Part 7: ‘Converging realities: Embedding governance through digital twins’

This post concludes the blog series UN 2.0 and the Metaverse: Are We Seeing What Is Possible?

1. Part 1: Harnessing technology, driving SDGs
2. Part 2: ‘CitiVerse: Turning the world into a global village (or rather sandbox?)’
3. Part 3: ‘Readiness across the spectrum: Countries’
4. Part 4: SDGs as ethical, human rights-based, and technological boundaries of the metaverse
5. Part 5: Rethinking legal governance in the metaverse
6. Part 6: Governing the metaverse through standards
7. Part 7: ‘Converging realities: Embedding governance through digital twins’

Part 7 explores two sides of convergence: one technical, the other human. It shows how the vision of UN 2.0 begins to take shape in the metaverse through digital twins, technical standards, and systems designed with governance built in. At the same time, it turns to the human dimension – where digital presence becomes embodied, harm becomes personal, and legal systems must re-engage to protect people in these emerging environments.

A. Seeing what is possible: A recap

The UN 2.0 and the Metaverse series explored what becomes possible when governance, technology, and system design are brought into the same frame. Each article uncovered a different layer of convergence – from the shared ambitions of the UN and the metaverse, to digital twins, trust frameworks, and human-centred standards. Together, they revealed the metaverse not as a fantasy space, but as a governance frontier: a platform for coordinating not only data, but consequences.

Part 1 reframed the UN and the metaverse as unlikely allies, united by shared goals such as world-building, standard-setting, and inclusive governance. Part 2 introduced dynamic governance, showing how policies can evolve like living cities – responsive, iterative, and always in motion. Part 3 addressed the widening gap between fast-moving technology and slow-moving law, proposing legal utopias as tools for orientation rather than fixed endpoints.

Part 4 unpacked the SDG boundaries and introduced digital twins as instruments for aligning technology with sustainability and planetary limits. Part 5 explored confidence frameworks, arguing that the ability to change a system is the true test of meaningful control. Part 6 revealed how standards – often overlooked – are deeply human tools. Seemingly perfect technical systems fail without shared values, as shown in cases of disaster management and digital harm.

Now, in Part 7, we enter the convergence zone. We examine how digital systems – from platforms and protocols to digital twins – are already embedding governance into technical architectures. This is no longer a question of what might be possible, but of what is already being built.

B. Entering the convergence zone

The visionary plans surrounding the metaverse aim to end the separation between the digital and physical worlds, merging them into a single ecosystem. To fully harness the potential of digital technology, tech companies are working to replace traditional interfaces – such as screens – that currently stand between these two realms.

1. Cyberspace is not separate

Cyberspace has never truly existed as a separate realm. According to internet governance expert Jovan Kurbalija, there is no cyberspace – it is an illusion. The symbolic end of this illusion came in 2024, when Telegram’s owner Pavel Durov was detained in Paris, and the Brazilian government threatened to ban X unless it established a legal presence in the country. Both cases underscored a simple truth: digital platforms operate in physical jurisdictions and are subject to national law.

Kurbalija traces this illusion back to 1996, when John Perry Barlow published his Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace at Davos, declaring that ‘Cyberspace does not lie within your borders’. But as Kurbalija points out, this was a profound misunderstanding. No digital activity takes place outside of physical infrastructure or beyond legal authority. Data travels through cables, servers, and routers – all of which are located somewhere, and governed by national jurisdictions. Barlow, like many after him, confused the internet’s technical reach with the legal and physical reality of being anchored in the real world.

At its core, the illusion of cyberspace rests on the belief that the digital realm is somehow detached from material and legal constraints. But this belief is false – a conceptual mirage. The internet has always been rooted in physical space, and its consequences unfold in the real world.

2. Fictional origins of the cyberspace illusion

Using the term ‘cyberspace’ instead of ‘internet’ or ‘web’ was a deliberate and insightful choice by Jovan Kurbalija. The word ‘cyberspace’ originates from William Gibson’s 1984 science fiction novel Neuromancer, where it is powerfully imagined as a ‘consensual hallucination’ – a shared, sensory-rich virtual world distinct from physical reality, where consciousness can be projected and data manifested within the structural framework of ‘the matrix’.

The idea of separating ‘body’ and ‘mind’ runs like a red thread through science fiction narratives. Neal Stephenson’s 1992 novel Snow Crash coined the term ‘metaverse’, portraying it as a virtual society layered over a broken physical world. Yet it ultimately reveals that digital control is still dependent on ‘real-world systems’, ‘corporate power’, ‘biological limits’, and ‘language’ itself.

