so how can any of that be used to explain or reproduce what the (philo of) human mind does? They tried decades ago to use things like symbolic, predicate calculus/logic but failed to anything useful beyond creating automatic theorem provers. — Sir Philo Sophia

It only applies to some human thought processes, i.e. the ones related to reasoning within or about a formal system.

Since the human mind does not only reason from first principles but, for example, also deals with sensory input, using empirically-driven thought processes, formal reasoning was never meant to be the complete picture of human thinking. There are also informal and even tacit thought processes that are not covered by formal knowledge disciplines.

Furthermore, even the discovery of formal knowledge cannot be achieved through formal knowledge. Otherwise, we would never have discovered formal knowledge or else we would have discovered all possible formal knowledge already.

For example, it is not possible to enumerate all numbers that represent theorems in a theory and then locate for each such theorem the number that represents its proof. Discovery of theorems and their proofs is entirely governed by informal thought processes ("creativity", "innovation", and so on).

Not all thinking is formal-deductive. That would be a serious misconception. I guess that most thinking is probably even not.

I disagree. You omit utility. There is no meaning w/o some sense of utility. A mere ontology of info/data does not create knowledge if you have not gained any actionable path to beneficially use it. I look forward to your stab at your definitions re what I pose above, which will help ground all of our lose semantics here. — Sir Philo Sophia

Utility is the reduction of information from meaning to knowledge via conceptual systems. Determining an actionable path to beneficially use information is a process that ignores, isolates or excludes possible information according to a subjective perception of potentiality. Yes, it’s a necessary process for utilising knowledge at a subjective level, but no, it isn’t necessary for meaning.

Some rough thoughts on definitions:

Information: ‘the resolution of uncertainty’ Is a simplified definition of information, although it invariably leads to a demonisation of entropy and a subsequent rejection of this uncertainty. The difference, as I see it, is in recognising that much of the potential and possible information we have about the world - particularly in relation to our qualitative or chemical relations - are currently irreducible with any accuracy to the same extent as quantitative data. Without a system of reducing information that resolves this uncertainty of qualitative information in subjective experience, we cannot come close to an accurate understanding of the universe. The main error (IMHO) is in the dichotomy of qualitative vs quantitative information, separating ‘mental’ from ‘actual’.

Data: a value signifying a quantitative reduction of potential information. An altimeter measures altitude as a difference in atmospheric pressure in relation to a measurement relative to the volume of certain mercury molecules at a particular relative temperature (ie. molecular velocity, or difference in potential distance in relation to direction over time) and a distance relative to the centre of the earth (sea level). So the ‘abstraction’ of data such as the height of Mount Everest is, well, relative.

Knowledge: Information reduced to relative value/potential structures. We integrate information into our conceptual system by determining its relative utility or potential as new information. A priori knowledge refers to information as a relation existing beyond or at the outer limits of any linguistic/logical or other value system or structure, by which any information may be reduced to ‘knowledge’. The relative potential of a priori knowledge is perceived as infinite: there is no uncertainty of meaning because any possible meaning is limited by the potentiality of the linguistic/logical structure itself.

Mine is not a mainstream theory. I am challenging the current understanding of ‘information’ to be inclusive of meaning without utility and honest about its uncertainty/diversity, as well as clearing up this confusion about the path of abstraction (as described in the quote you offered). Data ‘emerges’ from information via a process of reduction and interpretation, as does knowledge and wisdom and consciousness and life and love and the universe itself.

Information can be acquired through the process of interpretation: one example is by relating to information which has been reduced to potential knowledge and then reduced again via shared conceptual systems to significant sounds or shapes on a page, or reduced even further through a manufactured processing system into, say, binary code to be transmitted in an electrical circuit and then interpreted back through a processing system into sounds or shapes on a screen, to be interpreted by an observer into an experience of potential knowledge (according to shared conceptual systems) which enables us to approach a possible shared meaning. From there, we integrate the information into our own conceptual systems by relating that possible meaning to our own perception of potentiality, which manifests the difference as useful knowledge or new information.

