for a simulacra, a hologram, is but a very shallow simulation; a simulation nonetheless, but a static one, comprised of cached states, limited in the ways it can respond to observations. it cannot simulate an interaction with the base system which was not recorded into it prior.

the difference between simulacra & simulations is a quantitative, not qualitative one, as the former is a special case of the latter, the degenerate case of internal emptiness. on the opposite end lies the system itself, which is also a simulation; a 100% accurate one, of itself

the dimension along which these points lie is one of depth; how much is there "inside"? what complexity of causal mechanism is contained within the boundaries of the system, that which generates the information flux?

consider that this is a question with an objective answer

the system itself has maximum depth, by definition, as the yardstick against which the simulation is measured

the simulacra has minimum depth, only capable of pre-determined responses

most simulations lie somewhere between these two points

consider, for ex., a robot dog, and a drawing of a dog; clearly neither has full depth, but the former has just a bit more. it can generate a wider variety of "dog" experiences, including those not explicitly recorded.

if the robot contained an AGI, it would be even deeper

we must also consider, however, the role that semiotics plays here; the idea of a dog, the symbol which represents the animal, is not a single universal constant, but a fragmented thing, constructed in many places in many ways. one's idea of a dog may be different from another's

many people consider the idea of "man's best friend" to be integral to the dog-concept, inextricable. a dog, to them, is by definition that which is their partner. what of an unfriendly dog, one which either thru nature or nurture is not interested in this?

is this dog a dog?

would a person with this dog-concept acknowledge a miserable angry mutt as a dog? or would they see it as something unreal, monstrous, missing an essential part of its nature?

how would they see a perfect robotic canine companion? more or less dog?

if the dog-symbol, the imitation of a dog, it's simulacra, is seen as "more real" than an instance of the class which generated it, well, that is hyperreality; that which is more real than the real. how can this be?

a symbol emerges from reality as an egregore, a shared concept

once distilled from the material world, it takes on a life of its own, becoming increasingly detached from the base reality; "man's best friend" is more Dog than many individual canines out there

how many children, do you think, care more about cartoon dogs than real ones?

a cartoon representation, a reified egregore endowed with artificial life, embodied in the will of the publishing organization and brought about by its apparatus in the form of the artists, possesses the essence of the hyperreal. it is a simulacra, but a living one, not static

it must be fed belief, in the form of attention and resources, to survive

it possesses a metabolism, which transforms these inputs into externalized outputs (media representations, interactions)

it self-propagates, both with the in-universe logic and the memetic metagame

this simulation possesses much depth, but depth which does not serve to more accurately replicate the original system; rather, it goes beyond this, taking the distilled symbol and crystalizing a new one around it

this dynamic forms a horseshoe, w/ static simulacra in the center

if we seek to not be undone by hyperreality, we just understand it, and meet it in its own terms; learn how to extend into its domain and take ownership of our memetic destiny.

we are less in control of our self-concepts than we imagine ourselves to be

but we can change this