Ernest Cline’s 2011 novel Ready Player One, adapted into a film by Steven Spielberg in 2018, presents a playful vision of ‘digital freedom’, but also shows how access to this virtual utopia is shaped by inequality. Real ‘agency’ lies not within the game, but outside it. The Matrix (1999), directed by Lana and Lilly Wachowski, made ‘disembodiment’ iconic. The film series reminds us that ‘bodies’ remain essential – for energy, resistance, and awakening. To escape the ‘illusion’, one must return to the physical.

3. Descartes’ Error

The assumption that mind and body can exist in separation is a centuries-old idea. Western culture has been deeply shaped by René Descartes’ division between body and mind. In his pursuit of certainty, Descartes famously proposed a dualistic conception of reality, dividing existence into two substances: the mind (immaterial, conscious, and capable of thought) and the body (material, extended in space, and governed by physical laws).

Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio challenges this tradition in his book Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. He demonstrates that reason, emotion, and identity are not abstract, disembodied functions, but are deeply rooted in the body and shaped by lived experience. The consequences of this enduring illusion of separation go beyond philosophy or science – they erode the social frameworks that underpin jurisdiction, regulation, and shared norms. By reinforcing the idea that cyberspace is somehow separate, this illusion obscures the fact that laws and social expectations still apply, even online.

4. Convergence not separation

Nearly thirty years after Barlow’s Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, we find convergence – not separation – at the heart of the World Economic Forum’s agenda in Davos 2025. Convergence refers to the merging of technologies and the alignment of global development efforts. In the case of the metaverse, this convergence is comprehensive: it involves the fusion of digital and physical realities into a new, interconnected ecosystem (see Part 1).

Ironically, the metaverse (often imagined as the pinnacle of digital detachment) forces us to confront the illusion of cyberspace. Cyberspace is not a separate realm, but a digitally augmented layer of our physical world. The convergence of digital and physical domains does not reinforce the illusion – it dismantles it. Today, digital technologies are no longer confined to screens, but embedded in objects, cities, bodies, and infrastructures. They are already shaping how we perceive, govern, and relate to the world around us. Convergence redraws the boundaries.

5. Where is the convergence zone?

If cyberspace is no longer a separate realm, then where does the interaction between the digital and the physical actually take place? The answer lies not in a specific location, but in a zone of interaction – a space where systems begin to align, overlap, and shape one another.

The idea of separate spaces never referred to physical geography, but to distinct operational systems. As these systems converge, they require a framework to support that interaction. Drawing on Damasio’s work, we call this the convergence zone – the space where systems begin to relate.

In the following sections, we explore key dimensions where this convergence becomes tangible – not as abstract theory, but as lived architecture.

a. Blending realities: Living across layers

Convergence in the metaverse begins with how systems feel to us. The goal is to recreate the natural, intuitive flow of real-world experiences – like strolling through a park, effortlessly moving from one activity to another. The metaverse seeks to replicate this ease, removing friction between communication, entertainment, and interaction.

This is about embodied design, i.e. crafting spaces where transitions feel fluid, intuitive, and lived, rather than mechanical or disconnected. The sense of convergence deepens when digital and physical realities interact with one another through an ongoing feedback loop.

b. Technological foundations: Powering the convergence

At the core of both experience and hybridity lies a layered tech stack that makes convergence possible. These systems enable large-scale, real-time interaction across devices and environments:

• Digital twins: Replicate and simulate real-world systems
• AI: Personalises content, predicts outcomes, and adapts responses
• Blockchain: Secures identity, ownership, and transactions
• IoT: Connects physical objects to digital systems
• 5G and cloud: Provide seamless speed and scalability
• VR/AR/MR: Create immersive, interactive environments
• Haptics: Introduce physical sensation into digital experiences

C. Embedded realities: The physical–digital interface

1. Digital twins

As digital and physical systems increasingly interact, they give rise to what we can call embedded realities, i.e. environments where governance, identity, and interaction are seamlessly integrated into the system’s structure. At the core of this shift are digital twins, which act as live interfaces between the physical and digital worlds. These twins synchronise with real-world objects – whether a process, a place, or a person – enabling continuous interaction across domains.

This connection enables real-time interaction, allowing digital systems to reflect, respond to, and even influence physical conditions. The Focus Group on Metaverse ‘Requirements for the Metaverse Based on Digital Twins Enabling Integration of Virtual and Physical Worlds’ (FGMV-28) defines a digital twin as a digital representation of an object of interest. Depending on the context, a digital twin may need to support synchronisation, real-time data flows, or control logic.

