[Part 01] Approximately several years ago, inspired by the many narrations told by near death experiencers which mentioned their experiences were "very real", I pondered carefully about "What does the word real exactly mean when we use it", then I figured it out clearly to myself. [Part 02] Actually, I think I, perhaps also many other people, when referring to that something is real or not, mingle with two semantic concepts subconsciously often without noticing, thus causing confusion. I call these two semantic concepts to which we might actually refer when we talk about something is real or not real, as: 1, true real. 2, the realness we can sense, probe, and try to verify. [Part 03] I will elaborately explain these two semantic concepts as following: [Part 03-01 Semantic concept of the word "real" - 1] The first semantic concept of the word "real" is that, something which is absolutely objective rather than subjective, something which is irrelevant as to how a person might observe it, examine it, view it, think about it, or describe it. Something which exists and specifically exists in its own way no matter how a person or many persons deny it or describe it in some other way. Thus, if something is real, then it exists and presents the same appearance to all people, on the opposite, if this thing is not real, then it either doesn't exist or the epithets used to describe it might be deviant or incorrect. For convenience, when I will use the first semantic concept of the word "real", I will use "real-sc1", as distinguished from "real-sc2" which I will explain further. I believe that, I, also many other people, perhaps all people, can never say with 100% certainty that anything is real-sc1. Because we use our eyes to see things, use our thoughts to think about things, everything we refer to is subjective rather than truly objective, no matter how hard and carefully we try to be neutral when making statement, how many diverse possibilities we consider and include as we describe a thing, ultimately we only will have explored our own sense about it. We can never touch a thing "directly" without using our own unreliable sensory systems, and we can't prove that we see and describe a thing completely objectively and be in the exactly same way as all people should see and describe it. But, this doesn't mean that talking about something is real-sc1 should be considered meaningless. Because though I believe we can't prove anything is real-sc1 with 100% certainty, we can infinitely approach the possibility of its realness to 100% as we examine it more and more. In a sense, in our mundane lives and scientific researches, when we examine a thing to a degree, we can say it is highly probably real-sc1. For example, I see the moon, and the people surrounding me all see the moon, human scientists' acceptance of the cosmic view of our universe has spent a long history, astronauts also have seen the moon from outer space, there were probers which were sent to moon to collect data and materials and had come back, and many other examinations, then I feel free to say I'm almost 100% sure that the moon is a real-sc1 thing, though there still are some possibilities that some of us have been deceived, or the whole world is only an illusion, and not truly real-sc1. These possibilities don't disturb me, since we have so many examinations on moon's existence, the possibilities which overthrow its existence are quite trivial. [Part 03-02 Semantic concept of the word "real" - 2] Foregoing is the first semantic concept usage of the word "real" which is often used by us when discussing serious scientific topics. However, we often refer to the real-sc2 meaning when we use the word "real". Now I explain further. Many times, when we talk about something (or some other people's narration) is real or not real, we are actually talking about "whether the epithet or description for this thing exceeds its true capacity of information", or, in other words, "whether the epithet or description for this thing mentions some additional information which exceeds the information this thing actually has". In short, it is all about "information amount" when we talk about something is real or not real, with a subconscious referring to the real-sc2 meaning of the word "real". [Part 03-02 Semantic concept of the word "real" - 2 - An example] I didn't explain my meaning clearly, and I will use an example: For example, let us talk about a desert mirage. Whether a desert mirage is real? It is real, because the travelers actually saw it, it exists as something rather than nothing. The problem is, how should the travelers view and explain it? Traveler A says: "Oh, see, over there, a seemingly oasis and golden city, but it is only an atmosphere phenomenon, a desert mirage. This kind of atmosphere phenomenon actually truly exists, and it's nice to really have witnessed one happening." Traveler B says: "Oh, see, over there, an oasis with limpid water, palms and delicious fruits, and a golden city where you can find boisterous marketplace, dancing ranees, monarch who sits on a serpent throne, with camelry patrols, halberdier guards, crescent sentinels and veiled priests protecting his palace. Soon we won't need to suffer from