Definition of truth

[sin_is_fun]

What is truth?I tried to define it and failed.I am also not satisfied with definitions of Aristotle and Traski.Can anybody come up with an acceptable definition for truth?

[Corvus]

Without an obervor to make a statement there is no truth.

Why? Do things not exist if we don't make statements about them?

And what exactly are they making statements about if not something that truly exists?

Reality exists whether or not we make statements about it.But truth can only be a property of our statements and not a property of reality.Reality doesnt have a property called as truth.

Well, if you want to go down that route, nothing has a "property called truth" because whether something is true or false is a judgement.

If reality is objective, if it has an existence outside of our statements, then making statements that correspond to the nature of this reality can be classified as truth.

Without statements there is no truth.
Without an observor there are no statements.
without observor there is no truth.

This representation seems a bit one-side, since, if only statements can be true or false, we could also say;
Without statements there is no untruth.
Without an observer there are no statements.
Without observors there is no untruth.


Perhaps we're all wrong, and:
Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know

[sin_is_fun]

Your definition of truth, it seems to me, is limited to the observations of the observer.

yes.

If Reality is neither true nor false, then what property does the opposite of Reality hold? If we were to make a statement about reality that is false, then the statement would be false. But the idea behind the statement, the referent of the statement would also be false. Now, what if we were to make a true statement about a false situation? Then the statement would be true because the referent was false. If we can make this distinction, why would Reality be any different from Anti-Reality?

The only true statement we can make about a false reality is "It doesnt exist".Except this statement whatever statement we make about the non existent phenomena, it will be false.Interestingly when we make a statement like this our phenomena changes.Now our phenomena becomes 'non existence of a phenomena'.Thus we are now talking about a real phenomena.I will give an example.

phenomenon : unicorn.

The only true statement we can make about this phenomenon is "unicorn doesnt exist"

If we make other statements like "unicorn has 4 legs" "unicorn flies in air" they become false statements.

If we make true statements like "people believe in unicorn" here the phenomenon is people's belief on unicorn and not unciorn.So here we are not making true statement on a nonexistent phenomenon.People's belief on unicorn is an existing phenomenon.So we are making true statements on an existing phenomenon.

Thus the only true statement we can make about a nonexistent phenomenon is to deny its existence.Interestingly when you say "unicorns dont exist" your phenomenon again changes to 'non-existence of unicorns' which is true.

Thus we cannot make true statements about non existent phenomenon.Hence reality doesnt equal anti reality.

I would argue that Reality=Truth, and that truth is discovered in addition to being stated. In order for something to be True, no statement need be made.

Truth is not discovered.Truth is not waiting out there to be discovered.Without a statement there is no truth.Reality is noit equal to truth,I am explaining this in detail in my next post to corvus.He has asked the same question

Unless, of course, your definition of Truth is intentionally limited to what we humans can perceive and conceive. Then we are talking about two different things.

Any definition of truth needs an observor and his perception.There are no exceptions to this rule.

[sin_is_fun]

Well, if you want to go down that route, nothing has a "property called truth" because whether something is true or false is a judgement.

you are absolutely correct.Truth as a property of a statement is also a judgment call.When we say "your statement is true" what we mean is "my observation matches yours" or "I agree with you".

I

f reality is objective, if it has an existence outside of our statements, then making statements that correspond to the nature of this reality can be classified as truth.

Reality is not objective.Reality is always subjective.Reality has an existence independent of the observor,but it doesnt have a property called as objectivity.

Further a statement can never correspond to reality.It can only correspond to another statement.Here we should understand the difference between 'appearence' and 'reality'.

Reality exists but it appears differently to different observors.So one observor makes a statement on reality based on its appearance to him.If it appears in a similiar way to another observor he accepts the statement as true.So here the comparision takes place between the perceptions of the two observors and not correspondence to reality.To be more specific when observor 1 makes a statement ona reality observor 2 makes another statement and compares statement 1 with statement 2.If he is satisfied about the correspondence of two statements with each other he calls them as true.I will give an example.

phenomenon: a child aged 4 years.

statement 1 made by an observor:"This is a cute little child"

statement 2 made by a cannibal: "This is lunch"

statement 3 made by a pedophile:"**********************"

Now which of these 3 statements correspond to reality?If the observor 4 is another cannibal he will call statement 2 as true and will not agree with 1 and 3.A civilized westerner will not hold statements 2 and 3 as true.Some really knolwedgable person will understand what these 3 observors means and will accept these 3 statements as true but again he might not understand some other statement like "This is a compilation of 4 trillion quarks".

