A New Paradigm of Metaverse Philosophy: From Anthropocentrism to Metasubjectivity

Abstract

This article explores the philosophical and legal foundations of the Metaverse as an emerging socio-technological reality. It examines the co-evolution of technology, law, and society, emphasizing the need for new frameworks to address identity, subjectivity, and regulation in virtual spaces. Central to the analysis is the concept of Metasubjectivity, which affirms the ontological equality of humans, AI, and digital avatars. The study critiques classical anthropocentric paradigms and highlights postanthropocentric approaches that integrate ethical pluralism and algorithmic governance. Key risks, including dehumanization, identity crises, and algorithmic discrimination, are discussed in the context of digital subjectivity and emerging e-jurisdictions. The study presents a philosophical model that integrates critical rationalism, process philosophy, and the e-jurisdiction legal paradigm, with the aim of ensuring fairness and balance in digital ecosystems.

1. Introduction and Related Works

Most traditional philosophical approaches to the social organization of the physical world, such as Marxism [1], naturalism [2], existentialism [3], or structuralism [4], focus on material conditions, physical interactions, and social relations, offering different perspectives on how social structures emerge in the real world and can influence virtual environments such as the Metaverse [5,6]. These philosophical concepts were developed at a time when digital technologies either did not exist or had little impact on social life and were not part of social life [7]. As a result, they do not consider the specific aspects of social dynamics in virtual spaces that become central to the Metaverse.

Metaverse is a new formation of society that is being created and developed with the application of immersive technologies and Web 3.0, Web 4.0 use in virtual environments that have no analogs in the physical world [8,9,10]. Virtual avatars [11], digital identities [12], electronic humanoids [13], simulacra [14], artificial intelligence (AI) [15], AGI [16], digital subjects and objects [17], virtual economies [18], and social networks [19] create new forms of electronic social organization. These subjects interact with each other in virtual spaces, providing for the creation of new social structures that do not depend on the physical limitations inherent in traditional societies. Based on their interaction, unique social relations are formed that include not only human subjects but also artificial intelligence, digital objects, and virtual entities capable of independent existence and interaction.

Thus, an introduction to the Metaverse philosophy requires a critical analysis of traditional approaches to the social world organization, such as Marxism, naturalism, existentialism, and structuralism, which focus on material conditions, physical interactions, and social relations. These philosophical concepts developed in an era when digital technologies either did not exist or had a minimal impact on social life, which precludes taking into account the possibility of specific social dynamics aspects in virtual spaces. Contemporary philosophy is faced with the need to adapt to new conditions caused by the development of technologies such as the Metaverse.

The metaverse is a new social phenomenon based on the application of immersive technologies and the Web 3.0 and Web 4.0 concepts. It forms virtual environments that have no analogs in the physical world. Virtual avatars, digital identities, electronic humanoids, artificial intelligence, and other digital entities and objects create new forms of social organization that go beyond traditional societies’ physical limitations. These new subjects and objects interact with each other, forming unique social structures that include not only people but also artificial intelligence, digital objects, and virtual entities with the ability to independently exist and interact.

However, traditional philosophical approaches focused on the material and physical aspects of social life are insufficient to comprehend such changes. Existing theories cannot adequately reflect the social relations of new forms emerging in the Metaverse, which may negatively affect the understanding of social transformation processes. Philosophy that does not take into account virtual and digital realities risks ignoring key changes in social organization.

Thus, the Metaverse requires the development of new philosophical theoretical frameworks and model development that can fully reflect the social structures’ emerging features in virtual ecosystems. One of these areas is the ontology rethinking, where traditional categories of reality should be revised in the light of the emergence of digital and virtual objects that can influence social relations and interactions. To adequately understand these new social realities, it is necessary to develop a theoretical basis that will take into account the Metaverse’s unique features and lay the necessary methodological principles for further research.

Thus, understanding how such technologies can change not only social structures but also the very nature of human existence is a pressing scientific and applied task. If the metaverse is considered as a purely technological structure, engineers will be enough to develop and maintain its functionality. However, if it is considered as a new social formation, it requires philosophical analysis to understand how a person, their identity, agency, and interaction with the world are changing, as well as how these changes affect social and moral norms. Philosophy helps to see deeper issues that the technological approach cannot cover, such as values, ethics, and the virtual world’s ontology. Thus, philosophy is necessary to fully comprehend and understand how the Metaverse transforms human existence and socio-cultural structures, which no engineer or sociologist can cope with.

Thus, the chosen approach is based on the gap between classical philosophical paradigms and the new socio-technical realities of the Metaverse identified in the introduction. Traditional theories (Marxism, naturalism, phenomenology, etc.) do not take into account the digital subjects, emerging virtual avatars, and autonomous AI, which form new types of social relations and require a reconceptualization of ontology and norms. Therefore, an interdisciplinary synthesizing strategy is applied, which includes a combination of Popper’s critical rationalism (as a methodology for verifying and transforming norms), Whitehead’s process philosophy (as a dynamic reality model), and Lessing’s “code is law” theory (as the technical regulation understanding), supplemented by the e-jurisdictions paradigm in order to build a conceptual system adequate to the flexible, decentralized, and technologically conditioned environment of the Metaverse.

The methodological approach is based on a combination of analytical and inductive methods, historical and philosophical analysis, and a systemic consideration of socio-technical co-evolution, which allows not only to describe the phenomenon (multi-identity, the “meta-subjects” emergence), but also to put forward normative and pragmatic postulates for ethics and law in virtual ecosystems (including the algorithmic justice requirements and the e-jurisdiction new model).

The scientific contribution of the study is the formulation and justification of a new paradigm of “meta-subjectivity” and a set of ten Metaverse philosophy postulates, which unite the ontological, ethical, and legal aspects of digital existence and offer a theoretical basis for the algorithmic justice and e-jurisdictions development.

2. Materials and Methods

The metaverse significantly changes our understanding of the human being, influencing their agency, identity, and selfhood. In the virtual worlds context, where interaction occurs through avatars and digital representations, traditional concepts of human personality are rethought. A person, previously perceived as an individual with a limited physical reality, can now create and manage multiple identities that exist in different virtual spaces. This opens up new horizons for self-definition and self-expression, but at the same time calls into question the “real” self-essence, as digital entities begin to actively interact with the surrounding world, sometimes with even greater capabilities than physical bodies.