thirsty, hungry, drabness any longer." When describing the existent objective thing, travel B adds more information than the objective thing actually has. When he uses the words "oasis", "golden city", there comes an expectation that "the thing they saw" contains many information that an oasis and golden city ought to contain, which is not the case actually happening. Therefore, we state that, what traveler B says are not real, as we subconsciously refer to the real-sc2 meaning, that is, "not real" means judging a narration which claims excessively expected information than all the information which truly exists. The traveler A is correct, the mirage is real, as it happens, then it happens, it is seen as it is, it may suggest that there is an oasis somewhere, but not at the location where the mirage optical phenomenon actually generates and appears. And this optical pattern caused by some atmospheric conditions might reflect a distant real oasis with some distortion, like adding a seemingly golden city beside it. [Part 03-02 Semantic concept of the word "real" - 2] Near my start of this whole post, I gave the definition of the second semantic concept of the word "real" as this: 2, the realness we can sense, probe, and try to verify. It is the same meaning as talking about "information amount", as it is a fact that the more information a thing actually contains, the more realness we can sense, probe, and try to verify about it. [Part 04] So, in summary, the second semantic concept of the word "real" we use, is actually all about the "information amount". When someone uses epithet and description which imply some excessively more information than the objective thing which he is referring to actually has, we state that what he says are "not real". This usage of word real's meaning should be distinguished from the real-sc1, as real-sc1 refers to the objective thing's realness irregardless of anyone's observation and consideration. We are not saying traveler B's statement is not real-sc1, as anyway, we can never prove anything's realness with 100% certainty. Nonetheless, we can make the judgment that traveler B's statement is not real-sc2 for sure, as he hasn't gotten the sufficient information amount which could have backed up his claims. In other words, a narration which claims information more than it provides, it talks about something which is not real, more specifically using my idea, not real-sc2. [Part 05] For example, whether some saint in some religion is real? As for the real-sc1, no one can be sure, and perhaps no one will ever be sure. You haven't seen the saint, you can't say it's not real. If you actually see a saint, you still won't be 100% sure that it is real. You can't strictly prove anything objectively anyway, including the object which is currently nearest to your left hand. But, as for the real-sc2, if you claim that a saint must exist, before you ever actually see him, recognize him, know what his visage should look like, know what his temperament might be, know what garment he used to wear, talk to him, know his deeds, his history, his concerns, his purposes, or any of his familiars, his relationships, his emotions, how could you claim that what you said is real? [Part 06] I can't say that our mundane world is real-sc1, since I can't strictly prove anything with 100% certainty. Carefully being as prudent as I can, I would like to say that our mundane world seems very real-sc1 to me, because it has so abundant information, thus so many things tangible to explore, investigate, interact, and try to verify, making us be able to infinitely approach 100% certainty to its realness. I would like to say that there is no doubt that our mundane world is relatively real-sc2, as long as I do not try to view it with some expectation that it should contain more information than it actually already has. Also, I subconsciously use the overall amount of information in our mundane world as a kind of gauge or contrasting standard. When anyone claims that they have discovered a new continent, a new planet, a new dimension, a new world, I will listen how much information they could shed, if the information amount sounds too scarce compared to that within our mundane world, I will consider it is highly likely not real as a new world, but actually something with less information, such as a plot of novel, an imagination, a dream or hallucination of someone. [Part 07 Dreams] To apply my point of view of what does real mean to the discussion on our dreams, as following: A dream has content, i.e. what we sense in it. A dream also has a generation and proceeding mechanism, i.e. what biochemical, neurochemical process going on behind it. A dream's scientific mechanism is complex, requires science research information everlastingly evolved in our waking reality to explain, but its content is obscure, almost always contains less information than what we receive in our waking reality. We often talk about a lucid dream or a vivid dream. Lucid dream or vivid dream is only a sense that our brain is alert and vigilant, approaching the degree of our full sober state, with none ~ only slightly clearer scene and event details in the content of dream. Even if in the lucid dream or vivid dream, the