While comparing different statements we make statements of our own about the reality and compare other observors statements with our statements.Our ability to make statements depends on how the phenomenon appears to us and how knowedgable we are about the different appearences the phenomenon takes for different observors.

Number of appearances a reality takes depends on the number of observors.There are as many appearances as there are observors.None of these appearances and statements correspond to the reality.They only correspond to another appearance and another statement.

Without statements there is no truth.
Without an observor there are no statements.
without observor there is no truth.

This representation seems a bit one-side, since, if only statements can be true or false, we could also say;
Without statements there is no untruth.
Without an observer there are no statements.
Without observors there is no untruth.

yes,you are correct. without statements there is neither truth nor untruth.Thus without observors there is neither truth nor untruth.

Perhaps we're all wrong, and:
Beauty is truth, truth beauty, – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know

Hey I'm no poet..

[Corvus]

f reality is objective, if it has an existence outside of our statements, then making statements that correspond to the nature of this reality can be classified as truth.

Reality is not objective.Reality is always subjective.Reality has an existence independent of the observor,but it doesnt have a property called as objectivity.

I assure you that this is quite impossible. The definition of objective is:

1. Belonging to what is presented to consciousness; thought as distanced from perceiving or thinking subject; external to the mind, real.

As opposed to subjective, which is:
1. Of, proceeding from, taking place within, the thinking subject, having its source in the mind; personal, individual, illusory.

If it's external to the mind, or independent to the observer, it cannot be called subjective, since subjective is what arises from the mind. Subjective and objective would have to be most abused and tedious terms to ever grace a debate forum, right next to "absolute".

Further a statement can never correspond to reality.It can only correspond to another statement.Here we should understand the difference between 'appearence' and 'reality'.

It is a phenomena of the objective world that gives rise to statements, therefore something outside of the mind seems to exist, or appearances suggest they do. Certainly these appearances might be deceiving us, and because we only ever know the world indirectly, through our senses, then it all might be in our minds. But this is nonsense solipsism that no one really holds, except academically, which is to say, not at all sincerely.

Reality exists but it appears differently to different observors.So one observor makes a statement on reality based on its appearance to him.If it appears in a similiar way to another observor he accepts the statement as true.So here the comparision takes place between the perceptions of the two observors and not correspondence to reality.To be more specific when observor 1 makes a statement ona reality observor 2 makes another statement and compares statement 1 with statement 2.If he is satisfied about the correspondence of two statements with each other he calls them as true.I will give an example.

phenomenon: a child aged 4 years.

statement 1 made by an observor:"This is a cute little child"

statement 2 made by a cannibal: "This is lunch"

statement 3 made by a pedophile:"**********************"

Statement 1 is a subjective statement about on objective phenomenon.
Statement 2 might be true if we wait and see what the cannibal does with the child.
Statement 3 is impossible to evaluate.

These three people are thinking different thoughts about an objective phenomenon. This does not prove the phenomenon is subjective. The child clearly exists. During the time it has spent on earth, the planet has had four elliptical journeys around the sun. Everything else is an opinion.

While comparing different statements we make statements of our own about the reality and compare other observors statements with our statements.Our ability to make statements depends on how the phenomenon appears to us and how knowedgable we are about the different appearences the phenomenon takes for different observors.

Eh? Why would it? Any fool can spin off statements without having that ability depend on anything else except his own imagination. I do it all the time.

Number of appearances a reality takes depends on the number of observors.There are as many appearances as there are observors.None of these appearances and statements correspond to the reality.They only correspond to another appearance and another statement.

Can't appearances be used to establish, at the very least, the existence of the thing seen? I can think of one truth corresponding to reality that you can verify quite easily and accept, even if you are a solipsist. You exist. Attempt to prove me wrong.

[sin_is_fun]

I assure you that this is quite impossible. The definition of objective is:

1. Belonging to what is presented to consciousness; thought as distanced from perceiving or thinking subject; external to the mind, real.

As opposed to subjective, which is:
1. Of, proceeding from, taking place within, the thinking subject, having its source in the mind; personal, individual, illusory.