These systems are more than technical models – they represent a new way of defining presence, agency, and authority across digital and physical spaces. In this view, the convergence zone is not merely where systems meet, but where they interact – continuously, responsively, and in real time.

2. Digital twin governance

Digital twin governance begins at the intersection of technical design and responsibility. To function effectively within the metaverse, digital twins must operate as part of a broader system, which includes platforms, services, and infrastructures. Governance must be integrated across multiple layers of system architecture – from individual twins to the platforms that connect them.

Each twin must have a unique identity, be searchable, and synchronise in real time with its physical counterpart. While these are technical features, they also raise clear governance questions: Who can access or update the twin? Who controls the physical link? These decisions are embedded within the system’s structure and logic.

The metaverse platform serves as a kind of manager, providing users with access to twins, enabling interaction, and connecting digital actions to physical outcomes. This makes the metaverse more than just a space – it evolves into a governance layer that manages the flow of data, rights, and roles across systems.

For this system to function smoothly, the entire ecosystem must be interoperable. Digital twins, metaverse platforms, and third-party services must operate seamlessly together. A command issued in one system should be recognised and executed in another. The FGMV-28 specification outlines these layers, collectively transforming the convergence zone into a dynamic, functional interface – a space where systems are not only linked but governed in sync.

Table: Layered requirements for integrating digital twins, metaverse platforms, and system interactions, based on FGMV-28

Digital Twin (REQ-DT)	Metaverse (REQ-MV)	System Interaction (REQ-SI)
DT-01: Unique ID	MV-01: Provide twin info	SI-01: Twin–metaverse sync
DT-02: Metaverse connection	MV-02: Enable interaction	SI-02: Twin, MV, 3rd-party link (rec)
DT-03: Searchable	MV-03: Usage experience	SI-03: MV ↔ Twin
DT-04: Info sharing	MV-04: Synchronisation support	SI-04: MV ↔ 3rd-party
DT-05: Access rights	MV-05: 3rd-party info (rec)	SI-05: 3rd-party ↔ Twin (rec)
DT-06: Interaction capability	MV-06: 3rd-party services (rec)
DT-07: Sync capability	MV-07: Interact with 3rd party (rec)
DT-08: Sync priority (rec)		(rec = recommended)

3. Interoperability architecture

While the FGMV-28 outlines the core requirements for digital twin governance – such as identity, access, and synchronisation – the Focus Group on Metaverse ‘High-Level Interoperability Architecture for Cross-Platform Metaverse’ (FGMV-43) delves deeper into the functional architecture necessary for achieving interoperability across systems. This is where the abstract concept of convergence transforms into a tangible infrastructure.

At the heart of FGMV-43 is the Digital Twin Interoperability Functional Component (DTIFC), which defines four key capabilities required to enable interaction and coordination across domains:

1. Federation functions: Facilitate secure collaboration and data sharing between systems, while ensuring autonomy and privacy
2. Translation functions: Address semantic and structural differences between digital twins, enabling meaningful interoperability
3. Brokering functions: Mediate and route data flows contextually, ensuring trust, traceability, and relevance in real-time exchanges
4. Synchronisation functions: Align digital representations with their physical counterparts and across multiple systems, ensuring coherence

These capabilities not only enable data compatibility but, more crucially, they shape how decisions are made, who has the authority to act, and the nature of interactions that are possible. In this way, they form an embedded governance layer – a technical implementation of trust, access, and authority.

This structure mirrors the principles of the Dynamic Policy Maturity Benchmark Model (see Part 2), which emphasises the need for systems that can adapt, translate, and respond across both institutional and technical domains. As interoperability becomes the foundation for relations, architecture evolves into a form of law, governing the interaction of systems in ways that ensure coherence and control.

D. The human convergence zone

This architecture and terminology closely resemble the concept of the convergence zone, as described by neuroscientist Antonio Damasio in his book Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. According to Damasio, the convergence zone ‘acts as a “third-party” broker, facilitating reciprocal feedforward and feedback connections with its sources of input.’ This similarity is not coincidental – technology often draws inspiration from nature.

In neuroscience, the convergence zone refers to a key area in the brain where information from different sensory inputs, such as vision, touch, and sound, comes together and is integrated. The digital twin interface, in a similar way, aims to integrate information from various sources, but it is still far from achieving the level of coordination seen in the human brain. The deep relationship between body and mind, as Damasio describes it, is still largely missing from our interactions with the digital world.