information we perceive can't compare to our waking reality. In our waking reality, we have all our past memories (relative to dream), and we have a focus, which is currently the most concerned thing by us, now and here, nonce, we know the things happened not long ago, and wait for the things will possibly happen soon, we have a purpose whether for leisure or work or some other types. In waking reality there is always infinitely more information to excavate if you feel necessary. On the opposite, in our dreams, our memories and knowledge are temporarily unavailable, we don't remember the things happened not long ago, we have no idea what will happen next, we don't have a concern or purpose, we preserve a minimum sense that our consciousness exists, we try to proceed in thinking or reminiscing sporadically but with nothing reasonable to think. All these serve as a background for that we are set at a "less or no information commence point" when we start to dream. When the dream commences, the scenes or other identities we thought we are seeing are all obscure, we often jump from one place to another, or jump from a district to another within the same rendezvous we thought we are in. The events tend to discontinue at any time, often interrupted without allowance for precaution. These are all the bolsters for how our brain strives to be at least partially active simultaneously putting up with its own limited power to generate information. When we are awake, our brain's activity is driven by the surrounding information input, whereas in our dreams, our brain receives no information input (except for some vaguely comfort from some part of our body), and is temporarily unable to access our memories for reasonably fetching whatever the current concern should be. In this situation, in order to be as active as it can, our brain could only generate information using its limited power and process the information by itself, all the information is as drastically scarce as not much more than zero information, not mention to making a comparison with our waking reality which has infinite information only if we feel necessary to seek. In a word, the above description was emphasizing the difference on "information amount". When I interpret a dream, as long as I keep loyal to admitting that its limited information can't suggest some other world, and I do not extend its implication at my ease, then my dream is "real(real-sc2)" as consistent with its actual "information amount". If I try to over interpret my dream, for example, thinking it might contain some premonition, a contact with alien, or I actually left my body and visited another world, then my dream is "not real(real-sc2)" in this sense, because there is no further detailed information to sustain these epithets and descriptions. And my dream is constantly less real than waking reality, just because the difference on "information amount". [Part 08 Fiction and fantasies] In our waking reality, fresh, nouveau discovered, and meaningful information hasn't been seen to be fetched to exhaustion. Though our mundane world seems drab and plain compared with various fiction, fantasy stories, art, etc., all its information still far surpasses any whimsy work. While the fiction and fantasy works seem abundant of information, their history and future remain not completely conceived, their progress won't spontaneously continue. Some of their stories remain unexplained and mysteriously omitted, some of crucial scenario transference nodes remain unreasonable. An author just presents the aspects of his works as needed to present, leaving many backstage factors nonexistent. Many novels' scenarios rely heavily on coincidence and unfair dumb luck of protagonists which lack detailed information of causes. On the other hand, our waking reality contains far more information than we have perceived or imagined, some hidden factors are always working, responsible for the causes behind the curtain of every sensible phenomenon, drab and plain as it looks, it has an explanation for everything, filling every space in the history and is able to continue on its own. [Part 09] Next, let me get into the paranormal, in specific, near death experiences. I found it is strange, like a puzzle, that why many nders claim there is someone beyond there, there is a beyond world which can't be not far more abundant than ours, yet, without providing even the reasonable same amount of information as we narrate a mundane affair? Someone would argue that many nders have provided amazingly abundantly informational details. I would like to say, thinking carefully and you will find it is not this case for the most. "These beings communicate telepathically, and they can read my thoughts." The above sentence is often seen in nde narration. But how could they know those beings could read their thoughts? "I saw a man coming to me and recognized that he is Jesus." How could they know he is Jesus? "Those light beings know everything and all my questions were answered by them." What specific question and answer? There are many gaps which severely lack information to make those experiences reasonable as to be said visiting another world which is beyond our physical world and our flesh body.