🐈

Similar to how only a story has a beginning/climax/ending, only a concept can be "True". Reality can be determined with a single sensor but true-ality is built on conceptual consensus.

It only take one person to say "That is a wall and I will not walk into it." but a concept is useful only in proportion to its consensus. "Truth" then is like "infinity", it's an abstract idea that concepts should strive towards but it's not attainable.

Even something like 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't have universal acceptance so it's not "true". It's only true within the framework of math. It is not all encompassing. (e.g. Hofstadter) https://mpcfirstyear.weebly.com/uploads/8/4/5/1/8451348/__5206546_orig.png …

This is a useful segue into "should some things be universally true?" E.g. is it virtuous for 2 + 2 = 4 to be universally accepted. It's obviously different than other universal truths like "The supreme leader/party can do no wrong"

(While the knee-jerk answer is "yes, let's not be retards" I personally am grateful that such anti-math people exist and can hold political power. Imagine a time where you felt stupid and afraid to ask a question. Do you want that feeling x100 and in *every* area of your life?)