What is Truth?

The question “What is truth?” may sound profound.

In reality, I think we all know the answer. That's because we live by a certain definition of truth every day.

Maybe it's not that we don't know what truth is but that we don't know that we know. In other words, we have trouble defining truth. It's easy to fix if we take a moment to contemplate the nature of truth.  

Three Views on Truth

There are three dominant theories of truth.

The first one is the social construction view, according to which truth is relative to what people desire. This makes truth dependent on social and personal goals. However, if we examine it further, we see that this proposition is not logical.  It contradicts itself. If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" is absolutely true.  The statement that "all truth is relative" is false if it is absolutely true.

Another theory of truth is the coherence theory: truth is logical consistency (coherence) among a group of beliefs an individual holds. Coherence, however, is better described as a measure of truth rather than truth itself. In fact, identifying truth with coherence fails because opposing views are internally coherent, even if they disagree with each other. Religions may have complex worldviews full of internal coherence, but they are not compatible with one another and with scientific evidence. 

Lastly, there is the correspondence theory of truth: truth is when an idea, belief, or statement corresponds with the way the world really is (reality).

One could rightfully call this the "common sense" view of truth. According to correspondence theory, an idea, belief, or statement is true if it corresponds to reality. In this sense, reality is the truth-maker and ideas, beliefs, or statements are the truth-bearers. In an "appropriate correspondence relationship," truth emerges when the truth-bearer (idea) matches the truth-maker (reality).

Synchronicity: A Case of Correspondence

Regarding synchronicity experiences, I have advanced a scientific argument in favor of the correspondence theory of truth. According to this view, synchronicity is neither true just because it works for us (the relativistic view) nor because it is consistent with scientific theory (the coherence view). Because synchronicity is an objective fact that correlates with reality, it is true. 

When one experiences synchronicity, he or she actually experiences truth, a correspondence between thought and reality. Since this is the view we all presuppose in our daily actions and speech (for example, we all assume the correspondence theory of truth when we read a medicine label), this is the "common sense" definition of truth.

A synchronicity either corresponds to reality or it does not. If it does, then the person presumes the correspondence view. If, however, a synchronicity does not correspond to reality, then we have no reason to accept it.

Fibonacci Lifechart reflects the correspondence theory of truth. This is a tool that can help you decide whether or not to take one's synchronicity seriously, for only a synchronicity that corresponds with the way things actually are deserves our attention and belief. 
​
Truth is not relative, contrary to the postmodern adage. Truth is what we have taken it to be all along, what we take it to be every day.