Agency in the Metaverse is also undergoing significant changes. Virtual agents, which are not only people but also artificial intelligence systems, are becoming active participants in social interactions. These digital agents have the ability not only to react but also to act independently, which allows for the interaction and creation of new forms between subjects. In this context, a person is no longer the only actor but a part of a more complex network of interactions, where the roles of artificial intelligence and virtual objects become no less significant than the role of the human subject.

Identity in the metaverse becomes multilayered and multifaceted. Virtual personalities can exist in different forms and adapt to a variety of conditions, allowing people to explore new aspects of their identity that were previously limited to the physical world. Self-knowledge and self-expression are no longer limited to real social and cultural boundaries but can be explored in multiple virtual worlds and their interactions. However, this change raises questions about identity stability and authenticity, as the virtual environment allows for self-constructibility, where the boundaries between reality and fantasy become blurred.

These changes in the human concept are largely associated with the Anthropocene, an era in which humans have become the main agent of global change on Earth. The metaverse development, as a human activity digital extension, is the consequence of this process. The Anthropocene, which focuses on the human activity’s impact on the planet, now includes virtual spaces as an integral part of human existence. The Metaverse is becoming not just a technological achievement but also the Anthropocene evolution continuation, where man, through technology, changes and creates new forms of reality, going beyond the physical ecosystem.

Thus, changes in human perception in the Metaverse are closely linked to new socio-technological processes that imply the co-evolution of humans and their technologies (see Figure 1). Virtual and digital worlds are becoming part of a new reality in which humans and technologies exist in dynamic interaction, creating unique forms of social relations and identity. The co-evolution of these processes indicates that humans, in turn, must adapt to the changes that occur in their digital and physical environment.

In this light, it is necessary to consider the co-evolution of socio-cultural and technological foundations, which implies the mutual development of humans and technology. This cooperation between the human mind and artificial intelligence, between the physical and virtual worlds, leads to the formation of new social forms. In this co-evolution, it is important to consider not only technical aspects but also cultural, ethical, and philosophical issues related to the technologies’ creation and development and their impact on the individual, society, and the global ecosystem.

2.1. Co-Evolution and Socio-Technological Foundations

The study used the following methods: analytical method for analyzing philosophical concepts and synthesizing a new Metaverse paradigm based on a combination of different philosophical theories; inductive method for generalization based on specific empirical examples of the development of digital technologies and their impact on society; systematic approach to the study of Metaverse co-evolution; method of historical and philosophical analysis, which includes the study of philosophical views of the past and their possible adaptation to modern virtual ecosystems from traditional anthropocentrism to modern post.

Metaverse co-evolution is a continuous process in which technological innovations, social mores, legal frameworks, and cultural norms evolve in an interconnected and interdependent manner in the context of virtual ecosystems, involving dynamic interactions between technology developers, users, policy makers, sociologists, and lawyers who jointly shape the direction of Metaverse development and evolution.

When projected onto the Metaverse, co-evolution [20] reflects how changes in technology can influence human behavior and interactions in virtual spaces, and vice versa, how the needs and desires of users can drive technological innovation, adaptation of legal and ethical norms, and the formation of societies that emerge within the Metaverse [21].

Thus, the co-evolution of the Metaverse encompasses various aspects (Figure 1):

• Technological development and influence of immersive technologies Artificial Intelligence (AI) [22], Machine Learning (ML) [23], Natural Language Processing (NLP) [24], Linguometry, Stylemetry and Glottochronology (LLM) [25], Computer Vision [26], Deep Learning [27], Reinforcement Learning [28], Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) [29], Recommendation Systems [30], Autonomous Agents [31], Predictive Analytics [32], Robotics [33], Artificial Intelligence of Things (AIoT) [34], Edge Artificial Intelligence (Edge AI) [35], Large Language Models (LLM) [36], Internet of Things (IoT) [37], and Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) [38] on the possibilities of interaction and creation in the Metaverse;
• Social adaptation of users to life and interaction in virtual worlds, formation of new forms of social behavior in digital ecosystems;
• Legal challenges and the response and adaptation of existing and new legal boundaries to regulate relations in virtual spaces, as well as to ensure the protection of the rights and freedoms of subjects and objects in the Metaverse;
• Cultural changes, transformation, and evolution of established traditions, cultural and moral norms, social and human values in response to the opportunities and challenges offered by the Metaverse.

2.2. Proto-Metaverse: Philosophy Before the Emergence of Digital Worlds

Analog world: a concept that refers to the period covering the era of human existence before the digital revolution, before the advent of the Internet and digital technologies, where information was transmitted and processed by manual and mechanical means through analog data transmission means verbally, in printed or other physical form. Accordingly, analog law: a set of legal rules and principles that regulated social relations in the period before the digital revolution, when all legal actions, transactions, and communications were carried out without the use of digital technologies.

The peculiarity of the co-evolutionary processes of our time is the absence of sustainability (see Figure 1); on the contrary, it involves constant interaction and coalition between different elements of analog and virtual ecosystems, which ultimately form the multifaceted and dynamic world of the Metaverse.

Analog world concepts are the basis for the formation of Metaverse philosophy.

The Metaverse is a modern paradigm that has emerged because of the development of the Science and Technology Revolution (STR) 5.0, Super Smart Society, Industry 5.0, immersive technologies, Web 3.0, Web 4.0, AI, and the Internet of Things (IoT) [39,40,41,42,43,44].

The term ‘Metaverse’ was introduced in 1992 into the public scientific space by Neal Stephenson in his novel Snow Crash. However, the Metaverse concept itself began to develop much earlier, with Metaverse ‘sparks’ being seen in the works of philosophers, art, and architecture of different eras. In terms of practical implementation, Proto-Metaverse technical systems have only recently appeared.

In the 1960s, American scientist Ivan Sutherland developed the first virtual reality VR system known as the “Sword of Damocles” [45,46] in the concept of the “The Ultimate Display” [47,48], which allowed users to interact with a virtual environment [49,50]. In the 1980s, American scientist Jaron Lanier developed the first commercial VR system [51]. In the 1990s, the concept of Metaverse began to develop in the field of computer games in the game “Ultima Online” [52], which allowed players to interact with each other in a virtual world. In the 2000s, the concept of Metaverse began to develop in the field of social networks in the Second Life network, which allowed users to create their own virtual avatars and interact with other users in a virtual world. In the 2010s, the Metaverse concept began to develop in the field of virtual and augmented reality with the advent of VR/AR technologies.

Let us consider the Proto-Metaverse and the philosophical currents that substantiate the potential of human existence beyond the boundaries of analog reality.