If it's external to the mind, or independent to the observer, it cannot be called subjective, since subjective is what arises from the mind. Subjective and objective would have to be most abused and tedious terms to ever grace a debate forum, right next to "absolute".

we are not debating on the existence of reality,but whether our statements can correspond to reality.Without knowing what the reality is,how can our statements correspond to the reality?We only know the appearance of reality and thus our statements correspond only to the appearance of the reality and not the reality itself.

To say reality has a nature apart from its appearance is metaphysical.Such a nature doesnt exist independent of the observor.Without such an observor the reality,its nature and properties all are undefined and become a part and parcel of the universe.To seperate it from the universe and to name and define it we need an observor.

Antartica existed even when nobody observed it.But it did not exist as antartica.It existed as an undefined occupant of time and space.We needed an observor to differentiate the continent from the icebergs,occean and penquins and to name it as antartica.Once he did that a subjective appearance of the phenomenon was created.

It is a phenomena of the objective world that gives rise to statements, therefore something outside of the mind seems to exist, or appearances suggest they do. Certainly these appearances might be deceiving us, and because we only ever know the world indirectly, through our senses, then it all might be in our minds. But this is nonsense solipsism that no one really holds, except academically, which is to say, not at all sincerely.

ya,thus our statements correspond only to the appearance and not to reality.This is what I said.

These three people are thinking different thoughts about an objective phenomenon. This does not prove the phenomenon is subjective. The child clearly exists. During the time it has spent on earth, the planet has had four elliptical journeys around the sun. Everything else is an opinion.

The phenomenon is not subjective,but its appearance is subjective.We are not debating on the existence of phenomena but about whether our statements can correspond to the phenomenon.

While comparing different statements we make statements of our own about the reality and compare other observors statements with our statements.Our ability to make statements depends on how the phenomenon appears to us and how knowedgable we are about the different appearences the phenomenon takes for different observors.

Eh? Why would it? Any fool can spin off statements without having that ability depend on anything else except his own imagination. I do it all the time.

Do you have the ability to view a phenomenon with an objective outlook?Can you view a phenomenon and give an objective description of it?Can your description be free from your cultural and linguistic biases and your imagination?No.It is not possible.

Can't appearances be used to establish, at the very least, the existence of the thing seen? I can think of one truth corresponding to reality that you can verify quite easily and accept, even if you are a solipsist. You exist. Attempt to prove me wrong.

we are not debating about existence of reality,but whether statements can correspond to reality.We only know the appearances and not the reality.So our statements cannot correspond to reality,but rather will correspond only to the appearance.

[ST88]

Your definition of truth, it seems to me, is limited to the observations of the observer.

yes.

So there is no truth where there are no statements. You are making a distinction between reality and truth that needn't be made.

When we say that a leaf is green, is this a truth statement? In your conception, it is truth, because it appears green. However, the leaf actually "being" green is more of a murky concept. In Reality, the only reason that a leaf is green is because it absorbs the entire spectrum of light except green. In other words, it possesses every color except green, which it rejects. Because we can say that it appears green to us, we hold this to be truth. But it is also a Truth to say that it is every color except green. So is there a difference between saying that it is green and that it appears green?

If Reality is neither true nor false, then what property does the opposite of Reality hold? If we were to make a statement about reality that is false, then the statement would be false. But the idea behind the statement, the referent of the statement would also be false. Now, what if we were to make a true statement about a false situation? Then the statement would be true because the referent was false. If we can make this distinction, why would Reality be any different from Anti-Reality?

The only true statement we can make about a false reality is "It doesnt exist".Except this statement whatever statement we make about the non existent phenomena, it will be false.Interestingly when we make a statement like this our phenomena changes.Now our phenomena becomes 'non existence of a phenomena'.Thus we are now talking about a real phenomena.I will give an example.

phenomenon : unicorn.

The only true statement we can make about this phenomenon is "unicorn doesnt exist"

If we make other statements like "unicorn has 4 legs" "unicorn flies in air" they become false statements.

If we make true statements like "people believe in unicorn" here the phenomenon is people's belief on unicorn and not unciorn.So here we are not making true statement on a nonexistent phenomenon.People's belief on unicorn is an existing phenomenon.So we are making true statements on an existing phenomenon.

Thus the only true statement we can make about a nonexistent phenomenon is to deny its existence.Interestingly when you say "unicorns dont exist" your phenomenon again changes to 'non-existence of unicorns' which is true.

Thus we cannot make true statements about non existent phenomenon.Hence reality doesnt equal anti reality.

