The classical definition of 'true' is such that a statement is either true or false, and nothing else. This is called the principle of bivalence. Furthermore, a set of statements is true, if and only if, every member of that set is true. Therefore, any set of statements with a false member is false, even if every other statement is true. The point which I am trying to make is that there is no difference between 'absolute truth' and plain old 'truth', since any statement which is not absolutely true must be false, by definition. In other words, there is not 'absolute truth', 'truth' and 'falsity', but only 'truth' and 'falsity', since if something is not false then it is true, absolutely so.
Your reply is food for thought, so let me hazzard a reply.
Your definition of reality, as I assume true and false considered together are, is like space without time, that is, a snapshot where a movie of some sort might express it better. Only if you can fix time can you arrive at a truth that will never be false, so you must start at a false point to arrive at truth as an ideal. I don't think in those terms. There can be many levels of truth that are not necessarily true, like social truth often is. Survival often means not trying to lead the crowd, but to get yourself and the crowd if necessary closer to survival. Now, truth is survival as a practicle matter because it is very often essential to survival. So, truth is not something we say, but something we are, that we incorporate into our being. If we want to think of linguistic truth, then we should consider it only vaguely the opposite of false. The truth is like the South pole. We know North is the opposite of South, but if asked to point North on the South pole no one would ever point down, which is the opposite of up. Rather they would point out any place on the horizon which are all more northerly. The object of the pointing is to reach the destination, and to arrive at an understanding of truth in regard to false, it is not a destination, but a direction that will get us there. Truth is one thing, but reality is all mixed up. False is not one thing, but all things, even mixtures of truth and false. What we have to be contented with here, is the fact that our conception of truth is as an absolute, but as an absolute, it cannot be arrived at, so is like the North pole from the South, a direction expressed as a destination. Language and logic are methods of approaching truth, but I take it as a mistake to think we can actually arrive at truth with their help. It is our understanding of truth that leads us to logic and math and language for definitions, and not the reverse. All life has a natural understanding of truth as what is needed to survive, and out of that we create logic, out of what is natural. Instead of science and precission, we should always look for the most general definition of truth, and realize that we are moving in time and space with few fixed points of reference, and from that perspective always try to determine what is more true, or less true, and be aware that social truth with a common acceptance is as deadly as any poison, and if it cannot be known because it is false, then is should be memorized, because the only test of truth is survival. It is the living who say what the truth is.