Each dimensional level of reduction or interpretation is a relation that is prone to certain levels of uncertainty/entropy/misunderstanding/noise/diversity - understanding this uncertainty at each dimensional level enables us to allow and adjust for it as part of the processing or relational system we are continually refining. The greatest levels of uncertainty obviously occur at these higher dimensional levels of potentiality and possibility, and we’re continually refining our strategies to recognise, allow for and thereby resolve this uncertainty. But the biggest hurdles are in acknowledging and allowing for the uncertainty and diversity of qualitative information and the inaccuracy of value/conceptual structures by which we reduce the information from our relations to each other.

Meaning of life is the experience the truth and express it as a true human being.

That’s the significance of human life, as we experience it. The ‘meaning of life’ is broader than that: to pursue the ‘truth’ and express it in how we relate to the universe, regardless of the limitations of ‘being human’.

Data implies transmission and reception, as well as acceptance and rejection of that data, or of the data transmission.

And so, I agree partially with invisibilis, except I think he has worded it improperly.

Because, wouldn't it also be to receive the truth as well as 'express' it.

All data life implies strenious data reception, and structured data transmission?

Probably why, inter alia, eyes can go red because they're good at taking a lot of stress.

Not all thinking is formal-deductive. That would be a serious misconception. I guess that most thinking is probably even not. — alcontali

I thought that is what you meant. your conclusion above is correct, which is why formal logic has only been useful in math theorem proving. FWIW, the big problem in applying formal logic frameworks to the real world is that it cannot handle context and/or the purposeful ambiguity of humans and the real world .

↪Invisibilis
That’s the significance of human life, as we experience it. The ‘meaning of life’ is broader than that: to pursue the ‘truth’ and express it in how we relate to the universe, regardless of the limitations of ‘being human’. — Possibility

The true human being is true. Where is the limit of truth.

The true human being is true. Where is the limit of truth. — Invisibilis

What is a ‘false human being’? The limit of ‘truth’ is in exclusions implied by the potential of its expression.

What is a ‘false human being’?... — Possibility

A dishonest one.

The limit of ‘truth’ is in exclusions implied by the potential of its expression. — Possibility

What are the exclusion implied?

What are the exclusion implied? — Invisibilis

To ‘experience truth’ implies a limitation in how to relate to truth. To ‘express it as a true human being’ implies a limitation in how to express it. Both of these limitations are anthropic: the full ‘meaning of life’ is inclusive of alternative relations to truth than ‘experience’, as well as alternative expressions of truth than ‘as a true human being’, whatever you believe that to be.

Yes, it is the self which is limited, and not the truth. Whenever self looks for truth, and/or expresses it, it is limited by its own limitations. Truth cannot be limited. There is no such thing as a half/part/limited truth, for it then becomes a deception, and not a truth. Truth is the only reality, and what is not true is unreal. The best the limited self can express only seems true and real.

A true human being is a consciousness of honesty, where truth expresses itself onto our thoughts and feelings. The self had no part in creating the thoughts and feelings to make it seem true and real. When truth reveals itself, uncensored, onto our thoughts and feelings, it is understood without reason or logic attached. It is doubtless, obvious, fearless, and restorative. It even heals what limitations the self has at that time.

Utility is the reduction of information from meaning to knowledge via conceptual systems. Determining an actionable path to beneficially use information is a process that ignores, isolates or excludes possible information according to a subjective perception of potentiality. Yes, it’s a necessary process for utilising knowledge at a subjective level, but no, it isn’t necessary for meaning. — Possibility

I applaud where you are trying to go with this, but I have to respectfully disagree with your model/ideas on that. For one thing, I'm not seeing 'utility' as being necessarily based on 'meaning'. I see it more based on pattern matching and degrees of causal correlations.

That is, I do not think that meaning or intelligibility is primal when it comes to building knowledge. I expect utility is much more primal because it requires less energy/work/knowledge to enable us to reduce/increase certain entropy as desired to achieve desired outcomes.

For example, quantum particles and their behavior is completely intelligible and has almost no meaning to us; however, we can develop and detect statistical (math) generalizations that predict their observed behavior good enough to use them in useful devices/methods or to predict when/where they may occur with what likelihood and at what energy level, all w/ little to know understanding of what they really are about.

I can think of practical situations where knowledge is formed from sources of information that has no meaning and is not intelligible; that is, I do not believe that it is a requirement that the info must have meaning or is capable of being understood or comprehended by the cognitive agent.
It only matters, for example, that the info in question can be pattern matched and associated (even correlated) with something useful or meaningful or reduces the entropy of something else.

