Nature of "truth?"

[Tsyal Makto]

States of being might be absolute (Though it is interesting how quantum mechanics and the observer effect plays into this. Could a state have been different before we observed it? Schrodinger's Cat is a good example of how observation can play a role on the relativistic level of existance, same with the double-slit experiment. These are simple situations, but we may have yet to see what other situations these rules apply on), but how people choose to interpret them varies, and what value they hold in the big picture, changes. 2+2 may be 4 and the sky may be blue, but what is 4? And what is blue? How we define systems has a large part to do with the values that we apply to them in our use of them.

It's even interesting to see just how far this can go. For example, in 1984, O'Brian made Winston Smith believe that 2 and 2 made 5.

So in the end, states may be absolute, but our self-implied values to them are not, and in real-world situations, the latter is the more important. In the end, what we interpret and believe to be "truth" is all that matters. That even applies to science. All science can tell us is the absolute nature of a state, we still must interpret the data.