After the life, we can begin talking of the data generated by the life. We can pull it apart and analyze the life based on what the life did and how often. There is no more information generated to confound any convenient or labored conclusion. It is missing a component that would make this kind of practical knowledge possible, that of a generative nature. This can be thought of as a running 3 dimensional transcript hooked up to Mary-Beth Winston of Tope, Ohio. Every little move MB makes shows up on her profile at your surveillance node in real time. Any information is processed and cross-referenced with all her previous data, so when she opens the fridge and drops the lemonade pitcher, your desk node tool tabulates the probability that she would have done that and shows you how many times she did things similar to that, exactly like that, and sort of like that, how many times she has in fact opened that fridge, how long she has had that fridge, any other factors that might have contributed to her dropping lemonade, (whether she was actually being clumsy, or if the strain of loosing Jeffery has finally hit her), any other lemonade related instances in her life to date, and how important that lemonade was (were there people in the room expecting it? Is it hot out? How much more lemonade mix does she have on hand? How far away is the store?), and so on. With all of this, we can find it fun to have our tools try to "predict" what she will do next, based on what she has always done. The mechanism of pleasure at work here is akin to when we watch television or movies and we get familiar with a character and think we know what she will do. Despite all this information, we can still be wrong instantly, because she has to merely think about something some special reason to confound everything that has com before and do it, we must run back over our file, which is like us (not-her) thinking as if we were her. Right away, because of this drag, this time gap between not-her and her, there will always be some element we cannot appreciate about this particular organism. Our failure to predict MB's actions, what we don’t know about her, is the same as our lack of knowledge of the future and the futures identity and meaning (the minute you know "the future" it is the present. Making "predictions" even those based on careful and methodical statistical analysis, change the outcome or our expectations of outcome). And this X value is called life. This is this pleasing confusing amount that is our glee and wonder, our awe at not knowing. But the X is an estimable number. Our wonder could be the amount we think we don't know about what comes next, based on previous information.
"Wait, why did she not close the fridge door and get into the car and turn it on and then off and sit there for an hour then drive to the library?”
"Wait, she didn't clean it up and immediately started watching TV."
"She cleaned it up and called her mother and said she couldn't come over and went to bed, but she had just got up. What?"
Only after Death of the organism in question has occurred, only when the set of data ceases to grow, can the meaning be teased out. Teased is meant very literally, for it is by spending as much time with the difficult details as they are difficult. That amount of time will be similar to the amount that they are statistical anomalies in the grand analysis of Mary-Beth's life, and when understanding has finally been achieved, after years of rigorous argument and criticized conclusions, there will be no real opposition to the final decision, because Mary-Beth will be dead. But however long the analysis took will be the actual informational length of her life, and the amount of difference this quantity has with the biological length of her life will be similar to how happy and strange she was.

Think about death once a day? Frustrated once a day? Think about thinking how many times a day? Think about how many things there are how many times per day? What questions are most likely to occur in your mind per day, given who you 1) are 2) have been?
These statistics relate to the value (level) of daily frustration with the very fabric of the day itself. The reflex or (vague%) tendency away from this frustration can be negative (exploitation of the flaws, expectation of them, assumptive future-to-present conversion, parasitic nihilism, in a word: evil) or positive (madness, creative fluctuation reflex, epileptic rebellion, data mining, fetishism, masochism, suicide, art, in a word: hope) these precepts are on a continuum spectrum and have a subtle flittering interplay. Nonhorse is an example, which is why it is ok to wear one, as it is a symbol, a sign, a warning. Still, I know some people who will not wear them and refuse all contact, considering it to be bad luck. But luck is luck and sooner or later, be it by adding bad luck together, or by a bad luck threshold breach, It will lead to the right decision, the co-incidence will come up beautiful.
You will be alive and know it.

There is a social result from the degree of detail in the daily level of analysis. The level or amount of specificity has a direct effect on the social component of anyone's day. One day as a unit.

Models must be built and simulations run concerning the social event unit and how it changes from vantage to vantage, as the amount of participants increase, per organism.
What do two people think happened between them?
What does a third person think happened between the first two people?
What does a fourth person think the third person experienced by observing whatever they saw happening between the two people?
What do another two people think the difference between what the third person thought the happened between the first two people and what the fourth person thought the third person thought based on the fact that they have known him for years and he was the best man at their (the "other two peoples) wedding.
>>>As one can quickly see, this type of analysis could benefit from a formal symbology and a few clear simulation diagrams.