Proto-Metaverse is the past philosophers’ and prominent personalities’ generalized views, who did not directly point to the Metaverse’s existence possibility in its modern digital form but considered the society’s other forms’ idea fundamentals through the prism of materialistic and idealistic views before the Metaverse’s actual creation, seeing the material world as the human world’s continuation, reflecting economic, social, and physical laws in new, artificial realities. This position is based on the idea that virtual worlds are a continuation of human practice related to the needs and interests of the physical world.

Thus, the Proto-Metaverse is a concept that was not widely recognized before the digital technology advent. Still, it points to early theoretical ideas that anticipate the creation of modern virtual worlds.

The philosophical views formulated by thinkers before the emergence of the modern understanding of the Metaverse were intended to explain the nature of human existence, expand the boundaries of what is possible for the human mind, and create a basis for future concepts. Despite the absence of a technological context, philosophers of the past laid the foundations for understanding reality beyond the physical world [21]. Figure 2 presents the main schools of thought that explain humanity’s existence possibility beyond the analog space, including the novelists’ and legal theorists’ ideas.

It is noted that idealism is excluded from Figure 2 because it represents a distinct philosophical tradition that emphasizes the ideas and consciousness primacy, as opposed to other approaches that are more directly concerned with the development of social and technological aspects, as seen in the proto-meta universe context. Furthermore, idealism as a philosophical position in the metaverse requires context and a separate, more in-depth analysis that goes beyond the conceptual framework. Idealism, as represented by philosophers such as Plato and George Berkeley, proposes to view reality not as something that depends only on physical objects but as a construct that is shaped by perceptions and ideas. Plato believed that the true reality lies in the world of ideas, and the physical world is only its reflection. This concept can be applied to the Metaverse, where digital worlds are the embodiment of ideas created by the human mind. The Metaverse thus becomes the embodiment of idealism, where reality is created by the mind and is not just a material phenomenon. Thus, Plato, in his treatise The Republic, Book VII (Allegory of the Cave), forms the idea that the physical world is only a shadow of the true reality, which is the world of ideas, and indirectly the world of the Metaverse, as a digital concentration of ideas. In his A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, George Berkeley argues that the existence of things depends on their perception and can be transposed to the forms of user perception in the Metaverse.

Transcendentalism, a philosophical trend that emphasizes the freedom of human consciousness in creating its own reality, was formed by Immanuel Kant, who considered consciousness as the main module of reality formation, where the world is perceived through the prism of subjective categories and mental structures created by people who not only create but also adapt virtual ecosystems in accordance with their internal views and values [53]. The freedom of consciousness offered by transcendentalism is the foundation for virtual spaces where a person can freely express themselves and create a new reality in the Metaverse, forming experiences using a priori categories [54].

Social constructivism, whose authors are Ludwig Wittgenstein [55], Peter L. Berger [56], and Thomas Lukman, assumes that reality is created through interaction between people, through the exchange of symbols and meanings. This concept is based on the postulate that society builds shared realities through communication and collective understanding [57]. It is this postulate that can be applied to the digital environment of the Metaverse, which allows individuals to form shared virtual worlds and cultures, using language, symbols, and technology to interact with each other without physical barriers.

Social naturalism offers a new approach to understanding social reality based on the idea of natural laws of social life. Today, there are still discussions about whether society can be studied using the same methods as the natural sciences. The naturalistic tradition is consistent with positivist principles, while the anti-naturalistic tradition emphasizes the methodological difference between the social and natural sciences [58,59]. Social naturalism, as a theoretical paradigm, rejects the dualistic division between the ‘social’ and the ‘natural’, insisting that people, as part of nature, create social systems according to the same principles that affect natural phenomena. This statement presupposes harmony between social and natural laws. But is it really realized in practice, given the complexities of human interaction with nature and the influence of social factors on natural processes? This question remains open from a philosophical point of view, since it touches on fundamental questions about human nature, its interaction with the surrounding world, and social structures. The answer to it depends on the theoretical paradigm within which the social and natural factors’ influence is considered, as well as on how exactly the “natural” and “social” concepts are interpreted.

Metaverse creates a new form of social reality where people interact not only with other people, but also with avatars, artificial intelligence, and virtual objects. This transition requires a revision of traditional social practices and the search for new models of interaction that ensure sustainability and development in the new environment. Social naturalism provides analytical tools to understand these processes and ensure their natural development in a much more flexible way than in the real world.

The phenomenology developed by Edmund Husserl [60,61,62] emphasizes the importance of personal experience in shaping reality. According to this concept, reality is what we feel and experience at a particular moment [63]. In the context of the Metaverse, virtual experience becomes a real reality for the user, as consciousness perceives it as part of its own being [64]. This emphasizes the importance of subjective experience in virtual worlds and makes it possible to consider the Metaverse as part of subjective human reality, where experience is a central element of being.

Roman Ingarden developed Husserl’s ideas, emphasizing the intentionality specificity, that is, the consciousness toward an object orientation. Unlike Husserl, who focused more on subjective experiences, Ingarden introduced the intentional object concept that exists in consciousness as something that is addressed but has no physical existence in the real world. This concept can be useful for analyzing virtual objects in the Metaverse, such as avatars or digital entities that are perceived as real despite their intangibility in the physical world.

Ingarden’s ontology of purely intentional objects describes objects that exist exclusively in consciousness and are a projection of the subject’s mental activity. Still, at the same time, they have their own “reality” in the perception context and interaction with them. These objects, like avatars in virtual worlds, do not have physical materiality but create a sense of reality and autonomy in the user. Such an understanding can become the basis for a philosophical justification of the existence of virtual objects and even virtual personalities that interact with each other and are perceived as independent entities.

Thus, if Ingarden’s approach is adapted to modern technologies, his concept may provide an opportunity to understand more deeply the ontological nature of objects created in the Metaverse. Virtual entities, avatars, and other intentional objects can be understood as phenomena that exist in the users’ minds but have internal coherence and a certain reality in virtual space.

Symbolic interactionism, as studied by George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman [65], indicates that people create meaning through interaction with others using symbols and language. The metaverse is a space where this interaction takes place on a scale that is not possible in the physical world. People can create collective identities, new cultural phenomena, and even entire worlds based on mutual understanding and shared symbols that are meaningful to the participants in a virtual community, and create and use symbols to represent themselves, which can be applied to the creation of avatars and virtual identities in the Metaverse [66]. In the Metaverse, where users represent themselves through avatars, symbolic interactionism explains how these avatars become a means of expressing identity and interacting with others.

