Meaning of Being = Meaning of "to exist"?

"Being" = "God" ontotheologically, so that would mean "Being" = "Ground of "to be" or "to exist"". That may be source of confusion with even understanding H's question of the meaning of being. Elision of meaning between the ground of what exists, and what determines what exists, and meaning of "to exist".

For example, the question of whether the chair in a dream exists, presumes that we know what it means for anything to exist. Does addressing this question require that we know where dreams come from? That would be addressing the ground of being. For example it is possible, at first blush, that dreams are travelling to alternate universes in the multiverse. Then the chair in a dream would exist as does the chair in my waking experience. Why?  because I supposedly know the physical ground of the existence of each chair, i.e, the physical multiverse.

And it is possible, that a given chair in my waking experience, is but a simulated chair, in a vast computer simulation a la the Matrix. There the ground is the apparent groundlessness of the bits of software. (Groundless, because the same simulation can be implemented in an electronic computer, or holographic computer, Babbage computer, Quantum computer.) So the chair in my waking experience would not exist because it has no physical ground. Trinity to Cypher, "Its not real." 

What is a physical ground? More than just presence in the Now? Ontoscientologically, to exist is to be tied (via information theory & cognitive science) to a really real string theoretical object in the really real 12D space-time continuum of this universe, in the multiverse. That would mean the experienced chair is but a surrogate produced in the wetware of my brain of the really real 11-D stringy thingy. (Thingy because not sure what it is to be a 11D thing inaccessible to visual inspection.)

Thus, ontoinformatologically, to exist is to be information (about 11D stringy thingys). But information theory abstracts the information into bits. The newest moves in Science seem to be to ground the ontoscientological into the ontoinformatological, which, ironically, returns us to the metaphysical world of Platonic pure form recast as strings of bits of information in Information theory. (Metaphysical stringy thingys.)