>In order to arrive at what you do not know >You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance. >In order to possess what you do not possess >You must go by the way of dispossession. >In order to arrive at what you are not >You must go through the way in which you are not. >And what you do not know is the only thing you know >And what you own is what you do not own >And where you are is where you are not. > >T. S. Eliot, *Four Quartets*, “East Coker” Truth is commonly understood as the correlation between a statement and the reality it describes. Whether encoded in the biological structures of a protein-based mind or the silicon circuits of an artificial one, truth functions as a crucial mechanism for reducing uncertainty, allowing organisms and systems to make reliable inferences about the world. However, truth is not an absolute concept; it is domain-specific. Its validity is restricted to the context in which it is being evaluated. In the natural world, truth emerges as a vital evolutionary tool—an adaptive mechanism that minimises uncertainty by aligning a subjective cognitive model within the mind with the external physical environment. This correlation between internal representations and external reality is what we can call **Bayesian truth**. It forms the foundation of empirical science, where observations and predictions are continuously updated based on probabilistic reasoning and new data. Yet truth becomes significantly more complicated in the context of social collectives. In human societies, knowledge is not just a private affair—it must be shared to enable coordination and cooperation. However, for any shared knowledge to function as a basis for action, the collective must first agree on what constitutes truth. This introduces the notion of **consensus truth**. When universal agreement is lacking, societies must develop methods for verifying statements. In this case, truth no longer describes the correlation between a cognitive model and the physical world; rather, it describes the correlation between an individual's model and the collective consensus. Verification methods differ depending on the nature of the claim. Some statements can be evaluated through formal logic, where truth is derived by applying axioms. For example, the statement "2+2=4" holds true within the framework of Peano arithmetic. This kind of truth—grounded in self-evident axioms and logical deduction—is known as **axiomatic truth**. Other statements describe empirical facts about the physical world and must be tested through sensory observation. For instance, the claim "An apple is hanging on the tree" is verifiable through direct observation. If an individual sees the apple, they can affirm the statement as true based on sensory data. However, for the claim to hold at the intersubjective level, multiple independent observers must corroborate it. The collective validation of such empirical claims falls under **Bayesian truth**, which remains open to revision upon new observations. Then there are statements that do not describe physical phenomena at all but instead refer to socially constructed knowledge. Take the example: "Paris is the capital of France." This is not a statement about a material object or arrangement of energy. Its truthfulness cannot be verified through direct sensory observation but rather through social consensus. It is true because the collective of French citizens and governing bodies have agreed that Paris holds the status of capital. Such statements fall under **consensus truth**, as they rely on group agreement rather than empirical verification. Further complicating matters are statements like "Marriage is between a man and a woman." This claim is also a matter of consensus, but it differs from "Paris is the capital of France" in an important way. It does not describe an objective, agreed-upon fact but rather a cultural or ideological belief. It is only true *within* the collective that upholds that definition of marriage. If another collective holds a different definition, there is no universal resolution—only competing perspectives. This is an example of **memetic truth**: a statement about a collectively held belief rather than an objective fact. Thus, truth is never absolute—it always depends on **trust**. Trust in the axioms underpinning formal logic, trust in sensory data as a reliable source of empirical knowledge, or trust in the consensus of a collective. When people argue about the truth of a statement, they are often, knowingly or not, debating consensus itself. Consensus is always confined **within** a collective, and where competing collectives disagree, truth becomes inapplicable. **Memetic truth** cannot exist *between* collectives—only within them. This framework imposes clear constraints on different types of truth: - **Bayesian truth** applies only to statements that can be revised through observation. It does not extend to subjective cognitive content or unverifiable beliefs. - **Axiomatic truth** is valid only within the logical system defined by its axioms. Outside that framework, it has no meaning. - **Memetic truth** exists solely within a collective that subscribes to a shared belief. It does not hold across different collectives with conflicting worldviews. Ultimately, no truth exists in a vacuum. Without consensus, there is no truth—only competing claims and interpretations. Recognizing the domain-specific nature of truth is not just an intellectual exercise but a crucial step toward understanding the mechanisms by which individuals and societies construct meaning. [[Metaphysics|Next section]]