What is truth?

That makes the most sense for now. Nice profile pic.

Actually his comment is rather vague and uninformative...it sums up the epistemic problem in layman terms with a twist of lemon sirop for common sense...glad you like it though...

My problem was if universal truths could be attained using science. Science do try to get close to it by testing hypothesis in different angles and see if it holds the truth value of null or one. Creating models and see if it holds the test of time, as I suggested.

He's the only way who suggested that it's similar to y=1/x, as x gets larger y gets near zero. We can't say it becomes zero, but only suppose that it get towards to zero. limits to infinity of 1/x must be taken to get to zero. Since reaching infinity, to the above metaphor, for us humans in not possible, we can only say we can get really close to it, but there maybe some exception we haven't foreseen or discovered.

If you have any important suggestions or disagree with any of this please share your views. I'm interested in reading them.

Dr James Grime talks about a different type of infinity.

The way I have it is that a subjective truth is "right" while an objective truth is "true." For example, in a baseball game if a pitch is thrown that is outside the strike zone and the umpire calls it a strike it is "right" that it is a strike even though it is not a "true" strike. It's not that subjects are some special kind of object, objects are special kinds of subjects. Objects have no emotional ramifications, subjects can. When we say "an objective point of view" that means from the point of view of something that has no bias, no emotional ramifications. Umpires are not supposed to have bias but they are subjects (not objects), so an umpire's view is subjective even though it is supposed to be objective. Therefore, a subjective truth is biased (or biasable) while an objective truth is not.

All scientific truths are provisional. That's the basis for progress. Only ideologies create what they claim to be permanent and absolute Truths.

natural truth is that , no matter how you look at it , it is what it is

What's "natural truth?"

No doubt North's answer contains the assumption that "is-ness" has nothing to do with the observer of "it". This myth comes from a misunderstanding of the phenomenon of "surprise". What the "surprised observer" fails to understand is that his perceptual apparatus needs to be in a particular receptive state, or have particular characteristics in order to interact with what we call "the world". Dogs were unlikely to have been surprised by the discovery of X-rays, and are we not dogs by another name ?

Science can never prove anything to be true; it can only demonstrate that a hypothesis is robust by extensively testing it and failing to disprove the
hypothesis. That is the reason why science is an evolving field - the state of our knowledge is constantly changing.

Very good. Let me repeat myself: all knowledge is provisional and everthing is impermanent.
BTW, have you tried for sheet music sharmusic.com ?

Sorry, I was just putting it in more specific terms, although they're the same message. I just wanted to make sure that the Torii's metaphor with the limit is an inaccurate depiction. A little bit better metaphor, I think, would be trying to find a needle in the universe, while being blind folded.

Have replied to your question on the music thread. I don't want any moderators slapping my hand for going off topic.

Moderator slapping your hand?

No, over here, you only get slapped if you try to sell spam.

Reality, is real to itself.

Truth, is an attitude, and is true to the consumer.

Truth is an attempt to reach reality.

Truth is a subjective experience, objective truth is universal reality,
Not personal truth.

Both, truth and reality,
Can be an empty verbal claim only,
Both can be distorted and misrepresented, faked and abused.

Truth is the NECESSARY perceptual relation between observer and observed. In this sense, even illusions are true illusions.
Awareness of the perceptual functional usefulness of our beliefs is irrelevant to state that every perceptual event is a true event. Thus truth is not knowledge about facts but rather the acknowledgment of perceptual fact itself.
Truth as correlation of fact and knowledge is unknowable. It can't be that!
This is not to state that there aren't any facts, quite the opposite, everything are facts, and truth is everywhere. What is meant here, in this odd small pseudo disertation before lunch, is that we can't quite order to the last digit the relation between events. Nonetheless we can recognise their patterns in usefull ways. Those are enough to our needs, and those like everything else, are true!

Well said Phil.
I think that truth points towards a certain type of info.

A true imagination,
A true dream,
A true assumption,
A true belief.

When someone claims to be telling the truth.
It points towards a statement, and towards the type of info it contains.

Claiming I believe truthfully such and such,
While it actually is an unprocessed theory,
Isn't considered truth.

Because nacked truth is meaningless, just like the sentence go over there, is meaningless if over there isn't pointed at.
(He could have said nothing, or no more than go)
it only carries any substance, if it implies to what it's directed at.

What happens when people aren't aware of the above?
Truth and false become synanimous in character, and are only distinguished through parental nurture and education (meaning the child understands how to treat the applied label, but who decides what to label as what and how or why to identify it as such,
The child is clueless.
It isn't even aware, that there is an experience behind the label,
A journey of examination.
That truth and false are realized personally and isn't applicable universally).

My position is problematic because I dont give any more importance to the Subject and the "I" than I give to Nature at large. While I don't deny Phenomenology I have a very different take on it. Both rationalists and empiricists are wrong.
Subject and Nature are not apart but the Subject is a subset of Nature with constrinctions and a particular pov. The subject-Nature interaction is objective and Necessary. The perceptual result is limited but not false.Its incompleteness, or better put, dependence on larger scale systems renders experiencing as knoweledge limited to functional povs of interest rather then holistic "perspectives". A contradiction in terms as perspective already requires a specific interactive approach. Truth in the old sense, the Complete version is a zero sum of povs. Balanced and null. Its own.

Wish I understood your response (I have zero formal education), it seemed impressive though.

Maybe the following is related (my apology).
To me, the objective never intersects with the subjective.

While subjective is the absolute personal truth (provided it isn't perceived with an objective attitude, meaning,
It is left unprocessed)

The objective is never experienced and therefore does not exist.

It only matters technically and indirectly (never simultaniousely with the subjective experience) and is embedded in the past and future (both are delusions).

And if someone does combine the two,
It is curropted verbal expression,
Simply, describing the subject with abused language and confused terminology .

Simply put, the objective doesn't have bias.

You don't need formal education. The future is not formal for the most part anyway...
I suppose you agree a subjective experience is itself an object right? It does happen to you doesn't it? The relation between subject and nature forms a set from which your own experiencing is proof. Not even talking social behaviour but your own experiencing...Subjective experience does not need any proof to yourself as it is a naked given.
If you believe on the classical aproach that objective and subjective never intercept you ought to postulate an infinite spin of mind regressions from which your very own experience is the dream of someone else...and even if so, lets grant you the point tor a minute, what to make of the archetype itself of each experiencing? There is no ownership of experience in a determined world context, just process.
The fact of the matter is that appealing to subjectivy without recognizing objects is meaningless.