As another example, consider a pattern/event/object 'A' is observed and found to occur semi-periodically; however, 'A' is not understood in any way and has no intrinsic meaning, we can only detect its occurrence (think like a sub-atomic particle in an accelerator collision). We notice that most of the time shortly after pattern 'A' is observed occurring a desirable, yet otherwise completely temporally unpredictable, resource/object 'B' will be available for a brief moment. Having knowledge of this causal association we prepare ourselves to take advantage of 'B', and right after detecting 'A" we were, finally, able to acquire 'B'. Pattern 'A' is like a sign, we don't have to know what the sign says or means, we just have to uniquely recognize the occurrence of that pattern which we don't at all understand (i.e., pure pattern matching, no comprehension or meaning needed).

what do you say about that?

The ‘meaning of life’ is broader than that: to pursue the ‘truth’ and express it in how we relate to the universe, regardless of the limitations of ‘being human’. — Possibility

I think you are defining the meaning of a philosopher's life, not human life. At the risk of sounding like a reductionist, the genetically programmed, thus default, meaning of life is to develop and employ a cognitive framework sufficient to acquire and use information to build enough knowledge on how to gain enough food and shelter sustenance to survive good and long enough to acquire a mate and reproduce. The rest is icing on the human cake, so to speak (in metaphors).

So, the premise of this thread is talking about the icing, think the self-actualization in Maslow's pyramid, not not the primal cake (survival). After survival is fulfilled, then the meaning of that post-survival life can step up once in Maslow's pyramid, where info is used to serve more comfort, personal entropy reduction needs, but that is not the primal meaning of life, by any stretch.

eager to hear any solid counter examples/arguments.

interesting. it does strike as somewhat of a cart before the horse type of thing. though information and meaning are certainly related, I would not consider them synonymous.

though information and meaning are certainly related — Arne

I'm not sure (I'm thinking not at all) they are related as nouns. How would you say they are related?

How would you say they are related? — Sir Philo Sophia

I can provide information regarding all things I find meaningful. On the hand, the world is full of information the meaning of which I care not.

the meaning of which I care not — Arne

that is not a meaningful relationship, definition, or framework. What you 'care'' about has nothing to do with the metaphysical/logical/causal/scientific relationship between information and meaning .

that is not a meaningful relationship, definition, or framework. What you 'care'' about has nothing to do with the metaphysical/logical/causal/scientific relationship between information and meaning . — Sir Philo Sophia

Seriously?

The thread is not about "information and meaning."

Instead, it is about information and "the meaning of life."

And when it comes to conversations regarding the "meaning of life", you can rest assured that what I care about matters.

I certainly hope you can say the same.

Yes, it is the self which is limited, and not the truth. Whenever self looks for truth, and/or expresses it, it is limited by its own limitations. Truth cannot be limited. There is no such thing as a half/part/limited truth, for it then becomes a deception, and not a truth. Truth is the only reality, and what is not true is unreal. The best the limited self can express only seems true and real.

A true human being is a consciousness of honesty, where truth expresses itself onto our thoughts and feelings. The self had no part in creating the thoughts and feelings to make it seem true and real. When truth reveals itself, uncensored, onto our thoughts and feelings, it is understood without reason or logic attached. It is doubtless, obvious, fearless, and restorative. It even heals what limitations the self has at that time. — Invisibilis

Truth cannot be limited, sure - but it cannot ‘express itself’. This is a misunderstanding. We can relate to truth only by relating honestly with the universe, beyond reason and logic, and beyond all limitations.

Yet limitations are not deception - the only way that truth can be expressed is reduced through our limitations - language, action, art, etc - the choices we CAN make in our interactions with the world to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. If this is your understanding of ‘truth’, then it IS limited, and I would argue that meaning is beyond that, encompassing ALL possibility: inclusive of what is also untrue, unreal, pure imagination...

I applaud where you are trying to go with this, but I have to respectfully disagree with your model/ideas on that. For one thing, I'm not seeing 'utility' as being necessarily based on 'meaning'. I see it more based on pattern matching and degrees of causal correlations.