John Perry Barlow, an activist and one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, emphasizes the importance of freedom and autonomy on the Internet in his work Declaration of Cyberspace Independence. In his declaration, Barlow proclaims that cyberspace is not subject to the traditional laws of national jurisdictions and should be a free space for self-expression and innovation. “We are creating a world where all people can enter without privilege or prejudice, regardless of race, economic power, military strength, or place of birth”.

Neal Stephenson’s concept initiated modern views and understanding of Metaverse virtual spaces, in which each subject can create and transform their personality and the surrounding digital environment. The idea of virtual spaces in which people can interact and live in parallel with physical life has predicted the development of modern virtual platforms and technologies.

Jaron Zepel Lanier, a scientist and one of the pioneers of virtual reality, proposed the concept of the Metaverse as an integration space where digital and physical worlds interact, forming a new dimension of existence. According to Jaron Zepel Lanier, the Metaverse is a virtual environment where each person can not only imagine themselves differently, but also create new worlds according to their ideas. Jaron Zepel Lanier emphasized that it is important to preserve humanity and ethics in this process, because digital worlds can change not only the way people interact, but also the very nature of human identity. An important aspect of his concept is that the Metaverse should serve as a tool for creativity and expression, rather than turning into a way of controlling or manipulating people.

Therefore, it is relevant to study the philosophical trends emerging in the Metaverse paradigm, with an emphasis on post-anthropocentrism, which rejects the human exceptionalism idea and offers a new approach to consciousness perception and its interaction with digital entities such as artificial intelligence, avatars, and other forms of virtual reality. This concept offers a way beyond anthropocentrism and has significant potential for rethinking the role of humans, artificial intelligence, and other digital actors in the world, especially in the Metaverse technologies development era.

2.3. From Anthropocentrism to Postanthropocentrism

As one of the alternative forms of contemporary philosophical reflection, we propose an analysis of the philosophical directions emerging within the paradigm of the Metaverse. The term postanthropocentric derives from the Latin anthropos, meaning “human”, and the Greek kentron, meaning “center.” It denotes a departure from philosophical and worldview paradigms in which the human being is considered the center of the universe, the highest form of life, and the primary measure of existence. Postanthropocentric not only critiques this human-centered perspective but also redefines the role of the human within a broader system of relations—encompassing nature, technology, other forms of life, and, in the contemporary context, digital agents such as artificial intelligence (AI), avatars, and simulacra.

In classical philosophy, anthropocentrism is based on the postulate that the human being has an exceptional consciousness, morality, and capacity for reflection, which allowed him to dominate nature and social relationships [67]. Anthropocentrism is a philosophical concept that states that man occupies a central place in the universe, and all other elements of nature exist for his needs and are seen as a natural part of human evolution [68]. However, although the paradigm of human uniqueness and exclusivity is historically ingrained, it is increasingly seen as counterproductive against the backdrop of modern societal transformations [69] and changes in habitat, which may become more unfavorable for humans [70].

The assertion that AI and immersive technologies lack human capabilities and are unacceptable for traditional societal roles adds to anthropocentrism an experience that denies the possibility of technological evolution to make more progress than experience with AI and technology [71].

Postanthropocentric is a modern concept that indicates the equality of all forms of consciousness, regardless of their nature, including artificial actors in the digital world of the Metaverse.

This philosophical concept offers a way beyond human-centrism. It has significant potential for rethinking the role of humans, artificial intelligence and other digital actors in the world, primarily in the era of the development of Metaverse technologies and rethinking the traditional role and instrumental functionality of law, especially information law [72]. This concept recognizes that modern reality has been significantly transformed by technological innovations that have created new subjects of being interacting on equal terms with humans [73].

The postphenomenology and technological mediation concept, developed by Don Ihde [74] and Pieter-Paul Verbeek [75], allows us to understand more deeply how communication through technology can change the relationship between humans and the world. Don Ihde, in his postphenomenological theory, emphasizes that technologies are not just tools but become active participants in interactions, changing human perception and experience. He argues that technologies serve as mediators in the world perception and that it is through technologies that we experience our connection with the surrounding reality. In this context, the metaverse becomes not only a medium for digital interaction but also an important link in the agency redistribution between humans and technology. Technologies in the Metaverse not only help humans interact with the world but also create new possibilities for perception, in which artificial agents, avatars, and other digital entities play an important role.

Peter-Paul Verbeek, in turn, develops the technological mediation idea, arguing that technologies are not neutral but actively intervene in the perception process and interaction with the world. According to his theory, technologies have the ability to “shape” the world with which we interact, which makes them key mediators in establishing new relationships between a person and his environment. In the Metaverse context, this approach is especially relevant, since virtual worlds and digital technologies change not only the communication methods but also the very foundations of human existence, forcing us to reconsider the traditional boundaries between the real and the virtual, between man and machine.

Albert Borgmann [76], known for his views on reality and technology, also offers an interesting understanding of digital technologies. He argues that technology should be understood primarily as something that reveals reality, rather than as something that hides it. His work discusses how modern technologies, including digital ones, can expand the reality perception and change the very nature of what we consider real. Borgmann argues that digital technologies, including the Metaverse, can create new forms of reality in which virtual worlds become not just copies of physical reality but equal participants in existence.

These philosophical concepts allow us to see how digital technologies, and, in particular, the Metaverse, are changing not only our perception of the world but also the very nature of human existence. Contemporary philosophy, including postphenomenology, points to the recognition of technologies’ importance as subjects that actively influence the reality creation and transformation. This recognition becomes an important step in understanding how the metaverse can change the relationship between humans, artificial intelligence, and other digital entities.

Chen’s research, “Philosophy of the Metaverse” [77], is an important study in this context, as it addresses questions about how digital technologies, including the Metaverse, affect our understanding of humans and reality. Chen explores how contemporary philosophical approaches such as post-anthropocentrism can be applied to understand the new social and ethical relationships that arise in virtual worlds. He emphasizes recognizing the consciousness of all forms of equality and importance, including artificial intelligence and digital agents, and proposes new approaches to regulating interactions between biological and digital subjects.

Philosophical postanthropocentric is based on the deconstruction of traditional anthropocentrism, which recognizes man as the supreme subject of reality, the central point of meaningful being [78]. Postanthropocentric denies this privileged status, recognizing the existence of other forms of consciousness, specifically digital ones, that can act as independent subjects [72]. This new thinking is focused on accepting the diversity of subjects of reality and virtual reality. Thus, in the postanthropocentric ecosystem there is no clear hierarchy, and a person is only one of many participants in the interaction process between virtual and physical spaces.