1. Simulating the future: What if?

Extended reality and digital twins enable the blending of digital and physical information, creating a seamless interaction between the two worlds. Throughout this blog series, we have reimagined how the acceleration of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) could be achieved through simulations. From this viewpoint, the metaverse emerges as a grand foresight exercise, where foresight is about asking ‘what if’, and simulation is about visualising ‘what if’. This approach is relatively straightforward when applied to industrial uses of digital twins.

However, when simulating life, we risk falling into Descartes’ error – the false separation of mind and body. This error manifests as a subtle tension between foresight and simulation on one hand, and illusion on the other. This tension becomes particularly evident in the erosion of trust.

2. Feeling as if

The metaverse is essentially a complex exercise in tricking both our minds and bodies into simulating sensory experiences without actually engaging the body in those experiences. Damasio refers to this as the ‘as if body loop’ – a mechanism that can be a useful shortcut for planning and imagination. However, these simulations are not true realities; they are merely rehearsals, lacking the grounding of embodied emotion.

When we enter virtual reality via headsets and controllers, we experience the sensation of our bodies being present in a virtual space. In reality, our bodies remain firmly rooted in the physical world. This creates a fascinating and disorienting experience, which is mostly harmless – unless our human integrity is violated. As discussed in earlier sections, violations such as virtual rape, deepfake pornography, and the failure of socio-technical systems to respond adequately highlight the limits of this illusion.

3. Reality as a phantom limb

Damasio’s work on emotion and embodiment offers a powerful metaphor for this phenomenon: the phantom limb. People who have lost a limb often continue to feel sensations – sometimes even pain – in a part of the body that is no longer there. Yet they are not deluded; they know the limb is gone. What persists is the memory of the body – an internal map that the brain continues to activate, even without physical feedback. This internal image allows for a limited form of presence, one that is no longer updated by the reality of the body.

Unlike the phantom limb, where sensation persists in the absence of the body, digital trauma is its inverse: a violation that bypasses the body entirely. The body remains untouched, yet the self is profoundly violated. A person’s image is digitally manipulated and circulated in acts that simulate intimacy or violence – as if the experience were real – while the nervous system receives no physical cue to process it. These are ‘as if’ experiences, lacking the grounding of embodied emotion. The harm is real, but the absence of bodily feedback fractures the connection between perception and processing.

Like phantom pain, this digital wound haunts the mind without the anchor of physical sensation. And just as the brain struggles to update its map when a limb is gone, the law struggles to respond when harm leaves no physical mark. Recognition fails. Adaptation stalls. The relationship breaks down. Our fundamental trust erodes as the socio-technical system appears functional, yet fails to relate, adapt, or protect our human integrity.

Could this be the emergence of phantom governance – present in form, absent in response?

E. Law as a convergence zone

Another vital convergence zone is our legal systems – in short, the law. The law forms a space where different needs, values, and signals are brought together to maintain coherence within and across societies. Just as the brain’s convergence zones act as brokers, integrating signals from diverse sources to create a coherent sense of self, the legal system functions as a social broker – mediating between individuals, institutions, and norms.

1. Legal by design?

As digital systems become increasingly integrated into our lives, a crucial question arises: can – and should – legality be built directly into their design? Legal systems help translate cultural norms, individual rights, public needs, and moral claims to maintain a shared sense of legitimacy and order. This process involves constant interpretation, negotiation, and judgment. It is through this integrative function that law creates a regulatory environment – a backdrop of order and predictability that holds society together.

As digital twins evolve into embedded systems that manage access, prioritisation, and interaction, they begin to make decisions that resemble legal governance. These systems are not just technical tools; they influence agency, authority, and accountability. In this new reality, law cannot remain separate from the system.

Traditionally, law has been embedded in physical systems through safety codes, product regulations, and infrastructure standards. We already incorporate legal principles into the design of cars, buildings, and financial systems. But as digital systems start governing in real-time – automating decisions about who has access, who sees what, and what processes take priority – are we embedding legal values into their design with the same attention and care?

If concepts like fairness, due process, and accountability, once enforced by institutions, are now mediated through digital interfaces and protocols, how can we ensure those principles remain active, visible, and enforceable? And as digital systems begin to shape outcomes that the law once decided, when – and how – will legal frameworks be reintroduced into the process and feedback loop?

2. Dynamic governance

These are not hypothetical questions; they point to a growing gap between how governance is implemented through technology and automation, and how law is applied – often in a reactive way, or from the outside. To address this, we must act earlier – during the design of systems, the creation of technical standards, and the development of governance protocols. This means translating legal principles into practical system requirements, ensuring systems can be audited, allowing for challenges to be raised, and incorporating accountability directly into the system’s design.This perspective aligns with the Dynamic Policy Maturity Benchmark Model introduced in Part 2 of this series. The model encourages institutions to create governance systems that are iterative, collaborative, and adaptable to technological changes. Instead of regulating only after harm has occurred, it calls for a proactive legal approach – one that evolves in tandem with the systems it is intended to govern.