It's not quite that simple. If you say that unicorns don't exist, you are asserting it as a Fiction. And within this assertion is the idea that the unicorn does, in fact, have properties. What is the Truth value of this statement: Unicorns have four legs? If we were to first assert that the unicorn is a fiction, then we would be justified in dismissing the statement as fiction, it is true. But what is the relative truth value of that statement and: Unicorns have six legs? You may say that they are both false equally, but the conception of a unicorn has properties which make one of these statements less false than the other (i.e., one of them is true). In fact, we can state that just about any fiction has its own properties which make statements bout it either true or false.

In this anti-reality, we can a) make up things as we go along, or b) perpetuate made up things from others. In either case, however, falseness is an exclusive property of the human mind. This means that when we make false statements, we are not only describing something that is false, we are ourselves creating the thing which corresponds to our statement. I.e., the thing being described is just as false as the statement. To put this in context, in a truth statement about reality, the thing being described is not a creation of the human mind, but is something that actually exists independent of the statement. The point here is that the created thing is false -- the anti-reality fiction is false, just as false as the statement about it. The corrollary to this is that the thing which exists independent of our observation is true. Reality=Truth.

I would argue that Reality=Truth, and that truth is discovered in addition to being stated. In order for something to be True, no statement need be made.

Truth is not discovered.Truth is not waiting out there to be discovered.Without a statement there is no truth.Reality is noit equal to truth,I am explaining this in detail in my next post to corvus.

Consider the truth statement that asserts a relation. There is no deliberate falsehood here, just a mistake of observation in one way or another. The statement is false. "The moon is made of green cheese," or some such. Now, the statement, "The moon is made of green cheese," is false, but the idea that the statement points to is also false. "The moon is made of green cheese" refers to (green cheese = moon material). The exact makeup of the moon is irrelevant at this point. Is the statement a creation of the human mind, or is there a possible independent logical relation at work here?

There is only one truth when it comes to the makeup of the moon. The moon is made of silicates (for simplicity's sake). Any other statement that could be dreamed up would be false, such that (if(moon material <> "Silicates", "False", Else "True")). This means that the truth of the statement is dependent on the truth of the situation that the statement describes. Therefore, truths are independent from the statements that describe them. I think this is from Wittgenstein, but I'm not sure.

[sin_is_fun]

So there is no truth where there are no statements.

yes.

You are making a distinction between reality and truth that needn't be made.

Yes I am making such a distinction.why shouldnt that distinction be made?

When we say that a leaf is green, is this a truth statement? In your conception, it is truth, because it appears green.

"leaf is green"

In order that ‘leaf is green’ be true, it must be the case not only that leaf is green, it must in addition be the case that ‘leaf is green’ means that leaf is green.

There is no way to verify the claim "leaf is green".Hence I wont call it as either true or false.I will rather call it as a description of a phenomena.

However, the leaf actually "being" green is more of a murky concept. In Reality, the only reason that a leaf is green is because it absorbs the entire spectrum of light except green. In other words, it possesses every color except green, which it rejects. Because we can say that it appears green to us, we hold this to be truth. But it is also a Truth to say that it is every color except green. So is there a difference between saying that it is green and that it appears green?

Truth is dependent upon the observors and their subjective biases.

For a common man "Leaf is green" is truth.He doesnt understand that leaf rejects green color.He will call both statements "leaf is green" and "leaf appears green" as similiar and will call both statements as truth.

Maybe a scientist will say "Leaf is green" is false and "leaf appears green" as true.

Somebody will say both statements are false."leaf is neither green nor it appears green" he might say. "You see leaf as being green in color" might be his description.

It's not quite that simple. If you say that unicorns don't exist, you are asserting it as a Fiction. And within this assertion is the idea that the unicorn does, in fact, have properties.

No.My assertion is "unicorns dont exist." Since they dont exist they do not have properties.I never claimed unicorn has properties.I will reproduce my quote again

The only true statement we can make about this phenomenon is "unicorn doesnt exist" If we make other statements like "unicorn has 4 legs" "unicorn flies in air" they become false statements.

What is the Truth value of this statement: Unicorns have four legs?

This statement has zero truth value.

If we were to first assert that the unicorn is a fiction, then we would be justified in dismissing the statement as fiction, it is true. But what is the relative truth value of that statement and: Unicorns have six legs? You may say that they are both false equally, but the conception of a unicorn has properties which make one of these statements less false than the other (i.e., one of them is true). In fact, we can state that just about any fiction has its own properties which make statements bout it either true or false.

