[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the fact that the universe is relativistic, allows different "truths" based on the observer. I'd agree that usually, there is a "the truth" that is the real truth, and that individual "truths" are usually only part-truths. However, a relativistic universe means there may not always be "the truth".

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that we aren't saying much the same thing with just a bit different focus. I'm imagining a observerless universe, just doing it's thing whatever it is. In that sense, I'm equating "the reality" with "the truth". Add an observer(s) and they can only have a perception of what's happening in the universe. The first delusion is to consider that perception as a 'truth', it's always just a perception.

There will be, however, perceptions that are better aligned with 'the reality' than others. "Better aligned" in the sense that we'd consider Relativity better aligned to the underlying reality than Newtons version.

The other trap is thinking the better aligned representations are any necessarily 'truer' than poorer aligned representations. To slip into a scientific vien ( which is not what I am writing about) - thinking of light as a strange blend of wave and particle may be in better alignment ( make better predictions, etc) than treating light like jiggling jelly ( predictions awful etc) BUT the jelly representation may be 'truer' to the nature of light, just presently or always unworkable to get anything out of.

I touched on how evolution acts as a "representation" tester, but wanted to propose that better, more successful representation doesn't automatically mean 'truer'. Portions of an earthworms representation of reality may be 'truer' than ours.
Comments very welcome, luckyme