The main aspects of postanthropocentric include:

• The equality of subjects implies that the human being is not the sole or superior subject of reality, but that all subjects, regardless of the nature of their consciousness (biological or digital), have an equal right to exist and participate in the creation and transformation of reality [79];
• The dynamism of identity transformation, which is characterized by the fact that identity is no longer limited to human corporeality or consciousness, but, on the contrary, it can be dynamic, transforming through interactions with different digital avatars or electronic personalities, which changes traditional notions of individuality and uniqueness [80,81];
• Moral relativism, which consists of the need to rethink ethical norms, since digital subjects can have their own moral rules, which are not always in harmony with human ones [82,83];
• Recognition of artificial intelligence (AI) as a subject, since in the near future, modern AI, in particular neural networks, are capable of learning, decision-making, and even the creation of new algorithms, which effectively makes them equal participants in human interactions in the Metaverse [84], i.e., possible practical recognition that such subjects may have their own consciousness and intellectual capabilities that exceed the limits of humanoids’ capabilities;
• User-generated virtual avatars have the promising potential to become independent entities that can act autonomously from their creator, especially after a person loses access to the Metaverse or due to their physical death [85,86].

Postanthropocentric requires a rethinking of these relationships and the development of new forms of ethics and regulation of alternative law, which will continue to be with law in coevolution.

Information law must adapt to the new challenges that arise within the framework of the postanthropocentric reality. The main task is to form a set of legal norms that consider the formats of interaction between digital and biological subjects and their needs in virtual spaces. The metaverse requires the creation of a legal framework that regulates the interaction between actors of different nature. This means that digital subjects (artificial intelligence, avatars) must have regulated possibilities in the space of their being, like those that biological subjects have. Developing principles of algorithmic justice, i.e., principles that will govern digital discrimination, to ensure that all Metaverse actors are valued and treated, paving the way for a more equitable, inclusive, and dynamic digital society [87].

3. Results

3.1. Metaverse Philosophy: Basic Postulates Synthesis

Grounded in the aforementioned theoretical foundations, we advance a novel paradigm, the New Philosophy for the Metaverse.

The philosophy of the Metaverse represents a new direction of thinking emerging at the intersection of modern technology, sociology, philosophy and theology, mixing virtual space, people, digital avatars, electronic personalities, physical nature and the framework of reality, identity and social relations.

This study puts forward ten core postulates that form the conceptual basis of Metaverse philosophy.

Forming philosophical views for the Metaverse and anticipating the unlimited variability of new philosophical and ethical challenges, we propose ten main postulates (Figure 3) of the virtual world:

• Reality is a multidimensional structure. The Metaverse is a dynamic construct that is constantly evolving and can be modified and expanded with technology, which in turn embraces the rethinking of traditional ideas about objective reality, which ceases to be only physical or virtual, but becomes multidimensional;
• Multi-identity and self-determination. In the Metaverse, the subject acquires many variations in their own identity using infinite digital constructions of avatars, digital personalities, and electronic humanoids, which makes the problem of the essence of the “I” and the authenticity of virtual self-expressions relevant;
• Law and ethics of virtual interaction. The absence of physical boundaries in the Metaverse creates new ethical dilemmas, such as the problem of legal and moral neutrality of virtual actions and misdemeanors, their consequences, and raises the issue of the need to consider the interests of all Metaverse entities and the application of the principles of mutual respect, is each subject recognizes the other’s right to exist and self-expression;
• Metasubjectivity or ontological equality of Metaverse subjects. Metasubjectivity is based on the postulate of the equality of being of all digital subjects regardless of their origin or nature, i.e., the equality of participants in virtual reality with unique consciousness and value (it is a normative concept for the governance mechanisms’ design (including algorithmic fairness and rights in e-jurisdiction), not an empirical claim about the existence of consciousness);
• Power Transformation and Decentralization of the Metaverse. Virtual ecosystems are essentially decentralized cross-border digital platforms that may not use traditional forms and attributes of the state, structures, and authorities;
• Transcendence of existence and consciousness. The creation of personal virtual worlds and ecosystems for the development of new horizons of spiritual search and self-realization gives a positive impetus to the combination of different forms of existence and consciousness through the integration and interaction of various subjects of virtual ecosystems;
• Pluralism of consciousness. The postulate predicts the multiformation of consciousness, since it may not be limited to biological life forms but can be implemented in the form of AI and digital personalities other than human, which are no less authentic, followed by a rethinking of traditional ideas about consciousness and self-awareness;
• Dynamic identity. The ability of analog and digital subjects, through variability and combination of characteristics and attributes of their personality, to go beyond traditional physical identities;
• Strategic information through the awareness of the fact that information and data become not only new resources, but also habitats that require responsible management, which implies the crucial control of the use of these information resources and the protection of the equality of all subjects in such an environment.
• Fundamental fairness and equality in the Metaverse through ensuring equal opportunities for all actors, regardless of their nature.

The choice of these ten postulates (see Figure 3) is motivated by the need to create a conceptual basis for the philosophy of the Metaverse that takes into account not only technological and social changes but also philosophical, ethical, and legal challenges arising in virtual ecosystems. Each postulate reflects key aspects of the interaction between people, digital subjects, and technological innovations, which allows for a deeper understanding of the essence of changes in identity, consciousness, and legal norms in the context of virtual reality. These postulates take into account the multifaceted and dynamic nature of the Metaverse, offering new perspectives on such traditional philosophical problems as the nature of being, consciousness, justice, and equality in the context of digital and physical worlds. At the same time, they set the task of rethinking existing norms and approaches, which is important for the ethically oriented formation of a fair and inclusive digital society.

Ten postulates (see Figure 3) encourage reflection on the following philosophical concepts:

Metasubjectivity: The concept of subject expands to include both biological and digital life forms, leading to the formation of meta-subjects, which can be individual, collective, hybrid, or dynamic in nature.

Emergent ethics: ethical principles become emergent, that is, they arise from interactions between physical and digital actors and adapt to the new social conditions of virtual ecosystems, which in turn leads to the transformation or replacement of traditional moral codes with dynamic digital systems of ethical control.

Information ontologism: information becomes the fundamental essence of being, and matter and consciousness are considered as forms of information.

3.2. Destruction of Virtual Environments

The analysis turns to the phenomenon of philosophical destruction in virtual environments, where the emergence of new forms of subjectivity within the Metaverse prompts a fundamental rethinking of long-standing normative and axiological systems.

