When we look inside a model, we tend to look for its rules. We can also look for what is absent.
BAŞKA needs no sunlight. No season passes. A fold might resemble coral, but the model does not contain the details of a marine ecosystem. It has two concentrations, neighbourhood relationships and an update rule.
Between an image and an explanation
Resemblance alone does not show that two things form by the same rule. The observatory offers a narrower observation: this implementation, under these chosen conditions, computes this shape.
That limited statement leaves plenty of room for imagination. It also makes the next question clearer. What exactly resembles what: the edge, the spacing or the change over time?
Even the boundary is a choice
In TRACE, the right edge is a neighbour of the left. In BAŞKA, the top and bottom connect too. The screen is rectangular, but the computation does not stop at its edge.
Another implementation could keep the boundary closed. The same local rule could then produce a different pattern. Ask where a model ends as well as what happens in its middle.
Something to try here
Keep three things separate: the rule you change, the beginning you choose and the result you see. Changing one thing at a time makes their relationship easier to follow.
When an image seems to tell you something, leave a small question beside it: What evidence, beyond this screen, would I need for that interpretation?