Oddly enough, almost anything which lends itself to recursive evolution is similistic in nature. I might use a movie as an example. Seen as an ordered aggregate of frames, the concept of the “next” frame is really tied to the information that is repeated in that frame. That is a sort of recursive development in which the information is fed back into the next event and variation occurs. The fact that there is space between the frames is irrelevant to the way we interpret the experience.

However, this space is not at all irrelevant to the way similations work. I will come back to this illusion of connectedness later. For now, imagine that you take the film strip and you cut it into piles of randomly stacked frames. Even with the most fortunate of accidents, there is no way to prove that any assembly is like the original (unless, of course, you have an original to compare it with). In fact, it is similistically unlike the original. The recursive quality of frame following frame has been muddled. I would venture to say that this would be readily apparent to the viewer even if it were not easily analyzed objectively.

 In fact, it cannot be objectively analyzed because  we cannot come up with a rule which will tell us how much information must be shared between subsequent frames for the order to be the same as the original. One might say, “It varies.”

And this brings up another loose end in our quest for similation. This is the notion of prior knowledge, intention, affecting the outcome of the experiment—something else that we will explore later.

Leave a Reply