Neither of these statements are closer to the reality.comparing a statement with reality is mistake.I oppose this "correspondence to reality" concept.

"unicorn has 4 legs" is not less false compared to "unicorn has 6 legs".This is because a statement can never correspond to reality. A statement can only correspond to another statement. Further since you are talking about a non-existent reality both statements are completely false and we cannot say one is more true than the other statement.

I quoted earlier

Aristotle's definition said "If a statement corresponds to reality,it is truth".

This definition was unacceptable since reality is subjective.Further a statement can never correspond to reality,it can correspond only to another statement.Reality differes from person to person,culture to culture.

In this anti-reality, we can a) make up things as we go along, or b) perpetuate made up things from others. In either case, however, falseness is an exclusive property of the human mind. This means that when we make false statements, we are not only describing something that is false, we are ourselves creating the thing which corresponds to our statement. I.e., the thing being described is just as false as the statement. To put this in context, in a truth statement about reality, the thing being described is not a creation of the human mind, but is something that actually exists independent of the statement. The point here is that the created thing is false -- the anti-reality fiction is false, just as false as the statement about it. The corrollary to this is that the thing which exists independent of our observation is true. Reality=Truth.

I denied the existence of anti-reality already.

your logic is as follows

"statement about anti reality is false since anti reality is false"--1

Hence

"statement about reality is true since reality is true"---2

Thus

anti reality =false

reality=truth.

The problems with this logic is

1 is not false because reality is false.Similiarly 2 is not true because the 'reality is true'.2 is true because 'reality exists'.
existence is not equal to truth.We have to make a difference between existence and truth.I have stated this already

[quote="sin_is"fun"]Reality cannot be true or untrue.
our statements on reality can only be true or untrue.

Thus

Without statements there is no truth.
Without an observor there are no statements.
without observor there is no truth.[/quote]


next

Consider the truth statement that asserts a relation. There is no deliberate falsehood here, just a mistake of observation in one way or another. The statement is false. "The moon is made of green cheese," or some such. Now, the statement, "The moon is made of green cheese," is false, but the idea that the statement points to is also false. "The moon is made of green cheese" refers to (green cheese = moon material). The exact makeup of the moon is irrelevant at this point. Is the statement a creation of the human mind, or is there a possible independent logical relation at work here?

This statement is the creation of human mind.No independent logical relation devoid of human mind is at work here.

There is only one truth when it comes to the makeup of the moon. The moon is made of silicates (for simplicity's sake). Any other statement that could be dreamed up would be false, such that (if(moon material <> "Silicates", "False", Else "True")). This means that the truth of the statement is dependent on the truth of the situation that the statement describes. Therefore, truths are independent from the statements that describe them. I think this is from Wittgenstein, but I'm not sure.

ok 'moon is made up of silicons only and nothing else'--(3) is true

we then have another competing statement "moon is made of green cheese"--(4)

(4) is false since only (3) is true.

But

without statement (3), statement (4) cannot be false.

Thus without statement (3) that describes make up of moon there is no truth about the makeup of moon.

Hence without statements there is no truth.Therefore truth doesnt exist independent of statements that describe them.

[Corvus]

I assure you that this is quite impossible. The definition of objective is:

1. Belonging to what is presented to consciousness; thought as distanced from perceiving or thinking subject; external to the mind, real.

As opposed to subjective, which is:
1. Of, proceeding from, taking place within, the thinking subject, having its source in the mind; personal, individual, illusory.

If it's external to the mind, or independent to the observer, it cannot be called subjective, since subjective is what arises from the mind. Subjective and objective would have to be most abused and tedious terms to ever grace a debate forum, right next to "absolute".

we are not debating on the existence of reality,but whether our statements can correspond to reality.Without knowing what the reality is,how can our statements correspond to the reality?We only know the appearance of reality and thus our statements correspond only to the appearance of the reality and not the reality itself.

I concede that this is true, but don't see why an "only" must come into it. Why can't appearance reflect what is really there, even if by accident? Realistically, our senses are used in order to interact with reality, and even if the impressions it gives us is not complete, they are impressions of something that may be.

There are also certain situations where appearances are clear examples of objective truth.

