Generalized Holographic Principle (GHP): Universal Law of Projective Reality

The article compares four ontological positions: Bostrom simulation (the observable is created by a computer), digital physics (nature is computational at its foundation), SFOS projection (the observable is manifested by a source), and UIAM holography (information on the boundary is primary). The comparison is conducted by three criteria defined before the analysis: distinguishability of consequences, ontological economy, absence of regress. It is shown that none of the positions in its current formulation yields distinguishable consequences that could refute it as an essence; all four remain philosophical constructs. By the criterion of ontological economy, digital physics, projection, and holography each introduce one irreducible type (computability, source, boundary respectively), whereas Bostrom simulation introduces two (computer and design). By absence of regress, all four positions are not free of it — the original level remains a postulate in each. The argument against simulation based on the figure of the programmer applies symmetrically to the other positions and therefore is not decisive. If economy is taken as a criterion of preference, the three positions appear preferable to Bostrom simulation, and among themselves they are equal by these criteria, differing only structurally: what is primary — computability, source, or boundary. The author adopts the projection position as his working one, emphasizing that this is a research choice, not a conclusion from the criteria. For each position, a program for constructing distinguishable consequences is outlined, but all programs are still unrealized. The article does not declare a winner and does not defend a pre-chosen conception; it demonstrates the limits of all four positions, including the projection one.