  There exist two interpretations of instantons in the literature. The first
interpretation regards instanton as divider between the initial and final
hypersurfaces. The Coleman-De Luccia instanton is one such an example. The
second interpretation, proposed by Brown and Weinberg, considers instanton as
connector between the initial and final hypersurfaces. In this proceedings, we
try to suitably and intuitively argue that these two interpretations are
complementary to each other under certain conditions. Furthermore, we
demonstrate that the decay rate obtained from the Euclidean treatment and the
Hamiltonian treatment both are consistent with each other, which may help to
dissolve some concerns about the validity of regularization technique employed
in the treatment of the cusp singularity of instantons. Based on these, we
argue that instantons can be a sensible tool to address the information loss
problem.