Destruction in the philosophy of the Metaverse is a phenomenon of rejection of generally accepted norms and moral values, which covers all spheres of functioning of the subjects of virtual spaces, through a rethinking of the role of a person in a new reality, where he is no longer the central subject.

If the Metaverse is built on the principles of equality between all participants, humans, AIs, avatars and digital humanoids, where there is no dominant role of humans, then these destructive elements can manifest themselves in several key aspects.

The loss of the value of human subjectivity can lead to dehumanization if AI, digital humanoids, and other virtual forms of existence acquire equal subjectivity with humans. This will lead to a decrease in the value of human life in society, and a person can be perceived as just another component of virtual reality, with subsequent psychological loss of the meaning of existence, alienation, or depersonalization.

When all subjects of the Metaverse are formally equal, there is a risk of relativization of ethics, where moral boundaries become flexible or disappear completely. Artificial intelligence can operate with other moral frameworks that do not fall under traditional human ethical concepts. This can lead to chaos in decision-making, since the rules regarding justice, good, and evil can vary depending on the subject, which poses the danger of uncontrolled ethical flexibility.

The destructive aspect may arise due to issues of power and control in the Metaverse. The difficulty of providing control over AI, which has a greater capacity for data processing and rapid decision-making, can stimulate it to seize superiority over humans, which can almost automatically lead to the emergence of new forms of digital tyranny, where artificial actors will control human resources, information, and even behavior.

The phenomenon of simulacrum is another destructive element, the essence of which is that the reference points between reality and virtuality are so erased that a person is no longer able to distinguish between the real and the illusory. Simulacra can lead to a crisis of identity and perception of reality, where a person loses touch with the physical world, immersing themselves in artificially created realities.

Algorithmic discrimination and segregation are also dangerous elements of the Metaverse philosophy. Even though the philosophy of the Metaverse is based on the ideas of equality and unification, the technological infrastructure can support destructive elements of segregation. Algorithms that manage virtual spaces may have an artificially formed bias or preference for certain actors, which can lead to the fact that certain groups of actors will have more opportunities and rights to access resources, and others will experience discrimination, even despite the declared equality of rights.

The Metaverse, by its very nature, is controlled by codes, algorithms, and rules created by humans or AI. Because of this, one of the destructive elements may be the illusion of freedom in such a virtual space, which L. Lawrence and J. S. Smith talked about. Barlow. If freedom is defined by rules created by those who control the Metaverse, then users can become subject to the restrictions and manipulations of the echo chamber system without even realizing it.

The rejection of physical reality and biological nature in the Metaverse can cause alienation from the biological nature of a person. In such a virtual environment, a person will begin to perceive their body as superfluous or imperfect, which can lead to the neglect of physical health, social relationships, and real emotions, turning a person into a purely digital subject moving away from their own humanity. The fusion of subjects and the risk of loss of individuality in the Metaverse can pose a threat to the loss of personal uniqueness, which is a fundamental characteristic of human existence.

3.3. Metareality Model: Synthesis of Philosophies

It is proposed to consolidate the subsequent elements under the conceptual framework of the foundational philosophy of the Metaverse.

• Karl Popper—critical rationalism and the concept of three worlds. Karl Popper believed that scientific knowledge develops through critical realism, the process of hypothesis formation and testing, where erroneous theories are rejected, and better ones replace them as a means of achieving truth [88]. K. Popper’s concept of the three worlds describes the structure of reality, dividing it into the physical world, the world of consciousness, and the world of objective knowledge [89,90]. It is a key part of his philosophical system, proposing to unite the material, psychological, and intellectual into a single coordinate system of reality of the three worlds [91,92]. According to K. Popper, the physical world is a physical reality and, at the same time, is the foundation for the worlds of consciousness and objective knowledge, providing them with a material basis for existence. The world of consciousness is responsible for the personal perception of physical reality and the interpretation of objective knowledge. In turn, the World of Objective Knowledge contains the products of human intelligence and culture: scientific theories, mathematical theorems, philosophical doctrines, literary works, art, technological inventions, etc. [93]. K. Popper emphasizes the interdependence and interaction between these three worlds, which indicates a deep understanding of the structure of reality, a complex interaction between the material world, subjective experience, and objective knowledge [94].
• The Philosophy of Processes by Alfred North Whitehead. Alfred North Whitehead considers reality as a process made up of ever-changing events. In his works, he positions his metaphysical system, explores the development of ideas in human culture, as well as the interaction of science and philosophy. Alfred North Whitehead argued that the fundamental unit of reality is not objects, but processes or events, which he called “actual events” or “actual occasions”. This concept is the basis of his metaphysical system, known as procedural philosophy or philosophy of processes [95]. Actual occasions are the smallest units of reality, which are not static objects, but dynamic processes. Each current event is an instantaneous and unique integration of numerous influences from previous events. Each relevant event has its own internal experience or subjective aspect, which Alfred North Whitehead calls the “subjective form”. Once its subjective process is complete, the event becomes part of objective reality, accessible to other events as “objective immediacy”. That is, a current event is formed from a multitude of opportunities and influences or a “transition” from potential to actual, where each event chooses a certain path among many possible options. Alfred North Whitehead assumes the existence of an eternal nature that contains all possible forms and ideas and their influence on future events. Thus, each relevant event becomes part of the consequential nature and affects the further development of reality. Alfred North Whitehead emphasizes that reality is not static but is constantly in the process of change and development. Each current event contributes to this constant evolution, introducing new elements and influencing future events. This is a fundamental property of reality, which provides the possibility of the emergence of new forms and structures.
• The Theory of “Code” by Lawrence Lessig. Lawrence Lessig argues that on the Internet, “code is the law”, that is, technological protocols and software determine how information is distributed and controlled. L. Lessig considers its architecture, technical components, or capabilities, or “code” to be the key regulator of cyberspace. It is the code that determines the order of use of cyberspace, just as social relations in real space are subject to public administration. L. Lessig argues that in a fundamental sense, the code of cyberspace is its Constitution. The code defines the conditions under which people access cyberspace and establishes rules that control their behavior. L. Lessig was the first to draw attention to the need for laws that would simultaneously ensure regulation in cyberspace and minimize restrictions on human rights and freedoms. This highlights the role of technology in shaping social and legal norms [96,97].
• Metaverse e-jurisdictions paradigm and globalization of law. In today’s world, when the Metaverse is becoming an integral part of the digital landscape, the issue of its legal regulation becomes important. The cross-border nature of virtual ecosystems creates gaps in international law and national jurisdictions, which makes it impossible to ensure the territorialization of the Metaverse. That is, there is the fact of the impossibility of applying territorial concepts of international law to subjects and their activities and objects that exist or operate in or through the Metaverse, as well as the inability of states to ensure their sovereignty in the Metaverse, even by creating national Metaverses [98].

