a holograph is a cache, a recording of an object observed in a specific way. it can be arbitrarily complex, potentially encoding a v large subset of a system's state space

a simulacra is one such; a holograph of a system, replicating the experience of it, the surface impressions
---
RT @Plinz
Base level reality is the inevitable causal structure that gives rise to all observable causal patterns. Simulations are recreations of observable cau…
https://twitter.com/Plinz/status/1391574087114256384

consider a fake tree; in many ways, it accurately replicates the experience of interacting with a real one. it looks similar, you can climb it, lean against it, sit beneath it. you can take pictures of it, throw things at it, punch it, admire it. but the similarities end there.

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?