1) you should know what 23o095 + 50923452 is even though you don't know the answer in advance, why? Because you know the base algorithm to know the answer.

2) truth isn't just some concept which most philosophers think, truth in itself doesn't exist but can be concluded, out of logican and rational conclusions, why science books are rewritten now and then, because the previous conclusion was wrong.

Facts are the personification of objectiveness in our language.

They are not perfect, as they are only true inside the space we have limited via our clauses. We could say they are objective, by defining objectivity as the collective subjectivity of humanity.

On the other hand, I believe absolute truth does not exist.

It is very interesting exercise to mix philosophy and physics and think about relative true, relative time and past events. Events occurred in the past would be true, and as there is no way of going back in time, they would remain true. However, those events are past just for a certain number of observers. For others, light could very well be showing it to them right now.
However, there is a timeline in the universe and we could still somehow “absolutely” pinpoint where our event took place, and thus classify it as past.

But I haven’t found any truth that could stretch into the future eternally, due to the everchanging nature of our universe. Unless, of course, that there are not absolute truths. But when thinking it twice, I realize that could change as well.

It is also to be remarked that all these statements are based on the fact that we can perceive reality as it is. And that is not true, nor proveable. Because in order to prove we can perceive reality, we have to use the senses with which we perceive reality, the same tools we are trying to prove.

For this discussion I would need to know more.

Yes, things change. Many also stay the same, the sky, even at night, is blue. Unless you're colorblind, in which case it is red. Or at least that's what the discerning qualia say it represents itself as.

In terms of the subjective there is a lot of differentiation between what is truth and what is "accepted" as truth. When we are introduced to something, indeed, how do we know it is true? We must find the sameness, but when asked about who we are, only the one who asks the question has the answer. Which things represent within themselves and whether or not someone tells the truth---How are we able to know?

Only time will tell, what we are able to know. If one person says, "This event took place." Then even a day later they have forgotten, have they told the truth? If something changes, then yes, if it is completely contradictory and outside of reason or common sense. Without purpose to have been forgotten, then no.

To sum up the lower half bulk: You would know the truth by practicing it until you see it where it is "not." Further, relative truth implies it is unknowable as absolute on the foundation of change, but more beneath. Time is relevant in the sense that it repeats itself, and geometrically speaking all circles are spirals. (at least thats why "3.14" or "pi" goes on beyond the range of our understanding.

I'm going to go on a bit, and talk about what I'd like, seeing how we are often enough for a conversation. Seeing as how I have thought about and practiced truth for twelve years. I practice "ignorance" which what I mean is: Forgetting exaction in knowledge. Like remembering the gist of a quote, or like how quotes are often like leaves they are similar but different, yet the same as the source where all leaves are being compared from.

Truth is a matter of practice. Think about it, have you ever seen an amateur brawler beat a master? Perhaps someone in the middle because they are not honed to it, but an amateur stops being an amateur as soon as they beat a master. Again, think about it, a tennis player appears at all levels. But a true talent is discern-able even through the mistakes which alter the course of the game. Like a football game where they charge too often, yet they change up the play at half time and then defeat the morale of the leading team and become masters of their opponent defeating them in the third quarter and then taunting them with their original strategy in the 4th. Which as we all know, is practiced in defense enough to stop points from being scored against them. At what point is a football player not considered a football player? Are not the questions of their integrity not the end of their play? How often does a player leave the game? And what is their relation to the faith of the player? Rhetorical of course. Like leaves the answers are equivalent of truth despite being of varied values.

Again, practice. With practice comes skill, and with skill, regardless of talent. Like the one who lost a thousand times and earned the victory over every loss with a single victory. Like the weak man at the party that goes about, but is actually broad in shoulders and is not even disregarded except by those who do not take to heart the qualities of what is good. Not disturbing, they do, and not harming, they do. Still, they are considered weak, until someone punches them.

This brings in the question of virtue, virtue is like playing a sport, whether you're a part of the team or playing alone at home in the middle of the night, like Michael Jordan. It isn't a matter of glory, it isn't a matter of education. Even retarded people have something to teach in truth. Why? Because they have been defaced enough not to value the qualities of fake beauty. They have been cast out by the vain so much that they are nothing but virtuous. With truth, it is the same. Those who save face are those who lie. Because they go in a circle, but like a spiral they go under, they go beneath the original circle. Depending on how obvious it is, they are not valued if it is too slight, or too obvious. So where do we find this "middle path?" Those who do not save face, who are willing to make mistakes, look like a fool, and jest when others are serious about things that do not matter. Are indeed practicing truth. When they reach the point that truth is taken from them and they no longer lie, then it is considered a matter of virtue, like working out and winning nothing until you are so thick skinned that the punches they deliver no longer hurt. So, if we recognize the value of truth we know that without truth, there is no virtue.

