Mapping an object with precision, requires eventually, an infinite modeling of the object that is indistinguishable from the basis of designation “object” or an abstraction traveling at the speed of light stopping time. The Borges short story, (although it represents itself as non-fiction) On Exactitude in Science, seems to me the analog pole of this. I have written before.about Haraway’s phrase “copies without originals” which points to the digital pole.
So why distinguish the analog from the digital? They both are composed of energy and matter. They can both be thought of as encoding and decoding information. In a Borgesian universe, anything possible digitally is possible in analog form.
While any one digital thing, and even several, or many digital things are possible in analog form, the digital world we have today is not. More precisely, and as Haraway points out, it is micro-electronics that make the digital world possible. Compared to the analog, the micro-electronics/digital enables orders of magnitude more information malleable.
Focus on personal digital communication devices as a mark of the digital is common, but these devices and their functons are only the most visible pixel of the digitized world. What this focus represents though is an aggregation of de-analogized information into an individual’s experience of interiority. But this aggregation creates for many an experience of discomfort, of the uncanny.
I think this is why many experience digitized experience as less real than analog experience. “Less real” is an attempt at naming the feeling of uncanniness the digital can evoke.