That is, I do not think that meaning or intelligibility is primal when it comes to building knowledge. I expect utility is much more primal because it requires less energy/work/knowledge to enable us to reduce/increase certain entropy as desired to achieve desired outcomes. — Sir Philo Sophia

I appreciate the thought you’re putting in to challenging my theories here. It has been productive for me. And I can see where you’re coming from, and why it makes sense from your position.

I recognise that the way we tend to think of ‘meaning’ is tied into the process of defining concepts in order to express how we relate to information across experience. In that respect, comprehension is required for ‘meaning’ as definition. But when I talk about ‘meaning’, I’m referring more to pure relation, to what matters, prior to intelligibility. I recognise that this can be confusing, but for me, meaning isn’t definition, so it isn’t about comprehension: definition is a reduction of information/meaning to perceived potentiality and then to a linguistic system enabling others to relate to this potentiality, which points once again to meaning: what matters. I hope this clears up where I’m coming from.

For example, quantum particles and their behavior is completely intelligible and has almost no meaning to us; however, we can develop and detect statistical (math) generalizations that predict their observed behavior good enough to use them in useful devices/methods or to predict when/where they may occur with what likelihood and at what energy level, all w/ little to know understanding of what they really are about. — Sir Philo Sophia

Before we understood anything about quantum particles, we were aware of information that made a difference to atoms. We knew only that this information meant something to our understanding of atomic structure, even if we didn’t know what that relation was or what we could use it for. It was an anomaly, a difference pointing to the possibility of something that previously didn’t matter. But once it mattered, then we looked for how it related to what we already relate to: how this difference related to other interactions.

So I disagree that quantum particles have almost no meaning to us. We struggle to define that meaning because the relations of quantum particles are potential, irreducible; but whatever quantum particles are, they matter to us, and they did so long before we could prove their potential existence using mathematics.

The way I see it, information is meaning is relation - the difference that makes a difference. I agree with you that information doesn’t need to be understood. It matters that it relates to something - it means something to someone or something - and then we determine its relation to us (utility, value, significance) by first relating to that relation as possible meaning (as something that matters), and then reducing it to perceived potentiality.

As another example, consider a pattern/event/object 'A' is observed and found to occur semi-periodically; however, 'A' is not understood in any way and has no intrinsic meaning, we can only detect its occurrence (think like a sub-atomic particle in an accelerator collision). We notice that most of the time shortly after pattern 'A' is observed occurring a desirable, yet otherwise completely temporally unpredictable, resource/object 'B' will be available for a brief moment. Having knowledge of this causal association we prepare ourselves to take advantage of 'B', and right after detecting 'A" we were, finally, able to acquire 'B'. Pattern 'A' is like a sign, we don't have to know what the sign says or means, we just have to uniquely recognize the occurrence of that pattern which we don't at all understand (i.e., pure pattern matching, no comprehension or meaning needed).

what do you say about that? — Sir Philo Sophia

A couple of points regarding this example, in light of my explanation of ‘meaning’ above.

Firstly, because I see meaning as relation itself, I don’t believe there is any particular ‘intrinsic meaning’ to anything. Everything matters, but it often matters differently to you than it does to me, and so while everything has possible meaning, that meaning is only definable within a linguistic/logical/mathematical system as a reduction of available information.

Secondly, it is in our initial awareness of ‘B’ that it first has meaning for us - that is, it exists in relation to our relation to ‘A’, and this existence matters. It’s really only a possible relation - the supposed ‘causality’ is relative to the perceived potentiality of ‘A’. We don’t observe ‘A’ as an actual object - we have information about the relative potential of ‘A’ - and the more information we gain by diversifying our relation to this relative potential, the more we increase the possibility of ‘B’, whose perceived potentiality can only be determined at this point relative to the perceived potential of ‘A’.

I hope I’m explaining this okay - the basic idea from my position is that the meaning of ‘B’ is its relation to the meaning of ‘A’, which is reducible to its perceived potential, which is undefined.

Truth is unconditional love. Both share the same descriptives. When truth merges with our consciousness (awareness) it does so without us having to think about it. It can even just pop into our consciousness, and does so when we were not, or no longer, seeking it.

How can something unreal/untrue have meaning?
Whatever meaning the self attaches to it is fantasy and so is the attached meaning. It becomes meaningless due to its own deception. To claim something untrue/unreal as having meaning is the same as saying nothing is something.

