A densely enough scattered Hologram of a table, for example, would be, if it succeeded, indistinguishable from a "perceived given" table. (Flusser, Vom Subjekt zum Projekt, 122–123)
If we look at the hologram taken as an example here structurally, there is actually no difference between it and the table: Both are scatterings of particles.
If one looks at it genetically, however, they are opposites: The table is representational – opposes us, makes us its subjects, and the hologram is projected: We designed it, are its projects. To say this in a Heideggerian way: the table conditions us (bedingt uns) and the hologram testifies us (bezeugt uns).
~
We are in the process of recoding numerical thinking, now digitally encoded, into lines, shapes, colors, sounds, and soon volumes. For this purpose we have invented apparatuses (plotters, synthesizers, holographs, etc.). We no longer think numerically, but in these "synthetic" codes (for which we do not yet have a collective name). This change in our thinking is interpreted by the cultural pessimists as a relapse into figurative, magical thinking. But in this they are mistaken. As far as they deserve the name "image" at all, the new synthetic images point to the opposite side of the traditional ones: the old images signify the world of things and/or the subject of this world of things, the new ones signify similarities, calculations. The old images are images of something, the new ones are projections, images of something that does not exist, but could exist. The old images are "fictions", "simulations of", the new ones are concretizations of Possibilities. The old images owe their existence to an abstracting, stepping back "imagination", the new ones to a concretizing, projecting "imagination". So we do not think imaginatively magically, but on the contrary imaginatively designing. (p. 25) ⇒ Reading Images
~
From the universe of numbers, understood as a field of Possibilities, some algorithms are picked out because they "should be". These algorithms are processed, fed into a Holograph and from there designed into space in the form of a four-dimensional cube. The particles "corresponding" to the chosen numbers are scattered so densely [⇒ ‘Dense’ Address] that the cube now stands in space like an object. Such a cube would be "immaterial", "pure" intention, "pure" ought, it is not an object which could be negated by a subject [⇒ Negation]. With it there can no longer be talk of "being", but only of "ought", and a new Ontology is to be brought into play here. Even to call this cube a "simulation" of an object makes little sense. (p. 144)
~
With the Hologram, it makes no sense to want to consider it real or fictitious and its algorithms true or false. All should categories like "good" and "bad", "beautiful" and "ugly", however, will apply to the new technology. In this meaning it will be approximately what was called "art" in modern times, and Nietzsche's sentence "art is better than truth" will only gain the radical meaning that is meant in it. The modern separation of technology and art, of "hard" and "soft" culture, will become meaningless, not because technology and art overlap, but because they will regain their pre-modern synonymity. (p. 145) ⇒ Tech & Art = One, beyond True/False
~
The picture we are in does not have a two-dimensional base like an Escher drawing, but it can be compared with a Hologram. If a hologram is to bend, it must reach into another dimension than the usual third. Since the outstretched, not yet fully human hand can reach for itself, for that not yet fully human hand which is searching for the fully human, it must be able to turn around itself, to bend comparable to a Möbius strip. If we want to remain in the picture, then we must bend ourselves (and the picture in which we are) à la Möbius. (p. 201)
[…] and the hologram must be more densely scattered (p. 279)
The photo is granular (silver salt molecules) and poses the problem of scattering. The finer the grains and the denser the scattering, the more "thing-like", until a degree of scattering is reached, which corresponds to the production of a thing. The photo is only the first step in the direction of a synthetic manufacturing of things from grains, the video, the hologram and the computer-controlled hologram are the further steps taken so far. The making of alternative worlds of things by computation has not yet been fully achieved, but we are on the threshold of it. Therefore, the distinction between image and thing, between fiction and reality, becomes more and more inoperational, especially since the so-called "reality" - in the meaning of "perceived world" - exhibits itself as a computation. Instead, a distinction has to be made between "concrete" and "abstract": […] (p. 19)
~