The meaning of existence and realness, all about information amount

[tarantulanebula]

I attempted to express my meaning many times but it seems that I have never succeeded in making the others understand my meaning.

I will try until I achieve the goal that some will know what I say.

First, let me talk about "the meaning of existence". Everything exists, even if it exists as an illusion. When you see or sense a phenomenon or a thing, the phenomenon or the thing definitely exists. It is only how you interpret its attributes and essence which is the crux and the core problem.

For example, near death experiences definitely exist, no question. The problem is how we interpret them. Whether they lead to the conclusion that consciousness survives beyond bodily death and whether there is another world beyond our earthly life, etcetera, these remain as a question.

Second, let me talk about "realness". I will express a clear definition on "what is to be called real" and "what is to be called not real".

When someone says a statement or a paragraph of many statements, if he CLAIMS more information than there actually is, then what he says are "not real". And also he probably deceives himself or the others. On the opposite, if he provides equivalent amount of information than what he CLAIMS, then what he says are "real". And also he is probably honest to himself and to the others.

For example, when someone claims there is another world but can't provide sufficient information, then "what he says are not real". Jesus as a person is not real because no one ever provided sufficient information as to let us know that Jesus could be a real person.

Someone says that religions are real, only if you view them as a placebo. Sure, but when you view them as a placebo, you shouldn't expect they could provide more information than merely a placebo could. For example, a placebo won't provide a cure to disease, a visit to heaven, a communication to deceased loved ones, a solution to some difficulty in a job, a breakthrough in scientific research. A placebo is only a placebo, it provides very scarce amount of information, maybe nothing more than its own sentences which actually don't provide much soothing. Many people who sought placebo from religion will find that they still need to face and cope with the real problem that caused the agony. And when they face and cope with the real problem, they need incredibly large amount of information, for example financial support, scientific research, coordination and helps from many other people, etcetera.

Unicorn exists as a fantasy, not a real creature. Because "fantasy" requires less amount of information, whereas "real creature" requires almost infinite amount of information. If someone claims that he has found a real unicorn, he must provide tremendously huge amount of information, otherwise he is lying. For example he must provide information of where he found a unicorn, what are the resemblance and the difference of unicorn and a horse, is there any aura around the unicorn, what the unicorn eats, what sound it makes when it neighs, what temperament it has, whether it is aggressive or mild, what is the color of its skin, hair, sclera, horn, hooves, could it communicate with you, if so, how, how old is it, how tall is it, did you ask it whether you could ride it, where did it come from, what its homeland looks like, whether it has fellow of its same species, how they mate and reproduce, and many other questions. If the one who claims he knows unicorn's existence as a real creature can't provide any of those information described foregoing, then we and himself should reconsider whether what he saw is more suitable to a reduced explanation, like an illusion, etcetera.

The same applies to near death experiences, if they didn't provide sufficient information, it is not honest to say there is a world beyond.

In summary, "real" and "not real" are ALL ABOUT conservative or excessive claim and sufficient or scarce amount of information. Conservative (careful, responsible, discreet) claim and sufficient amount of information lead to a real statement. Excessive (not careful, irresponsible, imprudent) claim and scarce amount of information lead to a false statement, and often are a hint of dishonest to the problem in discussion.

In other words, if someone says something which requires large amount of information to be true, but he can only provide very scarce amount of information, then he is saying something that is not real.

 

[Michael Larkin]

I attempted to express my meaning many times but it seems that I have never succeeded in making the others understand my meaning.

I will try until I achieve the goal that some will know what I say....

I don't need a lot of information to prove a unicorn exists. All I need is an actual unicorn that I can show to people. If anyone can see my unicorn, then it will be deemed real. If I can't show it to anyone, but I can see it, then at best it's only real to me. Anyone who can't see it can't say it's unreal for sure: at best can only be agnostic about my unicorn.

Reality is a tricky concept. We deem real that which can be perceived by anyone: we claim it is an objective truth. But even objective "truths" can be incorrect. The sun rises every morning in the East and sets every evening in the West. Objectively, it seems to go round the earth, but as we know, it doesn't actually. However, no amount of information is going to remove the sense perception that the sun goes round the earth as viewed from our earthly perspective.