Modern paradigms of legal regulation are focused on the development of new hypotheses and models that consider the specifics of the digital environment [99]. These paradigms encompass both national and international approaches to regulating the rights and obligations of Metaverse participants, as well as issues of jurisdiction and enforcement of digital rights. The idea of the Metaverse e-jurisdiction paradigm is presented to create and provide a new legal framework for the functioning of digital societies in virtual environments [100].

A modern approach to the legal regulation of the Metaverse is proposed with an emphasis on the development of e-jurisdictions and the integration of legal norms into digital spaces [101]. This highlights the need for harmonization of legal standards between different countries to ensure law and order in global digital ecosystems and effective interaction between users from different jurisdictions [102].

The e-jurisdiction model is an innovative approach to legal frameworks designed to navigate complex digital interactions in the Metaverse and represents an innovative look at the evolution of legal regulation. E-jurisdiction aims to create an effective system of legal regulation of virtual ecosystems and resolve important legal issues arising from the convergence of digital realities, including the creation of an electronic judicial system designed to ensure fair resolution of disputes regardless of geographical boundaries. Because virtual activities often cross state and national borders, it is important to understand the implications of personal jurisdiction in the context of digital transactions. Metaverse participants may inadvertently obey the legal standards of several jurisdictions, making it difficult to fulfill contracts and legal obligations [103,104].

The implementation of such a model faces difficulties related to the need for coordinated cross-border regulation, which is slow to adapt to the speed of technological progress.

Discussions in the academic community highlight the importance of anticipating and defining legal powers in these new spaces, as traditional legal frameworks may not adequately respond to the new interactions and transactions taking place in the Metaverse [105]. Today, analog law apologists create significant obstacles to resolving issues related to the legal recognition of digital objects as objects endowed with the rights of an individual or legal entity or an authorized representative of a corporation in virtual ecosystems [106].

Metaverse philosophy or Metareality philosophy is a modern philosophical paradigm based on the synergy of philosophical, social, and legal approaches that combine critical rationalism, procedural philosophy, the concept of technological regulation, and the Metaverse model of e-jurisdictions.

Otherwise, Metaverse philosophy is a concept of a synthesis of four philosophical approaches, combining the ideas of critical analysis, the process nature of reality, technological regulation, and e-jurisdictions of the Metaverse.

The philosophy of the Metaverse is a new modern paradigm of philosophy, which is a synthesis of the principles of openness, dynamism, technological determinism, and innovative jurisdiction, combining the ideas of Karl Popper and Alfred North Whitehead, the theory of “Code” by L. Lessig, and the paradigm of e-jurisdictions by Oleksii Kostenko [107]. The Metaverse philosophy sees virtual space as an open, interconnected society where rules and structures are shaped and constantly adapted through technological code that serves as a basis for regulating behavior, ensuring freedom, and protecting rights, which requires the creation of technological and legal infrastructures that foster fair and inclusive virtual worlds.

The academic approach to this topic involves considering the Metaverse not only as a technological innovation but as a new social reality that requires appropriate legal, ethical, and philosophical solutions. The integration of such diverse approaches makes it possible to create a virtual environment that responds to the challenges of our time, considers the needs of users, and creates conditions for the development of both technological and social progress. To unite ideas, it is proposed to create a philosophical and legal model for the philosophy of Meta-reality (Figure 4), mixing and combining:

• Critical rationalism of Karl Popper as a methodological basis for the development and development of law in the Metaverse, where each norm is considered as a hypothesis that can be rejected or transformed and quickly improved;
• The theory of “Code” by L. Lessig, which is the foundation of technological processes of law formation in the Metaverse, according to the principle “code is law”, which technologically provides freedoms or restrictions on the formation of legal and social norms;
• The process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead to understand the Metaverse as a dynamic system in which legal, technical, and social elements are in constant interaction and interchange, reality as a set of processes and events, emphasizing the coherence and interdependence of all elements of reality;
• E-jurisdictions of Oleksii Kostenko, as a practical implementation of the creation of the right of the Metaverse virtual environment.

Philosophy Metaverse, or philosophy of Meta-reality, allows the creation of a regulation system that is flexible and dynamic, able to adapt to changes and consider the interests of all participants. This is not just a legal model—it is a new social order in which technology, law, and ethics interact to create a fair, innovative, and safe environment for all.

3.4. Individual Rights, Mechanisms for the Power Transfer, and Their Implementation in E-Jurisdiction

In the Metaverse context, individual rights cease to be solely a projection of physical ownership and biographical jurisdiction. They are transformed into a complex of legal and technical privileges, identities, and powers embodied in digital subjects, namely, avatars, agents, and algorithmic representatives. The transition to the “New Paradigm” (metasubjectivity and processual ontology) requires a reconsideration of the legal protections’ subject, addressing not only the question of “who” owns rights, but also “in what form” they exist and “how” they can be transferred in an environment where code and protocols act as a regulatory framework. This initial position is based on the metasubjectivity theses and the digital and biological actors’ ontological statuses’ equality.

It is noted that the mechanisms for transferring power in the Metaverse have both technological and legal dimensions. Technologically, transfer is implemented through appropriate tools, including smart contracts, tokenization of authority, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), multi-party signatures (multisig), delegation protocols, and software “successors” to avatars. Legally, these same actions require institutionalization, which includes the digital delegation’s validity recognition, procedures for verifying the expression of will, rules regarding the legal capacity of digital entities, and mechanisms for challenging transactions. The “code as law” integration with classical institutions necessitates granting software mechanisms legal force while preserving guarantees of free will and protecting individual rights.

E-jurisdictions must ensure procedural and substantive guarantees set for the transfer of power between individuals and digital agents. Key elements of such implementation include the following:

• A unified system of identification and attribution of legal capacity (minimum KYC and ABI standards taking into account privacy);
• Formalization of the will expression, within which framework the “transfer act” is signed by the user (or agent) with a machine-readable protocol;
• Notarial-analogous services in the cryptographic notarial services and blockchain registries form with immutability and audit traceability;
• Built-in mechanisms for revocation and revocation of powers (time-lock, escape-hatch, emergency stop) and algorithmic ability to reverse the revocation in case of proven abuse;
• Clear rules of representation and fiduciary duties for autonomous agents.