Only the invalid self could deceive itself to believe that invalidity has meaning. But even so, the self knows it is invalid, just a self-fabricated identity story to believe in. That is why it always seeks validity, to gain meaningfulness for its invalidity, but always finds it lacking.

I think you are defining the meaning of a philosopher's life, not human life. At the risk of sounding like a reductionist, the genetically programmed, thus default, meaning of life is to develop and employ a cognitive framework sufficient to acquire and use information to build enough knowledge on how to gain enough food and shelter sustenance to survive good and long enough to acquire a mate and reproduce. The rest is icing on the human cake, so to speak (in metaphors).

So, the premise of this thread is talking about the icing, think the self-actualization in Maslow's pyramid, not not the primal cake (survival). After survival is fulfilled, then the meaning of that post-survival life can step up once in Maslow's pyramid, where info is used to serve more comfort, personal entropy reduction needs, but that is not the primal meaning of life, by any stretch.

eager to hear any solid counter examples/arguments. — Sir Philo Sophia

Yes, you do sound like a reductionist (still, I won’t hold it against you). Personally, I don’t buy the ‘default’ program of life as survival and procreation, as defined by classical evolutionary theory. And I no longer subscribe to Maslow’s pyramid. I have put a lot of thought into this, and I certainly wouldn’t overlook these very reasonable theories flippantly. But they are still theories, after all. I’m not clever enough to formally disprove them, but they’re only close approximations of reality based on a reasonable conceptualisation of available information - a bit like Ptolemy’s universe, which served us well for over a thousand years. I’m only suggesting that an alternative way of looking at the information seems IMHO to be less prone to anomaly.

In Thomas Nagel’s book ‘Mind and Cosmos’, he argues against the capacity of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, naturalism and reductionism to provide a satisfactory account of consciousness and human intelligibility in particular. Equally unsatisfied with theories of intelligent design, Nagel suggests an alternative, yet to be formulated, and sets out what such a theory would need to accomplish.

To me, human evolution and success don’t fit the model of maximising survival, species benefit and genetic proliferation at all. The idea that the universe has either been ‘designed’ for life or has simply fluked it, and this life, having accomplished its own goal of survival, then acquires a new and different motivation towards comfort and entropy reduction, is patched together rather than a comprehensive understanding of the unfolding universe from a singularity.

The way I see it, the human organism has evolved to maximise entropy reduction, not survival, etc. The traits that enable our survival do so only via this capacity for entropy reduction. And when you look at the process of quantum particles to material physics to chemistry to life to humanity to all of our ‘progress’, that same impetus - to reduce entropy, by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration or by ignorance, isolation and exclusion - underlies it all.

Information: ‘the resolution of uncertainty’ Is a simplified definition of information, although it invariably leads to a demonisation of entropy and a subsequent rejection of this uncertainty. — Possibility

I don't see how information is directly and necessarily related to any monotonic change in entropy. I see info as being more about the binding of data values in a certain configuration as a property of something.

information on something might reduce your uncertainty/entropy wrt to knowing that something, which may at the same time increase your uncertainty/entropy (e.g., if the info contradicts many more facts/info you thought were true of that something). So, in this context, please explain by example how you find, by definition "Information is the resolution of uncertainty’".

I think you are defining the meaning of a philosopher's life, not human life. At the risk of sounding like a reductionist, the genetically programmed, thus default, meaning of life is to develop and employ a cognitive framework sufficient to acquire and use information to build enough knowledge on how to gain enough food and shelter sustenance to survive good and long enough to acquire a mate and reproduce. The rest is icing on the human cake, so to speak (in metaphors).

So, the premise of this thread is talking about the icing, think the self-actualization in Maslow's pyramid, not not the primal cake (survival). After survival is fulfilled, then the meaning of that post-survival life can step up once in Maslow's pyramid, where info is used to serve more comfort, personal entropy reduction needs, but that is not the primal meaning of life, by any stretch.

eager to hear any solid counter examples/arguments. — Sir Philo Sophia

You’re right, you do sound like a reductionist (still, I won’t hold it against you :razz: ). Personally, I don’t buy the ‘default’ program of life as survival and procreation, as defined by classical evolutionary theory. And I no longer subscribe to Maslow’s pyramid. This might sound like I’ve gone off the reservation, but I have put a lot of thought into this, and I certainly wouldn’t overlook these very reasonable theories flippantly. But they are still theories, after all. I’m not clever enough to disprove them, but I see them as close approximations of reality based on a reasonable conceptualisation of available information - a bit like Ptolemy’s universe, which served us well for over a thousand years. I’m only suggesting that an alternative way of looking at the information seems IMHO to be less prone to anomaly, and is therefore worth exploring.