Fact is, with any phenomenon that anyone can perceive, there's always an element of interpretation. We see rocks as solid objects, but we know that the closer we look at them, the more nebulous they become, and the more empty space comprises them. Reality is consensual, and always contains an element of interpretation. Not everyone interprets apparently real things in the same way, even though they may perceive them in the exact same way.

The experience of an NDE is something only some people have had, but amongst them, it is widely believed that it proves the existence of life after death, or at least a realm that most people haven't perceived. At best, we can accept that they've had an experience whilst at the same time being agnostic about life after death. We can't assert that their interpretation is incorrect, only that we ourselves haven't experienced an NDE.

In other words, if someone says something which requires large amount of information to be true, but he can only provide very scarce amount of information, then he is saying something that is not real.

Not necessarily. People who've had an NDE and lived to tell the tale may or may not have experienced something real. We who haven't can't say for sure one way or the other. The scarcity of our information isn't proof of unreality, only proof of ignorance. If we really think about it, our ignorance is enormous, and we shouldn't be so quick to express certainty that some things are real and others unreal. What we need is humility and a mind that is open to possibilities without being completely gullible.

 

[tarantulanebula]

I don't need a lot of information to prove a unicorn exists. All I need is an actual unicorn that I can show to people.

No, I disagree, with friendly smile. Let me explain. You indeed need astronomically large amount of information to prove a unicorn exists.

Actually, consider that if you were really seeing a unicorn, you would have already perceived large chunk of information SUBCONSCIOUSLY even if you wouldn't notice it or admit it.

Because, importantly, "the experience of actually seeing a unicorn present in front of you" is quite largely different from "the experience of seeing a picture of unicorn". In fact, you have never really seen a unicorn, so you can't even imagine what a shock it would be if you were to really see a real unicorn. You would be surprised, astonished.

Why you would be surprised, astonished? All because of large amount of information. If you were to encounter a real unicorn, you would be heavily surprised by its unusual color of silver fur, and there might be iridescent aura around its neck or its manes. Although these are all my imagination, the fact might be different in some specific details, but anyway there probably be some amazing traits of a unicorn here or there, which could astound you. Even if a unicorn only would differ from horses by its additional uni-horn, with the other part almost the same, you would still be surprised by such a kind of animal, because when you actually see a real animal like this kind, you would SUBCONSCIOUSLY receive large chunk of information which can't be conveyed to you by a picture. Anyone actually sees a horse with a uni-horn, will be astonished by many details in the tangible reality. And he can even interact with this animal, which means more information exchange ensues. A picture won't cause a person to be astonished because a picture provides very scarce amount of information.

In other words, if you can show an actual unicorn to people rather than throw a picture of unicorn to those people, you would have already been heavily astonished, and the reason that why you would have been astonished, is that you would SUBCONSCIOUSLY receive large chunk of information from an actual unicorn, and those information arises your vigilant instinct to tell you to take a defensive stance to block potential danger, even if you wouldn't notice or admit this fact. Because those information is fresh and unfamiliar, and sufficient and abundant enough to arise your defensive instinct.

A picture won't give you such a kind of shock. You wouldn't be able to imagine how amazing it would be before you were to actually see an actual unicorn. These are all because of the difference in "The Amount of Information".

The information you receive when you actually see a real unicorn, probably includes but not limited to vision information. An actual unicorn might emit a unique and unfamiliar smell, an odor, to you. And it might make different sounds which you never hear from any other animal on earth. In addition to visual, aural, olfactory information, there might be information even more mysterious, paranormal and subtle. You definitely would have been given large chunk of information if you were to see a real unicorn, even if now you can't imagine, and at that meanwhile, you would not immediately notice this fact.

 

[tarantulanebula]

If anyone can see my unicorn, then it will be deemed real.

I agree, but if anyone can see your unicorn, then you and this person definitely have received large chunk of information, even if now you can't imagine what an amazing information that might be, and even if at that meanwhile of facing and seeing this animal, you and this person won't immediately notice what a large and shocking information you are receiving.

If anyone can see my unicorn, then it will be deemed real. If I can't show it to anyone, but I can see it, then at best it's only real to me. Anyone who can't see it can't say it's unreal for sure: at best can only be agnostic about my unicorn.

