperation over time”.鲍尔标明，相同，虚拟世界间同享数据、协同互通也能发生非常好的经济效益。假定物品一切权打点更为严肃，且物品可在各平台间跨区，那么如今我们在游戏和其他虚拟世界中置办的物品可就远不止这么些了。若能处置上述疑问，将有更多情面愿买单。鲍尔说，经济学“究竟将推进标准化和协同互通”。
he draws an illuminating analogy with the history of smartphones. another way to think of the metaverse, he points out, is as the successor to the rise of the mobile internet. mobile devices extended, but also changed, the way people experience the internet, with the advent of things like navigation apps and ride-hailing. the metaverse could represent a comparable kind of shift, transforming what the internet can do and how it is used.鲍尔将元世界与智能手机的打开史进行了类推，很有启示性。他指出，元世界在某种程度上可以认为是移动网络鼓起的后继。跟着导航、打车这些软件的呈现，我们领会网络的方法也经过移动设备得以延伸和改动。元世界相同能承载这种改动——它改动了咱们运用互联网的方法，也拓宽了互联网的外延。
but isn’t the smartphone industry dominated by the duopoly of apple and 谷歌? this is one case where “economic gravity” has not led to interoperability. mr ball thinks regulatory action is needed to loosen the duo’s grips on payment systems and app stores, which “limit the growth potential not only of virtual-world platforms, but also the internet at large”.可是，智能手机作业不是被苹果和谷歌这两家占有了么？在这一领域中，“经济引力”究竟未能带来协同互通。鲍尔认为，这两家在使用商铺以及付出体系上健壮的控制力，“阻止了虚拟世界平台，甚至整个互联网的打开”，监管部分有必要对此进行打点。
the author wisely avoids spending too much time trying to imagine all the future uses of the metaverse, or analysing which of today’s tech giants are best-placed to exploit it. nor does he dig very deeply into the inevitable regulatory and governance challenges. it is far too early in the game. think of those predictions from 1993: they were broadly correct, but netflix, amazon, gmail and wikipedia did not exist. the rise of smartphones, too, toppled previous industry leaders. the metaverse could cause a similar changing of the guard.在本书中，作者很正确地选择避免花太多翰墨展望将来元世界的一切用处，也没有着力去分析今日的科技巨子稚衲一家最有可以在这一领域大有可为。作者相同没有深究那些必定要面临的监管和打点应战——究竟谈论这些尚为时过早。想想1993年时分的预言吧：的确大方向都猜测对了，可是网飞、亚马逊、谷歌邮箱和维基百科其时都不存在。智能手机的呈现带来了头部科技公司的大洗牌，而元世界或将具有相同的推翻性力气。
even the word metaverse may not stick, mr ball admits. something like it will have arrived by the end of the decade, but “we may ultimately use a different term for this future”. like the information superhighway, this latest buzzword seems to point in the right direction, but may get lost along the way. for anyone who wants to understand the process and what is at stake, mr ball’s lucid and timely book offers a portal into a new realm.?鲍尔在书中坦言，甚至“元世界”这个提法也不必定会一向存在。待这个十年结束的时分，某种类似元世界的东西可以现已呈现，可是“咱们最终可以并不会运用‘元世界’来称号这一将来的事物”。就像“信息高速公路”相同，这个最新的潮流词汇的确为将来指明晰方向，可是或许这个词本身在半路就“翻车”了。关于想要晓得这一进程，以及其间好坏联络的读者而言，鲍尔的书为你供给了清楚而及时的解读，引领你走进这个簇新的科技王国。
?
—— the economist
?文章来历：《经济学人》????????????????????????????????????????????