This is where faith comes in. If the faithful are not involved in truth, it is considered a defilement, why are they in the bible? Think of the Garden of Eden, the introduction of the apple. Which is related to the study of knowledge, the ability to write, and the capability to reason. Or rather, the knowing of whether something is good or evil, or as the talmud would put in well order, whether it is compassionate, or painful. As these are the forms by which the aforementioned take form in the world. The laws of faith is what I'm talking about, this time specifically, the commandments, this introduces the idea that translations are in fact discern-able only by the words which were originally presented. We know from the history that people lose faith and "break the tablets," in order to express the faith, or lack of faith by the people. The fact that they express to this day that the commandments are broken is to be seen as "good faith" and a lack of regard to face which shows that they are indeed, people of truth. This is because those of true faith regard the laws, the tablets, even as broken, to be unshakable as commandments. They did not start on stone, they were founded by knowledge given by talent with the source of all things. You will ask, where is the proof of this God? I would say, "it is all around you, with your eyes you already see it, are aware of it, but doubt it because of wanting to be more than who you are."

Look at history, and think about it. With regards of modern sciences we know that babies are introduced to lying. Which may be a way of saying that these babies know something, they know what they want. This is the stem, the root, by which lies are born into the world. By wanting something, the want to be "flawless" and the want to be more than who we are. So, since lying is a skill developed by those who can't even communicate language, is it not a matter of time by which virtue is then established? That the skill of truth is not something we live with, but rather return to, are reduced to, are choosing for. In this moment, is it not obvious that we are outside the range of truth in public access, justice, and other means of determining a witness. In the sense of what is available how much is interpreted by the faithless? How many words, how much knowledge, how many books have been burned? Like a joke in history, where we don't know a thought that hasn't been written. So, I again return to modern history. What do we know about what has happened? There is only one way to know about why we are worth dirt as speakers. We must talk about it, we must bare witness. We must become the truth in order to know how deep the lies go.

It isn't a matter of just assuming that you're black without getting a tattoo, Tropic Thunder has proven an act is not as deep as the real thing. Even if the real thing is smaller than the larger picture, know what I mean? So, if your truth is altered, keep telling it, don't give up faith and don't change just because someone painted you. In the event that you are honest about all things, is not the purpose to express it is as plainly and honestly as possible? Or would that come down to the definition of truth?

The definition of truth is as different and varied as those who write for the truth. That means that the definition is a mixture of what the group decides and what you know and personally decide to be what "is." That is why conspiracies do not "exist" and that is why any one person talking about a thing is as much a liar as those who tell a decided truth, like a rumor you heard about yourself in middle school that for some reason, doesn't go away until you leave town. So, because the truth is decided by others, is that not a cause to determine that the saving of face, the act of hiding your misdeeds and lies is not, a practice of those who are evil? Those who practice the opposite of truth? No matter how well they act upon it? Is not then the truth defended by an individual who, in the midst of this organization of wits then to proving it by the argument, "I admit, I lied." Is not defeat in a martial art a part of growing in the art, the art of facing your fears? Does this not spin around like a repetition in history in order to show that all things are in fact the same? So then, if you practice, does that not introduce change? Like elbows in karate, do they not drift into kicks and punches when you are introduced to the opinion of others? Then when you move past their opinions, when it isn't about victory, when you achieve mastery, are not the elbows then again worthy? Having been practiced and fundamentally the most sound of techniques in the art? Boxers would say an elbow is cheap, and a beaten person would wonder why they didn't throw more. Does this not prove that truth is relevant? That the point is that point of view changes and that others are required in order to determine what is true?

Then, how do we find ourselves if others decide who we are? Is not our opinion more worthy on who we entertain? Our purpose as those who move with the flow? Like truth is a river that we can step into, but is it something we swim in constantly? If then we cross the river, is it not a point that the water moves away but we stay dry until we dried by the light of the sun, still more hydrated than those who have not swam? Those who practice, those who become silent as if they have no lies, and all their truths have all been told? What then is the point of someone to remain silent who has practiced the truth? Someone who says what is, regardless of the beliefs of others? A person of virtue amongst those who do not? A person of faith amongst those who have none? If this person were to be followed, would he worthy enough of himself having doubted those around him? Those who consider him not to be "truth" out of spite because they need the face that he doesn't have to give? Then is truth's definition more a matter of belief? Or that of evidence? Is not a ruling of innocence or guilty a matter of people being ruled beyond a "reasonable" doubt? If then the whole nation were to doubt a man, would he be the truth? Or would he be a liar? Its funny how two people can be so alike, and still represent opposite things. Isn't it?

Human life is just one self. And all the one selves as one can only identify truth as the one self. So first you have to imagine that only your one self existed.

And then apply human reasoning as just a self, for self as one.

In that very moment you would realize what one human truth really is.