To say reality has a nature apart from its appearance is metaphysical.Such a nature doesnt exist independent of the observor.Without such an observor the reality,its nature and properties all are undefined and become a part and parcel of the universe.To seperate it from the universe and to name and define it we need an observor.

I have to say that this is rather convoluted. If reality doesn't have a nature apart from its observer, then you are talking solipsism, and a subjective reality. Just when I think this is the line of reasoning you are going to pursue, you then state that the properties are undefined without an observer, and that they are just some sort of amalgam of the universe. Either the universe/reality has an existence outside of the observer's perceptions or it doesn't. If it does, then it still has the same properties and they just don't have words or ideas attached to them.

Antartica existed even when nobody observed it.But it did not exist as antartica.It existed as an undefined occupant of time and space.We needed an observor to differentiate the continent from the icebergs,occean and penquins and to name it as antartica.Once he did that a subjective appearance of the phenomenon was created.

Antarctica has always existed as Antarctica, because Antarctica refers to a block of frozen land on the south pole of the earth. It does not create a block of frozen land on the southern pole. The block of frozen land exists, even if our understanding of what it really is like is faulty. I vaguely understand what you're trying to get at; that if we set up a camera on Antarctica, the camera would be indifferent towards everything, and wouldn't be able to make those sorts of distinctions, but I don't see the point.

These three people are thinking different thoughts about an objective phenomenon. This does not prove the phenomenon is subjective. The child clearly exists. During the time it has spent on earth, the planet has had four elliptical journeys around the sun. Everything else is an opinion.

The phenomenon is not subjective,but its appearance is subjective.We are not debating on the existence of phenomena but about whether our statements can correspond to the phenomenon.

So you keep repeating, but once we accept the existence of a reality independent of human observation, and therefore objective, then we have already recognised an objective truth.

While comparing different statements we make statements of our own about the reality and compare other observors statements with our statements.Our ability to make statements depends on how the phenomenon appears to us and how knowedgable we are about the different appearences the phenomenon takes for different observors.

Eh? Why would it? Any fool can spin off statements without having that ability depend on anything else except his own imagination. I do it all the time.

Do you have the ability to view a phenomenon with an objective outlook?Can you view a phenomenon and give an objective description of it?Can your description be free from your cultural and linguistic biases and your imagination?No.It is not possible.

An "objective outlook" is an impossibility. But no matter how many subjective outlooks one threads together, one still only has many subjective outlooks and is even further away from objectivity. Our ability to make statements most certainly does not depend on "how knowledgeable we are about the different appearances the phenomenon takes for different observers".

Also, we are not asking about objective outlooks, we are asking about objective truths or statements.

Can't appearances be used to establish, at the very least, the existence of the thing seen? I can think of one truth corresponding to reality that you can verify quite easily and accept, even if you are a solipsist. You exist. Attempt to prove me wrong.

we are not debating about existence of reality,but whether statements can correspond to reality.We only know the appearances and not the reality.So our statements cannot correspond to reality,but rather will correspond only to the appearance.

And appearances might correspond to reality. One case where it most definitely does is shown by the statement and challenge you brushed aside. You exist. Are you going to say that you don't exist?

[Pujitos]

ok 'moon is made up of silicons only and nothing else'--(3) is true

we then have another competing statement "moon is made of green cheese"--(4)

(4) is false since only (3) is true.

But

without statement (3), statement (4) cannot be false.

Thus without statement (3) that describes make up of moon there is no truth about the makeup of moon.

Hence without statements there is no truth.Therefore truth doesnt exist independent of statements that describe them.

Hang on, are you saying that if no one knew what the moon was made of, then it wouldn't be false that it was made of green cheese? As far as I know, no one knows whether gravity waves exist, but that doesn't mean that it's not false that gravity is caused by elephants pulling down on strings attached to our feet.

Also, whoever said that for something to be true, we have to know that it's true? A true statement can be made without anyone <i>ever</i> knowing it's true. It's still true, if it corresponds to reality.

But I get the impression that everyone taking part in this has their own definition of truth (which, incidentally, is what we are meant to be deciding upon, ne?). So it probably won't work until we all define truth in the same way.

[Cephus]

Reality is always subjective.So what is true to you isnt true for another person.Hence this definition isnt correct.

Fine, come on over here and I'll bash you in the head with a brick while you try to subjectively disbelieve it. We'll see which happens first, you succeed or you get a concussion.

Reality is not subjective.