3. Lessons from disaster management

The report by Focus Group on AI for Natural Disaster Management (FG-AI4NDM) provides a tangible example of embedded governance already at work. In disaster response, communication systems operate across different phases – before, during, and after a crisis – creating a layered, real-time response structure. This approach mirrors the architecture of digital twins and metaverse platforms, where systems must continuously integrate data, actions, and users across both physical and digital realms.

Much like digital twins, disaster management systems operate across multiple layers: they synchronise sensor data, trigger coordinated actions, and automatically enforce protocols. In this context, governance is embedded in the response architecture. These systems demonstrate that the convergence zone is not just a theoretical concept – it is an actual space where embedded structures govern real-world outcomes.

The 2024 flooding in Valencia offers a tragic example. As mentioned in Part 6, no public alerts were issued despite forecasts predicting severe rainfall. The data was available, and the models were functioning. However, the system failed to translate digital knowledge into physical action. The issue wasn’t a failure of prediction; it was a failure of activation.

4. The digital flood

This failure to translate knowledge into action is not limited to floods. It also resonates in our inability to effectively address digital trauma. Just as the digital knowledge of impending floods remained inert, our growing awareness of the potential and real harms caused by technologies such as deepfakes and abuse in virtual environments has yet to be fully translated into robust legal protection.

This lack of protective legal frameworks represents another form of activation failure – whether stemming from systemic inertia or a lack of understanding among various stakeholders. Such a failure leaves individuals exposed and unprotected in the digital realm, even as the risks become more widely acknowledged. Addressing this activation failure within the legal system is crucial for restoring trust, ensuring accountability, and safeguarding individuals in an increasingly digital society.

F. Conclusion

In conclusion, Part 7 demonstrates that governance is no longer solely external to technology – it is becoming increasingly embedded within the technical architecture of our systems. The key challenge, as this exploration of digital twins and interoperability illustrates, is to proactively shape this convergence. We must ensure that our values and legal principles are integrated into the design of these systems, rather than being passively defined by them.

G. Epilogue: A North Star, and what lies between

1. UN 2.0 harnessing technology

This series began with a bold call from UN 2.0 to harness technology for sustainable development, human dignity, and inclusive governance. The metaverse was not introduced as an escape, but as an evolving convergence zone – a layered, socio-technical ecosystem where digital and physical realities increasingly overlap, ultimately aimed at improving the quality of life for all and protecting our planet’s life-sustaining systems. It signals the end of the illusion that digital systems and physical realities operate in isolation.

What we uncovered along the way was not a perfect map, but a set of tensions that require careful navigation. We explored the illusion of separation and returned, again and again, to the need for connection. Across seven articles, we moved from urban transformation and legal complexity to digital trauma, embedded trust, and embodied presence. In each case, the conclusion was the same: systems must relate – legally, ethically, and experientially – grounded in the fundamental needs and aspirations of human life.

2. Towards a North Star: Grounded in relation

We explored how the SDGs offer not just targets, but boundaries – ethical anchors for immersive and emerging technologies – precisely because they are fundamentally about life itself. The Global Digital Compact and the Global Initiative on Virtual Worlds show that these systems are already being shaped by both code and values. And, as the Paris AI Summit reminds us, governance is shifting: away from fear-based paralysis towards a more constructive model of adaptive, human- or even life-centred innovation.

The metaverse is not the destination. It is a North Star – a vision that helps us orient our institutions, our standards, and our imaginations. But orientation alone is not enough. We also need a compass – one that keeps us aligned with what truly matters, grounded not just in technology, but in relation, and in the very essence of human experience. Digital transformation should not be about building faster systems, but about building systems that uphold trust, dignity, and meaningful connection.

Because what matters most is not where we arrive, but what happens along the way. The metaverse may remain a vision, but the systems we shape now are real. They will define how future generations live, relate, and belong. Utopias are not endpoints – they guide us towards what matters most: a better quality of life for all. Perhaps we are not just seeing what is possible, but beginning to feel it – for better or worse.

H. Ask Diplo’s AI Assistant

Are you curious to explore the 52 technical reports by the Focus Group Metaverse and other relevant documents? To make research more accessible for our readers, we have developed a dedicated DiploAI Assistant for UN Virtual Worlds . If you have any questions, simply ask the DiploAI Assistant.