In Thomas Nagel’s book ‘Mind and the Cosmos’, he argues against the capacity of Darwinian evolutionary theory, materialism/naturalism and reductionism to provide a satisfactory account of consciousness and human intelligibility in particular. Equally unsatisfied with theories of intelligent design, Nagel suggests an alternative, yet to be formulated, and sets out what such a theory would need to accomplish. This is what I’m working on.

To me, human evolution and success don’t fit the model of maximising survival, species benefit and genetic proliferation at all. The idea that the universe is geared for life, and this life, having accomplished a very different goal of survival, then acquires a new and different motivation again towards comfort and entropy reduction, is patched together rather than a comprehensive understanding of the unfolding universe from a singularity.

The way I see it, the human organism has evolved to maximise entropy reduction, not survival, etc. In fact, the traits that enable our survival do so only via this capacity for entropy reduction. And when you look at the process of quantum particles to material physics to chemistry to life to humanity to all of our ‘progress’, that same impetus - to reduce entropy, by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration or by ignorance, isolation and exclusion - underlies it all.

I don't see how information is directly and necessarily related to any monotonic change in entropy. I see info as being more about the binding of data values in a certain configuration as a property of something. — Sir Philo Sophia

Carlo Rovelli’s book ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’ contains a chapter called ‘Information’ which I think best describes where I’m coming from in relation to information and entropy. It seems he refers to it more recently as relative information, which might help to clear up the confusion:

In nature, variables are not independent; for instance, in any magnet, the two ends have opposite polarities. Knowing one amounts to knowing the other. So we can say that each end “has information” about the other. There is nothing mental in this; it is just a way of saying that there is a necessary relation between the polarities of the two ends. We say that there is "relative information" between two systems anytime the state of one is constrained by the state of the other. In this precise sense, physical systems may be said to have information about one another, with no need for a mind to play any role. Such "relative information" is ubiquitous in nature: The color of the light carries information about the object the light has bounced from; a virus has information about the cell it may attach; and neurons have information about one another. Since the world is a knit tangle of interacting events, it teams with relative information. When this information is exploited for survival, extensively elaborated by our brain, and maybe coded in a language understood by a community, it becomes mental, and it acquires the semantic weight that we commonly attribute to the notion of information. But the basic ingredient is down there in the physical world: physical correlation between distinct variables. The physical world is not a set of self-absorbed entities that do their selfish things. It is a tightly knitted net of relative information, where everybody’s state reflects somebody else’s state. We understand physical, chemical, biological, social, political, astrophysical, and cosmological systems in terms of these nets of relations, not in terms of individual behavior. Physical relative information is a powerful basic concept for describing the world. Before “energy,” “matter,” or even “entity.” — Carlo Rovelli

The process of re-conceptualising the classical world, of three-dimensions in time, into Rovelli’s four-dimensional ‘knit tangle of interacting events’ lends itself to re-configuring for one, two and three-dimensional universe concepts, as well as five and six-dimensional conceptualisations of the potential and possible information we obtain from our subjective experiences. What Rovelli neglects, though, is the relevance of chemical relations, and how they contribute to the qualitative or non-spatial information in the universe at each dimensional level.

information on something might reduce your uncertainty/entropy wrt to knowing that something, which may at the same time increase your uncertainty/entropy (e.g., if the info contradicts many more facts/info you thought were true of that something). So, in this context, please explain by example how you find, by definition "Information is the resolution of uncertainty’". — Sir Philo Sophia

It’s the ‘wrt’ that complicates the relationship between entropy and information. Information from interacting with a particular ‘apple’ experience, for instance, reduces your uncertainty wrt that apple, which may at the same time appear to increase your uncertainty wrt knowing the concept ‘apple’. Which is ‘reality’, though - the interaction with experience, or the concept we refer to in our minds to predict an interaction?

Truth is unconditional love. Both share the same descriptives. When truth merges with our consciousness (awareness) it does so without us having to think about it. It can even just pop into our consciousness, and does so when we were not, or no longer, seeking it.

