Restrictions on the Use of the Word 'Truth'

[Pendragon]

A fine picture of the Tiger Swallowtail butterfly. They are common here, though like all butterflies challenged by environmental degradation.

You wrote:

n the latter two cases, the property being described is identical. It is the worthiness of something for belief. What is the difference between veracity and truth? There is none, I suspect, which is why I use the word more commonly understood.

I am not concerned about the difference between Veritas, and Truth. They both stand in the realm of the absolute. Infinity sits in the lap of absolute truth. The word is deceptive, in that it is unattainable. (just like infinity)
Humans always are in flow, and flux, so we can only verify something, but then need to

check it again

when conditions change. Humans may not like this issue, but it stands as a challenge to our notions of permanence. Are you sure there is not a tiger in your backyard? More likely, you check for humans with ill motives, before enjoying a glass of some delicious beverage. Are we safe now? How about in 20 years?

If you are still alive, do you think your backyard "safe", because you found no tigers 2 days ago, only butterflies? Utter nonsense.

There is a big difference between whether Truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. My vote is that Truth (for humans) is subjective at best as it relates to your backyard, and every where else the human mind roams.

The question is not about your backyard, but about things like Infinity.
Is Infinity True?
You have alluded elsewhere that Infinity, and Truth have value, so we may keep them close in our thoughts. You have never described Value, if we are to keep the other words to be of any currency than deceptive. Speaking of value, our money does seem to fluctuate in the winds of change.

You wrote:

It may come as a shock to some, but many nouns do not refer to things. Instead, they fulfill a tensal descriptive function, relating to properties that have already been determined. This is how English works, and I can not be blamed for that.

I am not shocked in the least at the imprecision of modern English. It perfectly reflects our disordered way of thinking, and the malicious side of our minds.

So how do you consider "absolute truth"? Only one out of four, or more, versions of Truth. Possible or no? I am most curious about these kind of concepts, as deception is so easily attained through manipulating the various shades of imprecise words like Truth.

[Coleridge]

it is a statement made in all honesty, and can be considered true.

Hmm...

I will be honest and say that this inability for truth to exist independent of the perceiver is very troublesome. Were there to be found in Harry's west paddock four sheep, but nobody around (not even Harry himself) to think this or something to the contrary, what impact does this have on the four sheep? I suppose this is to say, then, that facts can be only in the mind and nowhere else. But still, about this, there is something I cannot grasp. Perhaps it is just the shift from my old mentality centred on an "absolute truth", a vestige of my Catholicism. What is truly vexing, however, is that I cannot articulate my thoughts. They are only feelings, rather than ideas.

This was a question and is now a musing, and has been edited accordingly.