If you haven't received sufficient information, or you think you have received much information previously but can't retell them now, I'm afraid the most honest statement is NOT to say that "at best it's only real to me", but "I'm not sure".

If you haven't gleaned sufficient information or forget some, you probably should consider whether "what you believe you saw" are delusion and illusion created by some mechanisms. And this explanation should be prior to (should have a higher priority than) the one of "at best it's only real to me".

No information, nothing for certain.

Anyone who can't see it can't say it's unreal for sure: at best can only be agnostic about my unicorn.

I agree. If I conveyed a meaning of "if you are not sure, then it's not real", then it's my mistake that I didn't make it correct and precise. I will correct it and replace it with the following statement:

If you can't provide sufficient amount of information, you should say you are not sure about anything. Strongly claiming something is real or is not real under scarce amount of information, is considered a dishonest claim.

 

[tarantulanebula]

Reality is a tricky concept. We deem real that which can be perceived by anyone: we claim it is an objective truth. But even objective "truths" can be incorrect. The sun rises every morning in the East and sets every evening in the West. Objectively, it seems to go round the earth, but as we know, it doesn't actually. However, no amount of information is going to remove the sense perception that the sun goes round the earth as viewed from our earthly perspective.

Quoted from yours:
no amount of information is going to remove the sense perception that the sun goes round the earth as viewed from our earthly perspective

Today, the sense perception that the sun goes round the earth as viewed from our earthly perspective, this sense perception, still remains, it's true.

More amount of information doesn't REMOVE this sense perception, but GIVES A MORE COMPLEX AND MORE COMPLETE interpretation to it, thanks to the advance of science research.

Today, when we watch the sun from the sunrise to sunset, and the moon's enter and quit, we still perceive that AS IF the sun goes round the earth, but we know the perception is a lovely, childish, pristine poetic personification. And the truth has more story to this pristine sense perception. We know that it is the astronomical panorama and the mechanism of the solar system which provides a background stage for this "lovely perception" to perform out of our sense.

In other words, more information makes the previously pristine and archaic interpretation to this sense perception more complex and more complete, rather than simply remove or deny its existence and how it feels.

The new interpretation founded by more information is more valuable than that pristine and archaic one. And more information makes our understanding of this world more vivid, more bright and in some sense, more real.

In some sense, reality is about "The Amount of Information". More information makes us feel more real, and less information makes us feel less real. 2D pictures seem less real than 3D computer graphics cinematic, largely because that 3D CG cinematic provides more facet information of a virtual scene than 2D pictures.

When we use the word "real", we actually often mix up its two implicit meanings:
One meaning of the word "real" is objectivity, something is to be called real because it exists objectively, doesn't rely on any specific person's viewing to be existent, and remains the same among different observers.
Another meaning of the word "real" is "how much amount of information", something is to be called real because it has large amount of information, like our mundane life seems real to everyone of us because it has almost infinite amount of information, every new day is different. A 3D cinematic is less real than our reality and more real than a 2D picture, all because of how much information they have.

For the first meaning of the word "real", we probably will never really achieve a strict proof of it, because everything we know is through subjective observing of each individual respectively.

For the second meaning of the word "real", we often compare the information amount of a claim with our mundane life. If someone claims that there is a world beyond our physical world, then we compare the amount of information he can provide with the amount of information of our mundane world. If his information amount is larger than our everyday life, we know what he says about another world is true, but this thing never really happened. Everyone in the history who claimed there is a para world, failed to provide larger information amount than our mundane world which has more and more been exploded by information generated by modern science and information technology. Thus we feel any paranormal claim is not real, because they never provided sufficient information which could compare to or surpass our mundane lives.

 

[tarantulanebula]

The experience of an NDE is something only some people have had, but amongst them, it is widely believed that it proves the existence of life after death, or at least a realm that most people haven't perceived. At best, we can accept that they've had an experience whilst at the same time being agnostic about life after death. We can't assert that their interpretation is incorrect, only that we ourselves haven't experienced an NDE.

