>Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.

>Because this is never the case...

So, the op article is true.... nothing is true!

It bothers me that mental constructs are so ambiguous and yet so ubiquitous.

Interesting. I think we agree but something isn't right. My own use of language, internal and external, use the phrase "X is true" quite often, which suddenly feels redundant. Why does it not feel complete to just say "X is"? I guess I'm looking for insight into what the addition of 'true' and 'false' signify. Is it just common language usage or is it more than that?

this has been fascinating to read both of you, just thought i'd throw that in instead of being a silent observer

>Something is either true or false, no?

Genuine question:

What is the difference between saying what I quoted and saying:

'Something either is or not is?'

What does the addition of the true and false qualifiers add to the context?

I'm a layman by every definition of the word. My thoughts about this are very difficult to get out here. I write this as if I'm arguing with myself, not you all. Be easy on me if I'm an idiot.

Truth is an assumption outside of present-time first hand experience, I'm not even sure if there is truth in first hand experience but I'm willing to assume so for now. Something either 'is' or 'is not' and saying something 'is true' is a bit redundant except for the fact that it clarifies that the stance taken is an assumption. Stating a truth is stating a belief of durable accuracy.

Truth is also an idea created by consciousness, a mental construct, maybe specific to human consciousness and maybe not. Truth does not exist outside of consciousness. Even so, conditions must be met in order for something to be true. In order for something to be eternally true, or even just continue to be true after the first hand experience has ended, one must assume that those conditions will never change or haven't already changed. Those conditions must also be true, and have true conditional requirements themselves, and so on until we get to something that just 'is'. Being that it is a mental construct, truth's legitimacy is only valuable to entities that see what 'is' through the rose colored glasses of consciousness. If all consciousness were to cease to exist so would all truths. The things about which we speculate the truth of would either 'be' or 'not be'. "Yes, or not yes", if you like.

Truth is useful in society, no doubt, but only as a shortcut, so that one can assume something to 'be' without firsthand experience of it, almost representative of a single human consciousness. If we all communicate the truths of our first hand experiences to each other it helps fill in the blanks of our assumed knowledge by utilizing second hand experiences much like our brain does when interpreting the inputs from our senses that make up our first hand experiences. Even more, if I find by first hand experience that river X is the longest river in country Y then I can only assume that the conditions that were met to make this true continue on after my first hand experience has finished. I will continue to believe it to be true until I have first hand experience of new conditions that disprove it or if I receive enough information of convincing second hand experiences that override my belief of it.

An earthquake may've drastically changed the landscape and river X is no longer the longest river, but that will not factor into the truth of the matter until some consciousness believes those new conditions to be true.

If I interpret what you've meant correctly then you can't have truth unless you have more than a single party that to agrees to it?