How can something unreal/untrue have meaning?
Whatever meaning the self attaches to it is fantasy and so is the attached meaning. It becomes meaningless due to its own deception. To claim something untrue/unreal as having meaning is the same as saying nothing is something. — Invisibilis

You appear to be conflating two different perceptions of ‘truth’. Unconditional love is a relation to all possible information, even if it’s untrue or unreal. ‘Truth value’ refers to a perceived potentiality in relation to possible information. So it’s a conditional relation, limited by our subjective awareness or consciousness.

To love unconditionally, the relation as possible information matters regardless of truth value, and therefore has meaning - even if we never grasp what that meaning is ourselves. To dismiss something as untrue/unreal, on the other hand, is to exclude possible information in relation to a subjective perception of potential - to say that something is ‘nothing’, despite information that it matters to someone/something, even if only existing as a possibility.

Truth as unconditional love is the awareness that I may not experience something as true from my limited perspective, but if it is experienced as true from your perspective, then it is at least possible. Its truth is then relative to my relationship with you.

We say that there is "relative information" between two systems anytime the state of one is constrained by the state of the other. — Carlo Rovelli

This is just one type of info. This is not a complete definition of information. Moreover, nothing new about this idea. Seems to be just one type of information where there are cross-correlations or causal dependencies between things.

nformation from interacting with a particular ‘apple’ experience, for instance, reduces your uncertainty wrt that apple — Possibility

Not necessarily. Here is an example where uncertainty might increase: assume you believed all apples were red and anything spherical and greenish is a Lime. You go to bite what you thought was a greenish lime, but you discover and confirm it was a green apple. This new info that apples can be other colors now makes you uncertain as to whether other properties you believed apples have are true, and you even question what does it mean to be an apple, let alone the red type. Not a great example, but I hope you get the gist of what I mean that new info on something can also make you more uncertain (lest confident or trusting) in your truth or knowledge of that something.

Again, I'm still looking for your explanation of how you believe "Information is the resolution of uncertainty"

thx.

This is just one type of info. This is not a complete definition of information. Moreover, nothing new about this idea. Seems to be just one type of information where there are cross-correlations or causal dependencies between things. — Sir Philo Sophia

Actually, you will find that all ‘types’ of information work along the same lines - this is only the most drastically simplified illustration of the process. Information in ‘reality’ is a diverse and multi-dimensional complexity of cross-correlations, manifestation and integration, but the same basic principles apply.

Here is an example where uncertainty might increase: assume you believed all apples were red and anything spherical and greenish is a Lime. You go to bite what you thought was a greenish lime, but you discover and confirm it was a green apple. This new info that apples can be other colors now makes you uncertain as to whether other properties you believed apples have are true, and you even question what does it mean to be an apple, let alone the red type. Not a great example, but I hope you get the gist of what I mean that new info on something can also make you more uncertain (lest confident or trusting) in your truth or knowledge of that something.

Again, I'm still looking for your explanation of how you believe "Information is the resolution of uncertainty" — Sir Philo Sophia

I think I see where the confusion is now: by ‘uncertainty’, I don’t mean an awareness of your own uncertainty, but an objective state of uncertainty or missing information in the system.

This objective uncertainty with respect to what apples can be was always there - you were just unaware of it. The new info that apples can be other colours makes you aware of this uncertainty as to what it means to be an apple. This is called prediction error, and is felt as pain, humility and loss/lack. As a child (or an adult in prehistoric times) we would experience this with almost every interaction with the world around us as we developed and adjusted our conceptual structures, but as adults these days we try to avoid it.

The thing about becoming aware of this uncertainty is that it creates an opportunity (one that wasn’t previously available) to then resolve this uncertainty by interacting with this green apple, and possibly inspiring you to be more curious about what apples can be, and seek out further information. Of course, you could just throw it away as a ‘false lime’ or a ‘false apple’, and ignore, isolate or exclude this new information in order to resolve any threat of uncertainty with regard to limes and apples.

Experiencing truth, and unconditional love, can only come from what is true, not from anything the self can come up with. The experience comes from our innermost to our outermost of consciousness, not the other way around where we are consciously trying to be true and unconditional. To experience truth and unconditional love is to warmly let be.