​

Not necessarily. People who've had an NDE and lived to tell the tale may or may not have experienced something real. We who haven't can't say for sure one way or the other. The scarcity of our information isn't proof of unreality, only proof of ignorance. If we really think about it, our ignorance is enormous, and we shouldn't be so quick to express certainty that some things are real and others unreal. What we need is humility and a mind that is open to possibilities without being completely gullible.

Yes! I totally agree with it. I should have said that the scarcity of information leads to agnostic and ignorance. I didn't mean to claim that scarcity of information leads to a proof of unreal.

However, even if some NDEers can't repeat sufficient information to the others or themselves, simultaneously they express a strong believe that their experiences are real, the people they encountered in their experiences are real, and the world on the other side is real.

This is strange, perhaps there are information they can't convey to us, for some reason.

As to me, I don't deny it, I don't know, just feel strange about the contradict between the scarcity of the information and "the many often strong claims".

Self deception and deception to the others are a considerable candidate of explanation, though.

 

[tarantulanebula]

I don't need a lot of information to prove a unicorn exists. All I need is an actual unicorn that I can show to people. If anyone can see my unicorn, then it will be deemed real. If I can't show it to anyone, but I can see it, then at best it's only real to me. Anyone who can't see it can't say it's unreal for sure: at best can only be agnostic about my unicorn.

I want to further discuss my different opinions on this.

One of my opinions is : you indeed need astronomically large amount of information to prove a unicorn exists.

Actually, consider that if you were really seeing a unicorn, you would have already perceived large chunk of information SUBCONSCIOUSLY even if you wouldn't notice it or admit it.

Compare the amount of information in a real scene witness and the amount of information in a static picture:

Consider, there is a picture of unicorn, how much information it has? Depending upon how clear this picture is, its size and chromatic range, and many other factors, the amount of all the information it can tell is a quite finite number, usually is also considerably small.

Let us change our vision from a merely picture to a real scene in which you encounter an actual unicorn. OK, it will all be imagination, but what I will say totally stands as a must-be fact even if it is derived from an imagination.

You might think, a real scene where you encounter an actual unicorn wouldn't be much different from a static picture of a unicorn. You might have this thought simply because now you can't even start to imagine what a shock it would be if you were to encounter an actual unicorn.

It is totally incorrect to say that seeing an actual unicorn is no much different from seeing a picture of a unicorn. Rather, seeing an actual unicorn will bring you with unfathomably large amount of information, this is exponentially largely different from seeing a picture of a unicorn.

At the first glance of an actual unicorn, let us assume, it will not immediately charge towards you or run away swiftly, it will stand still watching and observing you, for a time. During this time, it will not do many obvious and big actions, just stands still watching and observing you. You will SUBCONSCIOUSLY receive astronomically large amount of information even if in this quite quiet situation. The unicorn stands still, but it won't stand still like a stone statue, it will breath and do some minor actions, like its hair, manes, and fluff will move in the breeze, like its hooves will tread on the ground several times for ease, like its neck will shake several times for ease, like it will suddenly sniffs heavily several times and so on. You will notice it is breathing, and subconsciously notice and calculate the pace of its breathing, to judge the mood it is currently in and to estimate how aggressive or how mild it is, for you to determine what a defensive stance and action you should take to protect yourself. The shadow cast on its silver hair by ambient light sources will change from time to time. There might be flying insects near it, and you will possibly notice one time or two when the insects bump into its body, what reactions it will take, like waggling its tail to chase away those insects. Some unpredictable events in the atmospheric environment will briefly cause it to change its attention from you to the sources of those events, like in vicinity there might arise noises of a squirrel passing by. And you will notice the unicorn's reaction, or even its facial expressions. For the time elapses, second by second, you will subconsciously heed and absorb many many information, even if your thoughts in your sane mind will not notice, your biologically fundamental instincts will work, beyond the process of the surface of your brain. You will try to collect every tiny action this unicorn will make subconsciously. Your eyes will work, your ears will work, your olfactory senses will work, and some more lower tier biological systems will work, all receiving amazingly large amount of information. And either you or this unicorn will stop standing still just watching, and to take other actions. The ensuing information will be beyond my imaginative ability.

