The question “What is truth?” may sound profound.
In reality, I think we all know the answer to this age-old question. That is because we presuppose a certain definition of truth in our speech and actions every day of our lives.
Perhaps the problem is not that we do not know what truth is but rather that we do not know that we know. In other words, we struggle to articulate a definition of truth. But this is easily remedied if we take a few moments to reflect on the nature of truth.
Three Views on Truth
There have been three dominant theories of truth.
First, there is the social construction view that truth is relative to what people want. This makes truth relative to personal and social goals. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self-refuting. If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.
Second, there is the coherence theory of truth: truth is logical consistency (coherence) among a set of beliefs an individual holds. However, coherence is better described as a criterion for truth, not truth itself. Identifying truth with coherence fails because there are opposing views that are each internally coherent even though they do not agree with each other. For example, two different religions may each have complex worldviews full of internal coherence, but they are not compatible with each other and with scientific findings.
Finally, there is the correspondence theory of truth: truth is when an idea, belief, or statement matches (or corresponds with) the way the world actually is (reality).
This may rightly be labeled the “common sense” view of truth. The correspondence theory of truth states that an idea, belief, or statement is true if it matches, or corresponds with, reality. In this sense, reality is the truth-maker, and the idea, belief, or statement is the truth-bearer. When the truth-bearer (an idea) matches the truth-maker (reality), they are said to stand in an “appropriate correspondence relationship,” and truth obtains.
Synchronicity: A Case of Correspondence
I have advanced a scientific argument in favor of the correspondence theory of truth regarding synchronicity experience. In this view, a synchronicity is not true simply because it works for us (the relativist view) nor because it is consistent with a web of scientific theory (the coherence view). The scientific theory of synchronicity is true because it is an objective fact that corresponds with reality!
For example, an individual who has a synchronicity, actually experiences truth, a correspondence relation between his thought and reality. Again, this is the “common sense” definition of truth since it is the view we all presuppose in our daily actions and speech (i.e., everyone assumes the correspondence theory of truth when reading a medicine label).
In other words, either a synchronicity corresponds to reality or it does not. If it does, the person presupposes the correspondence view. On the other hand, if a synchronicity does not correspond to reality, then we have no reason to accept it.
The Fibonacci Lifechart is based on the correspondence theory of truth. It is a tool that can help you to decide if one’s synchronicity should be taken seriously or not, for only a synchronicity which matches the way things really are is worthy of our attention and belief.
Contrary to the postmodern adage, truth is not “relative.” Rather, truth is what we have taken it to be all along, what we assume it to be every day.