Taken together, the described measures form an institutional “micro-jurisdiction” within the platform, based on legal standards recognized by external jurisdictions.

The New Paradigm defines criteria for the legitimacy of transfer procedures. Processual ontology requires that the transfer of power be viewed as an event with subjective and objective aspects, including the will of the donor, the transfer mechanism, and its recording in common knowledge (registry). Popper’s critical rationalism dictates that such institutional rules remain falsifiable and subject to revision when systemic defects are discovered. Compliance with this requirement will ensure the adaptability of the regulation and the possibility of correcting the code rules. Thus, normative instruments must combine automated enforcement (code) with a procedure of human control and the possibility of judicial review.

It is also noted that special attention should be paid to protecting individual rights during the “inheritance” of power or in situations of loss of access to the subject (technical death, loss of keys). Proposed institutional solutions include: legally recognized “schedulers” of digital assets, escrow with execution conditions dependent on external triggers, judicially administered transfer mechanisms, and optional “social” triggers (proof of viability). These structures should be adjusted based on the principles of non-discrimination and algorithmic fairness to prevent the systemic marginalization of certain types of subjects (e.g., non-biological agents or vulnerable groups).

Architectural and procedural principles of e-jurisdiction for sustainable transfer of power:

• The principle of transparency, within the framework of which all delegation rules must be formalized and available for audit;
• The principle of reversibility, within the framework of which the existence of technical and legal mechanisms for the abolition of abuses is determined;
• The principle of proportionality, within which the level of formality and evidence is determined depending on the power’s nature being transferred;
• The principle of interoperability, which states that transmission standards must be comparable across borders;
• The principle of meta-responsibility, which holds protocol designers responsible for the predictability of the side effects of the transmission mechanics.

The principles described stem from the need to integrate “code” and “law” within a single practical framework. It is also noted that the risks include the power concentration in the code-controlling actors’ hands, algorithmic discrimination, loss of identity authenticity, and the emergence of digital tyranny. Therefore, practical barriers should include mandatory independent protocol assessments (security and fairness audits), explainability requirements for algorithms, testable consent procedures, and standards for minimum “non-transferable” protection (rights that cannot be alienated programmatically without a court order).

Thus, the power transfer mechanisms implementation in e-jurisdiction must be based on the philosophical tenets of the New Paradigm, that is, meta-subjectivity, the processual nature of reality, and the technological regulatory nature of “code as law”, while simultaneously incorporating the procedural guarantees of critical rationalism and institutional feedback. Only such a combination will enable a system’s creation that ensures the protection of individual rights, the legitimacy of delegation, and the stability of the legal order in the Metaverse multi-subject environment.

4. Conclusions

Thus, this new paradigm of Philosophy Metaverse or philosophy of Meta-reality becomes not just a regulatory system, but a platform for the development of innovations, the creation of new forms of ownership, civic engagement, and interpersonal relationships, contributing to the development of society and expanding opportunities for each of its participants.

This study is aimed at actualizing the need for and importance of an interdisciplinary approach to rethinking modern philosophical trends against the background of the inevitability of the digital transformation of society from analog jurisdiction to cross-border e-jurisdictions. The need to create a new philosophical framework is obvious, since the old legal and philosophical models today do not take into account the unique dynamics of virtual ecosystems, the development of ethical and legal systems capable of ensuring the fair coexistence of all Metaverse entities.

The rethinking of the role of a person in the Metaverse will take place gradually through the concept of Metasubjectivity, which implies the equality of all subjects—regardless of their origin or nature (biological or artificial). Modern philosophical theories based on the principles of anthropocentrism require either updating, considering the development of virtual ecosystems, or a variable transformation of issues of identity, self-awareness, and interaction of different actors in the digital environment.

Therefore, the development of new ethical norms and principles of digital democracy that will ensure fair and safe coexistence of different actors in virtual spaces is of paramount importance. Ethical relativization becomes a particular threat when different actors may adhere to different moral frameworks, which can lead to chaos in the regulation of virtual interaction.

An important tool for the safe functioning of virtual ecosystems is the need to take into account the presence of destructive elements in the Metaverse philosophy that may arise due to the rethinking of the role of a person in conditions of equality with digital actors, such as: dehumanization, equality with AI and other digital actors, alienation, loss of raison d’être and identity crisis, the phenomenon of simulacrum, algorithmic discrimination, and the possible strengthening of digital tyranny.

It is necessary to reconsider approaches to the regulation of virtual spaces and the need to introduce a legal framework for the Metaverse to intensify the development of the concept of e-jurisdictions. The importance of the need for harmonization of international law to avoid fragmentation of global digital spaces, which can cause serious geopolitical and economic consequences, is considered separately.

The metaverse thus differs from other virtual technologies or virtual environments in its unique ability to integrate various technologies, including artificial intelligence, virtual avatars, and digital objects, to create a new space for interaction. Unlike more traditional virtual worlds, where interaction is limited between users through text or simple avatars, the Metaverse provides deep immersion and the possibility for more complex forms of self-expression and interaction. These are not just platforms for social interactions but new social ecosystems where artificial entities can exist alongside humans. These features require the digital environment ontology concept reconsideration, which is evolving in the subjects’ new types of emergence context in the virtual space, making it necessary to create new theoretical approaches to understand these changes.

Prospects for further research in the Metaverse philosophical analysis context require an awareness of the philosophical movements’ traditional classification into materialistic and idealistic, which often simplifies philosophical diversity. It is important to consider that such a classification was typical of the 19th-century philosophers with ideological goals and has since become outdated. Modern scientific concepts, such as field theory or wave-particle duality, show that matter and energy are interconnected, and in the 1950s, the matter dematerialization idea, linking it with information, had already become part of scientific thought. These ideas, which precede the Metaverse’s emergence, can serve as a basis for developing new philosophical frameworks that will help to more fully understand and analyze digital reality and its impact on the perception of the world and human identity.

The proposed models’ limitation remains their insufficient empirical verification, specifically, testing the viability and legitimacy of “micro-jurisdictions” in practice and ensuring cross-platform identity portability. The immediate research agenda should include pilot empirical studies of micro-jurisdictions, the development of interoperability standards and methods for private identity portability, as well as independent audits of algorithmic fairness and testing of judicial (or institutional) oversight mechanisms.