A novelist needs to write many details to make his story interesting and intriguing. Even if he has written many many details, the amount of information in his story, will still be far less than a real scene and real event. If you dig further and further into the background and backstage of his story, you will find that there are many factors even if this novelist himself won't be able to think roundly, thus making many of scenarios and plots of his novel unreasonable and contradictory. Our mundane world seems real to us, because it has almost infinite amount of information. How could a person thinks and claims a thing is real, while he can't even provide information as detailed as that in a fabricated story? So this is strange to me.

I don't mean, if someone can't provide sufficient amount of information, then what he says are all not real. Instead, like you said, I mean that under scarcity of information, we will NOT KNOW whether what he said are real or not real.

I think, the amount of information = the degree of confirmed realness.

If someone makes a stronger claim for some thing's realness than the currently collected amount of information can bolster, then he is not making an honest claim.

 

[tarantulanebula]

I don't need a lot of information to prove a unicorn exists. All I need is an actual unicorn that I can show to people. If anyone can see my unicorn, then it will be deemed real. If I can't show it to anyone, but I can see it, then at best it's only real to me. Anyone who can't see it can't say it's unreal for sure: at best can only be agnostic about my unicorn.

Hello Michael Larkin. I don't mean to disturb you so many times. But I wish to make this discussion as complete as I can.

I thought about your opinions again, I thought about your meaning, including the part that you implied but didn't clearly uttered out.

I suppose, you thought it would be as easy as throwing a picture to people, to show an actual unicorn, right?

This is psychologically a typical case of "thinking it easy, but the actual happening will be much more complex".

How could you know, the "actual unicorn" you show to people, is not a fake one? Like some fraud pasted a plastic horn on the glabella of a horse? How could you know your eyes were not dazzled? Information needed. Only large amount of information can help you verify that the unicorn you show to people is a real one, not a fake one. You need to observe, and check carefully and more and more detailed, to verify that it will be an actual unicorn, not of other fake case. In other words, you need large amount of information. And if it will be definitely a true actual unicorn, I suggest it will probably give you a shocking astronomical large amount of information that is completely different than a case of a plain horse and perhaps even different than any animal that inhabits on the earth.

It will be complex when dealing with the actual event, much much more complex than our simple imagination. The true unicorn would probably shock us with completely fresh, new, unfamiliar information which will also be in an astronomically large amount and be abundant. And it will only be via those abundant information, we will consider the possibility that "that unicorn" is not a fake one.

Someone will argue, showing an actual unicorn to people is not as complex as I described above. He will think, you see an actual unicorn, then you show it to people, or you tell people, then unicorn is a real thing, done, so easy. I will say he thinks things in a too easy way, and not persuading. As now, we can be comfort with this not too serious imagination. But if we are in a real event, then a chain of unavoidable problems will ensue. Why wouldn't he feel strange about, what does this "unicorn" come from? For the past several decades, ecologists have researched and grasped the creature data in almost every corner on the earth, including extreme environments like deserts, deep caves, firn neve, isolated islands, and so on, and set up a fairly complete taxonomy. Biologists have categorized creatures into different tiers of types, namely, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, etcetera. There won't be a creature bumping out of the void, not belonging to any existent species on the earth. A creature must have its own ancestors and habitats, its own preys systems, and have various relations and interactions with other animal families. Or, if this creature is from extraterrestrial, then the problems will be much more complex. Who sent it to earth? Or did it manage its own way to earth? Did it use a spaceship or other unimaginable vessel machine? Or a space warp or a hyper jump or through a collapsar? Why it can fit into the oxygen proportion in the atmospheric environment on earth whenever it shows up on earth? And where did it live before visiting the earth? How is its homeland like? Is that a planet similar to our earth? Or a higher plain of dimension? What's in there? What did it do when it was there? Why it have come to earth? Its motives and purposes? There will also be questions astronomically beyond my humble imagination now.

In many cases, a person who mentally flees away from all those questions, is easy to be trapped in a self deception or mutual deception situation. And probably the truth is, the "actual unicorn" he thought he could easily show to people to prove a unicorn is real, is only a joke created by someone who pasted a horn on the glabella of a nicely looking horse.

Anything requires information. Especially unusual claims require astronomically large amount of information to be proved as real.